James105

Well yes, ideally he would, but like many footballers becoming excellent at football took priority over his educational development so it's not really his fault. If he insists on continuing to post dimwitted nonsense on Twitter I do think the BBC should help him out by giving him a bit of education that he no doubt missed out on when he was younger. Meeting survivors of the holocaust or perhaps even visiting Auschwitz would help fill in some of the gaps in his knowledge and would go some way to prevent him comparing things he simply disagrees with to the Nazi's.

Indeed. I do think that he should be asked to go and speak to some survivors of the holocaust so that they can help him to understand the differences between the actual Nazi's and what they did and the current Tory government. It's never too late for someone to get a bit of education about history. This will help prevent him from getting a bit confused about policies that are designed to save people from drowning by making a treacherous journey across the English channel with policies that are designed to basically commit genocide and kill millions of people.

These soulless ghouls are the ones attempting to stop people dying trying to make the dangerous crossing over the English channel, whereas the "best of us" are the ones attempting to ensure these needless deaths continue.

People often cite the "Dublin agreement" as though it really allowed the UK to return asylum seekers who came to the UK on small boat crossings. It did not. "There were 1,215 transfers into the UK under the Dublin Regulation. The majority (946) of these transfers came from Greece. There were just 209 transfers out of the UK under the Dublin Regulation. A quarter of these (51) were transfers to France." https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/444/transfers-of-asylum-seekers-from-the-uk-under-the-dublin-system#:~:text=There were just 209 transfers,4.

Sure, just like Jo Brand was when she was making a joke about throwing battery acid at politicians. Do you think she should be incarcerated for this or do you think people should still be allowed to make jokes, even if they are a bit offensive? https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jan/27/jo-brand-face-no-further-action-battery-acid-joke

Please do, although the EU is not the ECHR (which has 47 members) and was formed in 1950 so it would be completely irrelevant to whatever point you think you would be making by using it.

Only complete fools would suggest that Jeremy Clarkson meant that as anything other than a joke. I don't recall any stories of him following up on this where he actually lined up any nurses and shot them in front of their families which does suggest that he didn't mean it literally. Pretty sure he says the same thing about cyclists/caravan owners as well. His TV persona is a character of a grumpy old man which proved very successful for the BBC. Gary Lineker doesn't have that kind of TV persona and if he did then I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if he demanded similar treatment for the Tories.

I'm not sure a 20 day publicity stunt counts as "accommodated 2 refugees". Following the links: "in September 2020, after welcoming a student from Pakistan" https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-style/gary-lineker-still-touch-two-29434358 Are students from Pakistan considered refugees?

Sure, but that is just PR guff that will never, ever happen that gets people excited for whatever reason. I'm sure the UK gov is well aware of how toothless the ECHR is but selectively chooses to implement judgements for things they wanted to do anyway and then laying the blame at the ECHR. I was just pointing out that even if the ECHR rules against the UK gov there is no reason to follow the judgement, just like in the almost 10,000 instances from the other 47 members of the ECHR.

The UK doesn't need to leave the ECHR, they just need to ignore their ruling as every single other member country does. "Nearly 10,000 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights have not been put into effect by national governments" https://www.politico.eu/article/human-rights-court-ilgar-mammadov-azerbaijan-struggles-to-lay-down-the-law/

Of course he could. So why does he stay at the BBC when he is well aware the funding model of the BBC requires impartiality? Is he an idiot or is he only too aware that being the face of the BBC means his dimwitted twittery is given more prominence and will cause the right wing media (who are against the antiquated and unprogressive nature of the TV licensing model) to give it headline news treatment as a stick to beat the BBC with? Lineker puts this out of date funding model on the front page and I am pretty sure his bosses would prefer this was not the case as it puts their funding at risk. I can't even think of a prominent ITV sports presenter which suggests that if someone who worked there tweeted the same thing it would not generate headlines so his political activism would have less impact. If he was on ITV, despite being paid significantly more, he would fade into the background very quickly no matter how many times he invoked Godwins law on social media.

It could quite easily be argued due to the vagueness of the "Don't bring the BBC into disrepute" that comparing the Tories to the Nazis falls under that category as it diminishes the holocaust and the deaths of 6 million Jewish people in gas chambers. If Lineker had not been so "6th form student" in his tweet and just said he disagreed with the Tory policy without referring to 1930s Germany then I doubt anyone would particularly care as it is quite common for rich millionaires living in predominantly white gated communities to support unfettered illegal immigration as they are completely unaffected by it.

I explained this already. Lineker is the highest paid presenter at the BBC and regardless of whether he is freelance or not for tax avoidance purposes, the perception from the public is that he is the face of the BBC and is associated with the BBC. This is what the head of BBC said back in 2020: “If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC,” he said on Thursday in his first speech to staff. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-bbc-idUSKBN25U2CE The BBC funding model requires impartiality. If they let Lineker continue to make dimwitted political tweets then this funding model will be at risk as other BBC staff will believe they can do the same regardless of what their contract states or what their boss has asked of them.

Why? I didn't mention his contract. The BBC Charter states they need to remain impartial which is a requirement for their funding model. One of the reasons that Gary Lineker's political tweets generates headlines is because he is the highest paid presenter of the BBC and is seen as the public face of the BBC. Each time he makes a dimwitted political tweet then the BBC have to face questions of impartiality based on this which could affect their bottom line and future funding model. All they are asking him to do is tone down his 6th form student political views on Twitter and in return they pay him £1.3m per year to do 1 or 2 days work a week for about 8 months of the year. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Take it to court? How ridiculous, he hasn't been fired. The BBC charter (and the reason they get away with "taxing" the public for their funding) is based on them being impartial. He signed a contract with the BBC and has been warned several times in the past about his behaviour on social media. The problem with Lineker is that because he is the BBC's highest paid presenter whenever he demonstrates some political dimwittedness on social media it makes headline news which then calls into question BBC impartiality, which then threatens their future funding model and then BBC management have to act. Gary Lineker is free to leave the BBC if he wants to demonstrate his stupidity on social media to the masses without fear of a talking to by BBC management, and I am sure BT sport will offer him double or triple his salary. Good to see those on the left are learning about censorship though. This is a momentous day. Will be good to see you offering your support to the likes of JK Rowling, Katie Hopkins, Andrew Bridgen etc in the future when they are faced with actual censorship.

In all fairness this would be an ideal opportunity for the BBC to pluck some fresh talent from YouTube. There are some excellent football channels out there that create better content than what is served by MOTD. It's about time the BBC realised that presenting highlights of football matches does not require the services of someone on £1.5 million per year and can be presented by fresher, better talent for a tenth of that cost. A win for the BBC who save a bit of cash, a win for the MOTD audience who get better presenters, and a win for Lineker who can use his free time to enter politics and/or do his ranting on Twitter without consequence. This would be a Win/Win/Win situation.

A drunk Thai guy driving a pickup truck at 3:30am? I guess they could but this doesn't sound like your typical high flying Thai businessman so I doubt there will be much to go after.

From the gofundme: "On Friday 25th February at 8.30pm UK time/Saturday 26th February 3.30am Thai time, our world fell apart." "Jay, a son, brother, father, boyfriend, grandson, nephew, and cousin, was hit by a drunk driver travelling at high speed. He was riding a motorbike and was not wearing a helmet." From the article: "He is away with his girlfriend but had been out with some of the lads for a drink and told her he wouldn't be long until he was back. He put the phone in his pocket but the call hadn't ended, so she was saying 'hello, hello" Sounds a bit like 2 drunk drivers had a crash and the one on the motorbike was even using his phone whilst riding without a helmet and is now facing the ultimate consequence. Being out at 3.30am doesn't sound like a pint or two and was probably significantly more than that. Even if by some miracle he does come out of the coma it sounds like he will be a vegetable anyway. If it was me I'd really just like someone to switch the machines off and let nature take its course. No need to waste money on further medical bills.

You clearly haven't operated a Ltd company before. If you did then you would be aware that it is incumbent on the Ltd company director to ensure that tax is correctly paid, not the other business (BBC in this case) that contracts the Ltd company's services. Lineker is not a child. He has accountants that advise him. Even if he hired the most incompetent accountants in the UK it would still be down to Lineker (as the director) to pay the correct amount of tax and is the one liable for prosecution by HMRC if he does not. Yes, IR35 is terrible legislation borne out of jealousy of contractors earning more and paying less tax than their employed colleagues by the last Labour government, but normal folks have to deal with this and pay the correct amount of tax. Just because Lineker is rich and doesn't like the Tories does not give him a free pass on this.

Do you have any evidence that the right supported the avoidance of tax by Sunak's wife? Seems like quite the straw man you have invented there.

Actually, he may have weakened his case with HMRC with regards to his political tweeting as BBC employees are subject to impartiality rules. Alan Sugar, who is clearly not a BBC employee despite having a show on the BBC, can freely spout whatever political views he pleases and there isn't anything the BBC can do about that as he is not an employee, or an equivalent to a BBC employee. The fact they have effectively suspended Gary Lineker for his lack of impartiality suggests (at the very least) he is more of an "employee" than Alan Sugar is. When the final ruling comes I will find it highly amusing if he is forced to cough up the tax that will (in part) be spent on supporting the housing the illegal immigrants in hotels that he so dearly loves.

If you had bothered to read the link you would then understand that it does not matter what his contract says. In the past when Lineker has been unavailable the BBC used Dan Walker in his place. Who pays Dan Walker? Is it Gary Lineker via Gary Lineker Ltd or does the BBC pay Dan Walker? If it is the BBC then Gary Lineker did not substitute himself, the BBC found a replacement just like they would do with any other "employee" so Gary Lineker fails one of the key tests of IR35. Media personalities make big money so are able to hire expensive lawyers to help them get away with this. Normally this would be frowned upon by the left but for "reasons" are quite okay for the likes of Lineker to get away with what effectively is "alleged" tax evasion.

If you are genuinely interested then you can check this guide related to 'substitution' which is one of the key tests to decide whether or not Gary Lineker was more equivalent to an employee or a company providing services. It's not the "contract" that is the deciding factor here, it is the reality of the situation. https://www.qdoscontractor.com/ir35/right-of-substitution

Because I was a freelance contractor operating via a Ltd company and subject to the exact same rules. He may yet get away with it as he is rich and can afford very expensive tax lawyers (which normal folks do not have access to) which would normally horrify those on the left. However, since he has compared Tories to the Nazi's as far as the left are concerned he does not have to pay tax like normal people and is held to different standards. Be honest with yourself, if he was supporting of the Tories you would be very unhappy with his "alleged" tax evasion.

Lineker is not a child and has accountants to help him pay the correct amount of tax He would have had to go against the advice of his accountant based on the IR35 rules in place as his contract would have put him inside IR35 and he should have been paying the equivalent of PAYE. Just because 100s of others were evading tax as well does not make it okay. I find it baffling that those who wish the government to use taxpayers money to help illegal immigrants settle in the UK are so unwilling to pay the correct amount of tax to help fund this. Is tax evasion okay as those avoiding it compare Tory governments to Nazis? Is that the standard now?