• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Gary Lineker: Asylum policy comments and the BBC

Dave said:
He has an IR35 issue ongoing with HMRC, the IR35 rules although well intentioned have caused chaos across the board and a lot of litigation is occurring. It’s not that the people challenging IR35 don’t think the tax should be paid, they just argue it’s the employer who should pay it (as they employer pays it through PAYE.

So I think it’s a bit of a distraction to call him a tax avoider.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, he’s paying 20% tax on earnings of over £1m from an exclusive contract, if that’s not tax avoidance I don’t know what is, its exactly what IR35 was set up to do, he is an employee in all but name.

I feel like I have woken up in some parallel universe where I’m speaking out against a blatant multi-millionaire tax avoider whilst the socialists on here are defending it, oh well as long as you are dissing the Tories seems you can do no wrong.
 
BigT said:
Rubbish, he’s paying 20% tax on earnings of over £1m from an exclusive contract, if that’s not tax avoidance I don’t know what is, its exactly what IR35 was set up to do, he is an employee in all but name.

I feel like I have woken up in some parallel universe where I’m speaking out against a blatant multi-millionaire tax avoider whilst the socialists on here are defending it, oh well as long as you are dissing the Tories seems you can do no wrong.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there is a very limited number of people on this forum who are socialists. Some of us might believe in greater government support than the Tory’s want to provide and have a socially liberal background but not really socialists.

IR35 doesn’t limit your tax to 20%, the argument people have is IR35 requires the person to pay both parts of the NI contribution. A lot of health care professionals have been hit with the same issue if they work for an agency.

I’m paid through PAYE so it doesn’t impact me and personally i agree with the intention of IR35, but when I speak to people who are impacted by it I agree that it has been implemented terrible, is incredibly unclear and caused a lot of issues.

Hence why HMRC are having multiple battles with lots of people over it.
 
BigT said:
Rubbish, he’s paying 20% tax on earnings of over £1m from an exclusive contract, if that’s not tax avoidance I don’t know what is, its exactly what IR35 was set up to do, he is an employee in all but name.

I feel like I have woken up in some parallel universe where I’m speaking out against a blatant multi-millionaire tax avoider whilst the socialists on here are defending it, oh well as long as you are dissing the Tories seems you can do no wrong.
Click to expand...
As you are well aware...tax avoidance is perfectly legal...it is evasion that is illegal.
The main tax lawyers argue that it is the employers duty to pay the taxes due...as you point out, he is an employee in all but name.
I don't diss the Tories, I diss their policies that are divisive and wrong...the Tories have got immigration policy wrong for fifteen years...they now develop "big new ideas" to appeal to the hardline racists...that are illegal internationally...just before an election.
 
BigT said:
Rubbish, he’s paying 20% tax on earnings of over £1m from an exclusive contract, if that’s not tax avoidance I don’t know what is, its exactly what IR35 was set up to do, he is an employee in all but name.

etc etc
Click to expand...
This feels like something straight out of the Tories book.

Rather than address the concerns raised by person X, try to discredit person X instead.
 
Good. It all seemed a bit like; "you can have your own oppinion aslong as it is the same as our oppinion" anyway.

If he had used his match of the day platform to air his views then fair enough. But he did not, he used his personal twitter account. His wording was perhaps slightly in bad taste but that was it.

Sense has prevailed.
 
It’s all well and good them apologising to Gary Lineker and things returning to normal for MOTD but the underlying issue of government influence in the BBC needs addressing.

It’s no good the if the government continue to undermine the supposed impartiality of the BBC, otherwise this whole debacle has been for nothing.
 
Streisand effect. Even with Lineker reinstated the BBC have exposed just how biased their "impartiality" actually is. Their bias seemingly went unnoticed by most people but it will not anymore.
 
So normal service resumed then.

Personally I have never liked the idea of over privileged , over paid multi millionaires taking the moral high ground. And it's why I stopped following Gary on twitter a long time ago. I am happy to hear is views on football but not particularly interested in his political views (whether I agree with it or not).
 
shakey said:
So normal service resumed then.

Personally I have never liked the idea of over privileged , over paid multi millionaires taking the moral high ground. And it's why I stopped following Gary on twitter a long time ago. I am happy to hear is views on football but not particularly interested in his political views (whether I agree with it or not).
Click to expand...
Gary Lineker has has a refugee live with him at his own home on two (I think) occasions in the past. He's not just taking the moral high ground. I think it is wrong to imply that just because someone has a lot of money, they have no morals. I guess you feel the same about Marcus Rashford and all of the non-football work he has done? He's probably richer than Lineker, damn him for taking that moral high ground!!
 
The amount of money Lineker has doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that he clearly practices what he preaches, and I'm certain a lot of people value that behaviour.
 
Rob said:
Gary Lineker has has a refugee live with him at his own home on two (I think) occasions in the past. He's not just taking the moral high ground. I think it is wrong to imply that just because someone has a lot of money, they have no morals. I guess you feel the same about Marcus Rashford and all of the non-football work he has done? He's probably richer than Lineker, damn him for taking that moral high ground!!
Click to expand...

I am not implying that all multi millionaires have no morals. Yes its a good thing for Gary to have someone less well off come and live with him for a bit, no issue with that. It's good he has the means to easily be able to do that. But I prefer to listen to him as a football pundit so I am glad match of the day will be back to normal next weekend.
 
Alsty said:
Streisand effect. Even with Lineker reinstated the BBC have exposed just how biased their "impartiality" actually is. Their bias seemingly went unnoticed by most people but it will not anymore.
Click to expand...

Biased against/towards what?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tom said:
Biased against/towards what?
Click to expand...
Things that are acceptable on the BBC:
  • Alan Sugar tweeting that people should vote for Boris Johnson [link]
  • Jeremy Clarkson saying striking workers should be shot in front of their families. Carried on presenting for 5 years [link]
  • Andrew Neil being a presenter on BBC while being a chairman of the right-wing Spectator magazine [link]
  • Fionna Bruce being a domestic violence sympathiser. Stanley Johnson hit his wife but it was a "one-off" [link]
Things that are not acceptable:
  • David Attenborough's Wild Isles episode that highlights climate change [link]
  • Gary Lineker tweeting that the government's policies are reminiscent on 1930s Germany
You will find plenty of other examples too, such as Laura Kuenssberg (who seems to let the government off the hook but never treats Labour the same way) or the fact you'll never hear Brexit mentioned ever, for example in the context of tomato shortages, despite it being a factor.
 
In the past decade, the BBC have undoubtedly paid a lot of time and mind to greater issues of representation, be that in regard to race, gender, sexuality and so on. I expect that to a lot of people, tackling these discrepancies and highlighting minorities more visibly qualifies the organisation as 'lefty' or 'woke'. Certainly, a quick glance at the BBC homepage highlights a different agenda to The Telegraph.

I would probably need a little more time to express this with the academic approach it requires, but I think this focus on identity politics has allowed the BBC to rather disguise or distract from the right-wing influence creeping in from the heart of government. Ironically, the media cronies who all but work for the government often use the 'woke mind virus' that comes as a result of the BBC having to provide for (or pander to, if you're cynical) all sectors of license-fee paying society. Basically, they can't really win.

A lot of people on the left have been critical of the BBC in the past few days, and rightly so. They have handled this extremely poorly. But, like the EU, I'd rather see reform of the organisation than its demise, leaving us with a network of dispassionate ghouls to run the wider media show.
 
Alsty said:
Things that are acceptable on the BBC:
  • Alan Sugar tweeting that people should vote for Boris Johnson [link]
  • Jeremy Clarkson saying striking workers should be shot in front of their families. Carried on presenting for 5 years [link]
  • Andrew Neil being a presenter on BBC while being a chairman of the right-wing Spectator magazine [link]
  • Fionna Bruce being a domestic violence sympathiser. Stanley Johnson hit his wife but it was a "one-off" [link]
Things that are not acceptable:
  • David Attenborough's Wild Isles episode that highlights climate change [link]
  • Gary Lineker tweeting that the government's policies are reminiscent on 1930s Germany
You will find plenty of other examples too, such as Laura Kuenssberg (who seems to let the government off the hook but never treats Labour the same way) or the fact you'll never hear Brexit mentioned ever, for example in the context of tomato shortages, despite it being a factor.
Click to expand...

I can give you an equal number of so-called biases against the right/Conservative Party. The Tories have refused to appear on Newsnight for years due to so-called left wing/Labour bias.

How many Brexiteers do you think would agree with you that the BBC is neutral on Brexit, let alone in favour of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top