TeemuVanBasten

People might get it now.

You meant former then.

A tax avoiding supposed lefty taking Bezos dosh to eek out a couple of lucrative bonus years at the end of a faltering career before he retires to become a full time virtue signaller on twitter? Yes, can see that.

Fear of Craig Bellamy getting his golf clubs out might keep them on their toes.

Well we can open some Soylent Green factories for the willing volunteers as a starting point?

I know that it's officially called the Republic of China and that very few UN members recognise a country called Taiwan, beyond that not really.

Yes because you did not make it clear that your wife had a link to this country via marriage to a British person. Had I known that then I wouldn't have made the point that there is a limit to how many refugees we could take. Seeing as your wife wouldn't need an asylum application, my comment about how many we could take is irrelevant. Doesn't stop you inferring that I'm a racist of course does it. I consider it highly likely that your wife would get quick, easy and safe passage to the UK based on her marriage to a British person, just like Ukrainians with family links were. I doubt there is a single person on this thread who would in any way object to that or wish to split up a family. Now please let's keep this about chanel migrants. The people crossing the channel in small boats are not Ukranians or from Hong Kong... many are Albanian. What war is happening in Albania?

The issues of spousal visas has absolutely nothing to do with anything that anybody has been talking about at any stage, but that hasn't stopped you making it all about you has it. I'm sure there are various issues with spousal visas. That has absolutely nothing to do with channel migrants, Gary Lineker, the new immigration bill, the BBC, or this f*cking thread. Go and start a thread about spousal visas perhaps. They are completely f*cking irrelevant.

Will probably be a big enough event for a thread of its own when it happens, I reckon. Just a question of whether it needs to be in non-football or not.

You are expecting me to be psychic and know that you are a British Citizen are you? As a British Citizen then clearly you'd be entitled to bring your spouse to the UK, are you sure that needs an Asylum application? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't, and that therefore your personal situation is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Who on earth has said at any stage on any of the 15 pages of this thread that they don't support spousal visas? Absolute idiot. ps. The plight of those who fled Hong Kong to Taiwan: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/22/neither-citizens-nor-foreigners-hongkongers-struggle-to-adapt-to-life-in-taiwan Fine if you've got lots of money for an investor visa, or to enrol in a degree. Limbo land if you haven't.

What is horrible is that there are countries like Taiwan who don't take any refugees.

Its not the slightest bit idiotic, its common sense that in the event of an evacuation (like the one we've seen in Ukraine), all safe countries have to participate in providing a safehaven, and its natural that each will have to agree a quota based on what they can realistically accommodate. Taiwan has no asylum law by the way, it does not accept refugees. That's the problem isn't it, look how we've opened the doors to those from Hong Kong, Ukraine, and Afghanistan in recent times. Yet there are countries which don't do their part. You are quick to shout "Racist!" at Britain, yet live in a country which doesn't take asylum applications. Do you shout about that? Or would you be scared to do so? If a high profile celebrity published a tweet saying "Its disgusting that there are countries like Taiwan who don't take any refugees!", would you support that? We are held to a higher standard for some reason.

More like buy a multipack and eat them all within a day for me.

Seabrook are the best budget option. And not owned by Americans.

Specifically by the UK, or any safe country? Because we can't offer every Taiwanese wife asylum in the event of war. I mean, there has to be a number derived at doesn't there. Be it 10,000 or 50,000. It can't be 10 million.

In August 2008, California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced a settlement with Kettle Food for violating the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. The state had alleged in 2005 that the potato chips from the companies failed to document that they contained high levels of acrylamide, a carcinogen. Kettle Foods paid $350,000 in civil penalties and costs and agreed to cut their potato chips' levels of acrylamide to 275 parts per billion by 2011, an 87% reduction Bit in bold is interesting.

Somebody has never heard of Bobby's.

Oh he'll be on sh*t daytime TV shows like Loose Women and the Wright Stuff within the year, he'll have nothing better to do than flog some rubbish ghost written book to sell to help pay a £4.9m tax bill.

They redeem themselves somewhat with Tangy Cheese Doritos. Easily top 3 mainstream crisp.

I followed the link in the OP and was one link away from reading all about it on Wikipedia, about 5 minutes before posting. What is wrong with that? Honest question. Ironically the OP didn't even read his own link, as he then erroneously claimed the lad was a a Wrexham reject. His own link states that he rejected a Wrexham deal.

That is a tiny element.

Nope, he hasn't. He owes £3.6m in income tax, and £1.3m in national insurance.

I think we should forgive the tweet, admit the BBC got that a bit wrong. Then tell him he can have his job back when he settles his £4.9m tax bill with HMRC to help pay for the tens of thousands of channel migrants that are currently being kept in hotels. Sound fair?

You've switched rapidly between being ardently anti-tax avoidance on here just a few weeks ago, to vehemently defending the character of a huge tax avoider. Funny how people pick and choose their moral stance to suit their own agenda really isn't it. What's your opinion on the £4.9m that Gary Lineker owes to HMRC? Had a lot to say about tax avoidance recently, but have gone very quiet about that.

The £4.9m bill is a result of HMRC determining that he isn't "within the law", clearly. People lap it up when he virtue signals about having a refugee in his house for less than 3 weeks, but conveniently ignore that he's opting not to pay his fair share of the hotel bill for Channel migrants. He's odious.