Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Lineker and Attenborough
Comments
-
Even the BBC don’t think they employ Lineker.msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.7 -
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like that4 -
You reckon wrongmsomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.8 -
that did not answer my question to begin with. Again the decision would not be ruled in the courts. And the key issue with the ruling to uber drivers is the Uber controlled there employmen wholly. If uber did not give them work then they did not work and ABSOULUTELY key is there was an obligation to work. Now lets look at deliveroo drivers. They raised a case agaisnt Deliveroo in exactly the same manner and lost there case. The tribunal ruling that they were contractros and not employees..msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like that
So whilst you have cited uber drivers you have not actually explained what court would deem Gary Lineker an employee. Further to this you have not explained how the judgement related to Uber drivers has any binding power over the BBC's decision to not consider Gary Linker an employee.
Ive read both the judgements on Uber driver and also on deliveroo drivers so id love to hear how you think the Uber case applies to the BBC and Gary. You have actually read the judgement in the Uber case before telling me to go and have a look at it haven't you ?
4 -
msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like thatLineker is the same as an Uber driver? Of course he is - how silly of us (including the BBC) not to see that similarity!He contacts to the BBC, BT, ITV, Walkers and has his own production company.He is 100% a self-employed freelancer.
9 -
And yet subject to HMRC investigation of his tax status as such.bobmunro said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like thatLineker is the same as an Uber driver? Of course he is - how silly of us (including the BBC) not to see that similarity!He contacts to the BBC, BT, ITV, Walkers and has his own production company.He is 100% a self-employed freelancer.1 -
That's because HMRC doesn't know its arse from elbow on IR35 and lose more cases than they win.valleynick66 said:
And yet subject to HMRC investigation of his tax status as such.bobmunro said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like thatLineker is the same as an Uber driver? Of course he is - how silly of us (including the BBC) not to see that similarity!He contacts to the BBC, BT, ITV, Walkers and has his own production company.He is 100% a self-employed freelancer.4 -
valleynick66 said:
And yet subject to HMRC investigation of his tax status as such.bobmunro said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like thatLineker is the same as an Uber driver? Of course he is - how silly of us (including the BBC) not to see that similarity!He contacts to the BBC, BT, ITV, Walkers and has his own production company.He is 100% a self-employed freelancer.It was at the insistence of the BBC that he was deemed a freelancer and paid through a limited company and it is the employer's responsibility to determine the tax status. I would bet a pound to a penny that Lineker will defend the investigation successfully.The point about whether or not he is an employee is immaterial as the BBC took the action they did a couple of days ago whilst insisting that he was a freelancer.2 -
A very sad but a post that needed to be said. Thank you.Gary Poole said:With apologies to @kentaddick and others who have direct family links to the holocaust. I would like to make this point and am in no way suggesting Linekar’s comments related directly to that greatest of atrocities
i have studied that chapter in history extensively with a professional interest working in forensic psychiatry, with a view to wanting to understand how so many people participated in such a horrific act. I have read numerous texts on the subject and have traveled throughout Europe visiting the death camps where these crimes were perpetrated.But without doubt the most shocking thing for me is not what I read or saw, but was when my eldest daughter was twelve she was taught about it at school. She has autism and a learning disability alongside other considerable medical issues. She said to me ‘dad if I was around when the Nazis were in Germany they would have killed me’.
I nearly cried because she was right.
It is not correct to suggest that our current government have acted anywhere near like the Nazis, but it is also dangerous to not allow them to be challenged when they drift towards that path. The opportunities to stop totalitarian regimes only exist at the start of those regimes5 - Sponsored links:
-
I’m only adding to your comment on his worker status. Of course he will defend it as other presenters have. Some successfully, some not.bobmunro said:valleynick66 said:
And yet subject to HMRC investigation of his tax status as such.bobmunro said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like thatLineker is the same as an Uber driver? Of course he is - how silly of us (including the BBC) not to see that similarity!He contacts to the BBC, BT, ITV, Walkers and has his own production company.He is 100% a self-employed freelancer.It was at the insistence of the BBC that he was deemed a freelancer and paid through a limited company and it is the employer's responsibility to determine the tax status. I would bet a pound to a penny that Lineker will defend the investigation successfully.The point about whether or not he is an employee is immaterial as the BBC took the action they did a couple of days ago whilst insisting that he was a freelancer.I have no issue with his tweets. They are his views and not the BBC and I don’t think anyone really confuses the two. I took minimal notice until now!
HMRC are generally reported as pursuing high profile names to try and justify their tightening of legislation on IR35 and prove points etc.0 -
If he is freelance, he is not under contract? Correct?
If not under contract he could be released tomorrow?
If he is operating as a limited company, isn’t he in effect, a sole trader to the BBC?
Couldnt give a toss about Lineker to be honest, but am interested in IR35 law1 -
If he's freelance he won't have an employment contract but instead a contract to provide services. There are likely to be notice provisions both ways. I worked under such contracts (for rather less money) for a good few years before falling within ir35 and essentially becoming an employee under an umbrella company, which was an admin headache.R0TW said:If he is freelance, he is not under contract? Correct?
If not under contract he could be released tomorrow?
Couldnt give a toss about Lineker to be honest, but am interested in IR35 law
If he's operating as a limited company then he's not a sole trader - that's kind of the point of the limited company arrangement.1 -
Nope. He has "A " contract with the BBC and also contracts with other companies at the same time.R0TW said:If he is freelance, he is not under contract? Correct?
If not under contract he could be released tomorrow?
Couldnt give a toss about Lineker to be honest, but am interested in IR35 law
If it was as simple as end the contract then they'd have done that straight away.0 -
I might be wrong, but I dont think Gary Lineker posts on here. In which case you might be in for a long wait for the answers to those questions.R0TW said:If he is freelance, he is not under contract? Correct?
If not under contract he could be released tomorrow?
If he is operating as a limited company, isn’t he in effect, a sole trader to the BBC?
Couldnt give a toss about Lineker to be honest, but am interested in IR35 law10 -
The world is full of fucking comedians.0
-
I pay a builder to put up an extension.Am I therefore his employer?
of course not.1 -
I worked "freelance" for many years and always had a contract.R0TW said:If he is freelance, he is not under contract? Correct?
If not under contract he could be released tomorrow?
If he is operating as a limited company, isn’t he in effect, a sole trader to the BBC?
Couldnt give a toss about Lineker to be honest, but am interested in IR35 law1 -
Because the vast majority of his employment is for the BBC.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like that
that did not answer my question to begin with. Again the decision would not be ruled in the courts. And the key issue with the ruling to uber drivers is the Uber controlled there employmen wholly. If uber did not give them work then they did not work and ABSOULUTELY key is there was an obligation to work. Now lets look at deliveroo drivers. They raised a case agaisnt Deliveroo in exactly the same manner and lost there case. The tribunal ruling that they were contractros and not employees..
So whilst you have cited uber drivers you have not actually explained what court would deem Gary Lineker an employee. Further to this you have not explained how the judgement related to Uber drivers has any binding power over the BBC's decision to not consider Gary Linker an employee.
Ive read both the judgements on Uber driver and also on deliveroo drivers so id love to hear how you think the Uber case applies to the BBC and Gary. You have actually read the judgement in the Uber case before telling me to go and have a look at it haven't you ?0 -
seth plum said:People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs.
A vote is an action.
Yet without division, there'd be no vote. I can accept other's voting as they do without hating them. That doesn't mean I agree with what they're voting for.2 - Sponsored links:
-
msomerton said:
Because the vast majority of his employment is for the BBC.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like that
that did not answer my question to begin with. Again the decision would not be ruled in the courts. And the key issue with the ruling to uber drivers is the Uber controlled there employmen wholly. If uber did not give them work then they did not work and ABSOULUTELY key is there was an obligation to work. Now lets look at deliveroo drivers. They raised a case agaisnt Deliveroo in exactly the same manner and lost there case. The tribunal ruling that they were contractros and not employees..
So whilst you have cited uber drivers you have not actually explained what court would deem Gary Lineker an employee. Further to this you have not explained how the judgement related to Uber drivers has any binding power over the BBC's decision to not consider Gary Linker an employee.
Ive read both the judgements on Uber driver and also on deliveroo drivers so id love to hear how you think the Uber case applies to the BBC and Gary. You have actually read the judgement in the Uber case before telling me to go and have a look at it haven't you ?He earns almost as much from Walkers as he does from the BBC.Irrelevant anyway as the BBC consider him to be self-employed and not an employee and the current IR35 regulations rests the responsibility for determining tax status on the employer.1 -
He works for the BBC around 35-45 days a year. A few more in a world cup or euros year, but a tiny proportion of the 252 working days in a yearmsomerton said:
Because the vast majority of his employment is for the BBC.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Simple look at judgements in favour of uber drivers.Northstandpieeater said:msomerton said:
Lineker might be a contractor, but the vast majority of his work is for the BBC and of course his current celebrity is due to his BBC profile. So i would reckon any court would rule he is to all intents and purposes an employer of the BBC.JamesSeed said:
I wish you’d pay people the respect of reading at least of the preceding posts. If you had I don’t think you’d have written this.msomerton said:Sorry folks the BBC wright to
Take action against Lineker.
It needs to be seen as impartial. It is there to present the news and evidence of what is happening not make judgements
If Lineker had been sanctioned after tweeting in support of the government's refuge policy would there be the uproar we have now. Would his colleagues be taking action. I doubt it.
so what courts would rule he is an employee then and does that mean he is owed holiday and sick time now. because the rules relating to an employment contract if challenged would not actually be ruled in the courts, not to begin with at least. I have not seen anywhere the BBC challenge his status as a freelance, quite why they would open themselves up to years of national insurance contributions and holiday and sick time they have avoided eludes me. Also I am pretty sure Gary Lineker is famous for reasons that extend beyond the BBC, something about being an ex footballer or something like that
that did not answer my question to begin with. Again the decision would not be ruled in the courts. And the key issue with the ruling to uber drivers is the Uber controlled there employmen wholly. If uber did not give them work then they did not work and ABSOULUTELY key is there was an obligation to work. Now lets look at deliveroo drivers. They raised a case agaisnt Deliveroo in exactly the same manner and lost there case. The tribunal ruling that they were contractros and not employees..
So whilst you have cited uber drivers you have not actually explained what court would deem Gary Lineker an employee. Further to this you have not explained how the judgement related to Uber drivers has any binding power over the BBC's decision to not consider Gary Linker an employee.
Ive read both the judgements on Uber driver and also on deliveroo drivers so id love to hear how you think the Uber case applies to the BBC and Gary. You have actually read the judgement in the Uber case before telling me to go and have a look at it haven't you ?2 -
I have to say it’s noticeable how one side of this debate has fallen into weird semantic debates such as “Hitler wasn’t democratically elected” or “Lineker isn’t actually a freelancer”.
I wonder why that might be…8 -
The central issue isn’t whether Lineker is or isn’t BBC staff, it’s whether the government is trying to silence criticism, and whether their political appointees at the BBC apply undue influence.I hope that Labour will hold an inquiry into political control at the BBC if it wins the next election. Its independence needs to be restored asap if it’s going to rebuild its credibility. It’s never going to be perfect, but it’s a long, long, long way from that now.14
-
As someone in the “Hitler wasn’t democratically elected” discussion I’d love to know why I’ve done that. Please let me know…Callumcafc said:I have to say it’s noticeable how one side of this debate has fallen into weird semantic debates such as “Hitler wasn’t democratically elected” or “Lineker isn’t actually a freelancer”.
I wonder why that might be…
.1 -
3 -
He's hardly a socialist, more of a liberal. Criticised Corbyn in tweets that weren't deemed a threat to the BBC's "impartiality".Silverdreammachine said:Believe Saint Gary used to play for Spurs who have a large Jewish support from nearby Stamford Hill and Golders Green, surely they don't want to be reminded about Germany in the 30's. Very insensitive of the Champagne Socialist.
Out of interest what do you call poor conservatives? Sewage-water drinkers? Or is it only rich people having values that don't match their perceived economic interests something to slag off?14 -
He’s probably Blairite Labour isn’t he?rananegra said:
He's hardly a socialist, more of a liberal. Criticised Corbyn in tweets that weren't deemed a threat to the BBC's "impartiality".Silverdreammachine said:Believe Saint Gary used to play for Spurs who have a large Jewish support from nearby Stamford Hill and Golders Green, surely they don't want to be reminded about Germany in the 30's. Very insensitive of the Champagne Socialist.
Out of interest what do you call poor conservatives? Sewage-water drinkers? Or is it only rich people having values that don't match their perceived economic interests something to slag off?btw is being a champagne socialist supposed to be a bad thing @Silverdreammachine ? 🍾🥂1 -
Self harmers?rananegra said:
He's hardly a socialist, more of a liberal. Criticised Corbyn in tweets that weren't deemed a threat to the BBC's "impartiality".Silverdreammachine said:Believe Saint Gary used to play for Spurs who have a large Jewish support from nearby Stamford Hill and Golders Green, surely they don't want to be reminded about Germany in the 30's. Very insensitive of the Champagne Socialist.
Out of interest what do you call poor conservatives? Sewage-water drinkers? Or is it only rich people having values that don't match their perceived economic interests something to slag off?4
This discussion has been closed.
