1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Running out of arguments you go straight to the ad hominem.

 

We got it already, you don’t like Gary Lineker. 

And you do.I

Nails it ...

 

59 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I don't believe the UK has introduced socialist identity cards (and the associated social credit bonus points) yet.

 

You might to wait for a Labour election win for that little fantasy to materialize. 

I’m waiting for you to back up your assertion that Lineker is a socialist.

 

You made the claim, you back it up.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Was Gary working on a contract for services and not that of employer and employee? Do you know?

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

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

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

Its not my interest, its your claim that you know. When its clear you no idea what his contract terms are. It makes a big difference for any potential court case as demonstrated with previous contract top earners who have won their cases working for large media companies. I won't bother providing a link here as its off topic but feel free to PM

 

Your claim:

Because I was a freelance contractor operating via a Ltd company and subject to the exact same rules.

Entitle <deleted>, as they say in England.

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The BBC employments rules that Lineker signed and agreed to adhere to 

He isn't an employee of the BBC. he's a contracted, self-employed independent.

Overrated footballer, with an annoying accent - along with 'Will Carling', the most hated people in Scotland.

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

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

The contract is the determining factor as evidenced by Adrian Chiles successfull challenge to his tax demand.

The judge determining that the contract amounted to providing of services not employment , thus fall outside IR35

In 2017 the law became clear that the company employing the worker is responsible for that persons tax status. 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Its not my interest, its your claim that you know. When its clear you no idea what his contract terms are. It makes a big difference for any potential court case as demonstrated with previous contract employees who have won their cases working for large media companies. I won't bother providing a link here as its off topic but feel free to PM

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.  

56 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Someone on here once asked how I knew Ash Sarkar was a communist. 

 

I provided quotes from her saying "I am literally a Communist, you idiot". It still wasn't enough.

 

So forgive me if I don't waste my day finding quotes from Gary saying "I am literally a socialist". It wouldn't be enough anyway. 

 

Check his twitter feed if you think he isn't.

 

Either way, I'm off for a massage. Ciao.

If you can’t back up an assertion of Gary Lineker being a socialist you should not make the assertion.

 

That’s how honest, good faith debate works.

Just now, James105 said:

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.  

I have no idea who pays Dan Walker, nor do you, you also have no idea what his contract says and yes it does make a difference in tax cases.

 

The case centres on a contract that Kelly signed in 2012 - through a company she runs with her husband - to present Lorraine, as well as her former show Daybreak which ended in 2014 when Good Morning Britain was relaunched.

"Judge Jennifer Dean ruled that the relationship that Kelly had with ITV "was a contract for services and not that of employer and employee".

Gary Lineker has upset the free speech warriors (for exercising free speech) and the true snowflakes are outraged. A non-story that's been blown out of all proportion but they've been spoon-fed their opinions by the right-wing press. It's cancel culture hypocrisy of the highest order. 

 

Not a peep when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" a few years back.  

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He isn't an employee of the BBC. he's a contracted, self-employed independent.

Freelance or not he's employed by them and obeys the rules or... out.

AN unattributed cut and paste has been removed

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He isn't an employee of the BBC. he's a contracted, self-employed independent.

Freelance or not he's employed by them and obeys the rules or... out.

No, he is not employed by the BBC.   He obeys the conditions of his contract.

4 minutes ago, Timbob said:

Gary Lineker has upset the free speech warriors (for exercising free speech) and the true snowflakes are outraged. A non-story that's been blown out of all proportion but they've been spoon-fed their opinions by the right-wing press. It's cancel culture hypocrisy of the highest order. 

 

Not a peep when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn" a few years back.  

 

 

 

Bin Corbyn is a false equivalency - he made a comment linking restricting illegal immigrants with Nazi Germany.  

30 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Nails it ...

 

Brilliant.....thanks for that...????

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, he is not employed by the BBC.   He obeys the conditions of his contract.

Splitting hairs - when I employed contractors I employed contractors and they obeyed the rules of my organisation. End of.

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Bin Corbyn is a false equivalency - he made a comment linking restricting illegal immigrants with Nazi Germany.  

No he didn't. Read what he actually said. He never mentioned the word Nazi.

 

He was right this time. But wrong about Corbyn.

19 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, he is not employed by the BBC.   He obeys the conditions of his contract.

Splitting hairs - when I employed contractors I employed contractors and they obeyed the rules of my organisation. End of.

Don't think that you're the BBC, though, and it wasn't splitting hairs, there's a huge difference between being a BBC employee and having to follow its rules and anyone in Lineker's non-BBC-employee position. 

What is "end of" supposed to mean? 

35 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He isn't an employee of the BBC. he's a contracted, self-employed independent.

HMRC , the taxman, disputes that .

He's avoiding paying tax by claiming that statues , besides , he is on BBC television as a presenter  and he needs to abide by the BBC rules about impartiality 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

41 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He isn't an employee of the BBC. he's a contracted, self-employed independent.

HMRC , the taxman, disputes that .

He's avoiding paying tax by claiming that statues

So what?  That's completely irrelevant to the issue of his Tweets. 

 

"...claiming that statues"

"Statues" [sic]?!  Huh, which statues?

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

HMRC , the taxman, disputes that .

He's avoiding paying tax by claiming that statues , besides , he is on BBC television as a presenter  and he needs to abide by the BBC rules about impartiality 

 

 

The BBC has already demonstrated it's tolerance of it's presenters expressing their own political beliefs when they ignored Andrew Neil's behaviour in trying to discredit the journalist who exposed the case for brexit as a Russian funded tissue of lies.

IMO, the BBC has been gradually losing its independence since Marmaduke Hussy (later made a life peer as Baron Hussey of North Bradley) took the helm back in 1986.

 

He was married to Lady Susan Waldegrave; Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Elizabeth 11. The Diana interview (1995) had to be kept secret from Marmaduke, or it would surely  have been scuppered.

 

BBC not the same since. Now fully a mouthpiece of the UK government.

 

So much noise about someone on the left being tax efficient - I don't remember such outrage when Sunak's wife had to actually be shamed into paying her fair share of tax. 

 

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So what?  That's completely irrelevant to the issue of his Tweets.  "Statues" [sic]?!

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.    

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So much noise about someone on the left being tax efficient - I don't remember such outrage when Sunak's wife had to actually be shamed into paying her fair share of tax. 

 

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.   

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

HMRC , the taxman, disputes that .

He's avoiding paying tax by claiming that statues , besides , he is on BBC television as a presenter  and he needs to abide by the BBC rules about impartiality 

 

 

It's far from clear that he's broken any BBC rules. The relevant rule would be on Public Expressions of Opinion 15.3.13, which actually suggests he hasn't broken the rules:
"The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the areas of the individual's work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts." 

Anyway, it looks like Match of the Day will be going out without any presenters or commentators, using footage only, as others like Ian Wright and Alan Shearer have said they will not appear. 

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

So what?  That's completely irrelevant to the issue of his Tweets.  "Statues" [sic]?!

Actually, he may have weakened his case with HMRC with regards to his political tweeting as BBC employees are subject to impartiality rules. 

I'm not interested in (the irrelevance of) his dealings with HMRC to this topic.