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

26-07-2021 02:57PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663440#Comment_117663440

If it's established that Rashford profited from his charitable work - which, judging from Rashford's own comments, appears to be the case - then that information should have been disclosed from the outset. Rashford should have declared self-interest.

Evidently, the activity was kept under wraps because he knew, deep down, it was in error to act in the way that he did.

breezy1985 · 26-07-2021 02:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663556#Comment_117663556

Its been a lot more recent than the 80s

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 02:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663592#Comment_117663592

nothing has been established yet. Yet you still decide to draw an analogy with Saville, who used his charity work to hide a lifetime of abuse.

Penn · 26-07-2021 03:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663532#Comment_117663532

The general timeline seems to be:

Rashford challenges government policy and forces them into U-turn
Rashford becomes more popular due to above
Rashford gets deals/offers based on public profile
Rashford agrees to deals/offers while using same to also give more to charity (both a portion of his fee and money from those companies donating)
Rashford still becomes more popular
Rashford due to all of the above has now increased his own wealth/status, while government policy and funding for vulnerable children has been increased, and charitable donations also increased due to Rashford's campaigns/deals

The accusation seems to be that since Rashford has now likely increased his own wealth, his charity work is therefore tainted and not altruistic and he should be condemned for it (in line with Jimmy Saville). But the accusation seems entirely centered on the idea that Rashford only did it all to make a profit for himself.

An accusation eskimohunt and others have provided no basis for.

breezy1985 · 26-07-2021 03:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663490#Comment_117663490

He is a good man for always getting a mention in for the foreign aid as well. Its always good to highlight the hard work done round the world

26-07-2021 03:12PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663649#Comment_117663649

Rashford should have been forthcoming and disclosed any potential conflict of interest between his charitable endeavour (which was passed off to the world as entirely selfless) and his own already vast bank balance.

And the only link this has with Jimmy Saville is that both are cloaking their behaviour behind how great they are at charitable work.

ancapailldorcha · 26-07-2021 03:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663689#Comment_117663689

He's a permier league footballer and an international player. Even someone with as little interest as I have in the sport knows he'd be a multi-millionaire. Funny how you don't state that racists should have to keep their opinions to themselves. It's only working class black men who've pulled themselves up by their bootstraps that think children shouldn't starve.

breezy1985 · 26-07-2021 03:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663689#Comment_117663689

You do not have any proof that Rashford has done anything illegal or inappropriate. All you have is an article you have not read and the Spectator has not published.

Frankly I find it shocking the the mods have allowed this libel slander to go unchecked

Penn · 26-07-2021 03:22PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663689#Comment_117663689

Again though, a point you seem to have ignored is that his campaigning was for the government to change their policy, and for the government to provide those meals (at an expense which would have vastly outweighed anything he could afford himself). There is also no conflict of interest, it's well known that footballers get paid tens or hundreds of thousands per week and are millionaires.

He has also donated parts of his own money, and as part of the deals he signed he got those companies to donate to charity too.

Again, your accusation seems to be that he did all of this to increase his own bank balance rather than that being a by-product of offers/deals he signed after doing charitable work in forcing the government u-turn which he wouldn't have earned any money from. An accusation you have yet to provide any basis for.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-07-2021 03:25PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663689#Comment_117663689

How should he have "disclosed" this alleged "conflict of interest", a conflict that you haven't even thrashed out yet.

What was the "conflict of interest" in your eyes?

How has Rashford acted "inappropriately"?

What "behaviour" has he been cloaking that you feel is worthy of him being likened to Jimmy Saville?

Quin_Dub · 26-07-2021 03:26PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663592#Comment_117663592

What does "Profited from his charitable work" mean to you here and when does it become "wrong"

As others have said - I am sure that more companies got in touch with Rashford to ask him to work with them as a result of his increased (overwhelming positive) profile.

It's absolutely believable that Company X (or companies) last summer when looking for new people to appear in advertising etc. would have been more likely to pick Rashford than before and indeed offer him more money than they might previously had - He was more well known and more importantly was being associated with good things, which is exactly what companies want from a spokesperson. Just as they would be doing the opposite were he to have been associated with bad things.

There are lots of examples of people losing endorsements on foot of bad behaviour , so it stands to reason that the inverse applies for good behaviours.

That's not a bad thing at all and I see no problem with that whatsoever , especially as it would seem that Rashford used that increased income to give more even funds to charity.

Now if Rashford was billing the Charity for excessive expenses/fees or using charity money to buy portraits of himself to hang in his home or using charity money to pay legal bills for lawsuits completely unrelated to the Charity then I would absolutely hope and expect that he and anyone else involved would be roundly pilloried and censured for their actions and that legal proceedings would take place as appropriate.

On balance given the thus far complete and total lack of a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm going to go with the former being true and that the now more famous and extremely well regarded Rashford simply commands a higher market rate now than he might previously done and nothing more.

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 03:32PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663689#Comment_117663689

what conflict of interest? what has been established? You have no idea if he has acted inappropriately. You are basing this on personal dislike and nothing else. He embarrassed the UK government you admire so much and you think that deserves a comparison with a child abuser. As I said earlier you don't require evidence to make your posts. Facts and reality are irrelevant to your postings.

26-07-2021 03:40PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663797#Comment_117663797

I have repeatedly stated that we must wait for The Spectator article. I have no doubt there are legal implications that must be robustly dealt with.

Nothing has been firmly established. However, judging by Marcus Rashford's Tweets about the matter, it appears that some kernel of truth may be behind the allegations.

I wouldn't have written those Tweets unless something true were about to be uncovered.

But as I say, we must wait for The Spectator to disclose the details concerning the allegations.

If it is established that a conflict of interest existed, then yes, my analysis will be true.

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 03:43PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663849#Comment_117663849

You said that rashford acted inappropriately. You said he had a conflict of interests. you may have repeated stated that we must wait for the spectator article but you have have not applied that standard to yourself. yours posts on rashford have been dishonest and not based on any established facts.

ancapailldorcha · 26-07-2021 03:44PM

The Spectator is nothing more than a racist hate-rag. If they have something ironclad, I'll take it seriously. Anything short of that and I'll just dismiss it as their ususal hateful drivel.

26-07-2021 03:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663879#Comment_117663879

That could well be the case, of course.

But you'd be surprised what immense wealth and stardom can do to your ego. Money is a very corrupting substance.

Quin_Dub · 26-07-2021 03:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663875#Comment_117663875

What they have will be something like - "Rashford signed a new deal with Nike/Adidas/Puma or whoever for *big increased percentage* more than his previous deal , Profiting directly from his "charitable" work , How dare he!!"

It'll be right there with all their stories about how a "Tory MP cashes in on their time in Office with massive payday from a huge corporation by taking a job as a consultant".

Oh wait.......

breezy1985 · 26-07-2021 03:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663849#Comment_117663849

Well then wait for it and stop defaming him and comparing him to Jimmy Saville.

For a man who is waiting you are banging on about it a lot

Penn · 26-07-2021 03:50PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663849#Comment_117663849

"I have no doubt there are legal implications that must be robustly dealt with."

What are the legal implications you believe likely exist?

26-07-2021 03:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663924#Comment_117663924

If The Spectator are going to publish an exposé such as that, they'd better make sure they have their beans in the right order.

ancapailldorcha · 26-07-2021 03:53PM

That's exactly what I'm expecting, frankly along with plenty of dogwhistling and snide comments about how Rashford should concentrate on his soccer and maybe a petty dig about the penalty at the end of the final.

I'm genuinely intrigued by how the idea that a wealthy person using said wealth to avoid poor children starving in one of the wealthiest countries in the world can be considered a bad thing. Of course, it highlights the inadequacy and corruption of the state so maybe I've answered that for myself.

Don't see The Spectator taking aim at anyone else giving generously. Wonder why.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1417726034103898112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1417726034103898112%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-42033925273449214135.ampproject.net%2F2107092322000%2Fframe.html

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 03:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663934#Comment_117663934

as you have not seen the spectator article you are just making **** up. there is no other word for it.

breezy1985 · 26-07-2021 03:54PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663716#Comment_117663716

Was on Farages show recently where we got the old "all poor people need to do to stop being poor is work hard" then as soon as someone does get rich it becomes a problem

Penn · 26-07-2021 03:57PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663934#Comment_117663934

You said that YOU have no doubt there are legal implications that must be robustly dealt with. Can you now confirm that you have no basis (as The Spectator article has not been published or any info from it released) for claiming that there are any legal implications regarding Marcus Rashford?

ancapailldorcha · 26-07-2021 03:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663958#Comment_117663958

Exactly. It's an aberration created to justify the hoarded wealth and privilege of those who earned none of it. Once someone questions the order or, worse, campaigns for change then they must be demonised and censured.

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 03:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663960#Comment_117663960

yeah, what is different about Rashford. I'm wracking my brains and i just can't think what it might be. what is it about this young man that certain supporters of boris johnson and nigel farage have an issue with him. 'Tis a mystery.

26-07-2021 03:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663987#Comment_117663987

If he is found to have acted appropriately, then I'll have no problem with him at all.

I didn't even think about the footballer until these allegations were surfaced by The Spectator.

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 04:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663960#Comment_117663960

Robbie Fowler owned so many houses in Liverpool that the kop used to sing "We all live in a Robbie Fowler house" to the tune of Yellow Submarine.

ohnonotgmail · 26-07-2021 04:01PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663994#Comment_117663994

but you do have a problem with him. You said he acted inappropriately. you said he had a conflict of interest. You compared him to saville. all based on nothing.

Quin_Dub · 26-07-2021 04:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117663994#Comment_117663994

And yet your immediate reaction and position is that there "must be something to it" despite the total absence of anything even approaching evidence of any wrong-doing.

Why assume the worst?

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

Comments