PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

blue by birth said:
I was in Turkey last year and in a bar a dipper started chatting to me..he mentioned the 115 charges and said "do you think you will get away with it?"
I replied there's fuck all to get away with as I'm sure we are innocent..he said no smoke without fire..
He wasn't happy when I said I would rather be guilty of the charges than guilty of murdering 39 innocent people.. **** soon fucked off.
We definitely live rent free in their tiny little minds.
Click to expand...

No retreat and no surrender, when you occasion across a rude **** then it's good and proper to be a **** right back.
 
Chris in London said:
Though to be fair to HCU - and that's not a sentence I will write too often - the FTT did not conclude (as I read it) that it is factually incorrect that Sky had a contractual right to require Phil Thompson to express opinions that were not his own. The Upper tax Tribunal's decision seems to indicate that it did - see para 35 of the UT's judgment* - but that it was subject to an implied condition of reasonableness and was in any event not especially material to the central question of whether Thompson was an employee for tax purposes.

I imagine you do not have any sort of contract with Talksport but if HMRC ever accused you of being an employee of TS rather than an independent contractor, I suspect your freedom from editorial influence is a point that would count in your favour.

I suspect the reality, as someone else posted, is that the majority of cases where an individual is engaged to provide expert/pundit analysis whether pursuant to a formal contract of employment or on an ad-hoc basis contains something similar (for instance to prevent honestly held but potentially libellous opinions from being expressed).

I suppose the shock for some is seeing it laid out in black and white that talking heads within sports broadcasting may be contractually obliged to toe the party line.

* https://assets.publishing.service.g...eef5a8c15e8e/PD__MJ_v_HMRC_final_decision.pdf para 35

-
Click to expand...

Yeah was just about to say that myself. Ad hoc formal contract basis and all that
 
Judging by Youtube views, Stefan's appearances on Talksport seem rather popular. They seem to average 10k but his from yesterday are already at 77k.
 
Chris in London said:
Though to be fair to HCU - and that's not a sentence I will write too often - the FTT did not conclude (as I read it) that it is factually incorrect that Sky had a contractual right to require Phil Thompson to express opinions that were not his own. The Upper tax Tribunal's decision seems to indicate that it did - see para 35 of the UT's judgment* - but that it was subject to an implied condition of reasonableness and was in any event not especially material to the central question of whether Thompson was an employee for tax purposes.

I imagine you do not have any sort of contract with Talksport but if HMRC ever accused you of being an employee of TS rather than an independent contractor, I suspect your freedom from editorial influence is a point that would count in your favour.

I suspect the reality, as someone else posted, is that the majority of cases where an individual is engaged to provide expert/pundit analysis whether pursuant to a formal contract of employment or on an ad-hoc basis contains something similar (for instance to prevent honestly held but potentially libellous opinions from being expressed).

I suppose the shock for some is seeing it laid out in black and white that talking heads within sports broadcasting may be contractually obliged to toe the party line.

* https://assets.publishing.service.g...eef5a8c15e8e/PD__MJ_v_HMRC_final_decision.pdf para 35

-
Click to expand...
That para refers to this from FTT

50. Paragraph 4.1 of the Terms and Conditions for the 2013 Contract (substantially replicated as paragraph 4.1(a) of the Terms and Conditions for the 2015 Contract) which provides that, "the Services will be rendered to the best of the Company's and the Personnel's abilities and all directions and requests given by BSkyB or its nominees will be complied with." We do not accept Mr Firth's submission that this is to be construed as meaning that Sky is unable to require Mr Thompson to express opinions which he did not believe or otherwise to control what he says or to restrict his opinions. This paragraph is unambiguous and does not make any reference to Mr Thompson's opinions. As such, there is no room for Mr Firth's construction.

Then on Control the FTT concluded (I quoted (5) earlier): 1742383988026.png

I've not read in detail but it is only theoretical that Sky could direct Thompson or anyone so HMRC succeeded on that point notwithstanding the reality. Para 51 says "Similarly, given the emphasis on reasonableness elsewhere in the Contract and as part of the factual matrix as a whole, we find that it is so obvious to go without saying that the parties did not intend that Sky be entitled to make or give unreasonable directions and requests. It might well be, therefore, that in practice Mr Thompson would not be obliged to express opinions which he did not believe or otherwise to control what he says or to restrict his opinions. However, this is a feature of such a direction or request being unreasonable and in breach of the implied term rather than being the proper construction of paragraph 4.1 (or paragraph 4.1(a)) itself."


By the way, here is a good example of the chaos that will ensue after the decision is published from people claiming it says one thing and others claiming it says something different - and nobody will know for sure. It is possible to have 2 valid interpretations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back