Gary Lineker

[Mostyn6]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

Pronoun stuff is pathetic, him or her will do , the rest is just indulging the attention seekers

whilst it's a conversation topic on it's own, sadly it's not just attention seeking. It's actually now a crime to insist on him/her. Someone got a criminal record for 'harassment' for calling someone "he/him/his" about 15 times in a conversation. Imagine being a criminal for that!

[G STAR RAM]

22 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Ah, I see, so you were just rambling on about unnamed people.

If you actually named these people I'd have understood what you meant.

I told you more about the Jewish lady who you said was no more likely to know more about the Holocaust than anybody else because your dad didn't know much about WWII, so humour me and tell me who these people are

If they think Lineker is above the law I will be happy to condemn them too.

Come on G star, let's do it.

Let's team up together and rule the world!

Still waiting for you to show me where I said this, once you link me to it we will have a starting point for taking the discussion further. Cheers.

[G STAR RAM]

20 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t know anything about his Barbados dealings but, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had no choice but to use a limited company for his work for the BBC (and other companies). Until I decided to retire early nearly two years ago I had been contracting for various organisations (including a county council but most of the time for Lloyds Bank). All those organisations insisted on contractors operating through a limited company. 

Re Barbados he purchased the house through a limited company (Goalhanger Inc which was incorporatedin the British Virgin Islands) it meant he avoided  avoided stamp duty when he sold it. He defended it by saying it was bog standard practice.

Offshore companies and hedge funds are the sort of things that usually make the left froth at the mouth and talk about one rule for the rich and one for everyone else.

Regarding his contract with the BBC, contracting as a limited company would have been beneficial for Lineker, so very much doubt he would kick up a fuss about it.

[G STAR RAM]

20 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

For the record, the stuff about Lineker's tax deeply concerns me and I hope he pays up his fair share. Not that it has anything to do with the issue in hand. Unless I'm missing something. I can defend him for making very valid comments on this government's ugly messaging AND condemn him for avoiding tax. These aren't mutually exclusive opinions

Agreed. Fair point.

I've certainly not seen the level of condemnation that other people that use offshore companies and hedge funds to avoid tax though, not sure why this is?

[Crewton]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Agreed. Fair point.

I've certainly not seen the level of condemnation that other people that use offshore companies and hedge funds to avoid tax though, not sure why this is?

Because your brain blocks it out? 

[Comrade 86]

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Agreed. Fair point.

I've certainly not seen the level of condemnation that other people that use offshore companies and hedge funds to avoid tax though, not sure why this is?

Us Wokies are far too busy calling you lot Nazis to worry about such trivial banalities.

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Because your brain blocks it out? 

And as soon as the left get called out on their hypocrisy back they go to personal insults.

Well done you.

[Tamworthram]

39 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Re Barbados he purchased the house through a limited company (Goalhanger Inc which was incorporatedin the British Virgin Islands) it meant he avoided  avoided stamp duty when he sold it. He defended it by saying it was bog standard practice.

Offshore companies and hedge funds are the sort of things that usually make the left froth at the mouth and talk about one rule for the rich and one for everyone else.

Regarding his contract with the BBC, contracting as a limited company would have been beneficial for Lineker, so very much doubt he would kick up a fuss about it.

I'm not suggesting he would have kicked up a fuss. I'm just suggesting he didn't have any choice in the matter anyway. If the BBC had insisted on putting him on their payroll then I would imagine he wouldn't have had much choice then either.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Tamworthram

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I'm not suggesting he would have kicked up a fuss. I'm just suggesting he didn't have any choice in the matter anyway. If the BBC had insisted on putting him on their payroll then I would imagine he wouldn't have had much choice then either.

I think someone with a net worth of an estimated £30m does have a choice whether they want to go on someones payroll or not, especially if they are so committed doing what is morally best for society...

[Tamworthram]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

I think someone with a net worth of an estimated £30m does have a choice whether they want to go on someones payroll or not, especially if they are so committed doing what is morally best for society...

We'll never know but I suspect the BBC, along with many other companies, don't give you the choice regardless of your net worth or moral standards.

[Stive Pesley]

8 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think someone with a net worth of an estimated £30m does have a choice whether they want to go on someones payroll or not, especially if they are so committed doing what is morally best for society...

Lineker signed a new 5 year deal with the BBC in 2020 that involved him taking a pay cut, so there would almost certainly have been negotiations going on, with Lineker calling the shots. I too doubt that his tax arrangements were somehow forced on him by the BBC against his wishes

 

[BaaLocks]

31 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think someone with a net worth of an estimated £30m does have a choice whether they want to go on someones payroll or not, especially if they are so committed doing what is morally best for society...

"The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich" - Mother / Idles

This banal suggestion that just because you are left wing means you want to live in poverty is straight out of cloud cuckoo land. That you have somehow betrayed your morals because you don't want your £30m to go to support those who have taken billions out of the system via schemes such as PPE contracts (to name one example), in preference to their being held up for their own wrong doing.

I live in a nice house, not as nice as some but better than many. But it doesn't mean I am now oblidged to sell it and donate the proceeds to those who haven't the same lifetime earnings as me just because I want a more equal society. It's called creating a false opposition, and it's been the bedrock of right wing posturing for decades, if not longer.

Edited March 14, 2023 by BaaLocks

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Offshore companies and hedge funds are the sort of things that usually make the left froth at the mouth and talk about one rule for the rich and one for everyone else.

What makes people froth at the mouth is not political leaning but that wealthy people can afford to employ people who allow them to swerve taxes and duties that the rest of us pay simply because we cannot afford said experts. Same for Amazon and Google compared to Barry the Butcher on the High Street. If I had the opportunity to do that I most certainly would, even if it meant I retained control of where my support could be best applied, funding and supporting charitable causes rather than handing it to corrupt politicians to spend it on £800 a roll wallpaper or private jets to Australia.

[Crewton]

56 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

And as soon as the left get called out on their hypocrisy back they go to personal insults.

Well done you.

"Personal insults" ?

Best trot off back to your safe-space then. ?

All you've really done on this thread is attack the messenger, rather than the message. If you can't find any specific examples of people both supporting Lineker over his tweets about the government's policies and defending him over his tax arrangements, just say so. If you can, post up a link. That's all I asked for.

 

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Well yes. So to pay the private builders to build social housing councils have to increase council tax. Just had my council tax bill for next year… not keen for that to go up anymore to be honest. 

Move here SDDC ours went up 1% ??, And as I live alone there's a 25% discount, All bins emptied, Our very own street cleaner/litter picker, Street lighting works, Only downside...those phuckers who dump their rubbish down the country lane and canal where we all walk ? but gets cleaned up by the SDDC ??

[Magicman]

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

And as soon as the left get called out on their hypocrisy back they go to personal insults.

Well done you.

He's actually talking science and it's not (necessarily) an insult.

There is a whole field of behavioural economics spanning back to Tversky and Kahneman in the late 60s that studies cognitive biases like that one.

You can circumvent them if you know they are there and how they present, but you don't.

As for the other stuff, here you go.

 

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think someone with a net worth of an estimated £30m does have a choice whether they want to go on someones payroll or not, especially if they are so committed doing what is morally best for society...

Would GL employ an accountant to do this job?, Surely if you have 10s of millions you'd sooner keep it than just have millions, The ONS say a single person needs circa £20k to live a comfortable life, I bloody wish?and yet bless the HMRC they've risen my Tax and I'm to pay an estimated £153 extra, Do you know how many packets of £1 biscuits I could buy with that extra £153?   

Edited March 14, 2023 by The Last Post

[G STAR RAM]

26 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

"The best way to scare a Tory is to read and get rich" - Mother / Idles

This banal suggestion that just because you are left wing means you want to live in poverty is straight out of cloud cuckoo land. That you have somehow betrayed your morals because you don't want your £30m to go to support those who have taken billions out of the system via schemes such as PPE contracts (to name one example), in preference to their being held up for their own wrong doing.

I live in a nice house, not as nice as some but better than many. But it doesn't mean I am now oblidged to sell it and donate the proceeds to those who haven't the same lifetime earnings as me just because I want a more equal society. It's called creating a false opposition, and it's been the bedrock of right wing posturing for decades, if not longer.

Think you're missing the point.

I couldn't care less about Linekers wealth or how he wishes to spend it.

What I do take exception to is people like him telling the rest of the country what they should be doing when what he is preaching about will have absolutely no effect on his life.

[Comrade 86]

44 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think someone with a net worth of an estimated £30m does have a choice whether they want to go on someones payroll or not, especially if they are so committed doing what is morally best for society...

Apparently instigated by the BBC to avoid paying NICs on his salary. Pretty much the same as I've had for most of my working life. No NICs contributions, no sick-pay, no paid holiday and entitlement to health or other benefits. Saved themselves (sorry, I meant the taxpayer) a fookin bundle.

So we've done his syntax, his political views, his marriage and his tax affairs... 

What's up next, tomato hoarding? 

#muchadoaboutnothing