Gary Lineker

[Blondest Goat]

Great thread for identifying all the thickies this.

[sage]

44 minutes ago, Osbaldwick said:

 Why have any sports programme when 50% is ‘analysis’ by over paid presenters saying the same things we do? 

So you think Suella Braverman's language was that of 1930's Germany too. 

[cstand]

23 minutes ago, WharfedaleRam said:

No commentators, no presenter, no pundits? Marcel Marceau in charge tomorrow night?

No presenters, no pundits, no commentators it gets even better.

Happy days 

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by cstand

[LittleEatonRam]

The fewer pundits/presenters the better. Maybe viewers will then actually form their own opinions and there will be more time for actual footage.

For the last WC (the one that Lineker and his colleagues were morally outraged about) the BBC took 11 pundits in total across TV and radio at license fee payers' expense, in an age when they could do the job from a UK studio. None of them seemed to be so affronted as to boycott that nice little all expenses paid gig, which is odd.

[uttoxram75]

5 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

No offence but that's a weird thing to say as companies do have a right to understand what their employees are saying on social media if those comments can be linked back to the employer and would put the same employer in a bad light. 

There are many, many, employment cases where employees have been found to be fairly dismissed for doing exactly that. 

Personally I know of a guy whom I worked with whom was dismissed for making perceived racist comments on Facebook but they could be linked back to their employer as the person posted their employer name on their Facebook page. This was then passed onto their employer by a disgruntled Facebook member, disciplinary convened m summarily dismissed. 

You should never be penalised for criticising a government policy.

[Blondest Goat]

5 minutes ago, LittleEatonRam said:

The fewer pundits/presenters the better. Maybe viewers will then actually form their own opinions and there will be more time for actual footage.

For the last WC (the one that Lineker and his colleagues were morally outraged about) the BBC took 11 pundits in total across TV and radio at license fee payers' expense, in an age when they could do the job from a UK studio. None of them seemed to be so affronted as to boycott that nice little all expenses paid gig, which is odd.

And people like you are still droning on about it months later. 

[Day]

 

[uttoxram75]

3 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

Lot of absolute ignorance on Twitter about Lineker being entitled to say what he wants outside of his job - or probably because it furthers the narrative they want to choose to progress. 

Read some very uninformed comments along the lines of if Lineker made the comments presenting MOTD then that would be wrong but as he's done then outside of work then there's nothing wrong with that. 

Shows a total ignorance of employment law. Lineker receives money from the BBC therefore he has a contract with them therefore they can reasonably insist he winds his neck in posting comments on social media which go against their impartiality stance.

Pretty clear and simple. Certain folks are making more of it than it warrants to have a sly dig at the Tory party- they need to get their heads out of their behinds. 

The bloke who runs the BBC is a direct donor of the current government. Lineker has criticised one policy of the government.

 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, MarsdenRam said:

Stand in announced...
 

They've already got Micah Richards doing a great rendition of a totally incoherent squeaking sweep, so why not. 

[1of4]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

What impartiality looks like when those implementing the rules, face in one direction.  

The BBC apparently have the same concept of impartiality as that other great bastion the EFL.

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Whippetram said:

Might consider paying the licence fee. Defo if Le Tissier was brought in. Love him. 

Hell of first post!

[ariotofmyown]

27 minutes ago, David said:

 

This must all be an anti-Tory plot from within the BBC right? They pretended it was the Government and the Tory Supporters at the top of the BBC who forced Linekar off air, even infiltrating the Daily Mail too. Now the whole country knows how repugnant these Tories actually are. Even free speech extremists will despise them now too.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

He's employed by the BBC as he is desperately trying to currently prove with his case with HMRC. Your handyman or whatever isn't .

Quite ironic really that Lineker is trying to fall over himself to prove to HMRC that he is employed by the BBC to save himself millions  of pounds of tax liabilities on one hand but then doesn't think he then likewise has to fit in with his employers standards.

Ergo. 

Isn’t he trying to prove that he isn’t directly employed by the BBC? HMRC are claiming he’s an employee, he’s claiming he’s doing work through his ltd company, no?

[Carl Sagan]

For a bit of context, Gary Lineker went to trial on 28th February for alleged tax evasion to the tune of £4.9 million (eg https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/gary-linekers-lawyers-court-start-8198629). That's how much HMRC is trying to recover from him. Imagine how much he earns, that as part of it he's trying to avoid an extra £4.9 million in tax! And these wages are in large part paid by licence fee payers who don't have a choice and some will have to pay the licence fee rather than heat their homes. For all the "progressives" on here, how happy are you to support someone who is trying his damnedest to avoid paying tax when even if he paid it he'd have far more that most of us on here could dream of?

Now here's the interesting part. This has been an ongoing battle between him and the HMRC for a few years and part of his defence, to claim he's not employed by the BBC, is that he tweets politically. And if he were a BBC employee, he wouldn't be alowed to do that. For instance this Guardian story explaining this is part of his defence to avoid him having to pay these millions in tax. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/07/gary-linekers-political-tweets-could-help-him-avoid-49m-tax-bill

I put it to the forum that it's unlikely to be a coincidence that a few days after the trial opens with this a key part of Lineker's defence, he posts contentious political tweets to try to get out of paying the millions he owes to the taxpayer. And the media and the woke Twitter mob and his MotD co-hosts have been played. In Lineker's case, it is all about the money, money, money.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

For a bit of context, Gary Lineker went to trial on 28th February for alleged tax evasion to the tune of £4.9 million (eg https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/gary-linekers-lawyers-court-start-8198629). That's how much HMRC is trying to recover from him. Imagine how much he earns, that as part of it he's trying to avoid an extra £4.9 million in tax! And these wages are in large part paid by licence fee payers who don't have a choice and some will have to pay the licence fee rather than heat their homes. For all the "progressives" on here, how happy are you to support someone who is trying his damnedest to avoid paying tax when even if he paid it he'd have far more that most of us on here could dream of?

Now here's the interesting part. This has been an ongoing battle between him and the HMRC for a few years and part of his defence, to claim he's not employed by the BBC, is that he tweets politically. And if he were a BBC employee, he wouldn't be alowed to do that. For instance this Guardian story explaining this is part of his defence to avoid him having to pay these millions in tax. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/may/07/gary-linekers-political-tweets-could-help-him-avoid-49m-tax-bill

I put it to the forum that it's unlikely to be a coincidence that a few days after the trial opens with this a key part of Lineker's defence, he posts contentious political tweets to try to get out of paying the millions he owes to the taxpayer. And the media and the woke Twitter mob and his MotD co-hosts have been played. In Lineker's case, it is all about the money, money, money.

Hard disagree. He’s been tweeting about the plight of refugees for years. This has just coincided with the British Government’s strongest anti-immigration bill in years.

Also this piece provides some balance in the tax case:  https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/gary-lineker-tax-clash-bbc-paying-legal-fees-2201702

Edited March 11, 2023 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

3 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Hard disagree. He’s been tweeting about the plight of refugees for years. This has just coincided with the British Government’s strongest anti-immigration bill in years.

Also this piece provides some balance in the tax case:  https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/gary-lineker-tax-clash-bbc-paying-legal-fees-2201702

There is no balance.  This suits as he can declare himself a brand and use various loopholes to avoid a large tax bill and Class 1A National Insurance.  He will have been careful to avoid contract of service to fall into an employee category.  I would assume that HMRC have pushed for this under grounds that he enjoys all aspects of his work, as it's in his field of expertise, rather than a presenter who may or may not like the product they are promoting like a Lorraine Kelly who used a similar contract.  It all stinks

[Carl Sagan]

2 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Hard disagree. He’s been tweeting about the plight of refugees for years. This has just coincided with the British Government’s strongest anti-immigration bill in years.

Also this piece provides some balance in the tax case:  https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/gary-lineker-tax-clash-bbc-paying-legal-fees-2201702

Disagree. The case has also been going on for years, so of course Lineker has been tweeting for years. And he's been fully immersed in the world of tax evasion for years so is well primed over it, given his brother was convicted in 2006 and was on trial for it again in 2012. Gary is not naive. Does he actually care a jot? It's impossible to know. I do really doubt it since, if he was a decent human being he would obviously be happy to pay the tax he owes and give something back to society. Even when viewed in the kindest light, he is on the extreme side of tax-avoidance schemes. Why doesn't he pay his share when he's so privileged?

[cstand]

Looking at the BBC website it’s not about criticism of the Government it’s comparing it to 1930s Germany is the problem. This could be seen by many people to be trivialising the holocaust so could be classed as a hate speech.
 

My understanding is BBC wanted Gary to tone down the language but he has refused so I am expecting a statement from the BBC sometime today before the MOTD, clarifying their position on the subject.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by cstand

[Alph]

6 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

It’s a firm no from me too when they phone me.

Got to stand our ground, mate 

If we let them take our pundits and say nothing then what will they come for next. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Alpha

[SKRam]

1.3 million off BBC wages. Rarely watch, not our league, working or getting drunk so I’ll gladly say cheerio Mr L. If it’s a huge sulk off from his mates, cheerio to them too. Analyse this analyse that.