Gary Lineker

[G STAR RAM]

17 minutes ago, Crewton said:

"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.

 

I can find lots thank you and if you can't I'd suggest you're not looking very hard.

Not going to post links to my personal social media though. 

As @Stive Pesley I'm probably wrong to even mention it as it deflects away from the real issues. 

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

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.

 

So I made the point that if she was not alive during the 1930s her take on language used at that time would be second hand evidence that would be the same as what anyone else could read or watch. Nowhere did I say she would be no more likely to know more about the holocaust, as you well know.

[Comrade 86]

Anyways, enough about the evil Wokist cult. How's about this absolute pearler. Have to say that Alex's grammar and syntax need a bit of work ?

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

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

I daresay it wouldn't be muchadoabout nothing if it were a right winger trying to dodge a £5m tax bill.

 

[May Contain Nuts]

2 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

But I know you're a stickler for being specific with you language and hate people having words out in their mouth, so I must have missed it. 

It does make me laugh.

It's like arguing with a spreadsheet, backed up by a complex diagram of statements where every possible configuration of words & sentences used, not used, or potentially could be used - including all the different possible interpretations - can be referenced and analysed to pinpoint the exact wording to select before posting, in order to 'win' the argument later down the line.

(...ignoring that winning an argument by being technically correct on the minutiae of it, and actually being correct on a wider scale are not mutually exclusive)

If you yourself haven't dedicated so much of your free time to creating this mental reference sheet, and say something off the cuff where your own wording hasn't been self-scrutinised before posting then... sorry, your argument is invalid, they never said it, you can't prove they said it and even if you get really, really close to finding the exact phrasing there'll be some macguffins about different interpretations of words, and you not being able to prove what they were thinking etc.

It's pretty impressive, in a way.

[BaaLocks]

23 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

What do you mean by "people like him"? Are there people not like him (outside government) who you are happy to have tell the rest of the country what they should be doing or is your preference that nobody has right to question anything?

What do you mean by "telling the rest of the country what they should be doing". Don't think he told anyone to do anything, he just suggested how he viewed government policy. There was no instruction there within, least of all to the rest of the country. He observed, nothing more.

Not sure what you mean by "what he is preaching about will have absolutely no effect on his life". May I beg to differ, his point was very clearly trying to address something that affects his, and all our, lives. Namely his observation that the policies our elected government are trying to put into place, that we all as members of a democratic society are within our rights to address (unless our employers specifically request, and get our agreement, to not do), are 'immeasurably cruel'.

So, in conclusion, all you seem to be taking exception to is your perception of something that - when considered - didn't actually happen. As I said before, a false opposition.

Edited March 14, 2023 by BaaLocks

[Comrade 86]

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I daresay it wouldn't be muchadoabout nothing if it were a right winger trying to dodge a £5m tax bill.

 

And I daresay you'd be whining your arse off if us Wokies levelled that accusation at one of your right wing pals before any ruling had been made by HMRC. Gulity, punished. Not guilty, not. Sound fair?

Anyways, Cheltenham bound today so I'll leave you to continue getting dry-humped on here.

Have a good one x

[BaaLocks]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I daresay it wouldn't be muchadoabout nothing if it were a right winger trying to dodge a £5m tax bill.

I'm not sure anyone else has even tried to align tax payments and political leaning so, again, false opposition.

[sage]

Going back to the bill that this was all about.

What will the outcome be? 

A) we have no return agreement with the EU

B) it will be practically impossible to send most ayslum seekers back to their country of origin

and

C) we state we will refuse to process their claims

will lead to

D) huge numbers of asylum seekers stuffed here there and everywhere around the country in hotels, barracks, camps unable to get jobs or contribute to society, just hanging around bored and frustrated etc

which will lead to

Protests and trouble all around the country over the next year as we head to towards the election, so the election is fought on this one topic, which the Tories feel they can win on.

The classic 'cause a problem and blame everyone else for it'

 

 

 

 

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

34 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

And I daresay you'd be whining your arse off if us Wokies levelled that accusation at one of your right wing pals before any ruling had been made by HMRC. Gulity, punished. Not guilty, not. Sound fair?

Anyways, Cheltenham bound today so I'll leave you to continue getting dry-humped on here.

Have a good one x

So its only if you're found guilty of something that its an issue? 

So no issues with offshore arrangements and people claiming non dom status then I assume.

Enjoy Cheltenham. 

[Anon]

24 minutes ago, sage said:

Protests and trouble all around the country over the next year as we head to towards the election, so the election is fought on this one topic, which the Tories feel they can win on.

The classic 'cause a problem and blame everyone else for it'

How would the Tories win on this issue? What a brilliant election strategy to highlight a problem they've repeatedly claimed their party would solve, but failed to do anything about despite have a parliamentary majority for the last 8 years. As the opposition party all Labour would have to do is present a plan that amounts to something other than "let everyone in"......... oh, I think I see the problem.

[sage]

3 minutes ago, Anon said:

How would the Tories win on this issue? What a brilliant election strategy to highlight a problem they've repeatedly claimed their party would solve, but failed to do anything about despite have a parliamentary majority for the last 8 years. As the opposition party all Labour would have to do is present a plan that amounts to something other than "let everyone in"......... oh, I think I see the problem.

Sadly emotions overrule thoughts. They will try and point to Labour and leftie lawyers as stopping their plans. 

[Archied]

2 hours 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.

So , I live in a nice country , not as nice as some but still doesn’t mean I want to ect ect ect ?‍♂️

[Mucker1884]

15 hours ago, Archied said:

... hypocrisy...

 

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Dont use the H word, it got me a ban, twice!

I'm learning though...

 

3 hours 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.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

 

I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it!

[sage]

https://www.ourmigrationstory.org.uk/oms/jewish-refuge-and-the-nazi-regime#:~:text=A Daily Mail article from,the law to the fullest.

[PistoldPete]

4 hours 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.

Lineker has tried a number of tax dodges including a film scheme through “ingenious”. Not so ingenious as it didn’t work. 

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I can find lots thank you and if you can't I'd suggest you're not looking very hard.

Not going to post links to my personal social media though. 

As @Stive Pesley I'm probably wrong to even mention it as it deflects away from the real issues. 

Take a screenshot and crop any personal details off it - if you don't know how, ask someone under 30 to show you. 

Without evidence, I think we can safely assume you were making unsubstantiated claims to deflect from the real issue. 

[sage]

An interesting little tale of intolerance, refugees and small boats crossing The English Channel.

 

[i-Ram]

Another interesting insight of factual wartime information from YouTube.