Gary Lineker – No more Mr Nice guy?

What did Mr Lineker Tweet?

Gary Lineker recently caused a political storm when he compared the current UK asylum policy to 1930s Germany. Mr Lineker Tweeted that the language in which the plan was set out was ‘’not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30’s’’ and referred to the policy as ‘’beyond awful’’.

Why was this controversial?

The BBC (his employer) has impartiality guidelines. He is one of their highest profile stars and receives his circa £1.8M salary from us the taxpayer. As a result the BBC felt the need to have a ‘’frank conversation’’ reminding him of his ‘’responsibilities.’’ As a gentleman on the radio said yesterday ‘’why should he spout politics? He should stick to football and flogging crisps. I don’t pay his salary to listen to his views on immigration’’.

Mr Lineker’s opinion was not deemed appropriate as it criticised the government and entered the political arena. In fact the Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she was ‘’disappointed’’ by the comments and the culture secretary Lucy Frazer described them as ‘’inappropriate’’.  

The government has outlined plans to effectively ban anyone arriving via an illegal route from claiming asylum in the UK.

Anyone found to have entered illegally will also be blocked from returning or claiming British Citizenship in the future.

It’s not the first time Mr Lineker has found himself on the wrong side of the BBC impartiality fence. In October 2022 the BBC’s complaints unit found he had in fact broken impartiality rules in a tweet asking whether the Conservative Party planned to ‘’hand back their donations from Russian donors’’. This came after Liz Truss urged Premier League teams to boycott the Champions League Final in Russia.

How has Mr Lineker responded?

Mr Lineker himself has said that he will ‘’continue to try and speak up for those poor souls that have no choice’’ and does not fear BBC suspension.

It seems to be a defiant position. However Mr Lineker will be more than aware of the duty to remain impartial. After all, he has been the presenter of Match of the Day since 1999 and au fait with how the BBC operates. This is not a new policy.

Why is this relevant?

Well it is about what you can and can’t say on social media. More than that it is about freedom of speech and how far that extends.

**At a time when Russia is at war with the Ukraine and China’s Xi Jinping re-asserts his rule, the West has reminded the world about the values we must preserve. These include freedom of expression which is enshrined in Article 10 of The Human Rights Act and also the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.

One school of thought may say ‘’why shouldn’t Mr Lineker say what he believes?’’ He has a personal Twitter account which does not reference the BBC. Would the backlash have been different if he was opposing an openly racist party like the EDL? Would it have been different if he was supporting the government immigration policy? Arguably those in government wouldn’t say ‘’Thank you Gary for your nice comments but you should really keep them to yourself!’’.

Mr Lineker has 8.7M followers on Twitter. What he says will be heard and there is an argument he can sway opinions. Should he be stopped from airing an opinion if he works for the BBC? Where is the line drawn? What about the cameraman who works at the BBC and has a Twitter account? The receptionist or cleaner? Aren’t they also funded by the tax payer? If it’s about the profile you have and the influence you could exert how does one measure that fairly when curtailing free speech?

How does this impact you as an employee or employer?

Generally speaking employers have (or should really have) a social media policy which guides the employee’s use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc) in and out of work.

Polices usually set out an organisation's expectations on the workforce's use of social media and reminds staff of the standards of behaviour expected of them when they are posting on social media, as well as the consequences of falling below those standards.

Some employers adopt an open approach encouraging employees to make reasonable and appropriate use of social media as part of their work.

Other employers are more restrictive and make it known that any content that relates back to them or identifies them as the employer should be carefully considered so as not to bring them into disrepute. Sometimes the employer may even require permission is granted to the employee before a relevant post.

Social media out of work

Mr Lineker could (and did) arguably say his opinions were his own personal opinions and not that of the BBC.

In the employment sphere one of the factors a court may consider is whether or not the employer could reasonably be identified and/or brought into disrepute. I know, for example, that Facebook has the option to allow someone to disclose their place of work and case law has found that holding extremist views personally on your social media can affect your employment even if your employer cannot be recognised.

Livesey v Slater and Gordon (UK) 1 Ltd ET/2408568/20 

The nature of the communication, whether it is in the public domain and how this links back and adversely affects the employer would of course be relevant too. For example, it could be deemed inappropriate if an employee of a refugee charity held and espoused racist opinions on their personal Facebook account, if an employee started to have a twitter spat with a known customer or supplier or if a TikTok revealed trade secrets and information owned by the organisation (I am still awaiting the KFC secret recipe TikTok!).

This is a tricky area though as employment law is also about fairness and the protection of philosophical beliefs.

Policies and procedures

If you would like advice on the interpretation of an existing policy or indeed a FREE social media policy template please feel free to contact me and I will be happy to assist.

**For what it is worth I think Mr Lineker was right. I share his wider point that those in society who do not have a voice should have champions. Though I would not compare the current government to the Third Reich, history has taught us that often the progression to unthinkable acts starts with words.

 ** The views and opinions held in this article are entirely my own and are not in any way that of my employer (did you see what I did there?)

How we can help

For further information, please contact Kalpesh Nakeshree in the employment team on York 01904 716000, Wetherby 01937 583210 or Malton 01653 692247 or email kalpesh.nakeshree@warekay.co.uk.