Ian Stringer

[Fox Fan]

Lineker is not an employee - he can endorse what he wants and get paid handsomely for it

Stringer was an employee, and he was using his position to get freebies and using his Twitter account to promote the businesses who gave them to him

Hardly the crime of the century, and I can bet there are multiple examples in RL who are doing much worse - but I don't think he's got a leg to stand on here

Fair enough, but it seems to me that even if he has broken the rules, an instant dismissal for gross misconduct is at the extreme end of possible responses RL could have taken.

From reporting so far, it doesn't seem as though he's previously been warned about his behaviour - which makes me think his best leg to stand on would be that a written warning would have been a more appropriate response.

All that said, he might very well have been a nightmare to work with and the station was looking for a way to get rid of him and this popped up as a good opportunity. I can understand that, but I'm against major corporations applying the letter of the law to their staff in a way in which I very much doubt they would do to their senior management teams.

 

[jb5000]

It's not like he's an elected official making laws on trainers and watches or reviewing car leasing companies is he?

Seems like they wanted him out, but to me, that looks like a weak case (although I obviously have no legal expertise).

I hope no one has ever given the Birch a pair of trainers for his fun run!

Journalists, yes even crap journalists on crap local radio stations, operate on trust.

Listeners should be able to take what Stringer says without thinking about why he's saying that apart from it being a reasonable opinion - the example of Lineker is fine, as we all know that he is paid to promote potato products. If this is mentioned in the line of his BBC work (as it occassionally is, often as a joke) we all know to pass that information through that lens set apart from the football stuff he talks about.

Stringer's actions have undermined trust in what he says and has said by not disclosing that he was effectively being paid, which is what the BBC training he received will have pointed out, therefore his position in untenable.

 

[Fox Fan]

A BBC editor accused of breaching Covid rules was "angry" and sought to find the whistleblower, a tribunal heard.
The protected disclosure was made in 2021 by the BBC Leicester City reporter Ian Stringer against station editor Kamlesh Purohit.
Mr Stringer has told an employment tribunal this disclosure led to retribution in the form of disciplinary action, which cost him his job.
The BBC denies this and claims Mr Stringer was sacked for misconduct.
Mr Stringer was hired by BBC Leicester in 2008 and sacked in 2022 after an investigation into his social media use revealed he was given free leases on a BMW 5 series and an Audi A3 from the Leicester-based car firm Total Motion during a period of about three years.
Mr Stringer maintains the cars were leased to him without contingencies or any suggestion of a quid pro quo.
The BBC has told the hearing the cars should have been disclosed as a personal interest.
Giving evidence at the tribunal in Leicester, Jonathan Lampon, who was acting assistant editor at the station at the time, spoke about the protected disclosure, in which it emerged a staff member was asked to come into the office despite being pinged by the Covid app.
He said Mr Purohit had been angry about the disclosure, had felt undermined and had sought to find out who was behind it.
He said Mr Stringer was one of the people Mr Purohit suspected.

• Commentator sacked after lodging concern - tribunal

Under the BBC's whistleblowing policy, any effort to uncover the identity of the person making the disclosure without their permission is classed as a policy breach.
Mr Lampon told the tribunal he was not aware of that rule at the time and had not reported Mr Purohit for trying to establish the identity of the whistleblower.
Mr Lampon said concerns about Mr Stringer's social media use were not raised by Mr Purohit but by the acting news editor. He said two of Mr Stringer's sports colleagues raised concerns about his Audi A3 lease arrangement.

Image caption,
The employment tribunal heard Mr Stringer was given impartiality training in 2013 and an anti-bribery course in 2020
He added that he, rather than Mr Purohit, was the one who raised Mr Stringer's social media use with Tim Burke, a senior BBC editor who carried out the investigation.
Roy Magara, for Mr Stringer, told the tribunal Mr Lampon was not "neutral" and claimed that once Mr Stringer had made a protected disclosure Mr Lampon was "used as cover" by Mr Purohit to get Mr Stringer dismissed.
Mr Magara showed Mr Lampon six social media posts made by Mr Purohit, who had BBC in his handle, which used swear words and made political comment.
Mr Lampon agreed all were "editorially dicey" and confirmed he had not referred any of the posts for investigation by more senior BBC figures because Mr Purohit was his superior.
The case continues.

 

[popillius]

How do you know what his employment contract said?

Had he of gone onto RL and said this week's commentary is sponsored by Total Motion, then fine, it's a clear breach, but as Gary Lineker has proven on several occasions, the BBC does not have authority over someone's twitter account and even if it did, surely these incidents could have been dealt with a written warning at worst.

They are completely different situations. It is very, very clear what the terms of Stringer's contract were. He broke them. More than once.

It's not a heinous crime, let's be honest but he's in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks this will swing his way. He chose to ignore his contractual terms, he pays the price.

 

[Fox Fan]

They are completely different situations. It is very, very clear what the terms of Stringer's contract were. He broke them. More than once.

It's not a heinous crime, let's be honest but he's in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks this will swing his way. He chose to ignore his contractual terms, he pays the price.

Yeah, but read that BBC news article in which his own boss tries to uncover the identity of someone who has made a protected complaint against him (a genuine breach of policy in any organisation) and yet hasn't been sacked.

I refer you to my earlier statement:

I'm against major corporations applying the letter of the law to their staff in a way in which I very much doubt they would do to their senior management teams.

 

[popillius]

Yeah, but read that BBC news article in which his own boss tries to uncover the identity of someone who has made a protected complaint against him (a genuine breach of policy in any organisation) and yet hasn't been sacked.

I refer you to my earlier statement:

I read Stringer's assertion that that is what happened. There's no evidence. In fact, the two things were both investigated by separate, independent parties according to the BBC. This might be bollocks as well. The only real truth we can evidence is that he tried to get loads of free shit on the back of his 'fame'. Not a massive crime but it's still a pretty immoral thing to be doing, especially when you're using the name of a charity to do it.

 

[Fox Fan]

I read Stringer's assertion that that is what happened.

It was actually Lampon's assertion that was what happened

Giving evidence at the tribunal in Leicester, Jonathan Lampon, who was acting assistant editor at the station at the time, spoke about the protected disclosure, in which it emerged a staff member was asked to come into the office despite being pinged by the Covid app.

He said Mr Purohit had been angry about the disclosure, had felt undermined and had sought to find out who was behind it.

He said Mr Stringer was one of the people Mr Purohit suspected.

Under the BBC's whistleblowing policy, any effort to uncover the identity of the person making the disclosure without their permission is classed as a policy breach.

Mr Lampon told the tribunal he was not aware of that rule at the time and had not reported Mr Purohit for trying to establish the identity of the whistleblower.

 

[popillius]

It was actually Lampon's assertion that was what happened

So again, hearsay, not evidence.

 

[Brown Nose]

By Laurence Cawley
BBC News, Leicester

A BBC editor accused of breaching Covid rules was "angry" and sought to find the whistleblower, a tribunal heard.
The protected disclosure was made in 2021 by the BBC Leicester City reporter Ian Stringer against station editor Kamlesh Purohit.
Mr Stringer has told an employment tribunal this disclosure led to retribution in the form of disciplinary action, which cost him his job.
The BBC denies this and claims Mr Stringer was sacked for misconduct.
Mr Stringer was hired by BBC Leicester in 2008 and sacked in 2022 after an investigation into his social media use revealed he was given free leases on a BMW 5 series and an Audi A3 from the Leicester-based car firm Total Motion during a period of about three years.
Mr Stringer maintains the cars were leased to him without contingencies or any suggestion of a quid pro quo.
The BBC has told the hearing the cars should have been disclosed as a personal interest.

'Felt undermined'​

Giving evidence at the tribunal in Leicester, Jonathan Lampon, who was acting assistant editor at the station at the time, spoke about the protected disclosure, in which it emerged a staff member was asked to come into the office despite being pinged by the Covid app.
He said Mr Purohit had been angry about the disclosure, had felt undermined and had sought to find out who was behind it.
He said Mr Stringer was one of the people Mr Purohit suspected.

Under the BBC's whistleblowing policy, any effort to uncover the identity of the person making the disclosure without their permission is classed as a policy breach.
Mr Lampon told the tribunal he was not aware of that rule at the time and had not reported Mr Purohit for trying to establish the identity of the whistleblower.
Mr Lampon said concerns about Mr Stringer's social media use were not raised by Mr Purohit but by the acting news editor. He said two of Mr Stringer's sports colleagues raised concerns about his Audi A3 lease arrangement.

The employment tribunal heard Mr Stringer was given impartiality training in 2013 and an anti-bribery course in 2020
He added that he, rather than Mr Purohit, was the one who raised Mr Stringer's social media use with Tim Burke, a senior BBC editor who carried out the investigation.
Roy Magara, for Mr Stringer, told the tribunal Mr Lampon was not "neutral" and claimed that once Mr Stringer had made a protected disclosure Mr Lampon was "used as cover" by Mr Purohit to get Mr Stringer dismissed.
Mr Magara showed Mr Lampon six social media posts made by Mr Purohit, who had BBC in his handle, which used swear words and made political comment.
Mr Lampon agreed all were "editorially dicey" and confirmed he had not referred any of the posts for investigation by more senior BBC figures because Mr Purohit was his superior.
The three-member tribunal bench adjourned the case for deliberations, expected to take place in May, before returning its written judgement.

 

[Fox Fan]

By Laurence Cawley
BBC News, Leicester

A BBC editor accused of breaching Covid rules was "angry" and sought to find the whistleblower, a tribunal heard.
The protected disclosure was made in 2021 by the BBC Leicester City reporter Ian Stringer against station editor Kamlesh Purohit.
Mr Stringer has told an employment tribunal this disclosure led to retribution in the form of disciplinary action, which cost him his job.
The BBC denies this and claims Mr Stringer was sacked for misconduct.
Mr Stringer was hired by BBC Leicester in 2008 and sacked in 2022 after an investigation into his social media use revealed he was given free leases on a BMW 5 series and an Audi A3 from the Leicester-based car firm Total Motion during a period of about three years.
Mr Stringer maintains the cars were leased to him without contingencies or any suggestion of a quid pro quo.
The BBC has told the hearing the cars should have been disclosed as a personal interest.

'Felt undermined'​

Giving evidence at the tribunal in Leicester, Jonathan Lampon, who was acting assistant editor at the station at the time, spoke about the protected disclosure, in which it emerged a staff member was asked to come into the office despite being pinged by the Covid app.
He said Mr Purohit had been angry about the disclosure, had felt undermined and had sought to find out who was behind it.
He said Mr Stringer was one of the people Mr Purohit suspected.

Under the BBC's whistleblowing policy, any effort to uncover the identity of the person making the disclosure without their permission is classed as a policy breach.
Mr Lampon told the tribunal he was not aware of that rule at the time and had not reported Mr Purohit for trying to establish the identity of the whistleblower.
Mr Lampon said concerns about Mr Stringer's social media use were not raised by Mr Purohit but by the acting news editor. He said two of Mr Stringer's sports colleagues raised concerns about his Audi A3 lease arrangement.

The employment tribunal heard Mr Stringer was given impartiality training in 2013 and an anti-bribery course in 2020
He added that he, rather than Mr Purohit, was the one who raised Mr Stringer's social media use with Tim Burke, a senior BBC editor who carried out the investigation.
Roy Magara, for Mr Stringer, told the tribunal Mr Lampon was not "neutral" and claimed that once Mr Stringer had made a protected disclosure Mr Lampon was "used as cover" by Mr Purohit to get Mr Stringer dismissed.
Mr Magara showed Mr Lampon six social media posts made by Mr Purohit, who had BBC in his handle, which used swear words and made political comment.
Mr Lampon agreed all were "editorially dicey" and confirmed he had not referred any of the posts for investigation by more senior BBC figures because Mr Purohit was his superior.
The three-member tribunal bench adjourned the case for deliberations, expected to take place in May, before returning its written judgement.

Sccooooop

 

[homer]

Sccooooop

He’s a slow reader

 

[Blue Maniac]

Ian Stringer has left the BBC?

 

[Jeff]

Not related to this case, but Stringer social media related...


10+ years ago Stringer changed his Twitter handle, which meant his old one (which included BBC in the name) became available to use. So I registered a new account using that name.

His official website had his latest tweets embedded, and for a few years he didn't change it to use his new handle, so anything I tweeted from that account appeared on the front page of his website. I didn't abuse this and take the piss, as tempting as it was. I only made one tweet and forgot about the account for a while.

Despite the lack of tweets I got something like 800 followers who presumably thought it was the real Stringer, although I made it clear in the Twitter bio that it wasn't him. Several years ago I changed the name to something generic LCFC related. Can't remember the name now though, I've not used it for ages.

 

[jb5000]

And as a result of this, did a now-dead friend give you a couple of cars without bothering to do any paperwork?