| View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
bradjenkins
Joined: 13 Sep 2018
Posts: 10
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yep. I'm with you
| Jorgan wrote: | | I guess the Govt is afraid big business or billionaires will take their money/businesses elsewhere. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The piece is titled: We allow the rich to escape charges, admits taxman; sub-title: HMRC says secret deals are done to avoid denting the reputations of the powerful, sparking fears for equality under the law
P2 Sunday times 9 sept 18
"The news raises fresh questions about the approach of HMRC, which has been criticised for failing to prosecute high-profile people with financial interests in offshore tax havens."
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching
www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach
2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrahamO
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 10203
Location: United Arab Emirates or an airport
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well all the papers put titles which often have content which is at variance with the actual title.
If someone is allegedly tax evading, and all their money is offshore, then its going to take years and millions to get any evidence and even if they do, its by no means clear that a guilty verdict will be achieved.
One of the reasons that HRMC has failed to successfully prosecute many people is that they are found innocent, or that HMRC actually has no evidence but that doesnt make a good headline. Its not actually illegal to keep money offshore in a tax haven as HMRC have found all too often. They operate under the 'no smoke without fire' principle and have shown to be incorrect.
In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt.
_________________
Arguing with engineers is like wrestling in mud with a pig - after a while you realise they like it
newMan : I don't know why you think you can address me like that! Don't ever reply directly to any of my posts again please.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tigger
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2806
Location: Hampshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GrahamO wrote: | | In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt. |
Yep.
Here's an example of a prosecution of a failed prosecution. But you won't find it in The Times as it would contradict their headline: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-redknapp-cleared-of-tax-fraud-zfnhqngl8j7
Out of interest, the BBC's article said on it said:
| BBC wrote: | | Following the verdicts, former Spurs chairman Lord Sugar told BBC Radio 5 Live: "If this was Harry Smith or Harry Brown, it would never have gone to court. This is an attempt by the authorities to make an example of a high profile personality which has backfired. |
That's probably not in The Times article (but its behind a paywall so I don't care).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bradjenkins
Joined: 13 Sep 2018
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting...
| Tigger wrote: | | GrahamO wrote: | | In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt. |
Yep.
Here's an example of a prosecution of a failed prosecution. But you won't find it in The Times as it would contradict their headline: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-redknapp-cleared-of-tax-fraud-zfnhqngl8j7
Out of interest, the BBC's article said on it said:
| BBC wrote: | | Following the verdicts, former Spurs chairman Lord Sugar told BBC Radio 5 Live: "If this was Harry Smith or Harry Brown, it would never have gone to court. This is an attempt by the authorities to make an example of a high profile personality which has backfired. |
That's probably not in The Times article (but its behind a paywall so I don't care). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GrahamO wrote: | Well all the papers put titles which often have content which is at variance with the actual title.
If someone is allegedly tax evading, and all their money is offshore, then its going to take years and millions to get any evidence and even if they do, its by no means clear that a guilty verdict will be achieved.
One of the reasons that HRMC has failed to successfully prosecute many people is that they are found innocent, or that HMRC actually has no evidence but that doesnt make a good headline. Its not actually illegal to keep money offshore in a tax haven as HMRC have found all too often. They operate under the 'no smoke without fire' principle and have shown to be incorrect.
In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt. |
No, the article simply quotes the deputy director of HMRC
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching
www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach
2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tigger
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2806
Location: Hampshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| explorerJC wrote: | | Tigger wrote: | | GrahamO wrote: | | In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt. |
Yep. |
Nope |
So explain the last bit you quoted "prosecute high-profile people with financial interests in offshore tax havens."
A high-profile person goes on holiday to Jersey and uses £5 to buy £1 stick of rock. What should they be prosecuted for? They are in a tax haven, they have money in the tax haven, they even have strange and unusual transactions in a tax haven using cash. But what are they guilty of?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SloggingScotsman
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 2967
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tigger wrote: | | . But what are they guilty of? |
Not buying Edinburgh rock, it’s so much better 
_________________
Trump elected.
We vote to Brexit..but something happens so it doesn’t.
Trump re-elected in 2020..99%
Something real bad happens to US during Trumps 2nd term..75%
Michelle Obama president in 2024...65%
In the next 10 years ww3 will start..47%.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tigger wrote: | | explorerJC wrote: | | Tigger wrote: | | GrahamO wrote: | | In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt. |
Yep. |
Nope |
So explain the last bit you quoted "prosecute high-profile people with financial interests in offshore tax havens."
|
Not my place to explain. The Commons public accounts committee chair shares the view...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching
www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach
2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrahamO
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 10203
Location: United Arab Emirates or an airport
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| explorerJC wrote: | | No, the article simply quotes the deputy director of HMRC |
Quoting someone who thinks that an accusation equates to guilt, does not make anyone guilty.
"which has been criticised for failing to prosecute high-profile people with financial interests in offshore tax havens"
They should only prosecute those for whom they have enough evidence to guarantee conviction. The evidence of their terrible conviction rate plainly shows that they are failing to do that, and so are by definition, pursuing innocent individuals over whom they have insufficient evidence.
Failing to prosecute is the right thing to do when they have no evidence to ensure a conviction.
_________________
Arguing with engineers is like wrestling in mud with a pig - after a while you realise they like it
newMan : I don't know why you think you can address me like that! Don't ever reply directly to any of my posts again please.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tigger
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2806
Location: Hampshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| explorerJC wrote: | | Tigger wrote: | | explorerJC wrote: | | Tigger wrote: | | GrahamO wrote: | | In typical newspaper fashion, the article conflates an accusation with guilt. |
Yep. |
Nope |
So explain the last bit you quoted "prosecute high-profile people with financial interests in offshore tax havens."
|
Not my place to explain. The Commons public accounts committee chair shares the view... |
k
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GrahamO wrote: | | explorerJC wrote: | | No, the article simply quotes the deputy director of HMRC |
Quoting someone who thinks that an accusation equates to guilt, does not make anyone guilty.
"which has been criticised for failing to prosecute high-profile people with financial interests in offshore tax havens"
They should only prosecute those for whom they have enough evidence to guarantee conviction. The evidence of their terrible conviction rate plainly shows that they are failing to do that, and so are by definition, pursuing innocent individuals over whom they have insufficient evidence.
Failing to prosecute is the right thing to do when they have no evidence to ensure a conviction. |
deary me...did you make all that up to prove a point that no one was arguing against?
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching
www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach
2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GrahamO
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 10203
Location: United Arab Emirates or an airport
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a bizarre response ?
If I were you, I'd give up drinking at work.
You prosecute people if you have evidence. If you haven't then they are not guilty and stay that way. They don't prosecute many rich people because either they have no evidence or there is nothing else to prosecute. the 'belief' of the PAC is not evidence and is just speculation by politicians.
_________________
Arguing with engineers is like wrestling in mud with a pig - after a while you realise they like it
newMan : I don't know why you think you can address me like that! Don't ever reply directly to any of my posts again please.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005
Posts: 16060
Location: Farthingstone
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GrahamO wrote: | What a bizarre response ?
If I were you, I'd give up drinking at work.
You prosecute people if you have evidence. If you haven't then they are not guilty and stay that way. They don't prosecute many rich people because either they have no evidence or there is nothing else to prosecute. the 'belief' of the PAC is not evidence and is just speculation by politicians. |
Not once in the article did they mention prosecution where there was no evidence to justify such an action; neither did i either assume this may be the case nor did i infer it.
All of that was inferred by you and created by you. Take some responsibility for your posts.
Oh and I appreciate that this has been a struggle for you, but less of the slander please, there's a good lad...
_________________
www.appliedtri.co.uk Tri and Du coaching
www.naturalrunningform.co.uk Natural Running Form Coach
2018 Training Camps http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Albums
Memberlist
Bloglist
Wiki
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
