New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

Can you answer the question I asked? Thanks.

He's not profiting from charity work though, because that would insinuate he's taking money from charitable donations for himself (like what happened with the Trump Foundation which was legally proven).

The argument can also be made that increasing his personal profile is a by-product of his charity work rather than the aim, and that any additional money he earns through legal and legitimate sponsorship deals also increases his ability to raise/give more money for charity.

It remains to be seen how much he actually profitted from his charity work (if any), but you haven't been able to point to any inappropriate activity (financial, abusive, or any other kind) on behalf of Rashford, and your repeated posts trying to tie in Jimmy Saville to the conversation show a complete lack of good faith on your part.

But it was Marcus Rashford publicly calling out the UK Government and leading public campaigns which forced the UK Government into reversing their own decision and providing meals etc to underprivileged and vulnerable children throughout the UK, to a far, far greater extent than Marcus Rashford himself could ever afford to do privately with his own money. Do you agree?

Farage doesn't do charity work, he just claims every penny he can and steals from the taxpayers

Footage of the Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage bragging about how much money he earns as an MEP for so little work has reemerged on social media.

This represents four working days and one journey. We're talking about £1,900. It's a good job this.  

I worked it out that because so much of what you get is after tax that if you used the secretarial allowances to pay your wife on top of all the other games you play I reckon this job in sterling terms is worth over £250,000 a year to you - that is what you would need to earn working for Goldman Sachs or someone like that

How does he profit from charity work? Do you actually believe that the charity pays him?

Or is it more a case of

Company P.R person

"Rashford is a good guy, people like him, we should see if we can get him on board to promote our products for a fee"

Again, you're obfuscating profiting from charitable work (which makes it sound like he's taking money from charity or charitable donations, again like the Trump Foundation was legally proven to have done), with profiting from sponsorship deals based on public profile based on charitable work (charitable work the levels of which wouldn't have been possible without doing so in such a public manner as it was about forcing the government to reverse one of their decisions).

The question is, are you confusing the two due to not understanding the difference, or are you doing it on purpose?

But you suggest others are being premature and to wait for the article while you give every indication of already having made your mind up yourself. If you hadn't, you'd at least be holding off on the melange of baseless allegations you've flung out, if not give him the benefit of the doubt.

Seems to me we're getting a little window here into how gullible folk can be, how easy it is to blow a dog whistle and get the pack to follow. I've often wondered at how the right can get away with the ridiculously transparent and so obviously false lies they trot out with such regular impunity, and it's things like this that help to explain why. It's so easy to target and smear anybody because there is such a big target audience out there who are ready and willing to lap up anything.

Have the spectator still not published their article? was it not due last week?

Will be interesting to see Arlenes interactions with Tory Maps given the way they shafted the DUP with the Irish Sea trade border

It was due to be published last Wednesday. I had posted about it myself last week, they seem to have taken note of where the wind is blowing and a hiatus has ensued. Which says quite a lot about the strength of their story, it's direction, it's editorial stance and any actual wrongdoing on the part of Rashford IMO.

If the Spectator believe that there is actual wrongdoing or indeed any public interest in "exposing" Rashford and his popularity with companies seeking high profile endorsement?

Why have they not published the piece? What reason other than backlash is there for holding off on such an "important" story?

Those questions aren't directed at you Ohno, rather just a musing as to why the Spectator haven't nailed that uppity footballer to a cross or hoist him by his own petard 😉

Isn't it almost as if there is no substance to their claims, nothing that no other sportsperson doesn't do? Even if he has donated in excess of 100% of his income...

How dare he seek the means to donate even more, or to even maximise his own earnings over the course of his short sporting career.

Either that or they realised "Footballer's charity work raises public profile and leads to sponsorship deals which footballer also uses to increase charity work" didn't have quite the bite they hoped it might.

since when did the facts make any difference to their opinion?