Eamonn Holmes - Tax dodger as well as salad

Yes, the second part is what has happened, he has been deemed as 'inside IR35' by HMRC. This rule determines whether someone should be classed as an employee of a company (inside) or an independent contractor (a supplier of services if you like and outside). A person who works via a limited company as a PSC (Personal Services Company) needs to demonstrate that they are truly independent and are not controlled by the companies they do business with - such as being told when and where to work or how to do the job - and do not act as an employee such as attending paid-for buffets (no idea why that example arose) or regular meetings or accepting company benefits. It is extremely complicated and the HMRC have a tool called CEST which is supposed to help contractors determine if they are inside or outside IR35. This is where it gets messy.

This tool has been described as inadequate many times by experts and HMRC have even themselves contradicted their own advice in many legal cases. I'm loathe to fully laugh at Mr Holmes because the IR35 rules are about as clear and fairly applied as the FFP rules and so taking pleasure at this tax ruling is akin to taking pleasure of City's current predicament. Also, if he has had his contracts reviewed correctly for IR35 compliance and/or taken IR35 insurance, then he may not be paying anything out of his own pocket. If he has continued providing his services without taking the necessary precautions then more fool him, but equally I am wary of slapping HMRC's back in way of congratulations.

The problem is the Inland revenue are too powerful to take on so when they have rules that are so damn hard to understand no one will fight them, One of my other posts highlighted how they 'stole' money from me. My employer and Union agreed I was in the right but neither would fight them. I assume the tax man would say that ITV decided what time his show aired so they employed him, if Holmes was really separate from ITV he should have decided what days/time he was working.
Clearly this is like a test case, now they have won they will write to every other celeb threatening them with court if they don't settle the tax figure they have plucked out of the air. Whether they are right or wrong they are still a shower of wankers.
 
I asked this on another thread. The guy claims 'Rule Britannia' glorifies the slave trade. Can anybody explain why/if this is so?

My understanding is the issue mainly revolves around the "Briton never shall be slaves" - written at a point where Britons abroad had slaves, we were involved in the slave trade and its seen as a statement that Britons are above all that themselves and will never be enslaved to become someone else's property. A statement of forever expecting to hold power and ownership of other human beings.
 
My understanding is the issue mainly revolves around the "Briton never shall be slaves" - written at a point where Britons abroad had slaves, we were involved in the slave trade and its seen as a statement that Britons are above all that themselves and will never be enslaved to become someone else's property. A statement of forever expecting to hold power and ownership of other human beings.
Well, if that really is the case it is complete nonsense. The poem was written as an exhortation to the country to take command of the seas. At the time, there was a fear that our mercantile rivals France and Spain and to a lesser extent the Dutch, who were past their most powerful, would dominate the seas and relegate Britain to second class status, ie slaves. It was fear mongering to persuade the gov to spend money on the navy. Hence the line in the poem you quote.
When the row about the proms blew up, I suspected it was the usual bastardization of history to make a political point. Compare the excoriation of the flag of St. George as having a connection with the crusades. Well it does, inaccurately, in Hollywood films. In reality there is little evidence that it was flown in the crusades.
Fwiw, I can't stand the song, but that's no excuse for the historical claptrap. The idea that it glorifies the slave trade is nonsense.
Edit PS. See also 'Nitty gritty' which was said to be about the detritus in the holds of slave ships, except that the first OED reference is 20th century!
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.