Boycott MOTD

[ramAnag]

Rather than trying to convert this thread into yet another "rA bashes Boris part 27" thread, why not start another one rather than cross threading two different issues?

It’s not about ‘bashing Boris’, GP...it’s about perspective. I fear you’re being a tad over sensitive, but don’t you think it’s a tad odd to get our collective national knickers in a twist over a football pundit’s tax and relationship with the BBC when so little is said about the BBC Chairman’s relationship with Johnson and his donations to the Tory Party?
Seems to warrant more attention than GL’s comments/tax to me and yes, I could have put it on the ‘Careless Tories’ thread, but this one seemed quite apposite in the circumstances.

[swaledale]

Then we will have to differ in opinion

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!

[swaledale]

It’s not about ‘bashing Boris’, GP...it’s about perspective. I fear you’re being a tad over sensitive, but don’t you think it’s a tad odd to get our collective national knickers in a twist over a football pundit’s tax and relationship with the BBC when so little is said about the BBC Chairman’s relationship with Johnson and his donations to the Tory Party?
Seems to warrant more attention than GL’s comments/tax to me and yes, I could have put it on the ‘Careless Tories’ thread, but this one seemed quite apposite in the circumstances.

No no rA, you don't understand, Lineker is guilty! They are not entirely sure what of, but hey they will come up with something!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

I've worked on many an IR35 and understand the process, don't need another lecture thanks.

The big difference here is the huge personality involved in this case and the recent failure of several other minor personalities to win their case. The splash of exposure and public sympathy stemming from twittergate may not be "admissible evidence" but I don't doubt that it could have influenced a marginal decision. Even if it didn't influence the decision, the advisors may have thought it was a tactic worthy of trying. Call me cynical if you will but it makes sense to drum up public sympathy whichever way the decision went. It's about management of celebrity personalities and exposure in today's social media obsessed world.

If he'd lost the case, which may have seemed likely after the other 3, it could all be blamed on the heirarchy being out to get him for running his mouth. Astute media management allied to tax planning....

[Geoff Parkstone]

I mean I can have an opinion that black is white, but that doesn't mean thats the case!

Not sure that analogy qualifies as politically accrptable

[Andy_Faber]

Well mine isn't an opinion as such whereas yours clearly is.

Bad news.

'I'd be very surprised if it had any effect on the final outcome'...is expressing an opinion

[MadAmster]

Bad news.

'I'd be very surprised if it had any effect on the final outcome'...is expressing an opinion

... or expressing the fact that he'd be very surprised if it had any effect on the final outcome

[swaledale]

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

I've worked on many an IR35 and understand the process, don't need another lecture thanks.

The big difference here is the huge personality involved in this case and the recent failure of several other minor personalities to win their case. The splash of exposure and public sympathy stemming from twittergate may not be "admissible evidence" but I don't doubt that it could have influenced a marginal decision. Even if it didn't influence the decision, the advisors may have thought it was a tactic worthy of trying. Call me cynical if you will but it makes sense to drum up public sympathy whichever way the decision went. It's about management of celebrity personalities and exposure in today's social media obsessed world.

If he'd lost the case, which may have seemed likely after the other 3, it could all be blamed on the heirarchy being out to get him for running his mouth. Astute media management allied to tax planning....

Yet two TV presenters actually won their cases which were similar, so your plucking evidence that suits your view and ignoring that which doesn't.

Timing doesn't work, twittergate was after the tribunal had been held, really can't see a judge being influenced during their assessment of a case by that. I'd say you were excessively cynical and stretching credibility that Lineker and his advisors would be able to forecast the reaction from his tweet. Plus his tweet wasn't out of character, its not like he hasn't done it before!

Somebodys been drinking the Kool Aid

[swaledale]

Bad news.

'I'd be very surprised if it had any effect on the final outcome'...is expressing an opinion

An opinion would surely be I don't believe it had any effect on the final outcome?

[swaledale]

Not sure that analogy qualifies as politically accrptable

Not sure which world you inhabit, but in mine, black and white are colours, WTF does politics has to do with it?