• 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

BarryZola said:
It's interesting that none of these people refused to take their highly paid presenting trips to Qatar for the world cup where many people had died and been exploited in the build-up (talking about the situation for 20 minutes before the first game just doesn't cut it). They've all suddenly found their morals because their mate has had a ticking off. Just interesting to think about.
Click to expand...

See also Shearer and Newcastle's current ownership.

However whataboutery just kinda ignores the main issues that are being raised here. And that someone was very upset about being compared to 1930s Germany by moving to remove the dissenting voice from their position in media.
 
BarryZola said:
It's interesting that none of these people refused to take their highly paid presenting trips to Qatar for the world cup where many people had died and been exploited in the build-up (talking about the situation for 20 minutes before the first game just doesn't cut it). They've all suddenly found their morals because their mate has had a ticking off. Just interesting to think about.
Click to expand...

I think the difference is neither the British government nor the uk football association made the decision to put the World Cup in Qatar. And as the national team where playing what was gained from not going? These guys didn’t actually take Qatars money like Gary Neville did.

To be fair most of these pundits did publically critique both Qatar and FIFA both on screen and off screen, it wasn’t like they where completely silent.
 
BBC Director was asked if Lineker had tweeted in support of Bravermans policy if he would have been suspended.

He all but said if Lineker had tweeted in support then he wouldn't have been suspended...
 
I think you simply have to tune in tonight just to say you watched the momentous occasion.

And I must say, I’m not sure any other organisation in the world would be reporting on a crisis within itself like the BBC is doing and always has done. Protect it at all costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tom said:
I think you simply have to tune in tonight just to say you watched the momentous occasion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Nope, I think it would be better if you could say that you didn't. Solidarity
 
Gumbo_B said:
Nope, I think it would be better if you could say that you didn't. Solidarity
Click to expand...

I don’t think watching it for sadistic purposes will change anything. They aren’t going to benefit from how many watch it.

The best thing you can do is continue to call out all those responsible, i.e. the Conservatives both in the BBC and in Parliament.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
What I don’t get though is why does MOTD only have to be 20 minutes long tonight. A normal episode lasts for about 80-90 minutes doesn’t it with a very large part of that being game footage, even taking away the studio sections you’d have far more than just 20 mins worth of game action. I’d have been happy to watch a decent amount of match footage but just with no in game commentary.

But of course I suppose the reason it’s only 20 mins long is so the BBC can have the shortest possible program so as to still fulfill their contact or remit to broadcast an episode MOTD. I bet they would have totally pulled it if they could but it feels like a bit of a p take towards the fans to have a 20 min show. Though having said that I’m sure that there will be a large number of fans that decide to not watch it out of solidarity and that’s absolutely fine to do that.
 
You’ll be surprised how much filler there is by people chatting you-know-what. Not sure if they only get some many minutes of actual match footage for the package they pay for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BarryZola said:
It's interesting that none of these people refused to take their highly paid presenting trips to Qatar for the world cup where many people had died and been exploited in the build-up (talking about the situation for 20 minutes before the first game just doesn't cut it). They've all suddenly found their morals because their mate has had a ticking off. Just interesting to think about.
Click to expand...

Morals? What morals? You mean like criticising how a government spend tax payers money whilst doing your upmost to avoid paying your fair share?
Mr Lineker could make his point on supporting illegal immigrants from a little higher on the moral ground if he wasn’t currently being investigated by HMRC for avoiding close to £5 million in taxes.
 
BigT said:
Morals? What morals? You mean like criticising how a government spend tax payers money whilst doing your upmost to avoid paying your fair share?
Mr Lineker could make his point on supporting illegal immigrants from a little higher on the moral ground if he wasn’t currently being investigated by HMRC for avoiding close to £5 million in taxes.
Click to expand...


Let's not forget the rather large collection of Tory party doners (and right wing newspaper owners) currently enjoying the non dom status. Whilst heavily influencing those in charge and the public.
 
BigT said:
Morals? What morals? You mean like criticising how a government spend tax payers money whilst doing your upmost to avoid paying your fair share?
Mr Lineker could make his point on supporting illegal immigrants from a little higher on the moral ground if he wasn’t currently being investigated by HMRC for avoiding close to £5 million in taxes.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So you believe everybody's earnings should be subject to PAYE? Store that one in the old databanks.

I'm not a great fan of Linekar, or of tax avoidance, but perhaps remaining freelance was about something other than just taxation? Like being free of any employment so that he could do his own commercial activities, work with other broadcasters or maybe have an opinion of his own without having to tow the line of an employer (bearing in mind he has also worked for the state broadcaster of Qatar)?
 
I'd say one man's tax avoidance is nothing compared to the level that some businesses or political members are doing.

But it's one of the perks about being rich. You can afford to get someone to cook the books or technically reside elsewhere (but still be able to influence another country).

The alleged (should be pointed out it is currently going through the HMRC case afainst him) lack of paying tax by Linekar is the sort of thing used to attack his other opinions though. The whole "champagne socialist" title that the right bestow any personality who may have some money but left wing views. At least more often than not Linekar has shown his beliefs through actions over words (I.e. housing refugees).
 
BigT said:
Morals? What morals? You mean like criticising how a government spend tax payers money whilst doing your upmost to avoid paying your fair share?
Mr Lineker could make his point on supporting illegal immigrants from a little higher on the moral ground if he wasn’t currently being investigated by HMRC for avoiding close to £5 million in taxes.
Click to expand...
Lots of leading tax lawyers would argue against you...they, and there are lots of them...argue the BBC was and is liable for the tax, not Lineker.
The Tories have failed regarding immigration policy for fifteen years...this is blatant distraction for their own failure...the immigration plans are illegal under international law, have no practical method of implementation, and are destined to failure...again.
I don't remember the voters electing Sunak as Prime Minister...and despite promises, he seems "too busy" to publish his tax papers as promised.
Another Tory leader.
 
BigT said:
Morals? What morals? You mean like criticising how a government spend tax payers money whilst doing your upmost to avoid paying your fair share?
Mr Lineker could make his point on supporting illegal immigrants from a little higher on the moral ground if he wasn’t currently being investigated by HMRC for avoiding close to £5 million in taxes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top