On the Marcus Rashford thing, here's my (admittedly cynical take).
He's taken up social causes that are easy to support and difficult to challenge in order to build his brand - Saint Marcus the champion of the underprivileged, squeaky clean, future Knight of the Realm.
That his people have come out swinging with a pre-emptive strike against the Spectator is telling - get your retaliation in first, frame the narrative. The Luvvies are already circling the wagons in defence of Marcus (I'm looking at you BBC and your front page puff piece).
But that statement from the Rashford camp is very carefully worded, as some on here have noted. He doesn't "need" to partner with brands ... well no-one does, do they, unless they want them to pay for stuff. And "most" of any fees goes to the good good causes. Hmmm.
Brand building doesn't come cheap ... staffers to pay, "operating expenses" and so on.
Yes, I'm an old cynic, but the Spectator is right to shine a light on this.
On a related point, I'm amazed that there hasn't been more of an expose of footballer tax affairs given the public's appetite for taking the super rich down a peg or two. How much of Rashford's £10m salary finds it's way to the HMRC? If I were earning that amount I'd only see, what, £6m of it under PAYE and the rest would go to Rishi (but then I'm not a tax accountant).
I see. So this multi-millionaire young black sports star from an impecunious background has decided to campaign against child food poverty not because he's genuinely concerned about child food poverty but in order to boost his personal brand and make himself even more rich and famous than he already is. Such a take is not "cynicism". It's something else entirely. Something putrid.
It's also devoid of logic. Like, the 'evidence' for this is that the cause he selected is soft and cuddly and almost impossible to oppose. Implication - in order to show he isn't doing it for brand building reasons, he ought to be campaigning for hardcore divisive stuff. Defund the police perhaps. Then you'd be 100% behind him, right? No sniping from you then? I should cocoa.
The problem with that is that the Spectator has not said anything at all yet afaics.
All we have is an Outrage Bus full of slebs and politicos telling us how horrible the Spectator is, and how much they hate it, based on a projection of their own assumptions.
(Unless they knew more when they said it than I have seen).
Quite happy to be generally skeptical about the tax affairs of footballers, but not to read that general into the particular of Marcus Rashford without evidence, given the industrial scale of tax avoidance / tax evasion that so many have indulged in.
I'm thoroughly enjoying the exhibition of unconscious self-importance from Knee-jerking Nish Kumar and the rest.
I was responding to a poster who opined that Rashford's campaigning is driven by desire for profile and money and public adoration and honours. He knows this because he self identifies as an "old cynic". Which he is if this is the new term for "utter wanker".
The free speech Tories seem very keen on cancelling Rashford because he doesn't say what they want to hear...
Nonsense. He seems to be attempting to use his status in good causes. In doing so of course he inevitably puts himself and his finances under media scrutiny. What is wrong with that? There is no reason surely why he should be exempt from scrutiny? Can you think of one? Do share.
But the scrutiny by some supporters of Johnson seems particularly hostile because some of Rashford's campaigns have, by their nature flown in the face of Government policy.
So what. Since when did politicians play nice? He's a big boy. Have you read the vitriol on here day in day out about the PM? Once you choose to enter the political arena it's all fair game.
Did he enter politics?
My interpretation was that he felt, poor children should get a nutritious meal each day during the school holidays. Johnson did not agree... initially, and this is where the hostility arose.
If his campaign had been to look after stray dogs during the pandemic, Carrie would have been on board, and all would have been fine.
To me Marcus Rashford is a very, very rich young man who has not forgotten what it was like to be poor and even hungry. Good for him. So many of our leading footballers are prima donnas who have forgotten what any aspect of real life is like. His campaign to have free school meals for kids out of school seemed to me to be well judged and reasonable. There are a lot of reasons why extra benefits might not result in extra meals for kids and this cuts through to what we want to achieve. Kids with full bellies. His campaign was also very skilfully and professionally managed which kept it measured and broadly non party political. That was smart and improved its effectiveness. He was also smart enough not to rub Boris's face in it.
Does any of this make him exempt from a look by the likes of the Spectator? Of course not, its a free country. But I for one will be slow to jump on any bandwagon targeted at a remarkable young man who seems to genuinely care when he has no need to.
I just wish he would score more goals for United.
+1
Except I don't give a shit about Utd. I just wish that pen had gone in. 4 inches. God.
Comments
https://www.loonyparty.com/4613/282/cool-on-the-outside-proposed-by-cameron/
Except I don't give a shit about Utd. I just wish that pen had gone in. 4 inches. God.
😪