• 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

The only thing I'm arguing is that there is no strong evidence of bias in output. I was attempting to identify claims, with some specifics, but ultimately I don't recognise anything I posted as indicative of bias, nor what others have posted.

The Tories/ex-Tories/donors in X positions is fact and evidence of government corruption, but again, where is the evidence of bias in BBC output at this stage? The argument of representation is a little different, but much of the basis of criticisms are selective and unsound in my view. Why should 52% of the audience be Brexiteers if that was the popular vote output? Why shouldn't the Greens be on less regularly than UKIP given their performance at elections?

Lineker was suspended, but he has been reinstated and the whole thing has virtually blown over already, much to the outrage of elements of the Conservative Party. I'm also sure that as many left/liberal people are massively irritated by the fact the whole thing happened - again a case of multiple wings being peeved. If there was true political corruption here he would have been suspended permanently/disposed of.

What I'll accept as real telling points of corruption succeeding/bias are an inward BBC campaign, led from the top or otherwise, for the licence fee to be scrapped. Aside from that, I'd be looking for things beyond doubt that coverage is significantly and consistently leveraged towards any political, social or economic argument.
 
It's curious how BBC News have covered the strikes in Paris, yet I didn't see any coverage of the thousands of teachers, higher education staff, doctors and other public sector workers marching in London yesterday. 50,000 strong according to organisers.

But of course, the BBC isn't biased.

[Edit] Turns out it was covered on BBC after all. My bad
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I saw the protests briefly on the BBC main news yesterday...marching down Whitehall and outside Downing St.
Not sure if it was on both lunch and teatime, but it was on the main news.
Three and a half million on strike in France.
 
Saw the UK ones covered as the biggest strikes since X period time. Was second item on the BBC news app, I think.
 
Alsty said:
It's curious how BBC News have covered the strikes in Paris, yet I didn't see any coverage of the thousands of teachers, higher education staff, doctors and other public sector workers marching in London yesterday. 50,000 strong according to organisers.

But of course, the BBC isn't biased.
Click to expand...
It was on the BBC News I saw at 18:00 yesterday. Plenty on the website too.


People marched across central London including to Trafalgar Square and Downing Street – with some civil servants chanting outside as Hunt gave his speech to the Commons. Organisers of the Trafalgar Square rally said at least 40,000 people took part.
 
How strange, I didn't see that come up at all on the BBC News website for me yesterday, only the budget and the Paris protests.

In that case it looks like I'm mistaken and will leave with my tail between my legs
 
I definitely think that there is something in the fact that the BBC News website reports so much, nothing sits on the homepage for very long.

I don't really know how they address that.
 
There used to be a ranking of importance, regardless of how much news was about. Maybe that’s still there but what is weird these days is that there can be massive disjoint from the main TV bulletins and the app/website. Used to be almost always in sync in terms of what was the top story etc.

Web/app has SORT of become a feed but they’re still not going to knock the top story off unless it’s somewhat significant in my experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Todays I newspaper headline...
Lineker 1...Taxman 0.
The BBC were liable for his tax.
They were at fault, not Lineker...who has lost out in legal fees.
The taxman was at fault for botching the case.
Lots of people who called him dodgy regarding his finances now look a bit dodgy themselves...and may be looking at libel claims.
All good fun.
These tax avoiding media types eh?
What do the bloody judges know...
 
rob666 said:
Todays I newspaper headline...
Lineker 1...Taxman 0.
The BBC were liable for his tax.
They were at fault, not Lineker...who has lost out in legal fees.
The taxman was at fault for botching the case.
Lots of people who called him dodgy regarding his finances now look a bit dodgy themselves...and may be looking at libel claims.
All good fun.
These tax avoiding media types eh?
What do the bloody judges know...
Click to expand...
He is dodgy because he is avoiding paying tax , all beit through legal means. He is by no means the only rich person that does this though, in fact most probably do avoid tax to some degree via LTD companies.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 
shakey said:
He is dodgy because he is avoiding paying tax , all beit through legal means. He is by no means the only rich person that does this though, in fact most probably do avoid tax to some degree via LTD companies.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It’s an IR35 case, the question wasn’t whether tax should have been paid, the question is who is responsible for paying it, the contractor or the organisation contracting the service.

For people on PAYE it’s the employer not the employee who pays the relevant contribution, contractors are arguing they shouldn’t have to pay it. So in this case the BBC.

I’m not completely sympathetic as these types of contract arrangements are currently killing the NHS through agency recruitment but it’s not quite a tax dodge that was being argued as far as I read it.
 
Avoidance of income tax is perfectly legal shakey...I do it through driving the sooooper shed.
I pay more in vehicle duties and a fortune in fuel tax, which can be knocked off my income bill for tax purposes.
Avoidance is legal, evasion is criminal.
He did neither...the court has plainly said the BBC is liable, not him.
And it has cost him a bomb in legal fees...
I think he is overpaid...but that is just the system, not him.
 
There's not a single person here who wouldn't choose to pay less tax via legal means (and if you say you would, you're lying 😉). I mean right down to your "regular worker", cycle2work reduces your NI and tax liabilities, or gym membership through pay reduces national insurance. Is that being "dodgy"? Nope, it's utilising the rules to your own benefit.

As @rob666, blame the system that's in place not the individual. Some of the very people that whinge about this are in a position of power to actually do something about it. They won't of course, because changing it would affect them, their mates and stop one of their prime attack lines for those with money in the bank that speak out against them.
 
I suspect a lot of people will pay less tax if they can, but some of it does also come down to the old saying, that you can tell a lot about someone from whether they do the right thing when they think that no one else is watching.

When we get into the voting booth no one knows who we’re voting for. We can vote for the party that will favour our own interests, or the one we think will make society better. If you’re eating at a restaurant you’re never likely to visit again, do you leave a tip? If you notice that they’ve left an item off the bill, do you say something? If you park at a car park in the countryside with an honesty box, do you choose to pay? If your dog poos on the footpath and no one’s around to see it, do you clean it up? And if you do, do you hang it on a tree, or do you take it home? If you’re a manager who gets to decide who gets promotions, do you give it to the best candidate, or the one you fancy? If there’s an opportunity to unfairly pin blame for something that went wrong on a rival candidate for a promotion, do you do it? If you’re walking home and you see someone passed out ill at the side of the road, do you stop to help, or carry on walking by? What if you witness a crime? We all have opportunities to do things that are morally wrong. Sometimes we do it and sometimes we don’t.

None of these are quite the same as paying the level of tax you’re clearly supposed to. But things like registering a business in a tax haven where it has no staff, and no business interests, might be legal, but it’s clearly not in the spirit of the law.
 
Last edited:
rob666 said:
Avoidance of income tax is perfectly legal shakey...I do it through driving the sooooper shed.
I pay more in vehicle duties and a fortune in fuel tax, which can be knocked off my income bill for tax purposes.
Avoidance is legal, evasion is criminal.
He did neither...the court has plainly said the BBC is liable, not him.
And it has cost him a bomb in legal fees...
I think he is overpaid...but that is just the system, not him.
Click to expand...
Yes it's legal, that's why I said "albeit by legal means"

Doesn't make it morally right though when very rich people do all they can to pay as little tax as possible via various loop holes in the system. But that's up to the government to crack down on I suppose.

When it comes to tradesmen, they are probably doing a bit of tax evasion as well as tax avoidance. Not that I would accuse you of such things Rob.

Who's round is it ? Got to be mine or @Dipper_Dave , if he ever returns.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top