“Lorraine Kelly is one of the most ruthless people you’ll satisfy in the business, ” joked Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain last week.
“Don’t be fooled by that halo. To warm herself up for her testify, she literally assassinations kittens and puppies.”
Morgan’s joke, which he made the day after Kelly’s win at the TRIC Awards, was funny precisely since it was the opposite of the Lorraine millions of viewers know and love.
In fact, her warm, likeable TV persona is the very ground so many of us were fascinated by a tax ruling involving Kelly on Wednesday.
As part of a dispute with HMRC, Judge Jennifer Dean governed that Kelly is playing a particular version of herself on breeze, which signifies she could be considered a “theatrical artist”.
“She may not like the guest she interviews, she may not like the food she snacks, she may not like the movie she considered – but that is where the performance lies, ” Judge Dean said in the ruling.
So has Lorraine Kelly, a gold-standard national gem, been moron us all?
Is she, in fact, a gruesome person, “whos had” been going through life being secretly nasty to everyone, merely forging being nice for the one hour she’s on breeze every day?
This whole case steams down to something much more boring – basic tax law.
For various reasons which we’ll get at in a minute, Kelly has argued she should effectively be considered a freelancer rather than a direct employee of ITV.
But part of the judge’s ruling picked up on the point that she is more of a musician than industry standards employee.
That has raised issues about the personas that personalities create when facing the public.
“Lorraine’s value to ITV lies in the image that she’s created and her emotional appeal with audiences, and that brand appreciate can easily be taken to other canals, ” says Jeetendr Sehdev, luminary branding expert and author of The Kim Kardashian Principle.
“I think observers are aware that you know there is a potential image and persona that luminaries are selling, and I think that that’s OK. I don’t belief people have much of a problem with that as long as that image and persona is authentic.”
Photographer Andrew H Walker explored this very topic in a series of portraits taken in 2016.
At the Toronto Film Festival that time, he asked some of the stars in attendance if he was able to photograph them – twice.
In one shot, he’d requesting them to pose as a path they are able to act in front of the public, while the other would disclose a side we don’t ordinarily see.
“I was really curious with performers, because they have … a public persona that they put out there, and they also have their private ego, ” Walker told Mashable.
“There’s this whole other mantle of themselves as people. I found that really, genuinely intriguing.”
The issue of public personas often crops up in the nations of the world of hip-hop, where numerous rappers are reliant on depicting a tough, gangster image.
Earlier this year, it was revealed rapper 21 Savage, whose label and lyrics centre on the years he spent growing up in Atlanta, had actually been born in the UK, where he lived for the early part of his life.
Last year, when Tekashi 6ix9ine was impeached on six counts including firearms and racketeering accuses, his attorney indicated that the fact the rapper was “an entertainer who draws a ‘gangster image’ to support his music does not constitute him a is part of an enterprise”.
Do such cases make their music less authentic? Does it matter?
( And did “youve been” think you’d read an article that compared Lorraine Kelly with 21 Savage ?)
But unlike performers, musicians or writers, who have the option to hide themselves behind their artwork, TV presenters in particular are reliant on their own identities for their jobs.
It’s usually necessary for them to come across as warm, likeable, likable and entertaining all at once.
“I’m an actor, playing the one of the purposes of a presenter, ” Matt LeBlanc told BBC News last year. “So is it truly me you see on Top Gear? Probably not.
“It’s the me that suits the cinema we’re become. It’s the me that dress the studio portion in front of the crowd. That’s what relevant actors does, you try to mould yourself to fit the needs of the piece.”
As an actor by swap, LeBlanc’s case is undoubtedly different to Kelly’s, but to some extent, all TV presenters have to do a little bit of this kind of acting.
In Kelly’s case, her warm persona has endeared her to spectators for decades – and investigated her achieve immense success.
Just this week, she was given the outstanding contribution to British television trophy at the RTS Awards.
We all arguably have multiple versions of ourselves which we present in different situations. You’d behave differently at work to how you would on a nighttime out, for example.
And in many sectors, doing so doesn’t affect our job. But Sedhev says it’s slightly different when it comes to high profile figures.
“The value of firebrands now are infiltrating all areas – from business to healthcare to engineering, ” he explains.
“We see that with CEOs, whether it’s Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg – these are different types of governors. They are a firebrand, first and foremost, that stands for something and there’s huge amounts of value in that.
“I can see a lot of analogies between digital influencers, these brand-new types of celebrities, and what has happened with Lorraine. It’s interesting now how the nations of the world are beginning to merge.”
However, Rahul Batra, managing marriage at Hudson McKenzie, specialists in media and entertainment principle, says the Lorraine Kelly ruling has little to do with the issue of public personas which has been picked up on by word outlets.
“Where the ruling talks about Lorraine Kelly has become a brand, that’s not to do with media law, but tax constitution, ” he tells BBC News.
Kelly’s employment status, he explains, is important only because it impacts on how much tariff she is due to pay.
Given that she also presents TV programmes for the BBC and secretes her own fitness DVDs, it would be wrong to say she is a standard employee of ITV.
“Suppose Lorraine Kelly earns a million pounds a year, and she has an agent who takes PS200, 000. That PS200, 000 is tax deductible, so she’d exclusively be liable to pay tax on PS800, 000, ” Mr Batra says.
“But if you’re federal employees, then everything is levy deducted at source from the employer itself. That’s what this argument is all about.”
He adds that, because of IR35, the UK’s anti-avoidance tax legislation, this is something that occurs in all industries – not just in the luminary world.
“It happens a lot with IT contractors … in fact, anybody who’s a contractor in the UK get muddled up in an HMRC inquiry at some point in time, ” he says.
“Because HMRC would try to say ‘you’re an employee’, and the contractor would say, ‘No, I’m not federal employees. I have set up my own limited firm and I’m providing services to other people as well’.”
James Hender, marriage and is chairman of private affluence at Saffery Champness, points out IR35 for the private sector companies is due to take effect from April 2020, meaning there’ll has become still more quarrels to come in this area.
“It’s likely that we’ll view many more examples like this over the next few years as both HMRC and taxpayers seek to get to grips with this rapidly evolving neighbourhood of taxation law, ” he said.
The reasons for the ruling might be much more technological than numerous first envisaged. But we likewise secretly hope Lorraine really is a massive diva.