My post wasn’t directed just at your posts in particular, more in general at the posters who have brought Lineker’s tax situation into focus.
Most thinking people are against this current administration because they are specifically targeting basic freedoms, right to strike, freedom of expression and implementing policies that even they know are contrary to international laws.
Like I explained to you the other day those obligations and responsibilities are not absolute. The BBC think they can step into people's personal lives, which is an overreach. Imagine if your employer or a work colleague decided to out you for your comments on this platform because your employer thinks they have a right to control what you say in your personal speech outside of work
This is the argument that most freelancers use to avoid paying tax. Ir35 should have put a stop to it, but it appears that the more you have the more you want to keep. Meanwhile most of his 9.7m witter (not an error) followers have no alternative than to pay their tax through PAYE.
There is so much ill-informed comment there it's not worth the effort other than to say it's all wrong.
Still think of all the replies earning revenue for 1966's bar tab at The Jolly Tars. He gets a penny for every post on this board didn't he tell you?
Bullying by a few do you mean Braverman and Sunak?
1. He hasn't had his contract terminated
Not completely Malced. At least we'll have a Labour Government next year.
Lineker back on air next week. BBC acknowledgement that they've mishandled the situation.
Avoid paying tax? No freelancer avoids tax via IR35 they still pay corporation tax and personal tax. They don't get holiday pay either!
You really are quite good at extrapolating one comment into several others. I didn't put strike action in with international laws, it's not misleading unless you deliberately misread what I wrote.
By the same token he never mentioned the Weimar Republic either...
He compared the language used to scapegoat other groups. What part of that is inaccurate?
Some are quite happy tugging forelocks and going back to the good old days of serfdom when we knew our place.
)To say that is a quantum leap from any of the comments on here is an understatement.
I’m not sure you can criticise the construction of someone’s posts when you conflate the word “donor” with the word “investor”.Well communication is a two-way process. You might want to think about making separate points in different sentences otherwise it's all merged into one, and you're unclear in your meaning. (I dread to think what the legal letters you helped write looked like. Hopefully the lawyers looked at them before the signed them.
So you referenced basic freedoms, strike action and then policies which are against the law in one sentence. These things seem very very closely linked to me, but you say I extrapolated.
You also in your latest reply then seem to have an issue with the Government's legal stance in comparison to the EU by asking which EU countries have made strike action illegal, which indicates you indeed have an issue with the legalities of restricting strike action. So was I right to infer that, from your earlier post, when you referenced it in the same sentence as referencing to policies which breach the law, or not? You say not, but then you seem to have an issue with exactly that in your latest reply. So please be clearer and consistent rather than trying to accuse me of extrapolation.
With regards to extrapolating, you've certainly extrapolated when you ask me which countries have made strike action illegal. I didn't say any country had. I said there were laws in EU countries which are there to limit strike action to ensure there's a minimum service with certain critical public services. I'm not giving you a list of the countries. You can look it up yourself. The point is you seem to be exorcised by the concept of a Government legislating to ensure there's a minimum service, yet this is common across many nations.
There's ways of espousing political opinion which can be extreme and can cause offence and upset. That can very much lead to disciplinary action. In the case of Lineker, he was not only offensive to some with the tone of his comments, but he knows the BBC insists on impartiality. He was warned, He didn't desist. He's in a mess of his own making presumably cos he thought he was above the rules.
“He’s in a mess of his own making”Well communication is a two-way process. You might want to think about making separate points in different sentences otherwise it's all merged into one, and you're unclear in your meaning. (I dread to think what the legal letters you helped write looked like. Hopefully the lawyers looked at them before the signed them.
So you referenced basic freedoms, strike action and then policies which are against the law in one sentence. These things seem very very closely linked to me, but you say I extrapolated.
You also in your latest reply then seem to have an issue with the Government's legal stance in comparison to the EU by asking which EU countries have made strike action illegal, which indicates you indeed have an issue with the legalities of restricting strike action. So was I right to infer that, from your earlier post, when you referenced it in the same sentence as referencing to policies which breach the law, or not? You say not, but then you seem to have an issue with exactly that in your latest reply. So please be clearer and consistent rather than trying to accuse me of extrapolation.
With regards to extrapolating, you've certainly extrapolated when you ask me which countries have made strike action illegal. I didn't say any country had. I said there were laws in EU countries which are there to limit strike action to ensure there's a minimum service with certain critical public services. I'm not giving you a list of the countries. You can look it up yourself. The point is you seem to be exorcised by the concept of a Government legislating to ensure there's a minimum service, yet this is common across many nations.
There's ways of espousing political opinion which can be extreme and can cause offence and upset. That can very much lead to disciplinary action. In the case of Lineker, he was not only offensive to some with the tone of his comments, but he knows the BBC insists on impartiality. He was warned, He didn't desist. He's in a mess of his own making presumably cos he thought he was above the rules.
.I think the phrase “confident but wrong” was invented for youNo you’re not sure about much it seems
The only ones specifically subject to any impartiality clause are the news and current affairs staff.Statement from the BBC:
"The potential confusion caused by the grey area of the BBC`s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognized."
So there was no objective all encompassing "impartiality clause" after all.
The BBC have acknowledged they had a nebulous and variable guideline that was subject to the whims and howls of confected outrage from the media and the government.
Hope that clears it up for some on here who spent a lot of time arguing the contrary...
The point is he didn't break any BBC rules.
Why he is a freelancer and does work for more than one organisation. IR35 clearly didn't cover him and I'm surprised HMRC got involved
No doubt pushed by the Tory Ministers.
Probably
