TeemuVanBasten

I don't think the publicly funded BBC should employ greedy tax avoiders. Anybody who disagrees is the idiot.

Don't know, I'm not a Tory anymore. Just want to know whether CanaryDan23 is considering a serial tax avoider to be of the 'left'.

It is easy to equate anything to nazism. Gary Lineker owes £4.9m in tax to HMRC. At the point of his death Adolf Hitler owed 405,000 DM in unpaid tax to the German authorities. That is just over £1 million in today's money. Therefore Lineker is five times worse than Hitler when it comes to tax avoidance and not paying his way in society, disgusting. See, easy.

Can we just confirm then CanaryDan23 that the left are claiming Gary Lineker, who owes £4.9m to HMRC as a result of tax avoidance, as being one of their own? Is he one of yours? And none of this argument is at all convenient to Gary Lineker as it means the headlines are all about this free speech / impartiality dispute, rather than about the appeal he launched a few days earlier to try and get out of paying this £4.9m? Would pay the salary of 147 nurses for a year that money.

Their Premier League has 8 teams and has no relegation. Two of those teams aren't even from Singapore, but of a farce really (one is a Japanese B Team / Feeder team).

I can't remember if it were Grant Holt on his time in Singapore or Jamie Cureton on his time in Korea, but one of them said the experience was incredible, had a huge villa with swimming pool and treated like a king etc. Judging by the goals records, I guess it was Holt who was happy with the experience, as Cureton actually struggled in Korea.

It was.... but it was in March.

The most depressing thing is the tens of millions of quid they'll now pay to have an "inquiry" into impartiality guidelines which will last many years and then come up with a report with loads of redacted text with a recommendation that a few guidelines change, a change that Sally the secretary could have knocked up in 30 minutes using her common sense after a strong coffee.

Your reading comprehension is very poor. "have a particular responsibility" does not mean what you think it does, it does not exclude anybody.

Right, but other big name BBC presenters have left the BBC for (probably) lesser paid jobs in order to be able to speak more freely about their views. This includes Paxman and Marr (one's a right winger, the other is a liberal). Andrew Marr as spoken out about this very immigration policy, but he did so in the New Statesmen, and on LBC, his new places of work. Why does no other BBC employee have a problem with following the rules at the BBC, and then leaving when they decide they don't want to anymore? Why does Gary Lineker think the laws don't apply to him, that he can do what he wants, and don't you think that might wind up other BBC presenters? I'm all for BBC scrapping their impartiality laws entirely. But scrap the license fee in the process. They'll rely on commercial ad revenues then, but wouldn't be able to afford to pay Lineker a seven figure salary. They'd be in exactly the same position as LBC etc then wouldn't they, Lineker could say what he wanted. Only, he could go and do that now, work for any ad supported network Don't expect an ad supported network to be some sort of liberal-left paradise though, they'll be at the mercy of their paymasters, and they are all corporate behemoths who don't want to pay more tax to fund public services.

We'll find out in due course. I mean, he hasn't actually been terminated has he so this is all pre-empting that anyway, could be back on the air next week. They make it sound like he'll be back on air once they have reached an agreement about this social media usage. What if he doesn't currently have the same contractual obligations as BBC staff but they are going to ask him to commit to them going forward? I think the social media guidelines tough, which is clearly the relevant section here, state "all BBC staff", and don't distinguish between news/editorial staff and other staff. Whether as a contractor he has committed to the same rules or not is the unknown bit.

Isn't that what I just said?

Shame you didn't read the section dedicated to social media then isn't it, which makes no such distinction, seeing as this all relates to a tweet, you certainly haven't copied that excerpt from it. You would have found all this for a start, which Lineker has ignored time and time again (particularly the second, but also the first on occasion). The only bone of contention is whether as technically a contractor he is subjected to the same policy. I know that at my place of employment contractors agree to the same company policies as us full time staff. They should not: state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’ exhort a change in high-profile public policy speak or write publicly about the BBC without specific, prior approval from the relevant head of department. Rare exceptions, for example, when an individual is personally affected by a specific matter, must be declared as a conflict so that mitigating action can be taken.

"Works on a freelance basis" You mean gets paid via a ltd company instead of PAYE so he can pay less tax, before getting on twitter to lecture the government on how they should be spending tax revenues. But I mean, neither of us know the answer to that. If the BBC were to sack him then they'd need to be confident that he is actually in breach of his contract wouldn't they, otherwise they'll end up in the courts. Of course, it wouldn't really be a "sacking" would it, if he's not an employee, as you point out, Lineker wouldn't be able to sue them for unfair or constructive dismissal, his shell company would have to sue for breach of contract, if he/they believe a breach has occurred.

Exactly, that's the boring bit. Commentary is enough.

Sounds perfect. When everybody decides that they only really need the match highlights with commentary and that they actually really like that format, and the shorter length of the show, they could save a fortune by not paying Linker, Wright and Shearer.

They got rid of Clarkson for a catalogue of behaviour problems, rule breaches and controversies which concluded with that incident, yes. This is not Lineker's first reprimand for breaching impartiality rules, he has done it consistently on Twitter, he was already sailing close to the wind. Its not complicated from where I'm sitting. The BBC have a very clear set of rules on impartiality. Lineker has breached those rules continuously, and therefore could be considered to be in breach of contract. We all have rules set by our employers, if you work in Asda you are supposed to wear an Asda polo shirt, if you turn up to work in a Fred Perry polo shirt you can expect to get in trouble. If you play football and you gamble on football games you are in breach of very clear guidelines and can expect to get into trouble. There is nothing illegal or immoral about wearing Fred Perry polo shirts and or going into a bookies in a general sense, but when applied to specific jobs or industries then clearly they become a problem. If Lineker doesn't agree with the BBC rules on impartiality then he shouldn't have signed his contract. You can't expect to work on a building site if you aren't prepared to wear a helmet.

I'm pretty sure the EDL saw counter protests pretty much wherever they went. Britain First less so, because they never really built any momentum offline, they were clearly just a merch machine anyway, Golding and Fransen were full time t-shirt and hoodie sellers really.

The BBC have stated that it is untrue, that it was also going to be 5 episode long serious, then an additional feature length / film from a different production company licensed for iPlayer. Anybody will be able to watch it on iPlayer. "This is totally inaccurate, there is no ‘6th episode’. Wild Isles is – and always was - a five-part series" "We acquired a separate film for iPlayer from the RSPB, WWF and Silverback Films about people working to preserve and restore the biodiversity of the British Isles."

Why did Britain First never manage to gather more than about 300 people then, and why did hardly any of them have any front teeth.

Oh yeah, because the BBC have never sacked any right wingers for their behaviour have they, Jeremy Clarkson is David Cameron's best mate isn't he? Jeremy Paxman managed to host Newsnight for 25 years without ever telling anybody his political views. He managed that despite being the BBCs flagship political presenter. When he left Newsnight and started making documentaries for Channel 4 he then made it very clear that he was a One Nation Conservative. He chose to leave the BBC, and then he was able to express his personal opinions more freely. Gary Lineker for years has acted like he is above the BBCs strict impartiality laws, like he's too big to be sacked, despite numerous warnings. That's despite being a football presenter. He could leave and work for any number of other broadcasters where he is then free to air his views and use his huge Twitter platform however he sees fit, just like Andrew Neil and Jeremy Paxman elected to do, but of course he knows he'd earn a lot less money on Talk TV or LBC or wherever it is that he'd end up, so he basically wants his cake and to eat it.

Not least because you could find a way to draw parallels between literally anything and the Nazi government, they were in power for 12 years. Wear Hugo Boss? That's Nazi. Drive a VW? That's Nazi.

Always love an Orwell reference, however not sure this one quite works in the context of censoring Gary Lineker....who was criticised for a beer related advert four years ago, had a brother who ran a famous chain of pubs in his name, and who presents the countries most popular football programme.

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that you seem to develop a weird vitriol for anybody that you sense has got a few quid, and you'll subsequently look for faults in those people in everything they post. 100% of posters are bored of Essex Canary and his incessant whinging. For a few percent its ratcheted up a level because they are jealous that he might be sitting on £100k worth of shares. Your jealousy of Essex Canary is very evident.

So? Who cares? I mean, I think its nonsense, but if when Cristiano Ronaldo donated $83,000 to pay for that kid to have brain surgery, his PR representative said "you know, we should publicise it, its good for optics and your reputation" Why does that matter to you? Would it be preferable to you if Cristiano Ronaldo let the kid die? Strange logic. I think if you objected to that then you'd be letting your jealous of somebody having $83,000 in spare cash lying around override your joy that some kid is getting the life saving surgery that he needs, and that this would reflect a lot worse on you than it would on Cristiano Ronaldo. But you do you, you've always done a great job of showing your envy whenever you get a sniff that somebody has a few quid. Everybody is very bored of Essex Canary's whingeing, but I think its evident that with a few posters there might be a slight tinge of jealousy coming through that he's set to see a big lump sum come his way. Comparison is the thief of joy Greavsy, remember that.