Assisted Dying Leaflet published by ?

[Hoops]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Except, an election leaflet must have the name and contact details of the publisher, and the amount an election candidate can spend is strictly controlled and has to be reported and checked.

Im pretty sure that suspicions were raised that Josem’s lobby group/think tank was being used to employ and support him during the campaign as a way round that. My recollection. And I can’t be bothered looking back, but I recollect him saying he had taken unpaid leave.

I would counter that a group of individuals putting across their point of view is different from someone putting themselves up to be our elected representative, where they will be in a position to do exactly what their CS handlers tell them to......................😐

Edit - I actually wrote a lengthy and quite brilliant response to your post, taking in religion, krishna restaurants, Chris Hedges and coming back from 2-0 down on saturday, and then pressed the wrong button. I'm off to the sea terminal.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Hoops

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I would counter that a group of individuals putting across their point of view is different from someone putting themselves up to be our elected representative, where they will be in a position to do exactly what their CS handlers tell them to......................😐

Edit - I actually wrote a lengthy and quite brilliant response to your post, taking in religion, krishna restaurants, Chris Hedges and coming back from 2-0 down on saturday, and then pressed the wrong button. I'm off to the sea terminal.

Except there are regulations for the latter and not for the former. Beggars belief.

I agree with you, and have posted above, for the absolute need for transparency and accountability as far as lobby groups and think tanks are concerned.

[manxman34]

20 hours ago, Hoops said:

Ha ha, touche.

Although, of course, you run the risk of conscious, or subconscious, bias that way.

There is also a danger of unconscious bias against unknown groups, so that argument doesn’t wash either, I’m afraid

[monasqueen]

1 minute ago, manxman34 said:

There is also a danger of unconscious bias against unknown groups, so that argument doesn’t wash either, I’m afraid

Harry's got a lot to answer for.

(Recollections may vary)

[Thorulf]

On 1/11/2023 at 5:38 PM, thommo2010 said:

Seen it posted on Facebook and the usual whys this coming through my door. Here's an idea don't like it bin it move on with your life. Why is everything turned into a big song and dance these days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually lit the fire with it!  

[Cinderella]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:18 AM, Hoops said:

I would counter that a group of individuals putting across their point of view is different from someone putting themselves up to be our elected representative, where they will be in a position to do exactly what their CS handlers tell them to......................😐

Edit - I actually wrote a lengthy and quite brilliant response to your post, taking in religion, krishna restaurants, Chris Hedges and coming back from 2-0 down on saturday, and then pressed the wrong button. I'm off to the sea terminal.

I disagree. This is an important social issue that may result in legislation. If groups are distributing an unsolicited leaflet so they should be both willing, and required, to at least be transparent as to who they are and how it is funded, as that is most definitely a key factor in someone assessing the content. And that is not bias, that is transparency of any information and opinions in the publication. 

[Andy Onchan]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-beckett-frsa-mciarb-tep-4664ba25_death-tax-planning-offshore-euthanasia-activity-7017803489011453952-BXpD?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

[Apple]

That creates a lot of thoughts and questions. 

I had not considered the complexities of residency and tax purposes before.

Thanks for posting.

[John Wright]

14 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-beckett-frsa-mciarb-tep-4664ba25_death-tax-planning-offshore-euthanasia-activity-7017803489011453952-BXpD?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

 

10 hours ago, Apple said:

That creates a lot of thoughts and questions. 

I had not considered the complexities of residency and tax purposes before.

Thanks for posting.

It’s a very poor analysis. It’s exaggerating and overdramatising. It confuses tax residence with permanent residence with ordinary residence; and then conflates them with domicile.

It ignores that you can have more than one residence at once, although you can only have one domicile.

Its very unlikely that someone with a domicile of origin in UK, who then adopts a domicile of choice in IoM would lose that domicile of choice by visiting Switzerland temporarily to take advantage of assisted dying.

People with a domicile of choice in the Island go on holiday and die, go to hospital in England and die, go to hospital in England knowing their condition is terminal and die. They don’t lose their domicile of choice.

The common law of both England and the IoM is remarkably flexible and pragmatic. It’s extremely unlikely that the courts would deem a visit to a Swiss clinic to die would affect an acquired domicile of choice.

[Andy Onchan]

24 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

It’s a very poor analysis. It’s exaggerating and overdramatising. It confuses tax residence with permanent residence with ordinary residence; and then conflates them with domicile.

It ignores that you can have more than one residence at once, although you can only have one domicile.

Its very unlikely that someone with a domicile of origin in UK, who then adopts a domicile of choice in IoM would lose that domicile of choice by visiting Switzerland temporarily to take advantage of assisted dying.

People with a domicile of choice in the Island go on holiday and die, go to hospital in England and die, go to hospital in England knowing their condition is terminal and die. They don’t lose their domicile of choice.

The common law of both England and the IoM is remarkably flexible and pragmatic. It’s extremely unlikely that the courts would deem a visit to a Swiss clinic to die would affect an acquired domicile of choice.

Has it been tested?

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Andy Onchan said:

Has it been tested?

The examples I give as parallels have. I’ve no reason to think the precedents would be departed from.

Its just Paul’s usual pseudo intellectual kite flying.

[Kopek]

He says the same about you John!!!

Balance?

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

He says the same about you John!!!

Balance?

Yes, I was providing the balance to the unsubstantiated claims. It’s a forum. I’m not a moderator. 

[Thereisnt]

1 hour ago, Kopek said:

He says the same about you John!!!

Balance?

Some say significantly worse..

[Roger Mexico]

12 hours ago, John Wright said:

It’s a very poor analysis. It’s exaggerating and overdramatising. It confuses tax residence with permanent residence with ordinary residence; and then conflates them with domicile.

It ignores that you can have more than one residence at once, although you can only have one domicile.

Its very unlikely that someone with a domicile of origin in UK, who then adopts a domicile of choice in IoM would lose that domicile of choice by visiting Switzerland temporarily to take advantage of assisted dying.

People with a domicile of choice in the Island go on holiday and die, go to hospital in England and die, go to hospital in England knowing their condition is terminal and die. They don’t lose their domicile of choice.

The common law of both England and the IoM is remarkably flexible and pragmatic. It’s extremely unlikely that the courts would deem a visit to a Swiss clinic to die would affect an acquired domicile of choice.

I must say I stopped reading after the first page as it struck me as being completely implausible - the sort of argument that judges politely describe as 'valiant' (ie "Your client's case had sod all going for it, but at least you tried.  Loudly").   But if going somewhere to die really did alter your country of residence for any sort of purpose, you would think that we would have heard about it by now.  And the  airports of suitable tax havens would be full of the arriving soon-to-be departed, trying to expire advantageously.

But according to Dignitas's own figures, nearly 500 people from the UK alone have gone to Switzerland and been helped to their death there over the last 20 years.  I suspect if there had been tax complications arising, there would be some cases raised in that period.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Roger Mexico
Duplicate words