Gary Lineker

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by evensteadiereddie » Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:45 pm

Rowls wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:20 pm
:lol: :lol: :lol:

As somebody who is very open about my right wing views on the virtues of low taxation (especially for the lowest paid in society) I can confirm I'm delighted that Lineker won his case.

"Hacked off" is for Hugh Grant and Prince Harry.
Mmmm not so sure Hugh Grant and Prince Harry post on here or fall into the right wing nut job category.
It's possible, I suppose.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by tiger76 » Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:45 pm

I certainly don't claim to be that clued up in these matters, however although in principle I agree about ideally wanting to cut people's tax bills, that move doesn't come without consequences for the masses regarding lacking the money to run vital public services such as the NHS which we all rely upon in times of need.

The reality is there is no one simple solution, although it does appear that someone like Lineker who can no doubt afford the top accountants and lawyers will have much more chance of winning this kind of case than the average person or small business would.
These 2 users liked this post: Rowls beeholeclaret

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Rowls » Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:52 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:45 pm
I certainly don't claim to be that clued up in these matters, however although in principle I agree about ideally wanting to cut people's tax bills, that move doesn't come without consequences for the masses regarding lacking the money to run vital public services such as the NHS which we all rely upon in times of need.

The reality is there is no one simple solution, although it does appear that someone like Lineker who can no doubt afford the top accountants and lawyers will have much more chance of winning this kind of case than the average person or small business would.
Good post tiger.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Big Vinny K » Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:56 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:29 pm
Comparing Consultancies to contractors is erroneous because the Consultancy employs the consultants who pay PAYE. It's quite possible the Consultancies are then employing consultants but most I know pay PAYE albeit I guess some will be self-employed.

Morally and ethically, Lineker is an employee of the BBC.

As I state above. Loads of people on very ordinary wages who work for different organisations are forced to pay PAYE. Even agency workers have to pay PAYE when working for lots of companies.

It's one law for ordinary workers and another for the well paid or those who are prepared to do it.

And yes lots of people get into hot water over their tax status. The HMRC is not a frivolous organisation it collects the money that pays for the schools and social care. If it takes legal action it will do so with some intent to win.

And if it loses then we are all poorer as a community...!
Not comparing anything. I’m saying many people in that industry (and many other industries) set themselves up as consultants or contractors. It’s the same thing.

Even though you have repeated it Lineker is not an employee of the BBC. Do you think Lineker is on his own here ?
People in this country of a legal choice whether they work for an agency or as an employee or set up their own business. There are more than 4 million businesses in this country and consultancy (or contractors) is one of the biggest sectors. If this was in any way immoral or illegal or cheating the tax system why would HMRC or any government allow it ? Why would the BBC allow most of the people who present their tv or radio programmes to do this on a contract basis rather than as an employee ?

It’s not one rule for the ordinary workers and one for the well paid. It’s the same taxation rule if you set yourself up as consultancy business and earn the equivalent of minimum wage or if you are very successful like Lineker and earn millions a year. Just like it’s the same taxation laws if you are an employee on minimum wage or the CEO earning millions a year.

The taxation laws for Linekers company based on the levels of reported money he earns means he is very likely to be paying around 60% in corporation and personal tax. That also applies to for example a well known local business in Burnley who has had ongoing contracts with the the same local councils for the last 20 years plus. That business earns millions and the owner of that business is subject to the same tax rules as Lineker as owner of his business. What is the difference between someone who has had a contract with the BBC and other companies for more than a decade and someone who has had a contract with the council for decades ?

As for the HMRC not being a frivolous organisation is that a serious comment ? Do you think that HMRC do not spend millions a year on the very contractors and consultants you are talking about ?!!

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Big Vinny K » Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:07 pm

tiger76 wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:45 pm
I certainly don't claim to be that clued up in these matters, however although in principle I agree about ideally wanting to cut people's tax bills, that move doesn't come without consequences for the masses regarding lacking the money to run vital public services such as the NHS which we all rely upon in times of need.

The reality is there is no one simple solution, although it does appear that someone like Lineker who can no doubt afford the top accountants and lawyers will have much more chance of winning this kind of case than the average person or small business would.
What would you expect a wealthy person like Lineker to do tiger ? Employ a cheap lawyer or accountant with no expertise ?

As it happens most half decent accountants and lawyers are more than familiar with the technicalities of IR35. It does not require one of the top firms to represent you but if HMRC are coming after you for £5m then you are probably a person who is represented by one of the more expensive firms.

Nearly all contractors will take the advice from their accountant as to whether they risk falling foul of IR35. If HMRC decide to pursue you (this happens to a very small fraction of contractors) then you fight your case based on the advice the accountant will have given you.

Lineker is one of hundreds of thousands of people who have set themselves up as a business because they are freelance or consultants or IT contractors etc etc

StuffyClaret
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 8:15 am
Been Liked: 144 times
Has Liked: 93 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by StuffyClaret » Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm

Turns out that this had nothing to do with IR35...

https://www-accountancyage-com.cdn.ampp ... all/?amp=1

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Devils_Advocate » Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:40 pm

Notions of being a low tax / high tax economy is useless in a discussion on its own with out talking about what and who you are taxing. We can easily raise taxes whilst simultaneous reducing the tax burden of those at the bottom of society.

There are some simple solutions if we had the political will around looking at things like raising Capaital Gains Tax and tax on dividends where a lot of the super rich accumulate their vast wealth and we can look at creating much higher rates of tax bandings for people who earn in excess of 7 figures where we could easily be looking at tax rates of 90%+

Of course the people who make our tax laws, the rich donors who fund the politicians who make our tax laws and the media moguls who control the political narrative around subjects like this hugely benefit from not making these changes and therefore it doesn't happen.

Due to the complete under investment we have seen over the last 13 years we need to raise taxes and we need to invest money in our public services and infrastructure but this should be done by targeting tax measures that discriminately target those better placed to afford it and be able to manage that burden and so keep money in the pockets of everyday people who whose spending will go directly back into the economy and not in the pockets of people who will siphen it into offshore tax havens or into fixed assets that add no value except to that individual.

In terms of Gary Lineker the key for me around these kind of subjects is not whether the take advantage of the poor tax laws that exist but are the willing to vote against their interests for a party willing to change these laws and make them individually worse off for the better of the wider society. This seems to be something the right wing of politics fail to understand is that you can be progressive and on the left and still make money and be rich and take advantage of whats available but that you are willing to vote against your best interests for the better of society.

The key difference is that the Tory politicians, donors, activists, media people do everything they can to keep these laws and keep society weighted in their favour and I dont think they can honestly grasp the concept that others do the best for themselves whilst at the same time actively campaign and vote for the better of others
This user liked this post: Greenmile

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by aggi » Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:59 pm

StuffyClaret wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pm
Turns out that this had nothing to do with IR35...

https://www-accountancyage-com.cdn.ampp ... all/?amp=1
This is a nicer link https://www.accountancyage.com/2023/03/ ... after-all/ (and has also made me wonder why I no longer get sent copies of Accountancy Age).

Full judgement is here for anyone who enjoys that kind of thing.
https://financeandtax.decisions.tribuna ... 008774.pdf
Sounds like HMRC were potentially looking to set a precedent here (and failed). I'm intrigued by where the £5m came from though if taxes were being paid via a partnership (i.e. as income).

Rowls
Posts: 13163
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:00 pm
Been Liked: 5065 times
Has Liked: 5124 times
Location: Montpellier, France

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Rowls » Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pm

Hi Devil's Advocate

Steady on with posting genuine opinions - you've got a persona to maintain! ;)

In response to your points:

The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.

This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.

It's super if people are willing to vote against their own personal interest (that certainly shows a good degree on principle) but it doesn't follow that people who do vote for things that are in their own personal interest are voting without principle.

To specifically address this point:
Devils_Advocate wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:40 pm
In terms of Gary Lineker the key for me around these kind of subjects is not whether the take advantage of the poor tax laws that exist but are the willing to vote against their interests for a party willing to change these laws and make them individually worse off for the better of the wider society. This seems to be something the right wing of politics fail to understand is that you can be progressive and on the left and still make money and be rich and take advantage of whats available but that you are willing to vote against your best interests for the better of society.
The response to this is that nobody is obliged to pay more tax than the legal minimum. Lineker can pay the legal minimum and campaign for higher taxes for rich people like himself.

That's what the likes of Richard Curtis, Simon Pegg and a number of US celebrities are campaigning for:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/b ... 42091.html

The flaw in this "please tax me more" argument is that any of these people are free to post a cheque to the exchequer at any time. It will cost them the price of a postage stamp + piece of paper and it should take around 10 minutes of their time.

To put it frankly, it's something that rings hollow to me in the UK. I'm not sure if you can give money to the government in the US but I'm confident you can. If for some reason the US government refuses donations then the US celebrities might have a point (I doubt it, but prepared to review this).

So let's make a comparison: When people on the right challenged Lineker to take in an immigrant to demonstrate his commitment to his principles and he did so it's only fair to congratulate him for going beyond mere words and actually undertaking a charitable action. You might argue that he could have vetted the immigrant and that in that sense it's not quite a parallel to the uncontrolled nature of immigration but IMO that's unfair on Lineker's charity. He deserves genuine credit for that and sniping would be petty.

The equivalent in terms of demonstrating their principles for the "please tax me more" campaign group would be when they show proof of sending off those cheques voluntarily.

Lineker stepped up on immigration. I'm not aware of the "please taxe me more" campaigners making equivalent demonstrations that they are prepared to go beyond paying the legal minimum requirement in tax. The only thing stopping them is the aforementioned price of a stamp.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Devils_Advocate » Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:40 pm

Rowls wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pm
Hi Devil's Advocate

Steady on with posting genuine opinions - you've got a persona to maintain! ;)

In response to your points:

The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.

This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.

It's super if people are willing to vote against their own personal interest (that certainly shows a good degree on principle) but it doesn't follow that people who do vote for things that are in their own personal interest are voting without principle.

To specifically address this point:



The response to this is that nobody is obliged to pay more tax than the legal minimum. Lineker can pay the legal minimum and campaign for higher taxes for rich people like himself.

That's what the likes of Richard Curtis, Simon Pegg and a number of US celebrities are campaigning for:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/b ... 42091.html

The flaw in this "please tax me more" argument is that any of these people are free to post a cheque to the exchequer at any time. It will cost them the price of a postage stamp + piece of paper and it should take around 10 minutes of their time.

To put it frankly, it's something that rings hollow to me in the UK. I'm not sure if you can give money to the government in the US but I'm confident you can. If for some reason the US government refuses donations then the US celebrities might have a point (I doubt it, but prepared to review this).

So let's make a comparison: When people on the right challenged Lineker to take in an immigrant to demonstrate his commitment to his principles and he did so it's only fair to congratulate him for going beyond mere words and actually undertaking a charitable action. You might argue that he could have vetted the immigrant and that in that sense it's not quite a parallel to the uncontrolled nature of immigration but IMO that's unfair on Lineker's charity. He deserves genuine credit for that and sniping would be petty.

The equivalent in terms of standing by your principles for the "please tax me more" campaign group would be when they show proof of sending off those cheques voluntarily.

Lineker stepped up on immigration. I'm not aware of the "please taxe me more" campaigners making equivalent demonstrations that they are prepared to go beyond paying the legal minimum requirement in tax. The only thing stopping them is the aforementioned price of a stamp.
The rich may be paying a larger % but they can afford to pay more and its investment that the country needs desparately

The flaw in your agument is that unless the law is changed to apply to all people then the tiny percentage who are willing to pay more will have little effect. Your notion of "you are free to pay more if you wish" is one of the most childlike and rediculous arguments you have ever come out with on here. Furthermore its a notion which when taken to its extreme pretty much argues why bother having any tax laws at all when we can just let those people who are pricipled, willing and able enough to pay tax, just do so voluntarily.

Others have already pointed out to you your brazen lack of understanding but its worth reiterating your thinking on this subject is secondary school level thinking at best and thats probably me being generous.

So in summary your total response to my post amounts to the rich aleady pay enough and anyone rich who thinks society would benefit from taxes for the rich being hire should just mind their own business and make additional charitable payments

(I didn't even get into the question of why would the people in the article you linked charitably send money to a govt full of elites that just look after themselves and are up to their eyeballs in corruption)
This user liked this post: Greenmile

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Elizabeth » Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:55 pm

Gary Lineker was a great footballer and is a great presenter. I don't agree with his political views but it won't alter that opinion
This user liked this post: bfcmik

IanMcL
Posts: 30123
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6340 times
Has Liked: 8651 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by IanMcL » Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:01 pm

We should all earn enough to pay tax, if we do a week's work.

If we don't, the employers are not paying enough.
This user liked this post: Spindles

roperclaret
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 329 times
Has Liked: 37 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by roperclaret » Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:13 pm

Rowls wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pm
Hi Devil's Advocate

Steady on with posting genuine opinions - you've got a persona to maintain! ;)

In response to your points:

The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.

This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.

You do understand that this is because the pay gap between the rich and everyone else is just getting bigger right?

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by aggi » Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:17 pm

Rowls wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pm
...

The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.

This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.

...
This is a bit meaningless without also talking about how the rich also have a greater proportion of wealth than ever before.

Elizabeth
Posts: 4377
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Elizabeth » Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:30 pm

I try to stay out of these things but recent posts prompt me to say to these posters , wake up there’s always been that massive gap so there’s no need to invent a bigger gap

Billy Balfour
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Been Liked: 1857 times
Has Liked: 652 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Billy Balfour » Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:39 pm

Been some real effort put into this thread, at the end of the day, not one person has moved their position. You might as well rant at the clouds. Anyway, as you were. Bye.

roperclaret
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2022 10:18 pm
Been Liked: 329 times
Has Liked: 37 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by roperclaret » Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:48 pm

Elizabeth wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:30 pm
I try to stay out of these things but recent posts prompt me to say to these posters , wake up there’s always been that massive gap so there’s no need to invent a bigger gap
Yeah but Gini has increased from 25 in the 60’s to around 36 now. But the jump was in the 90’s it’s been about the same since

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Lancasterclaret » Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:01 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:39 pm
Been some real effort put into this thread, at the end of the day, not one person has moved their position. You might as well rant at the clouds. Anyway, as you were. Bye.
I feel terrible after all that effort Rowls went into finding all the stuff online that backed up his position to the hilt

He must have scrolled past literally thousands of graphs, articles and opinion pieces from experts that didn't and he never noticed

Amazing really

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by ClaretPete001 » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:42 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:56 pm
Not comparing anything. I’m saying many people in that industry (and many other industries) set themselves up as consultants or contractors. It’s the same thing.

Even though you have repeated it Lineker is not an employee of the BBC. Do you think Lineker is on his own here ?
People in this country of a legal choice whether they work for an agency or as an employee or set up their own business. There are more than 4 million businesses in this country and consultancy (or contractors) is one of the biggest sectors. If this was in any way immoral or illegal or cheating the tax system why would HMRC or any government allow it ? Why would the BBC allow most of the people who present their tv or radio programmes to do this on a contract basis rather than as an employee ?

It’s not one rule for the ordinary workers and one for the well paid. It’s the same taxation rule if you set yourself up as consultancy business and earn the equivalent of minimum wage or if you are very successful like Lineker and earn millions a year. Just like it’s the same taxation laws if you are an employee on minimum wage or the CEO earning millions a year.

The taxation laws for Linekers company based on the levels of reported money he earns means he is very likely to be paying around 60% in corporation and personal tax. That also applies to for example a well known local business in Burnley who has had ongoing contracts with the the same local councils for the last 20 years plus. That business earns millions and the owner of that business is subject to the same tax rules as Lineker as owner of his business. What is the difference between someone who has had a contract with the BBC and other companies for more than a decade and someone who has had a contract with the council for decades ?

As for the HMRC not being a frivolous organisation is that a serious comment ? Do you think that HMRC do not spend millions a year on the very contractors and consultants you are talking about ?!!
It's not the same thing. In any industry if you set yourself up as a sole trader and only work for 1 or 2 companies for a decade or more then you could find yourself in hot water with HMRC. It happens to a lot of people and it happened to Gary Lineker.

It is a a grey area open for interpretation but there is clearly a difference between a contractor working for a council who employs people etc. and Gary Lineker. If a local plumber or tradesman worked for a local council over a period of a decade or more substantive on hours with in an identifiable role then they could also get into hot water with HMRC.

Everybody knows this. If you are an agency worker working for lots of companies you will be on PAYE with the agency.

My point is not that Gary Lineker is an employer of the BBC legally but that ethically and morally Gary Lineker is an employee of the BBC. The fact that legislation fails to identify him as such is the issue.

And the fact that he can construct a self employed identity and save himself £4.5 million is another huge problem.

Ultimately, the less Gary Lineker pays the more the poor b*st*rds on minimum wage have to pay if you want decent public services.

It's not rocket science...! It's the ultimate failing of our social democracy and economy because if you can't tax rich people you can't re-distribute and if you can't re-distribute then no one has any money to spend to and you end up with permanent low growth, low productivity stagnant economy: ergo, the UK economy.

And this is he issue that has dogged 50 years of post-Thatcherite thinking. You simply cannot grow an economy if the vast majority of people have no money because the rich take it all and avoid tax.

Longsidelou
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 7:32 pm
Been Liked: 1 time

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Longsidelou » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:50 pm

Gary is a cock … and that’s a fact

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Jakubclaret » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:53 pm

He's hypocritical I think that much can be established with certainty even his most partisan supporters couldn't deny. Running with the hare & hunting with the hounds our good old crisp muncher.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Big Vinny K » Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:53 pm

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:42 pm
It's not the same thing. In any industry if you set yourself up as a sole trader and only work for 1 or 2 companies for a decade or more then you could find yourself in hot water with HMRC. It happens to a lot of people and it happened to Gary Lineker.

It is a a grey area open for interpretation but there is clearly a difference between a contractor working for a council who employs people etc. and Gary Lineker. If a local plumber or tradesman worked for a local council over a period of a decade or more substantive on hours with in an identifiable role then they could also get into hot water with HMRC.

Everybody knows this. If you are an agency worker working for lots of companies you will be on PAYE with the agency.

My point is not that Gary Lineker is an employer of the BBC legally but that ethically and morally Gary Lineker is an employee of the BBC. The fact that legislation fails to identify him as such is the issue.

And the fact that he can construct a self employed identity and save himself £4.5 million is another huge problem.

Ultimately, the less Gary Lineker pays the more the poor b*st*rds on minimum wage have to pay if you want decent public services.

It's not rocket science...! It's the ultimate failing of our social democracy and economy because if you can't tax rich people you can't re-distribute and if you can't re-distribute then no one has any money to spend to and you end up with permanent low growth, low productivity stagnant economy: ergo, the UK economy.

And this is he issue that has dogged 50 years of post-Thatcherite thinking. You simply cannot grow an economy if the vast majority of people have no money because the rich take it all and avoid tax.
So is paying 60% tax not a high enough rate for you ?
Yes Lineker earns a hell of a lot of money but he will also pay a hell of a lot of tax.

Exsus
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2023 11:11 am
Been Liked: 9 times
Has Liked: 142 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Exsus » Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:16 pm

Rowls wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:21 pm
Good news for Gary today - he has won a case that HMRC brought against him. They had claimed he had evaded paying taxes worth a cool £4.9 million.

Gary now gets to keep the cash to spend on whatever he likes. Congratulations to Gary on securing a victory for conservative values and low taxation - hurrah!

I'll be raising a glass to Lineker's healthy bank balance tonight and hoping I can join him in, erm, "minimizing my tax obligations" in the future with Lineker-esque feints, turns, jinks and other measures to avoid the taxman.
Well played.

Damo
Posts: 4504
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Damo » Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:16 am

evensteadiereddie wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:18 pm
:lol:

Popular, well paid television presenter despises racism, pays his taxes AND hacks off this board's right wing nut jobs.
What's not to like?
I never expected you to charge in defending his virtue Eddie.
Honest :roll:

Bigbopper
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:21 pm
Been Liked: 91 times
Has Liked: 17 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Bigbopper » Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 am

Seems the "Liniker defence" did not work for Eamonn Holmes. What did he do wrong? Maybe a cheaper legal team and accountant, maybe not woke enough, maybe he failed to house a couple of wealthy university students.Who knows.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:14 am

Bigbopper wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 am
Seems the "Liniker defence" did not work for Eamonn Holmes. What did he do wrong? Maybe a cheaper legal team and accountant, maybe not woke enough, maybe he failed to house a couple of wealthy university students.Who knows.
HMRC have been going after a lot of media types - some are winning others not. Lineker is a serial tax avoider and set up his affairs through a partnership as opposed to a limited company. The judge ruled that partnerships are subject to IR35 legislation but because Lineker had a contract with the BBC IR35 did not apply to him. The judge himself commented on the seeming contradictions in his judgement.

The extent to which he could establish an independence from the BBCs management structure etc. would also be an issue so you could argue his spats with the Beeb helped his case but that would be unduly cynical.

TBH, It's a lot easier to find incendiary comments about 1930S Germany than really insightful comment on Tax cases on the internet so there are aspects of it that are unclear.

For the record I think Lineker is an outstanding presenter of football programmes - he can also say what he wants but clearly should be a bit more grown up in his use of language. Of course, you could say the same about Suella Braverman

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 am

I do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)

It didn't start in Germany with the death camps

it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong

I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
These 3 users liked this post: Foshiznik tiger76 longsidepies

Foshiznik
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
Been Liked: 714 times
Has Liked: 1998 times
Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Foshiznik » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:31 am

Bigbopper wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 am
Seems the "Liniker defence" did not work for Eamonn Holmes. What did he do wrong? Maybe a cheaper legal team and accountant, maybe not woke enough, maybe he failed to house a couple of wealthy university students.Who knows.
No offence intended, but I'd recommend using more balanced sources of news than GB News or the Daily Mail to understand the background behind the headlines. Theres nothing wrong with being right wing or left wing, but throwing out buzz words and/or phrases you don't really truly understand doesn't strengthen your arguments in a reasoned debate.

Foshiznik
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
Been Liked: 714 times
Has Liked: 1998 times
Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Foshiznik » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:35 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 am
I do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)

It didn't start in Germany with the death camps

it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong

I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
Unfortunately some won't have their own personal views as they aren't interested enough, so will throw out phrases/statements that other people (usually those they would normally have similar views with on other subjects) as it's the lowest risk of being different to their actual views if they had taken the time to research all of the balanced evidence on that particular subject. That then usually results in views that aren't factual or follow an unintended agenda.
Last edited by Foshiznik on Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by aggi » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:36 am

Bigbopper wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 am
Seems the "Liniker defence" did not work for Eamonn Holmes. What did he do wrong? Maybe a cheaper legal team and accountant, maybe not woke enough, maybe he failed to house a couple of wealthy university students.Who knows.
Or a completely different legal case.
These 4 users liked this post: Foshiznik Lancasterclaret tiger76 Swizzlestick

Foshiznik
Posts: 2506
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
Been Liked: 714 times
Has Liked: 1998 times
Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Foshiznik » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:39 am

I do love to see the Tufton Street mouthpieces on Twitter have full blown meltdowns on the daily.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by aggi » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:46 am

aggi wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:59 pm
This is a nicer link https://www.accountancyage.com/2023/03/ ... after-all/ (and has also made me wonder why I no longer get sent copies of Accountancy Age).

Full judgement is here for anyone who enjoys that kind of thing.
https://financeandtax.decisions.tribuna ... 008774.pdf
Sounds like HMRC were potentially looking to set a precedent here (and failed). I'm intrigued by where the £5m came from though if taxes were being paid via a partnership (i.e. as income).
Interesting line from this Telegraph Article from last year:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... -tax-bill/

Lineker will not have to pay the £4.9 million in full as the tax he has paid during the period in question will be offset against it. Sources suggested the true figure is likely to be under £1 million.

So I'd guess this may be the NI.

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Big Vinny K » Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:50 am

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:14 am
HMRC have been going after a lot of media types - some are winning others not. Lineker is a serial tax avoider and set up his affairs through a partnership as opposed to a limited company.
You mean through a partnership where he has to pay more tax than through a limited company ?

As for the 2 cases of Holmes and Lineker you would need to see the full details of the case and their contracts to differentiate between the verdicts. As you would between all the various IR35 cases / verdicts.
Comments like Lineker got off because he used expensive lawyers and accountants are just laughable. As if Holmes would have used some back street book keeper !

Some interesting reports emerging about the amount of money HMRC are wasting bringing these cases when the real issue is the complexity of IR35 and the need to make the laws much clearer.

Any attempt to clear things up through case law and precedent is extremely complex and expensive way of doing things given the vast number of historical cases and the individual contracts and working practices between contractors and the people they do work for all being different.

Having a total reset on the laws and a much clearer definition of what does constitute being an employee rather than a business arrangement would surely be a better way forward.

ClaretPete001
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
Been Liked: 308 times
Has Liked: 162 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by ClaretPete001 » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:10 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 am
I do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)

It didn't start in Germany with the death camps

it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong

I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
The argument centres on hypocrisy.

If you condemn Braverman's comments about 'invasion' for being cheap, juvenile and provocative then you must surely do the same for Lineker when he invokes Godwin's law.

Of course, you can make points about 'othering people', which is no doubt true but central to the issue is juvenile and provocative points that do not extend the debate but allow it to descend into hyperbole and polemics.

The criticism of those who try to defend Lineker is that they do so on the basis of sympathies with his viewpoint not a rational analysis of what he did.

I think it is a stretch to think that Gary Lineker is so naive that he uses comments about 1930s Germany without some understanding of the consequence of doing so.

And ironically the consequence of using that language is that it 'others' those that don't agree with him to the extent it just entrenches opinion.

In the end, you end up with the Brexit debate, which largely consists of hyperbolic untruths from both sides.
'

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by tiger76 » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:19 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 am
I do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)

It didn't start in Germany with the death camps

it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong

I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
Exactly words have consequences, and our elected representatives would do well to remember this and tone down the rhetoric, especially those in senior positions of power.
This user liked this post: Lancasterclaret

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:20 am

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:10 am
The argument centres on hypocrisy.

If you condemn Braverman's comments about 'invasion' for being cheap, juvenile and provocative then you must surely do the same for Lineker when he invokes Godwin's law.

Of course, you can make points about 'othering people', which is no doubt true but central to the issue is juvenile and provocative points that do not extend the debate but allow it to descend into hyperbole and polemics.

The criticism of those who try to defend Lineker is that they do so on the basis of sympathies with his viewpoint not a rational analysis of what he did.

I think it is a stretch to think that Gary Lineker is so naive that he uses comments about 1930s Germany without some understanding of the consequence of doing so.

And ironically the consequence of using that language is that it 'others' those that don't agree with him to the extent it just entrenches opinion.

In the end, you end up with the Brexit debate, which largely consists of hyperbolic untruths from both sides.
'
So you are saying that the reason Lineker used the 1930s argument was because Bravermann used the "invasion" argument

Bravermann was called out for the "invasion" comment at her local constituency meeting by an actual Holocaust survivor, using her own experiences of why invasion was such a horrible term to use

I happen to agree with both the survivor and GL, and I agree with them not because I agree with their political stance but because I know my history of this period and the rhetoric is far too similar to ignore

I hope I am wrong, but if you spend all your time in government blaming a small group of people for everything and amplify that to get votes, then the country is on a very slippery slope

Regarding Brexit, I can't speak for anyone else, but two of my actual jobs involved dealing with trade between the EU and the UK (specifically Ireland) so I was speaking from a position of knowing what I was talking about

Anyone want to still claim I was wrong?

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10842
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5520 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by TheFamilyCat » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 am

tiger76 wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:19 am
Exactly words have consequences, and our elected representatives would do well to remember this and tone down the rhetoric, especially those in senior positions of power.
But the rhetoric appeals to the voters they are targeting so that's not going to happen.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:27 am

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 am
But the rhetoric appeals to the voters they are targeting so that's not going to happen.
Which is why its so dangerous

When a perfectly normal political party goes down that route, then alarm bells should be ringing
These 3 users liked this post: longsidepies tiger76 Bordeauxclaret

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by tiger76 » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:40 am

TheFamilyCat wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 am
But the rhetoric appeals to the voters they are targeting so that's not going to happen.
Sadly that is probably true in the short term at least, and speaks volumes for the nature of political discourse in the UK in recent years.

Far too many easy 3 word slogans being branded about, when these issues are far more complex, and require government to implement sensible practical solutions which don't break international law for one.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Colburn_Claret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:55 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 am
I do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)

It didn't start in Germany with the death camps

it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong

I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
I agree completely about Germany, but how that co relates to illegal immigrants I don't follow.
There are bound to be arseholes that want to see all 'immigrants ' leave these shores, but the mass majority of those who want to stop illegal migrants have no issue with those who are here legally. Many of them 2nd/3rd generation, and whose presence has enriched our lives and culture.

So before you start accusing those who oppose Lineker of being short sighted, you should have a look at yourself.


This idea that everyone who disagrees with you is a right wing, little englander, is rubbish.
These 2 users liked this post: LeadBelly Jellybean

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Greenmile » Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:02 am

ClaretPete001 wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:10 am
The argument centres on hypocrisy.

If you condemn Braverman's comments about 'invasion' for being cheap, juvenile and provocative then you must surely do the same for Lineker when he invokes Godwin's law.
I tend to hold government ministers to higher standards of accountability for the language they use in the HoC, than ex-footballers / TV presenters for the language they use on their personal social media accounts. Maybe that’s just me, though.

As a hypothetical example, I would happily criticise Keir Starmer if he were to say “I love it when Sunak sh1ts himself in public” during PMQs, yet I used very similar language about Rowls on this very thread. Maybe you think that makes me a hypocrite - I would disagree.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:05 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:55 am
I agree completely about Germany, but how that co relates to illegal immigrants I don't follow.
There are bound to be arseholes that want to see all 'immigrants ' leave these shores, but the mass majority of those who want to stop illegal migrants have no issue with those who are here legally. Many of them 2nd/3rd generation, and whose presence has enriched our lives and culture.

So before you start accusing those who oppose Lineker of being short sighted, you should have a look at yourself.


This idea that everyone who disagrees with you is a right wing, little englander, is rubbish.
But that is the problem right there

You assumed I'm attacking you, rather than dealing with the reality of what is currently being said about refugees

No one wants illegal immigration (I call them refugees btw) but there are ways of dealing with it a hell of a lot better than we are at the moment

- safe and legal routes
- quicker turnaround of asylum applications
- asylum claim centres in other countries

I'm more worried about food inflation being 17.5% last month, than a couple of thousand refugees risking their lives for a better life

This nails it btw

https://twitter.com/ZoeJardiniere/statu ... 5118625792

Big Vinny K
Posts: 2429
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:57 pm
Been Liked: 1009 times
Has Liked: 275 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Big Vinny K » Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:18 am

Greenmile wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:02 am

As a hypothetical example, I would happily criticise Keir Starmer if he were to say “I love it when Sunak sh1ts himself in public” during PMQs, yet I used very similar language about Rowls on this very thread. Maybe you think that makes me a hypocrite - I would disagree.
If Starmer did say that it would be a landslide victory especially if he then moved on to Rees Mogg and said “what you laughing at you Victorian tw-at ?”

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Colburn_Claret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:45 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:05 am
But that is the problem right there

You assumed I'm attacking you, rather than dealing with the reality of what is currently being said about refugees

No one wants illegal immigration (I call them refugees btw) but there are ways of dealing with it a hell of a lot better than we are at the moment

- safe and legal routes
- quicker turnaround of asylum applications
- asylum claim centres in other countries

I'm more worried about food inflation being 17.5% last month, than a couple of thousand refugees risking their lives for a better life

This nails it btw

https://twitter.com/ZoeJardiniere/statu ... 5118625792
She makes a very good point, but I still disagree with her.
I disagree because there is a difference, and always will be, between asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Individual cases, such as some of the cases she mentioned are very reasonable. People from ex colonies, people who have assisted our armed forces and could face consequences, should always be looked on favourably.
The problem is too many aren't fleeing any conflict, they aren't being persecuted, they don't come from a country that has any historical link with our colonial past.
It makes it harder for the former to resolve the necessary paperwork, if they weren't hidden amongst thousands of the latter.
I would find it easier to agree with you if you accepted that many of these people have no right to be here, but you don't agree with the way the Government are handling it.
Then we might have more common ground.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Lancasterclaret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:53 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:45 pm
She makes a very good point, but I still disagree with her.
I disagree because there is a difference, and always will be, between asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Individual cases, such as some of the cases she mentioned are very reasonable. People from ex colonies, people who have assisted our armed forces and could face consequences, should always be looked on favourably.
The problem is too many aren't fleeing any conflict, they aren't being persecuted, they don't come from a country that has any historical link with our colonial past.
It makes it harder for the former to resolve the necessary paperwork, if they weren't hidden amongst thousands of the latter.
I would find it easier to agree with you if you accepted that many of these people have no right to be here, but you don't agree with the way the Government are handling it.
Then we might have more common ground.
I don't think I could have been clearer

If you are not an refugee, and you fail your asylum claim, then you shouldn't be here

To find that out, you have to actually process and deal with asylum claims, you can't just assume that people are illegal immigrants

Unless I'm wrong, that is what you are essentially saying, and that is where the language and attitudes of Bravermann have got us to

martin_p
Posts: 10368
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 3764 times
Has Liked: 696 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by martin_p » Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:00 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:45 pm
She makes a very good point, but I still disagree with her.
I disagree because there is a difference, and always will be, between asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Individual cases, such as some of the cases she mentioned are very reasonable. People from ex colonies, people who have assisted our armed forces and could face consequences, should always be looked on favourably.
The problem is too many aren't fleeing any conflict, they aren't being persecuted, they don't come from a country that has any historical link with our colonial past.
It makes it harder for the former to resolve the necessary paperwork, if they weren't hidden amongst thousands of the latter.
I would find it easier to agree with you if you accepted that many of these people have no right to be here, but you don't agree with the way the Government are handling it.
Then we might have more common ground.
The problem is we don’t know how many have the right/no right to be here because we’re taking a broad brush ‘send them back’ approach. Taking them in and processing them properly (and quickly) would resolve that.

houseboy
Posts: 7065
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2238 times
Has Liked: 1617 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by houseboy » Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:48 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:15 pm
It's refreshing that's what forums should be about people airing different views & debating reasonably without suffocation or people who aren't interested in what's been said trying to shut the thread down. I'm not particularly interested in Gary lineker & his taxing arrangements but it's easy not to get involved & stay on the fringes or completely avoid the thread.
Which is precisely why I haven’t got involved. My comment was made to someone who I kind of consider to be friend. Made in ironic jest. Nothing more.

Bigbopper
Posts: 290
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:21 pm
Been Liked: 91 times
Has Liked: 17 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Bigbopper » Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:50 pm

Big Vinny K wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:18 am
If Starmer did say that it would be a landslide victory especially if he then moved on to Rees Mogg and said “what you laughing at you Victorian tw-at ?”
Be funny that especially if he was wearing a Jimmy Saville mask whilst decked out in a gold lame tracksuit.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by Jakubclaret » Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:08 pm

houseboy wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:48 pm
Which is precisely why I haven’t got involved. My comment was made to someone who I kind of consider to be friend. Made in ironic jest. Nothing more.
I well aware of that it's a wise policy, you'd only get sucked into something & before you know it anything innocent & harmless will end up becoming enlarged & twisted & distorted into something it really isn't by a few on here baying for blood.
This user liked this post: houseboy

evensteadiereddie
Posts: 9585
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
Been Liked: 3146 times
Has Liked: 10202 times
Location: Staffordshire

Re: Gary Lineker

Post by evensteadiereddie » Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:13 pm

Bigbopper wrote:
Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:39 am
Seems the "Liniker defence" did not work for Eamonn Holmes. What did he do wrong? Maybe a cheaper legal team and accountant, maybe not woke enough, maybe he failed to house a couple of wealthy university students.Who knows.
Or, heaven forbid, he was in the wrong and lost the case accordingly.
Still, don't let your prejudice - in every sense of the word - deter you.

Locked