HMRC are after him saying that he is a freelancer and therefor subject to paying his own tax. He’s arguing that he’s employed by the bbc and Bt therefor they are responsible for his tax. just google linekar ir35
He's clearly got too much money...most of us would stfu if told to by our "employers" for fear of getting the boot. Bring back Jimmy Hill!
I think they are saying he is freelance ? Anyway . Double standards by the BBC ВС BBC Complaints To: Mike Giffin › 03/09/2021 BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-6898639-W4S3V1 Reference CAS-6898639-W4S3VI Dear Mr Giffin, Thank you for contacting us about this comment posted on Twitter by Chris Packham. Chris is a freelance TV presenter and a very well established naturalist who also works for other broadcasters (including Channel 5, National Geographic and Sky Arts). His personal Tivitter account has no connection to the BBC. The BBC's Editorial Guidelines contain advice about the external activities of freelance presenters. They explain that the constraints for a freelance presenter, like Chris, are not the same as they are for, say, a BBC News or Current Affairs presenter. Chris is very open about his views and campaign work and we carefully monitor the content which Chris presents for the BBC on't miss what's happening ople on Twitter are the first to know. p to get the full experience. JanIne IVICIVICCRIT BBC Complaints Team www.bbc.co.uk/complaints Tweet your reply
Hmrc are saying he’s freelance. He is saying he was employed directly by bbc so they are liable for any tax.
Oh yes . Apologies . He also said that HMRC was looking “in the wrong place” and that Lineker wasn’t engaged by the broadcasters via his partnership – Gary Lineker Media – but was instead engaged directly.
Here's a suggestion to address one key issue. 1. BBC confirm whether he is employed or a freelance. 2. BBC publish what guideline or guidelines Lineker is said to have breached. If he has breached Lineker can’t have it both ways by taking the money and then ignoring his contractual promises made to get the money. Conversely, the BBC can’t have it both ways if Lineker hasn’t breached by not having a contractual commitment to impartiality but still wanting Lineker to not speak his views.
The Royal Charter sets out how the BBC and its employees operate, Lineker is paid £1.35 million a year by the BBC so it's safe to presume that he is employed in some capacity by the BBC, the way in which he is "Employed" is done so to manage his tax affairs and ensure he pays as low a tax bill as possible it has nothing to do with the requirement that the BBC and its employees of whatever stripe maintain a level of impartiality. I have no problem with Lineker expressing his viewpoint, anyone can, what happens next though is that you have to accept that expressing such a viewpoint that the sitting Government trying to deal with illegal migrants are the equivalent of the Nazis in 1930's Germany has a consequence, does Lineker really believe that illegal migrants are going to be met with stormtroopers on the beaches, packed into cattle trucks, moved to concentration camps and selectively exterminated or worked to death. His language is clumsy, ignorant and deliberately provocative to big up his profile as an up-and-coming political activist for his 8 million followers.
