Discussion
As I've said before given Lineker has literally housed refugees and has a history of supporting them if I have a choice of thinking he tweeted what he did because he means and believes it or he did it as part of some shadowy plot to pay less tax I think I'll go with the former.
I'm quite happy to let the legal system settle his tax affairs.
Let it go.
I'm quite happy to let the legal system settle his tax affairs.
Let it go.
SWoll said:
I've literally no idea what that is supposed to represent Stewie.
Still convinced the tweet was an entirely selfless act, and the timing + possibility of financial gain is purely coincidental?
While I don’t doubt the tweet helps towards his case I see it more as a coincidental benefit than intended, deliberate act. He has tweeted a lot about refugees prior to this case and is something he is passionate about - so for your hypothesis to work this tweet should be out of character of his normal tweets, and I would say it isn’t, so the fact the bbc chose to stamp down on it this time is just good timing IMHO. Still convinced the tweet was an entirely selfless act, and the timing + possibility of financial gain is purely coincidental?
crankedup5 said:
Cant find the link at moment but I’m sure that I read that lineker purchased some housing for use by refugees. Generous and loving, is there no end to his virtues?
Does it bother you that he did? Because your wording is awfully perojative. EDIT: Obvious typo that should have need pejorative but I’m leaving it in because it seems some people are really triggered by Lineker not being like them.
Edited by Gweeds on Sunday 19th March 13:38
monthou said:
'Let it go...'
Why? It seems particularly pertinent to the topic of the thread, whether you like it or not?It does show progress that it's gone from accusations of being a conspiracy theorist to now being told "let it go" though I suppose. You're in the 3rd stage of grief now, just depression and acceptance left.
I'll pop back once he gets his £5m back and see how you're getting on.
SWoll said:
Why? It seems particularly pertinent to the topic of the thread, whether you like it or not?
It does show progress that it's gone from accusations of being a conspiracy theorist to now being told "let it go" though I suppose. You're in the 3rd stage of grief now, just depression and acceptance left.
I'll pop back once he gets his £5m back and see how you're getting on.
I was explaining the meaning of the picture.It does show progress that it's gone from accusations of being a conspiracy theorist to now being told "let it go" though I suppose. You're in the 3rd stage of grief now, just depression and acceptance left.
I'll pop back once he gets his £5m back and see how you're getting on.
There's no point in repeatedly telling someone the moon landings weren't faked, I agree. If they don't accept it the first time nothing's likely to change.
Edited by monthou on Sunday 19th March 10:50
I think SWoll might still be confusing "X may potentially benefit Lineker in his HMRC case" with "therefore the whole thing was engineered to help him his HMRC case". The former is an assessment with at least some merit and authority, the latter is wild speculation. Though personally I'm still puzzled as to how a contract from 2020 can materially impact an IR35 case concerning earnings from 2013-2018.
HM-2 said:
I think SWoll might still be confusing "X may potentially benefit Lineker in his HMRC case" with "therefore the whole thing was engineered to help him his HMRC case". The former is an assessment with at least some merit and authority, the latter is wild speculation. Though personally I'm still puzzled as to how a contract from 2020 can materially impact an IR35 case concerning earnings from 2013-2018.
Exactly. The fact that he makes Tweets like that might help the case but he was doing stuff like that anyway. Gweeds said:
crankedup5 said:
Cant find the link at moment but I’m sure that I read that lineker purchased some housing for use by refugees. Generous and loving, is there no end to his virtues?
Does it bother you that he did? Because your wording is awfully perojative. popeyewhite said:
It's not at all, for two reasons. Firstly, a football pundit/crisp salesman buying housing for refugees IS somewhat over the top generous and not really normal behaviour unless you can point to anyone other like Lineker whose done the same, secondly the word "perojative" doesn't exist. As shouldn't this thread anymore. Gosh Gary is so divisive.
It's almost as if rich philanthropists didn't exist.popeyewhite said:
buying housing for refugees IS somewhat over the top generous and not really normal behaviour
Most of what wealthy people do with their money "isn't normal behaviour", but surely you have more argument to muster here than "that effin' weirdo is buying HOUSES for REFUGEES"? 
HM-2 said:
I think SWoll might still be confusing "X may potentially benefit Lineker in his HMRC case" with "therefore the whole thing was engineered to help him his HMRC case". The former is an assessment with at least some merit and authority, the latter is wild speculation. Though personally I'm still puzzled as to how a contract from 2020 can materially impact an IR35 case concerning earnings from 2013-2018.
I'm not confusing anything. My assertion all along has been that the motivation behind that particularly tweet, and it's timing, is far from the purely heroic and selfless act that many people desperately appear to want it to be."A hell of a coincidence" is how I described it. You would rather consider it a "happy accident" it would appear, which seems hopelessly naive to me when highly paid legal advice and a £5m tax refund are in the mix.
I imagine faith in you fellow man only stretches as far as people who's opinions you agree with though? I'm equally cynical about everyone as has always served me well.
SWoll said:
I've literally no idea what that is supposed to represent Stewie.
Still convinced the tweet was an entirely selfless act, and the timing + possibility of financial gain is purely coincidental?
You are getting Gary Lineker and Nadhim Zahawi (Tory MP) mixed up here. Easy mistake to make. Still convinced the tweet was an entirely selfless act, and the timing + possibility of financial gain is purely coincidental?
SWoll said:
My assertion all along has been that the motivation behind that particularly tweet
An assertion based on exactly zero evidence. What you actually mean is that "you believe" X. Which is very nice for you but doesn't give me any reason to think you're right. SWoll said:
"A hell of a coincidence" is how I described it.
What's "coincidental" about it? It's not like the tweet is a massive departure from stuff Lineker had been posting for years, is it? SWoll said:
I imagine faith in you fellow man
I can be critical of you making assertions without evidence without having to make any assertions of my own. You're projecting an incorrect interpretation of what I've actually said onto my posts to try and find something to compose an argument against. I have no idea whether or not Lineker engineered the whole thing as an ace card for his HMRC case. Nor, in reality, do you, despite your insistence. Only one of us is pretending they know something they don't, though.
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 19th March 12:28
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff