Hairy Poppins Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, John Wright said: Ah, the grammatical nuances of Ex-Tory peer and Tory Ex Peer She voluntarily took leave of absence from the Lords in December 2022 and as a result lost the whip. You can’t be whipped if you’re not entitled to attend. That means she is not a member of the Parliamentary Conservative Party. That may have preempted the whip being withdrawn, more likely than not. She could still be a member of the Conservative Party, as that’s separate. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... I know some people would exchange duck for a slightly less flattering word... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 21 minutes ago, Hairy Poppins said: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck... I know some people would exchange duck for a slightly less flattering word... Pressed duck? No...that's more flattering. ...sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 hours ago, Amadeus said: You work in a law firm. I didn't think lawyers had an obligation to advise who their client is unless it's to another legal professional when asked in the duty of their work. A journalist? Who cares. I saw the thread and a reply that he represents Doug Barrowman & Knox group of companies. Sounds like a normal summary to me. We all know they're bad apples, but the desperation of some to make a mountain out of a molehill is quite funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Latest news reports https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68047405 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Couldn't have happened to nicer people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 On 1/20/2024 at 1:09 PM, NoTailT said: You work in a law firm. I didn't think lawyers had an obligation to advise who their client is unless it's to another legal professional when asked in the duty of their work. A journalist? Who cares. I saw the thread and a reply that he represents Doug Barrowman & Knox group of companies. Sounds like a normal summary to me. We all know they're bad apples, but the desperation of some to make a mountain out of a molehill is quite funny. I think it’s quite relevant that someone discloses who they act for if they are essentially making legal threats. How else do you know the legal basis for it and if it’s even real? And how can you go after them in return if you don’t know who them is? Group is generic term for a collection of entities. They can be anywhere. If I don’t know who’s coming after me how can I defend myself? It I don’t know where the person or entity is based and what laws apply as a result how can I defend myself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 16 minutes ago, Amadeus said: I think it’s quite relevant that someone discloses who they act for if they are essentially making legal threats. How else do you know the legal basis for it and if it’s even real? And how can you go after them in return if you don’t know who them is? Group is generic term for a collection of entities. They can be anywhere. If I don’t know who’s coming after me how can I defend myself? It I don’t know where the person or entity is based and what laws apply as a result how can I defend myself? That only really applies once a specific action is launched though. In this case, when it was at the general threat level, the Knox Group and its 'directing mind' was surely enough to let then know who the lawyers were acting for. Mainly because the correct response was as per Arkell v Pressdram. Complaining because the exact corporate entities weren't specified seems a little pernickety. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Banker said: Latest news reports https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68047405 It's a short conversation from about 40 minutes in here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001vnbd/sunday-with-laura-kuenssberg-is-the-world-getting-more-dangerous Kuenssberg effectively asked whether Mone was being treated fairly or if she was being made a scapegoat. But of course the correct answer is "Both". And when Hunter and another panellist tried to broaden out the discussion to anything but a denunciation of Mone, the topic was changed very quickly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 It was a car crash interview which did her no favours. Of course there are other people who have made probably more money than her and Doug when they got contracts for all sorts that were Covid related and there wasn’t really time to do due diligence on all the suppliers but that does not really help her situation. Apparently the merchandise was not fit for purpose and is still being stored at some expense to the British Government. In a perfect world it would have been returned to the manufacturers and the buyer would have been compensated. The thing that puzzles me is why was payment made before the goods arrived and examined ? prepayment is not usual between legitimate traders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 11 hours ago, Fred the shred said: It was a car crash interview which did her no favours. Of course there are other people who have made probably more money than her and Doug when they got contracts for all sorts that were Covid related and there wasn’t really time to do due diligence on all the suppliers but that does not really help her situation. Apparently the merchandise was not fit for purpose and is still being stored at some expense to the British Government. In a perfect world it would have been returned to the manufacturers and the buyer would have been compensated. The thing that puzzles me is why was payment made before the goods arrived and examined ? prepayment is not usual between legitimate traders. I think therein lies some misunderstanding on your part. As I understand it: the goods WERE checked by a UK Government contractor prior to payment and were cleared and delivered. I watched their hour long video and have my understanding from that. That all procurement for PPE was 'on consignment' and UK Government took responsibility for transporting it from X (China or wherever) to the UK. So the goods were at point of handover sanitary and passed checks, but have since been checked and did not pass the market because the UK Government changed their requirement for double or triple bagging of the gown or whatever it was. It could be that it is I who misunderstood, but that is how I have interepreted it based on everything I've read and seen. Edited January 22 by NoTailT 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 11 hours ago, Fred the shred said: It was a car crash interview which did her no favours. Of course there are other people who have made probably more money than her and Doug when they got contracts for all sorts that were Covid related and there wasn’t really time to do due diligence on all the suppliers but that does not really help her situation. Apparently the merchandise was not fit for purpose and is still being stored at some expense to the British Government. In a perfect world it would have been returned to the manufacturers and the buyer would have been compensated. The thing that puzzles me is why was payment made before the goods arrived and examined ? prepayment is not usual between legitimate traders. 2 minutes ago, NoTailT said: I think therein lies some misunderstanding on your part. As I understand it: the goods WERE checked by a UK Government contractor prior to payment and were cleared and delivered. I watched their hour long video and have my understanding from that. That all procurement for PPE was 'on consignment' and UK Government took responsibility for transporting it from X (China or wherever) to the UK. It could be that it is I who misunderstood, but that is how I have interepreted it based on everything I've read and seen. Yep it was all acceptable at the time. It's just that now the UK have warehouses full of paid PPE they are never going to use. They need to and are doing everything they can to claw back some of that money. I don't think really there is really that much dodginess that has gone on with that transaction. This is now more to do with a witch-hunt than anything else. Barrowman's previous business antics on the whole Payroll side of things however are very unpleasant. But the AML stuff at the time was all legal. It was only when the UK retrospectively closed the loophole and started fining that it's all started to unravel. I've heard some genuinely horrible stories from there. There are plenty of Payroll Princes about. Many of the self made wealthy people I know of my age have been involved. It's just that they have made their money and got out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garteth T Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, The Phantom said: Barrowman's previous business antics on the whole Payroll side of things however are very unpleasant. But the AML stuff at the time was all legal. It was only when the UK retrospectively closed the loophole and started fining that it's all started to unravel. I've heard some genuinely horrible stories from there. There are plenty of Payroll Princes about. Many of the self made wealthy people I know of my age have been involved. It's just that they have made their money and got out. The statement the “AML stuff at the time was all Legal” would be correct if you are referring to the receiving of funds by way of loan however, I would argue that these schemes never worked as advertised in respect of tax planning, except possibly from deferring the date the tax was due, where the scheme was based on loans not being taxable and the loan not being repaid. Whilst it is true a loan is not taxable a loan which there is no intention to repay is not and never was, in my opinion, a loan. I have not seen the paperwork with regard to the AML scheme but I read and warned off people from others schemes as in my view they did not work. Yes, there were barristers’ opinions stating that a loan was not taxable and these were used to “evidence” the scheme worked. I don’t remember though seeing opinions on whether a loan which there was no intention to repay was actually a loan or the scheme worked if at the outset there was no intention to repay the loan. The people who devised and sold these schemes are low life as far as I am concerned, as many made large sums from selling. All the comeback is on the small guys who used the schemes with virtually no come back on the promoters etc. In my view there should be mis selling rules in place on these schemes so the people who devised and sold are also hit hard. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 I have difficulty feeling any sympathy for the people who bought into the payroll schemes such as AML sold. They were motivated by greed (both sides), pure and simple. Paying yourself via an offshore loan, with no intention of paying it back, with the intention to avoid paying tax, is so obviously morally wrong regardless of whether or not it was technically legal at the time. If you give in to greed, don't be surprised when it bites you in the ass at a later date. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.