MOTD

[Clark W Griswold]

Left wing, right wing  can we not just agree Lineker is a complete wanker?

The post above about <removed> sums him up

No, he is not a wanker and please don’t include the rest of us in your silly comments. Anyone who is prepared to give up their means of earning to fight for a cause has to be admired.

You can fight a cause without using the language that has caused the controversy, and led to the action. And if you think that he thought he’d lose his job over it I’d say you’re giving him too much credit. I think he’s so arrogant that he thought the rules don’t apply to him, and it wouldn’t be an issue. He suggested as such to the press.

Which bit of the language he used offends you out of interest?

None of it. Why?

[olaftab]

You can fight a cause without using the language that has caused the controversy, and led to the action. And if you think that he thought he’d lose his job over it I’d say you’re giving him too much credit. I think he’s so arrogant that he thought the rules don’t apply to him, and it wouldn’t be an issue. He suggested as such to the press.

Agree on the wording, could have been different but it was necessary to raise the profile of issue he felt as unjust. So it’s rather remiss to say he didn’t think it was going to be an issue, in fact he probably wanted it to be as large as it is now.

[UK Redsox]

Never thought I’d see the good folk of H&V so keen on a multi-millionaire tax avoider.

He might be both those things……but that doesn’t stop him being right about the Government.

[RamboandBruno]

Left wing, right wing  can we not just agree Lineker is a complete wanker?

The post above about <removed> sums him up

No, he is not a wanker and please don’t include the rest of us in your silly comments. Anyone who is prepared to give up their means of earning to fight for a cause has to be admired.

You can fight a cause without using the language that has caused the controversy, and led to the action. And if you think that he thought he’d lose his job over it I’d say you’re giving him too much credit. I think he’s so arrogant that he thought the rules don’t apply to him, and it wouldn’t be an issue. He suggested as such to the press.

Which bit of the language he used offends you out of interest?

None of it. Why?

You mentioned fighting a cause without using the language he used, apologies for my presumption that it offended you. Perhaps i should of asked which language you think he shouldn’t of used? 

[AV82EC]

Never thought I’d see the good folk of H&V so keen on a multi-millionaire tax avoider.

Risso for those of us not paying attention at the back I’ve often seen these allegations thrown at him about tax avoidance, what’s the story? I had heard he’d been swept up in the IR35 shenanigans a decade or so ago is it that?

[garyellis]

Never thought I’d see the good folk of H&V so keen on a multi-millionaire tax avoider.

Haha…that is true. What’s happening to us😥?

Probably strengthens the point about freedom of speech regardless of who it is and what the motivation is behind preventing it.

[Risso]

Never thought I’d see the good folk of H&V so keen on a multi-millionaire tax avoider.

Risso for those of us not paying attention at the back I’ve often seen these allegations thrown at him about tax avoidance, what’s the story? I had heard he’d been swept up in the IR35 shenanigans a decade or so ago is it that?

No, about ten years ago he took part in a devious tax avoidance scheme that was defeated and he had to pay £5m in tax, penalties and interest. Since then, he’s been using his PSC to contract with the BBC. HMRC have taken the view that somebody who presents a telly programme every week in a set format should probably be considered an employee and taxed accordingly. In this rare instance, I completely agree with them. MOTD existed long before Lineker appeared, he has to present it in a set way and there’s no risk to him in doing so. If he leaves as now looks likely, somebody else will just come in a do much the same sort of job.

[algy]

I know that but it’s aired on the BBC. Surely though, not been able to take any form of criticism is the problem here? A Government is never going to please everyone, so making such a song and dance over Lineker is just ridiculous and helping hide the fact that they are in a right mess and we’re all having to live through it until they are removed.

If they let Lineker have his say though, then they have to let everybody else do the same, and then you risk having what makes the BBC unique disappear.  I can get plenty of partisan opinions from the rest of the mainstream media.

But nobody is going to confuse stuff Gary Lineker writes on Twitter with the reasoned thoughts of the BBC's political correspondent on News at 10.

I think we as a country need to be very careful not to start banning people in the public eye from having & stating their political opinions. Obviously there's some nuance in that - someone like George Alagiah needs to be a little more careful around how he presents his opinions, because he holds a position where people expect him to provide the impartial news from which they'll form opinions. But for 99% of the BBC's employees they're simply not in that situation, and honestly nobody thinks that Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Neville are providing them with an impartial view on the state of affairs.

It's a load of bollocks, and everyone knows it's a load of bollocks. It's a non-issue that's most likely been hyped up because someone wants to create a distraction.

[AV82EC]

Agreed. As someone who also works in this way I make damn sure my IR35 status is determined from both sides well before starting any contract. His role at the BBC would seem to be inside IR35 with obviously scant knowledge of his contract.

[pauliewalnuts]

Agreed. As someone who also works in this way I make damn sure my IR35 status is determined from both sides well before starting any contract. His role at the BBC would seem to be inside IR35 with obviously scant knowledge of his contract.

Not so sure how you can say that without knowing the details (as you said, scant knowledge)?

He also works for BT Sport, for example, and runs a podcasting company. I am sure, whatever his situation, he'll have had people being careful with that on his behalf.

[Risso]

Wha

Agreed. As someone who also works in this way I make damn sure my IR35 status is determined from both sides well before starting any contract. His role at the BBC would seem to be inside IR35 with obviously scant knowledge of his contract.

Not so sure how you can say that without knowing the details (as you said, scant knowledge)?

He also works for BT Sport, for example, and runs a podcasting company. I am sure, whatever his situation, he'll have had people being careful with that on his behalf.

As I’m sure will be found to be the case when the case is decided, there’s no way on god’s green earth that he shouldn’t be an employee when presenting MOTD.

[Ads]

Runs the best Podcast Company in the UK, which should have been obvious given the name- blindspot for me there! I've never really minded him and I appreciate his persistent effort at awful dad joke style puns. The Villa affect whether I watch MOTD or not and its been mainly not for the past decade.

His brother on the other hand...

[Clark W Griswold]

Left wing, right wing  can we not just agree Lineker is a complete wanker?

The post above about <removed> sums him up

No, he is not a wanker and please don’t include the rest of us in your silly comments. Anyone who is prepared to give up their means of earning to fight for a cause has to be admired.

You can fight a cause without using the language that has caused the controversy, and led to the action. And if you think that he thought he’d lose his job over it I’d say you’re giving him too much credit. I think he’s so arrogant that he thought the rules don’t apply to him, and it wouldn’t be an issue. He suggested as such to the press.

Which bit of the language he used offends you out of interest?

None of it. Why?

You mentioned fighting a cause without using the language he used, apologies for my presumption that it offended you. Perhaps i should of asked which language you think he shouldn’t of used?

Ok fair enough. Like I said earlier I think his arrogance meant that he thought he could say what he liked. In terms of the language used he should have stuck to the concerns he had about the specific government policy and it’s likely effects.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

MOTD cut to just 20 minutes tonight.

[dr.chekov]

You're kidding? Jeez. They shouldn't even bother.