Gary Lineker

[Eric Mc]

Legacywr said:

Eric Mc said:

Lack of choice
Simplistic, unrepresentative and outdated voting system

That doesn't mean we don't have democracy? Just not the choices you want.

OK - we don't have a properly functioning democracy - which to me means that it's not terribly democratic.

[JNW1]

sugerbear said:

chrispmartha said:

JNW1 said:

chrispmartha said:

JNW1 said:

So only around a week after agreeing to abide by its editorial guidelines until the BBC's review is complete it seems Gary Lineker has published another political tweet (doesn't mention Boris by name but I think the timing makes it pretty clear who he's referring to!):

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/16381527493...

Again many (including me) will agree with what he said - and defend as a principal his right to speak out - but nevertheless it does rather smack of sticking-up two fingers at the BBC and not complying with the spirit of an agreement he supposedly reached only a matter of days ago. Although I like him as a presenter - and agree with a lot of what he says in his tweets - he's starting to give the impression of someone who thinks he can do as he likes because he's become too big to be sanctioned (and that's not a good look IMO).

What are the details of the agreement that came to?

I think the "detail" was that Gary Lineker had agreed to abide by the BBC's Editorial Guidelines until the review following the last hiatus was complete. Part of those guidelines includes not taking a position on a matter of political controversy and I'd have thought an accusation of lying to Parliament falls into that category? Therefore, it would appear Lineker hasn't abided by the Editorial Guidelines despite having given an assurance only a week or so ago that he would.

Where did you read this?

Also what are the editorial guidelines regarding freelance sports presenters?

The part is bold making some massive assumptions there which you have zero evidence for, it was a massive climb down from the BBC, not the other way around.

The only assumption I've made is Gary Lineker's tweet was referring to Boris Johnson. I accept that's not a cast iron fact but given it was made on the same day Johnson's advisors published defence information relating to his investigation for lying to Parliament I think it's a reasonable assumption? The idea Gary just decided to do a random tweet about serial fibbers on the same day stretches credibility IMO (although it would appear some on here might be prepared to believe that!).

Lineker having agreed to abide by the BBC's Editorial Guidelines until the recently announced review is completed is a matter of record and can be found on the BBC website; so can those guidelines should anyone wants to read what they say.

So my contention is, having agreed to abide by the guidelines for the time being, Gary Lineker hasn't done so. But he probably knows that, after the fiasco a couple of weeks ago, the BBC almost certainly won't dare to try to do anything about it...

[Randy Winkman]

86 said:

Problem for anyone employing Lineker is that he’s becoming a divisive figure ironically a bit like Johnson

Who is making a fortune, appartently.

[S600BSB]

Media reporting that Gary has won his £4.9m tax battle with HMRC.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Was always going to go that way. He can now keeps his millions whilst continuing to lecture others on their social responsibilities.

[Countdown]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Was always going to go that way. He can now keeps his millions whilst continuing to lecture others on their social responsibilities.

When did paying more tax than you were obliged to become a "Social Responsibility"?

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Countdown said:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Was always going to go that way. He can now keeps his millions whilst continuing to lecture others on their social responsibilities.

When did paying more tax than you were obliged to become a "Social Responsibility"?

I'm not sure I said it did.

[S600BSB]

Good too that the Beeb has agreed that he can continue to speak out on the refugee crisis and climate change. Common sense prevails.

[sugerbear]

S600BSB said:

Media reporting that Gary has won his £4.9m tax battle with HMRC.

Linekar wins. (Again).

Dont worry though, the usual right wing fanboys can hang on to the hope that HMRC will appeal.

Shame they aren't so diligent when it comes to examining Tory MP's income.

[turbobloke]

sugerbear said:

S600BSB said:

Media reporting that Gary has won his £4.9m tax battle with HMRC.

Linekar wins. (Again).

Dont worry though, the usual right wing fanboys can hang on to the hope that HMRC will appeal.

Nobody clicked their fingers but the thread was briefly transported to a school playground, strange magic.

With no fanboys in sight, what are the chances of anyone right of centre wanting HMRC to win, particularly if they have a weak case or no case.

Left of centre, where envy led to a majority of folks surveyed wanting an even higher top rate of tax even if didn't result in a bigger tax take, it would make more sense to want HMRC to collect more of wealthy people's money.

Good going Gary, assuming the reports of a win are accurate.

[cuprabob]

turbobloke said:

Good going Gary, assuming the reports of a win are accurate.

It's gone to VAR

[sparta6]

S600BSB said:

Media reporting that Gary has won his £4.9m tax battle with HMRC.

Decided over a cosy lunch at The Ivy.

Or perhaps that table is only reserved for Starbucks & HMRC

[super7]

It would seem that because he had a direct contract with the Beeb, and not through an agency, he was not under IR35???

So if we were to contract straight to the client, would that get us around IR35 as well?

My last contract was this, but because we were placed at a client of our clients, we were deemed to be within IR35?

[S600BSB]

He's certainly a winner.

[Twinfan]

super7 said:

It would seem that because he had a direct contract with the Beeb, and not through an agency, he was not under IR35???

So if we were to contract straight to the client, would that get us around IR35 as well?

My last contract was this, but because we were placed at a client of our clients, we were deemed to be within IR35?

I think the key point is that he had multiple contracts in place at the same time. That quite heavily points to an independent contractor and not an employee.

HMRC made a mistake pursuing this one IMHO.

You're also over simplifying the way inside and outside IR35 is established. It's quite nuanced, hence the court cases.

[paulrockliffe]

Twinfan said:

HMRC made a mistake pursuing this one IMHO.

Developing Common Law so that we all have as much certainty as possible about what Statutory Law means and how we can reasonably interpret it is as dependent on the Government losing cases as much as it is about winning. Often cases are brought because the agency enforcing doesn't know the answer either. sometimes it's simply in the public interest for a Judge to decide and for precedent to be set so everyone knows what's what.

I don't know anything about the details of this case, or the outcome, it may be overturned on appeal down the line, it may lead to a clarification in Statute or a change in approach towards others with similar arrangements. All good things.

[Twinfan]

paulrockliffe said:

I don't know anything about the details of this case

Then I suggest you read up on both it and IR35 before stating that it's OK for HMRC to do what they're currently doing.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Twinfan said:

paulrockliffe said:

I don't know anything about the details of this case

Then I suggest you read up on both it and IR35 before stating that it's OK for HMRC to do what they're currently doing.

I think he was saying that HMRC challenging and losing helps create clarity of what is allowed.

BTW, multiple contracts isn't a defence against IR35.

[Twinfan]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

I think he was saying that HMRC challenging and losing helps create clarity of what is allowed.

BTW, multiple contracts isn't a defence against IR35.

They have lost quite a few cases and there's still not enough clarity, they can't even agree themselves what's right and what's wrong.

Multiple contracts can form part of a defence, and as I said they're a good indicator that you're operating as a contractor and not an employee.

[Dingu]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Was always going to go that way. He can now keeps his millions whilst continuing to lecture others on their social responsibilities.

Jealousy is very ugly.