Ripsaw Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Latest Rumour is Mrs Ned is to take the blame 100% I wonder if it is a true rumour, or just another "shaggy dog" story to keep us all yapping9pm on a Sunday night, Hmmmmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Fox Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 I hope its for real that would be most interesting hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Some of the allegations couldn't have been against Maude (Mrs Ned) so she can not take the blame for 100% as claimed. Maybe there is only enough evidence for a single charge to be made in which case it is completely possible that 100% is an actual figure. Maude to face one charge doesn't have the same impact though so I can see the reason for the wording of the attention grabbing earlier post. TIAONTS, BDTC:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Got to ask... TIAONTS, BDTC? I did Google btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 I heard the same thing weeks ago. (Ooh, I can feel my virtual penis growing as I type) Be interesting though, is anyone really going to swallow that*? *No, not my VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Unless it has come directly from the Attorney Generals office or is available for public viewing in hard copy format we have to take the rumour with a pinch of the proverbial salt. I don't mind waiting a bit longer to hear the facts if and when they are published. Edit:typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Why does an advanced Google search for corkill site:manxradio.com only resurn 9 results when MR's own search facility returns 57 results since October 2004. *If* I was the suspicious type, I'd wonder how the historically appaling webdesign managed to include a googlebot blocker. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Google's not great on sites that use querystrings in the urls, they have to be linked when it spiders see. It doesn't spider constantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Latest Rumour is Mrs Ned is to take the blame 100% <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Possibly because it's the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 According to IOM Online today, this weeks examiner carries the report that BOTH were rearrested, not just one of them. While I don't dispute Crumlin and other's who post I do question what sort of privacy and confidentiality we have on this Island. I know we are a close knit community, but there seems to be a bit too much 'informed' private information doing the rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 On the front page of todays Manx paper Ned is still saying they have done nothing wrong. So telling the DTL that they had paid the Builders £337k when in fact have only paid them £240k is the normal thing to do. Who is the taxman going to believe the builder or Ned. Ripsaw how is this private information, Ifor one would like to know how my taxes are spent, I dont want my taxes being used to line some ones pockets and Im sure that most others dont want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Who is the taxman going to believe the builder or Ned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couple of points:- Why would the tax man care? Where are your ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Who is the taxman going to believe the builder or Ned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couple of points:- Why would the tax man care? Where are your ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The builders had to pay the vat on the unpaid invoices, so whats to stop the taxman taxing them on the unpaid invoices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Who is the taxman going to believe the builder or Ned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couple of points:- Why would the tax man care? Where are your ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The builders had to pay the vat on the unpaid invoices, so whats to stop the taxman taxing them on the unpaid invoices. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ws the builder using cash accounting VAT systems? If not then VAT would fall due on them whether they were unpaid or otherwise. Much the same as he would have been able to reclaim VAT on purchase invoices even if he hadnt paid them. If the invoices were raised then they form part of taxable turnover and therefore assessable to corporation tax. If they remain unpaid then they can either be credit noted or written off and the appropriate tax allowances taken. Thats just a fact of doing business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Have the Neds claimed the Vat back on the unpaid invoices I wonder, I would bet they have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Do you know what you're talking about I wonder? I would bet that you don't, and your speculating, which isn't helping anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.