Well mine isn't an opinion as such whereas yours clearly is. But based on what premise?
The last time I had any involvement in a HMRC case about tax payments for freelance works, it went like this - a week of submissions by both sides of the case as to why the person in question should or should not be treated as a free lance. A month during which the judge considered the evidence and statements made to support/ challenge that evidence. Two days during which the judge asked questions, required further evidence from the parties to cover certain details. Another month before the Judge convened a day to announce his decision and the reasons for it.
The appeal aginst the HMRC was in 2019, the actual Tribunal hearing was last month before the tweet.
So essentially what your saying, with it seems no evidence to back that up, that during the time the judge was considering the case based on the evidence etc. one tweet from Lineker was carefully timed to sway his influence?
Not only that but it presupposes that Lineker knew what the effect of that one tweet, would be. Which he clearly didn't as the day after he was saying thankfully the overreaction was going away or words to that effect. Then Davie suddenly took the decision to suspend him on the Friday.
Incidentally both Lorraine Kelly and Kaye Adams both won their similar appeals.
I mean its stretching the bounds of credibility to arrive at a conclusion that suggests it was done deliberately, given that judges aren't known for basing decisions on cases on one example and ignoring the rest of the evidence.
I mean yes its your opinion, but its not one based on any factual evidence which makes it a rather easy to demolish. Really didn't think you and AF had gone so far up the wormhole, you now see conspiracies where no person of average reasoning would.
I mean I can have an opinion that black is white, but that doesn't mean thats the case!