TV licence evasion...
 

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Care to gamble on whether there are more income tax or TV licence
evaders?

I'd bet on the former - and by a substantial margin.

Since you have no evidence all you're doing is showing that you're
prepared to believe just what suits your philosophy.
Touched a raw nerve with all those cash in hand jobs, Bill?

Pathetic straw man attack.

You really expect us to believe you never did any cash in hand jobs?

Unable to put up an argument so you have resorted to dangerous
defamation in a public forum. You cannot substantiate your allegation,
so you were very unwise to make it.

Good grief. You think it 'dangerous defamation' to say anyone accepts cash
in hand for a job?

You really do have a very guilty conscience.

You might have something to bleat about if I suggested you took cash in
hand, then didn't pay the VAT or income tax. But I didn't. You simply read
it into my post, in the same way as you do with so much else.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TV licence evasion...
 

Martin wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:02:54 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 16:46:03 +0200, Martin
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:30:25 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:18:39 +0100, "Steve Terry"
wrote:

Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Stephen H wrote:
snip
The BBC operates under a Royal Charter for which parliament and
government are responsible, but the BBC is paid for by a compulsory
subscription from all TV viewers/households. There is therefore a
clear understanding that the services provided are for all viewers.

If there were to be a change to direct government funding there is
a real danger that governments would see the BBC as an agency of
government and start interfering more directly in its activities.

Sometimes what might be intended as a purely administrative change
creates a psychological change which can have results not intended
by those who proposed the administrative change.

It works for the Dutch.

Ah but the Dutch aren't British.

A real not invented here answer. :-)

Both countries are constitutional democratic monarchies and not third
rate banana republics run by extremist dictators, yet.

Well Holland isn't anyway

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk

TV licence evasion...
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Touched a raw nerve with all those cash in hand jobs, Bill?

Pathetic straw man attack.

You really expect us to believe you never did any cash in hand jobs?

Whatever. Only a cretin could really think there are more in this country
who avoid paying a TV licence than avoid paying their correct taxes at all
times.

Why should we break our backs stupidly paying tax? Better get some untaxed
income...

--
Max Demian

TV licence evasion...
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You might have something to bleat about if I suggested you took cash in
hand, then didn't pay the VAT or income tax. But I didn't. You simply read
it into my post, in the same way as you do with so much else.

The phrase 'cash in hand' is universally understood to mean a deal where
the tax is fiddled. Google it and see for yourself. Here's one example
of what you'll find.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18968679
So you won't wriggle out of it that way. Et semel emissum volat
irrevocabile verbum.

Now the thing is, my firm has been trading since 1971, and my dad 20
years before that. On no occasion has an Inland Revenue or Customs and
Excise (as was) investigation ever found anything wrong. No-one
associated with us has any criminal convictions of any kind.

Dishonesty is dishonesty. Tax fiddling just as dishonest as pilfering
from people's homes.

A business like ours, where we go into hospitals, secure units,
children's homes, schools, private houses, and prisons, cannot have even
the slightest suggestion of dishonesty made against it. The prison
service, for instance, will not tolerate any stains on the characters of
contractors. Many other organisation also play safe. They believe there
is no smoke without fire and after all they can soon find another
contractor. For these reasons it is inevitable that small firms like
ours will always use every means at their disposal to put the record
straight.

Bill

TV licence evasion...
 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:53:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

You really expect us to believe you never did any cash in hand jobs?

Unable to put up an argument so you have resorted to dangerous
defamation in a public forum. You cannot substantiate your allegation,
so you were very unwise to make it.

Good grief. You think it 'dangerous defamation' to say anyone accepts cash
in hand for a job?

Since what you were very OBVIOUSLY implying was accepting cash and not
declaring the income, then I would be very worried if I were you.
You might well be on the receiving end of a solicitor's letter.
It's about time someone made an example of you to shut you up and you've
just given Bill an excuse...

TV licence evasion...
 

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:35:40 +0100, Woody wrote:

The problem with the BBC is their prolific wastage of money.

Why do their staff need to stay in five-star hotels amongst other
things?

They don't, and can't because it costs too much.

Why do panelists on Question Time (radio and TV) have to have
dinner together at the BBC's expense?

Possibly for logistical reasons, or possibly because it makes for a
better programme?

Why do BBC personages have to travel everywhere by taxi or
chauffer-driven limo at BBC expense?

Are you living in the real world?
I have travelled by taxi probably once in the last year and that
was only because it was the most efficient way of getting the job done.
I can't say I've ever been in a chauffeur-driven limo. once in 24+
years.
What do you mean by "personages" anyway? Why try and hide the
meaning of what you are supposed to be moaning about?

If my employer says I can spend up to £100 per night (£150 inside
M25) and that is quite satisfactory for decent accommodation then
why cannot the Beeb do something similar,

The BBC rate is a lot less than that.
Who's your employer then, so we can submit FoI requests and pull
them to bits?

then if the lovies want to stay somewhere better they can pay
the balance themselves.

"lovies" are not staff. All staff are (notionally) supposed to
abide by the same rules, although some of the top brass seem (or
seemed) to have different rules.

I won't even go into golden hellos, pay offs, or staffing
levels..........

Because you clearly don't know what you're talking about...

The problem is that $ky will just come in and flood the market to
entice Beeb staff away and the Beeb will eventually fold.

You are on Planet Zog now.

Careful you don't scratch yourself on the shoulder... you'll get a
massive splinter off your chip.

TV licence evasion...
 

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Care to gamble on whether there are more income tax or TV licence
evaders?

I'd bet on the former - and by a substantial margin.

Since you have no evidence all you're doing is showing that you're
prepared to believe just what suits your philosophy.
Touched a raw nerve with all those cash in hand jobs, Bill?

Pathetic straw man attack.

You really expect us to believe you never did any cash in hand jobs?

Unable to put up an argument so you have resorted to dangerous
defamation in a public forum. You cannot substantiate your allegation,
so you were very unwise to make it.

Good grief. You think it 'dangerous defamation' to say anyone accepts cash
in hand for a job?

You really do have a very guilty conscience.

You might have something to bleat about if I suggested you took cash in
hand, then didn't pay the VAT or income tax. But I didn't. You simply read
it into my post, in the same way as you do with so much else.

I doubt that there's a single person who read that, and interpreted it
in a different way from Bill.
--
Ian

TV licence evasion...
 

In article ,
Max Demian wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Touched a raw nerve with all those cash in hand jobs, Bill?

Pathetic straw man attack.

You really expect us to believe you never did any cash in hand jobs?

Whatever. Only a cretin could really think there are more in this country
who avoid paying a TV licence than avoid paying their correct taxes at all
times.

Why should we break our backs stupidly paying tax?

Depends on the semantic value you've assigned to the rhetorical inclusion
of "stupidly" in the above so as to slant the 'question' sic

Removing that biassing addition, one answer can be: Perhaps to avoid
breaking our backs (and those of our family, etc) as a consequence of a
lack of the services we need as part of being in a society.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

TV licence evasion...
 

In article , Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:53:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

You really expect us to believe you never did any cash in hand jobs?

Unable to put up an argument so you have resorted to dangerous
defamation in a public forum. You cannot substantiate your
allegation, so you were very unwise to make it.

Good grief. You think it 'dangerous defamation' to say anyone accepts
cash in hand for a job?

Since what you were very OBVIOUSLY implying was accepting cash and not
declaring the income, then I would be very worried if I were you. You
might well be on the receiving end of a solicitor's letter. It's about
time someone made an example of you to shut you up and you've just given
Bill an excuse...

Not sure your comment would help Bill much by claiming he would using this
as an 'excuse'. Maybe he will have to take action against you as well. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

TV licence evasion...
 

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

Since what you were very OBVIOUSLY implying was accepting cash and not
declaring the income, then I would be very worried if I were you.
You might well be on the receiving end of a solicitor's letter.

Yeah, right. I'd love to see that one tested in court.

--
SteveT