Gary Lineker

[fatboy47]

Gotta feel sorry for Rowls to be fair..getting into 5 pages with Wrongo as your wingman.

[Lord Beamish]

Disappointing.

The old trick of referring to me in the third person is very dull and boring.

Go on, put a genuine opinion out there!

With you? Ok. You’re a bad faith operator and not really worth debating with.

[Vegas Claret]

the fact a tweet by Lineker is currently making more headlines than Putin invading Ukraine is a very sad state of affairs

[Greenmile]

So let me ask again, what would happen if you simply took my posts at face value?

I would be a complete mug to take anything you say at face value. There’s always an underlying motive.

[Bosscat]

I was expecting "Jug eared t**t" to be someones response to any thread about the "Jug eared t**t" that is Gary Lineker

[Rowls]

Yes - that’s quite obvious from the rest of your post.

I’ll try to dumb it down for you a bit.

You are a massive hypocrite, because you regularly criticise those on the left for doing exactly what you would defend those on the right for doing.

I've never ever defended antisemitism. Ever.

Therefore, when you post something like “ If Lineker was speaking loudly about his support for conservative values and opinions I'd agree with him. But I'd still question whether a prominent BBC employee (or contracter, as he is claiming) should be campaigning so prominently for partisan political causes.”, anyone with a passing acquaintance with your posting history on here can tell that you are obviously lying - hence the numerous likes for fatboy’s post pointing this out.

What evidence do you have that I am "obviously lying"? You don't have any because there is none.

I just knew you didn't understand the joke.

Similarly, you went on a mad crusade about Corbyn’s antisemitism, not because you hate antisemitism per se, but because you couldn’t pass up the opportunity to have a dig at “the left”. This is demonstrated by your total failure to call out antisemitism or racism when committed by anyone on the right.

Do you follow my logic now?

Once again, you don't have any evidence that I am "obviously lying." I know this, because it isn't true.

Your logic here doesn't make sense.

I highlighted what I saw as a problem and I gave my explanation for doing so; I saw Problem A and I gave Reason B as to why I had drawn attention to Problem A.

You say, there is another problem - Problem C. But because I have not drawn attention to Problem C, you are trying to claim that my Reason B is no longer valid.

That simply doesn't work because Problem A and Problem C are not the same problem.

[Greenmile]

You wouldn't Rowls.
Trust me on this one.

Hi fatboy.

Settle an argument for me, would you, please? Was this post an obvious joke, or was it sincere?

[Rowls]

With you? Ok. You’re a bad faith operator and not really worth debating with.

Oh Beamish, how very disappointing.

This simply is not true.

In what way do you think I'm a "bad faith" operator?

I'd take that to mean somebody who misrepresents another's opinion or edits their statements to take them out of context. but I don't think I ever do that.

[aggi]

The Tory party pretending to be interested in football always tends to be entertaining

https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/statu ... 1692995585

[Rowls]

Gotta feel sorry for Rowls to be fair..getting into 5 pages with Wrongo as your wingman.

Lol.

I don't have wingmen.

It wouldn't matter one iota to me if the entire universe thought I was wrong as long as I had confidence in my own reasoning.

[Rowls]

The Tory party pretending to be interested in football always tends to be entertaining

https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/statu ... 1692995585

It's almost certainly off topic but you're not wrong here.

It's not just the Conservatives though, it's any politician affecting an interest in those darned working class hobbies.

[martin_p]

Yes, well that's his defence.

As I've said a few times now martin, in the past it wouldn't have mattered. Social media has changed the world and I think the BBC needs to change it's guidance on impartiality in line with this.

Lineker isn't just an ordinary Joe Bloggs like you or me. He is one of the corporation's most high-profile faces.

But Lineker isn’t suggesting he’s in anyway representing the BBC or its views and I can’t understand why anyone would imagine he is. I’d have more sympathy with your views if you were arguing that as a presenter of a football programme he should be neutral while presenting the programme, although given everyone knows his football history it’d be a stretch to believe he was really neutral.

[Rowls]

I would be a complete mug to take anything you say at face value. There’s always an underlying motive.

As I've said before, if you want to believe that, then fine.

But just as a mental exercise, ask yourself what happens if you take me on complete face value?

Besides anything else, we'd have a level of parity between us because even though I disagree with you, I take your opinions on face value.

[martin_p]

The Tory party pretending to be interested in football always tends to be entertaining

https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/statu ... 1692995585

Give me a goalhanger banging in the goals every day!

[Lord Beamish]

Oh Beamish, how very disappointing.

This simply is not true.

In what way do you think I'm a "bad faith" operator?

I'd take that to mean somebody who misrepresents another's opinion or edits their statements to take them out of context. but I don't think I ever do that.

I refer you to my previous reply.

Goodbye.

[Big Vinny K]

No, your "summary" of my view is actually a lot longer than what I posted and extrapolates far more than I actually said.

My view is that BBC presenters and hosts should abide by the impartiality guidelines.

You say tomato…..I say…..

My summary was of course tongue in cheek but if you really do hold the views that you say you do on BBC hosts abiding by impartiality guidelines then unless I am missing something it does follow that you believe that a number of people in the BBC should not have supported and promoted Rashford’s campaign.

I can’t see anywhere where you have said there are any exceptions to your view on how they need to remain impartial.
I know you love an extreme and often silly example to try and illustrate a point - so here’s one of my own.

If any government tried to introduce the legalisation of child abuse would you still prefer Mr Cholmondley Warner to turn up and read the autocue in a completely impartial way or would you be then ok with the likes of Lineker and Nugent expressing their abhorrence at the government ?

[Rowls]

But Lineker isn’t suggesting he’s in anyway representing the BBC or its views and I can’t understand why anyone would imagine he is. I’d have more sympathy with your views if you were arguing that as a presenter of a football programme he should be neutral while presenting the programme, although given everyone knows his football history it’d be a stretch to believe he was really neutral.

No, and it's a fair argument.

I don't imagine he is representing (or attempting to represent) the BBC when he posts his political views online. I merely suggest that for people as high profile as he is, the BBC should moderately restrict what can be said online in order to preserve their impartiality.

Part of me thinks that there's maybe a cynical motive for Lineker that by doing so, and showing a blatant disregard for BBC impartiality, he's got one eye on his upcoming tax case? I obviously can't prove this and, unlike greenmile, I'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" what may be somebody's motivations. It's only an idea anyway, not an accusation.

[Rowls]

I refer you to my previous reply.

Goodbye.

As far as I can see, your last post is this:

With you? Ok. You’re a bad faith operator and not really worth debating with.

This is circular logic. I'm a "bad faith operator" because you say I am and the justification for this opinion is that you said it.

Or else, you just don't want to justify it?

As I said before, it's disappointing because you're articulate (when you want to be) and intelligent.

[martin_p]

No, and it's a fair argument.

I don't imagine he is representing (or attempting to represent) the BBC when he posts his political views online. I merely suggest that for people as high profile as he is, the BBC should moderately restrict what can be said online in order to preserve their impartiality.

Part of me thinks that there's maybe a cynical motive for Lineker that by doing so, and showing a blatant disregard for BBC impartiality, he's got one eye on his upcoming tax case? I obviously can't prove this and, unlike greenmile, I'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" what may be somebody's motivations. It's only an idea anyway, not an accusation.

What I don’t understand is, if you accept Lineker isn’t trying to represent the BBC, why you think his comments damage their impartiality? It’s a bit of a stretch isn’t it?

[fatboy47]

Hi fatboy.

Settle an argument for me, would you, please? Was this post an obvious joke, or was it sincere?

Well... I've witnessed, along with Rowls, the Tory party's race to the gutter of British politics.....and however nasty, populist, racist, greedy and corrupt they've been I've yet to see Rowls being critical of them in any clearly sincere way.
I do think he's probably a good guy though, and able to convince himself that if it's Tory it's s good.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

Give me a goalhanger banging in the goals every day!

Or a left wing striker!

[Greenmile]

As I've said before, if you want to believe that, then fine.

But just as a mental exercise, ask yourself what happens if you take me on complete face value?

Besides anything else, we'd have a level of parity between us because even though I disagree with you, I take your opinions on face value.

I’ve carried out the mental exercise as requested and, sadly, I died of Covid in 2020, as I refused to believe that lockdown was a good idea.

[Rowls]

What I don’t understand is, if you accept Lineker isn’t trying to represent the BBC, why you think his comments damage their impartiality? It’s a bit of a stretch isn’t it?

It's not a bit of a stretch to say that, after about 25 years of presenting the BBC's flagship sports programme, that Gary Lineker has a duty to represent the BBC as whole. He is, after all, their highest paid employer (or contractor, if he wins his tax avoision court case).

It's standard practice that anything you do in public can be taken into account by your employers. This goes for anybody and everybody, from the lowest paid to the highest paid.

With the BBC being a publicly funded national broadcaster I think it has an even greater duty to ensure that it is seen to be impartial on party political matters.

I've eventually tiring of this now (I'd like to thank you all for contributing BTW) so I'll lay my cards on the table:

If I were the DG, I'd take Lineker aside and draw up an agreement whereby he is free to express his political opinions, as long as he does so without using insulting, hyperbolic or inflammatory language. Where I think he overstepped the mark was the bit about comparing the UK in 2023 to 1930s Germany.

[TheFamilyCat]

The Tory party pretending to be interested in football always tends to be entertaining

https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/statu ... 1692995585

The country needs a centre forward but it got Marvin Sordell.

[martin_p]

It's not a bit of a stretch to say that, after about 25 years of presenting the BBC's flagship sports programme, that Gary Lineker has a duty to represent the BBC as whole. He is, after all, their highest paid employer (or contractor, if he wins his tax avoision court case).

It's standard practice that anything you do in public can be taken into account by your employers. This goes for anybody and everybody, from the lowest paid to the highest paid.

With the BBC being a publicly funded national broadcaster I think it has an even greater duty to ensure that it is seen to be impartial on party political matters.

I've eventually tiring of this now (I'd like to thank you all for contributing BTW) so I'll lay my cards on the table:

If I were the DG, I'd take Lineker aside and draw up an agreement whereby he is free to express his political opinions, as long as he does so without using insulting, hyperbolic or inflammatory language. Where I think he overstepped the mark was the bit about comparing the UK in 2023 to 1930s Germany.

So are we also to assume the BBC support Leicester City?

I would agree he had a responsibility if he was in anyway involved in reporting on politics or talking to politicians, but he’s a bloke that spouts nonsense on a football show for god’s sake!

[ClaretPete001]

The arguments on here are obtuse. Lineker is an employee none of us would get away with working for a company in a regular role for years and be called a freelancer.

The BBC has an impartiality code and it should be adhered to....!

Whatever your political views are surely making a few comments about immigration does not insulate a privileged millionaire from paying his taxes.

We are back into the Sturgeonesque politics of the middle class Left again on this thread.

[martin_p]

The arguments on here are obtuse. Lineker is an employee none of us would get away with working for a company in a regular role for years and be called a freelancer.

The BBC has an impartiality code and it should be adhered to....!

Whatever your political views are surely making a few comments about immigration does not insulate a privileged millionaire from paying his taxes.

We are back into the Sturgeonesque politics of the middle class Left again on this thread.

I know plenty who have worked with the same employer for 30 years or more without ever being a proper member of staff. It happens a lot.

[Lancasterclaret]

The arguments on here are obtuse. Lineker is an employee none of us would get away with working for a company in a regular role for years and be called a freelancer.

The BBC has an impartiality code and it should be adhered to....!

Whatever your political views are surely making a few comments about immigration does not insulate a privileged millionaire from paying his taxes.

We are back into the Sturgeonesque politics of the middle class Left again on this thread.

No one is suggesting that he shouldn't pay his taxes

Absolutely no one

The only people linking his none payment of taxes (if he's guilty btw) to what he says are the absolute bottom feeders of the board, and the ones who put the "Whataboutery" into "Whataboutery"

Its a strange take

[CardyTheClaret]

This has quickly got to five pages. To save time I'm assuming it's divided into the usual two sides who are just shouting at each other.

[MrTopTier]

Where I think he overstepped the mark was the bit about comparing the UK in 2023 to 1930s Germany.

He may or may not have overstepped the mark, I suppose that depends on where your sympathies lie. His comparison was with the language used by the government to 1930’s Germany and not the UK as a whole in 2023.

[Stayingup]

As I understand with HMRC, if they believe you owe them in back tax they will send you a bill to pay. Normally a big one and its you to prove that you don't owe the tax. This could go on for a long time and they will fight hard to get a positive result for them.

As for his comments about illegal immigrants well he is entitled to a view. He certainly has the platform to make them known. To say we take less number refugees than france or Germany may be correct but its not the point. These are illegal. As a country we have a good record of accepting legitimate refugees. Even now from Hong Kong and of course Ukraine for example.

[Stayingup]

He may or may not have overstepped the mark, I suppose that depends on where your sympathies lie. His comparison was with the language used by the government to 1930’s Germany and not the UK as a whole in 2023.

I would have thought its nothing really to do with sympathies its whether or not he has broken an employers code. Thats if he is employed of course, which seems to be the nub of his 'discussion' with HMRC.

[helmclaret]

How do you know they are illegal?

No human being is ‘illegal.’

[Hipper]

Gary Lineker was a fine footballer and is a more then competent presenter. What I would like to know is what expertise has he got in the area of immigration? Is he an expert or has he more then the average person's knowledge on the subject? If not why are so many people taking notice of what he is saying on this matter? To me this whole episode seems to be more about the power of celebrity, a power which we seem to allow them.

This power has increased with Social Media but it was always there with TV and newspapers and presumably radio.

[Lancasterclaret]

How do you know they are illegal?

No human being is ‘illegal.’

There are no legal routes for asylum*

*unless you are from Hong Kong, Ukraine or Afghanistan/Syria

If there are no legal routes, then people are going to try to get here using small boats

That problem didn't exist before 2016, and we had agreements within the bloc to return refugees to certain countries

The problem could be solved by having legal routes

But that isn't what is being considered here, the idea is to say "We have stopped the boats"

It will have the same effect as me saying "I've shagged Scarlett Johansson"

It doesn't make it happen just because I've said it

Its deeply, deeply, deeply depressing that we essentially banned asylum applications because its considered the only way to stop people talking about all the other stuff that has gone wrong or just isn't working

I know its politics, and I can only apologise, but its been five pages of, er, "the usual suspects" pretending its not this and it does my (and a lot of others) heads in

[MrTopTier]

I would have thought its nothing really to do with sympathies its whether or not he has broken an employers code. Thats if he is employed of course, which seems to be the nub of his 'discussion' with HMRC.

My reference was to the tweets, not arguing about employers codes or the tax bill that is another issue.

[Big Vinny K]

As I understand with HMRC, if they believe you owe them in back tax they will send you a bill to pay. Normally a big one and its you to prove that you don't owe the tax. This could go on for a long time and they will fight hard to get a positive result for them.

As for his comments about illegal immigrants well he is entitled to a view. He certainly has the platform to make them known. To say we take less number refugees than france or Germany may be correct but its not the point. These are illegal. As a country we have a good record of accepting legitimate refugees. Even now from Hong Kong and of course Ukraine for example.

What is an illegal refugee ?

When you say ‘these” are illegal ? Who are you referring to exactly ? Is it 166,000 people still waiting for their application to be assessed ?

I see Rowls has liked your post - maybe he can answer some of these questions.

As for the tax issue the issue in question has been something that the government have been trying to legislate on for many years. The fact they have changed their mind several times already on IR35 and when a contractor is classified as an employee or a freelance consultant shows how complex this is for individuals, accountants and HMRC to make decisions on. Employers have different internal policies on this too. For my old employer I was only ever allowed to employ the same individual as a contractor for a maximum of 2 years. Clearly the BBC does not adopt the same policy as this given the vast majority of their presenters are freelance journalists and many have been there for a lot longer than 2 years. I don’t know the ins and outs of Lineker’s case but I do know that there is a hell of a lot of people who work in the media who are freelance contractors and have worked for the same organisation for several years.

[Venkys4eva]

There are no legal routes for asylum*

*unless you are from Hong Kong, Ukraine or Afghanistan/Syria

If there are no legal routes, then people are going to try to get here using small boats

That problem didn't exist before 2016, and we had agreements within the bloc to return refugees to certain countries

The problem could be solved by having legal routes

But that isn't what is being considered here, the idea is to say "We have stopped the boats"

It will have the same effect as me saying "I've shagged Scarlett Johansson"

It doesn't make it happen just because I've said it

Its deeply, deeply, deeply depressing that we essentially banned asylum applications because its considered the only way to stop people talking about all the other stuff that has gone wrong or just isn't working

I know its politics, and I can only apologise, but its been five pages of, er, "the usual suspects" pretending its not this and it does my (and a lot of others) heads in

Is France no longer a safe a country and all the others they crossed to get here

[helmclaret]

Gary Lineker was a fine footballer and is a more then competent presenter. What I would like to know is what expertise has he got in the area of immigration? Is he an expert or has he more then the average person's knowledge on the subject? If not why are so many people taking notice of what he is saying on this matter? To me this whole episode seems to be more about the power of celebrity, a power which we seem to allow them.

This power has increased with Social Media but it was always there with TV and newspapers and presumably radio.

He takes in refugees in his home so I reckon he will know something about ‘immigration.’

[Corky]

In case you weren’t aware Linekar( one of our greatest internationals and goal scorers ) “ who now hosts a sports program once a week “ has been presenting almost continuously for 25 yrs and is indeed extremely “high profile “
Anyone would have thought you were talking about Ray Deakin

Why do you think that. Is it a natural response from someone who is a keen follower of football. Might surprise you that my wife who has no interest in football and had an inkling that he was an ex footballer but didn't know he presented MOTD and wanted to know what all the fuss was about. And she was puzzled/bemused by it being a news item.

[helmclaret]

Is France no longer a safe a country and all the others they crossed to get here

If they speak English and have family here why would they want to stay in France?

[Rowls]

I see Rowls has liked your post - maybe he can answer some of these questions.

Sure, I could give you a response, but I've had my fill of this thread for now thanks.

[aggi]

The arguments on here are obtuse. Lineker is an employee none of us would get away with working for a company in a regular role for years and be called a freelancer.

The BBC has an impartiality code and it should be adhered to....!

Whatever your political views are surely making a few comments about immigration does not insulate a privileged millionaire from paying his taxes.

We are back into the Sturgeonesque politics of the middle class Left again on this thread.

IR35 is a hugely complex (and not that fit for purpose) area. In part you can tell that by the number of tweaks that are made to the system and the number of court cases that HMRC raise (and lose). If we want to look at other sports presenters then Paul Hawksbee was involved in a fairly significant case where he actually lost in court and then that was overturned at tribunal.

It's even more complex with the BBC as, in the past, the BBC encouraged their presenters to work in this way rather than as employees (which has given rise to a large number of cases involving BBC presenters).

I've no idea whether Lineker is an employee or not but just the fact that he also does the same job at BT makes it obvious that it isn't clear cut.

[MrTopTier]

Gary Lineker was a fine footballer and is a more then competent presenter. What I would like to know is what expertise has he got in the area of immigration? Is he an expert or has he more then the average person's knowledge on the subject? If not why are so many people taking notice of what he is saying on this matter? To me this whole episode seems to be more about the power of celebrity, a power which we seem to allow them.

This power has increased with Social Media but it was always there with TV and newspapers and presumably radio.

Gary Lineker polarises opinions, in the same way say someone like Rowls or Lancaster does. What he is doing is using his own platform to give a voice to those that don’t have one, in this instance people trying to come to this country.

Whether you believe he is right, sincere or completely wrong, you also have the right to reply, that is the beauty of free speech.

Had the title of this thread been Suella Braverman it would have been closed, it would have been deemed political, it’s been good to see no matter what peoples opinions are, a good lengthy debate, it’s what this board needs from time to time, a proper airing of views.

[Venkys4eva]

If they speak English and have family here why would they want to stay in France?

Because its a safe country where they can legally claim asylum. They cant be that persecuted if they want to leave their wives and children to trek across europe to get here

[Lancasterclaret]

Is France no longer a safe a country and all the others they crossed to get here

Pre 2016 that would count

Now it does not

And this is the thing, the very basic start of all asylum applications is that you don't need to apply for asylum in the first country you come to

If you don't understand that, then this conversation is not for you

[Lancasterclaret]

Gary Lineker polarises opinions, in the same way say someone like Rowls or Lancaster does. What he is doing is using his own platform to give a voice to those that don’t have one, in this instance people trying to come to this country.

Whether you believe he is right, sincere or completely wrong, you also have the right to reply, that is the beauty of free speech.

Had the title of this thread been Suella Braverman it would have been closed, it would have been deemed political, it’s been good to see no matter what peoples opinions are, a good lengthy debate, it’s what this board needs from time to time, a proper airing of views.

I'd like to put on record that I'm certainly a better footballer than Rowls, but not a better footballer than Lineker

[Nori1958]

If they speak English and have family here why would they want to stay in France?

Just a wild guess, but I doubt the majority coming by boats have family here, so why not stay in the first safe country they come to, because they are fleeing for their safety are they not?

[Venkys4eva]

Pre 2016 that would count

Now it does not

And this is the thing, the very basic start of all asylum applications is that you don't need to apply for asylum in the first country you come to

If you don't understand that, then this conversation is not for you

As i said if they are happy to trek across europe they aren't in need of asylum

[Lancasterclaret]

Because its a safe country where they can legally claim asylum. They cant be that persecuted if they want to leave their wives and children to trek across europe to get here

See my previous post