[lagerstarfish]

whoop

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11350365/Pop-a-sober-up-pill-or-guzzle-synthetic-booze-to-avoid-hangovers.html

[tomtom]

whoop

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11350365/Pop-a-sober-up-pill-or-guzzle-synthetic-booze-to-avoid-hangovers.html

The man behind this marvel is Professor David Nutt

:D

[Oldmanmatt]

If you think UKIP are bad....

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mo-brooks-illegal-aliens-blame-measles-outbreak?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

[Sloper]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/10/tube-drivers-vote-strike-colleague-sacking

the end of the beginning for drivers on the tube?

(oh and a gift for the Tories)

[Will Hunt]

I can't help but feel there must be some context here as to why the members have voted for action. If the guy was done even once then surely that would be a legitimate gross misconduct offence. With the threat to the drivers of driver-less trains breathing down their necks you'd think they'd want to be pressing the point that only fully qualified drivers are up to the job, not just any old body that turns up to work in an unfit state.

[Will Hunt]

And whilst I'm on this thread, since the good lady Hodge pointed out the great void in justice between benefit cheats and tax evaders, it has become the choice compliant for all the news' talking heads to use.

Is anybody really surprised? To roll with a stereotype: if you get a benefit cheat into the dock they're going to turn up in a tracksuit and use whatever legal representation the state deigns to provide; conversley the tax evader will rock up in a limo conveying his legal team with a combined five figure hourly recharge rate.
The CPS need to grow a pair (or whatever the PC equivalent of that phrase might be) and go Big Game Hunting.

[Sloper]

Tax evaders do get custody on a regular basis: a QC recently got 6 years for VAT evasion: the problem is tax avoidance isn't illegal, even aggressive tax avoidance where the HMRC subsequently claw back tax and interest doesn't alter the fact that no offence has been committed.

Secondly where someone is accused of VAT fraud all their assets are often seized meaning that they cannot pay privately for fat cat lawyers and are reliant on exactly the same firms on the same rates as everyone else (unless of course friends / family step in and fund the matter).

In respect of benefits cheats, you'd be very surpised how few get immediate custodial sentences.

http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fraud_bribery_and_money_laundering_offences_-_Definitive_guideline.pdf

So a nice little rant by La Hodge but more heat than light. 

Ohh and can we stop politicising the fuckign CPS, they're bad enough already without political interference.

[Will Hunt]

Tax evaders do get custody on a regular basis: a QC recently got 6 years for VAT evasion: the problem is tax avoidance isn't illegal, even aggressive tax avoidance where the HMRC subsequently claw back tax and interest doesn't alter the fact that no offence has been committed.

That's interesting. If there's no offence, how do they manage to get the cheddar back? My outrage thus far has been along the lines of "the politicians should legislate to stop this stuff happening, rather than just naming and shaming those who, quite legally, take advantage of loopholes". Is this wrong? Should I be cross with HMRC because they aren't pursuing the action you describe above enough? And how much of total tax evasion does VAT evasion make up and do the same rules apply across the board?

Ohh and can we stop politicising the fuckign CPS, they're bad enough already without political interference.

Who do we get cross with then? Politicians? HMRC? I'm fairly sure we should be cross with someone.

[Sloper]

Other than for (generally minor offences) for criminal liability to be established there needs to be a 'mens rea' i.e. a 'guilty mind' to accompany the 'guilty act', so for murder you need to intend to kill or seriously injure the deceased, if you lack that intention while you can be guilty of manslaughter, hence the outrage that routinely follows the 'single punch manslaugher' sentences of 4 years.

In the case of most aggressive tax avoidance there is no guilty mind as the person avoiding tax cannot have a guilty mind for doing something that is, on paper and at the material time, legal.  That HMRC subsequently determine that the scheme was not within the scope of the allowable avoidance does not retrospectively change their state of mind from innocent to guilty or make the act illegal when at the time it was legal.

None of this of course alters the moral assessment and whether morally the acts were reasonable or reprehensible but fortunately law and morality while running in the same channel are not the same stream (Ru bonus points if you can remember the case from which the fluvial analogy flows, I can't!).

Of course HMRC can claim retrospective liabilities (and indeed makes retrospetive allowances) and it is for these reasons that the back payments are made (of course I'm sure that some are for a quiet life etc).

In terms of legislating to close loopholes, this government has introduced a very wide range of general anti avoidance provisions (GAAP) which it is broadly accepted have closed more loopholes and done more to restrict the sort of aggressive avoidance that we've seen with some of the film schemes, that comedain and pop start whose names escape me: including the rule now that you have to notify HMRC in advance of the basis of your avoidance scheme which seems a

In respect of VAT evasion, it's been a while since I've had any dealings with MTIC (or carousel VAT fraud, google it it's genuinely fascinating) or general VAT fruad but the estimations of the leakage of tax take VAT fraud is by far and away the largest slice of evasion.  (think every time you pay someone in cash you're probably being complicit in VAT evasion / fraud).

Who should we get cross with, by 'eck lad, there's plenty of people, top roping scum, people over using chalk, dog owners, proles, politicians and journalists who peddle simplistic fuckwittery about avoidance in the same breath, did I mention dog owners, wankers.

Personally I don't think really there's anyone to blame, taken against international measures we take pretty much what is considered to be the maximum amount of tax when compared with the theoretical tax liabilities, Andy P will probably recall the paper from the mid 2000's showing we were at about 89% of the theoretical amount and Greece was somewhere in the 40s.

Anyway, I've been dealing with some particualrly cvntish fuckwittery today and in a mood that requires a midweek cigar and pint, particualrly since Man U are playing tonight and bollocksing up my commute home.

[Oldmanmatt]

This (despite not being in the least bit surprising) is really beyond a joke.
In particular the appointment of an HSBC exec into government, despite the Gov's full knowledge of the scandal.

Swiss police raid HSBC's Geneva office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31516416

Neither Labour nor Cons are the least guilty in this, apparently deliberate, blindness to the goings on; but that appointment is monumentally poor judgement.

The debacle at the Telegraph, just serves to lend credibility to critics and make the Tory party seem even more likely to be guilty of deliberately, tacitly, condoning tax evasion by the wealthy.

Sorry, Sloper, but this is terrible press for the Cons and I'm amazed Cameron hasn't done more to distance the party from the scandal.
Some Peerages need retracting, for one.

[slackline]

The debacle at the Telegraph, just serves to lend credibility to critics and make the Tory party seem even more likely to be guilty of deliberately, tacitly, condoning tax evasion by the wealthy.

This one where the political editor has resigned over a multitude of editorial issues being influenced by the Barclay brothers who bought the paper?

[Sloper]

This (despite not being in the least bit surprising) is really beyond a joke.
In particular the appointment of an HSBC exec into government, despite the Gov's full knowledge of the scandal.

Swiss police raid HSBC's Geneva office
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31516416

Neither Labour nor Cons are the least guilty in this, apparently deliberate, blindness to the goings on; but that appointment is monumentally poor judgement.

The debacle at the Telegraph, just serves to lend credibility to critics and make the Tory party seem even more likely to be guilty of deliberately, tacitly, condoning tax evasion by the wealthy.

Sorry, Sloper, but this is terrible press for the Cons and I'm amazed Cameron hasn't done more to distance the party from the scandal.
Some Peerages need retracting, for one.

Of course it is bad press for the government, though that doesn't make it (i.e the allegations that the govt had full knowledge of it) true.

Let's be clear.

1. tax avoidance is legal, and it is mos unlikely that either the CEO of HSBC knew what was going on or that his came up in the clearance process.
2. Cameron isn't making more effort to distance the party from the scandal because it i.e. the enoblement of Lord Green isn't a scandal
3. I am sure that the tory spin doctors know Labour have as much to fear from this issue as the Tories.

I'm not one for calling for the withdrawal of honours and would be very surprised if even Miliband is stupid enough to bang this drum when you consider who they gave honours to.

[Oldmanmatt]

So....

You're saying that the man in charge of the bank, was unaware of the trading policies and principle revenue stream, of one of the banks largest arms and the performance and management of some of the banks biggest clients?



Uhh...

Yeah.


Riiiiiigghht....

Of course, that would make him a mere figurehead.

A Marionette.

A stooge.

A Facade.

Perfectly qualified for a Ministerial post.

And yes, Labour have some serious questions to answer too.
As do HMRC.

The fact that both sets of Spin Doctors are playing it down and that the Media (hardly independent and when bi-partisan issues occur, muted to say the least) have little Editorial/Owner incentive to give the story the legs it deserves; does not make it any less a scandal.
People are beginning to notice.

It looks and feels, dirty.

And Labour at least have a relatively fresh and apparently clean cast. An ability to say "it was the old crowd, and that's why we gave them the chop".

Not so the Cons.

[Sloper]

It is as rational an argument as that that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown knew about the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham because they were the leader of the Labour party at the relevant time.

As for the Swiss activities under scrutiny being a 'principle revenue stream', jesus wept, you're only out by several magnitude errors.

let's be clear HMRC has been shit in dealing with specific matters for example MTIC / carousel VAT fraud for a very long time (not aided by Gordon Brown merging IL with HMC+E against all advice) and I do not think that them being shit is necessarily a party political issue:

1. HMRC were first offered the papers in 2004,
2, HMRC were in effect offering an amnesty in 2007 for these activities, short of significant evasion
3. The head of HMRC, by 2009, had in his own words 'not only smoking guns, but smoking tanks and smoking howitzers'.  Despite this prosecutions did not follow.

Despite this I do not think that the failure to act was a political figure to be laid at the door of Alister Darling and Gordon Brown.

HSBC have been involved in a number of scandals for as long as I can remember, from laundering drug money through to less respectable activities. 

The real scandal is that our system of banking regulation (and this is where it does get political) failed to take any proper steps to enforce and assure good governance.

[psychomansam]

The real scandal is that our system of banking regulation (and this is where it does get political) failed to take any proper steps to enforce and assure good governance.

And on this both Labour and the Tories are guilty of sitting back and accepting handjobs from the city.

[petejh]

Which they were able to claim back on expenses..

[Oldmanmatt]

It is as rational an argument as that that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown knew about the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham because they were the leader of the Labour party at the relevant time.

As for the Swiss activities under scrutiny being a 'principle revenue stream', jesus wept, you're only out by several magnitude errors.

No.

Private wealth management is the principle business of the Swiss arm.

It is not even remotely comparable to criminal activities carried out Rotherham. That is specious.

Despite HSBC being a very large entity, Green was most certainly responsible for their business practices.
He will have sat at the same table as the head of that arm and listened to his reports.
The revenue was sufficiently important for the Swiss arm to feel it worth incurring international condemnation, to obtain (possibly even prosecution).

No.

Green is tanted.

If he was unaware, he should have been.

Now, explain again how this pertains to child molestation in Rotherham?

Are you suggesting that was state sponsored?


This is not some local branch of Curry's handing out TVs under the counter.
This is a large, important, arm of an international banking empire; at an institutional level, acting to defraud many nation states.

All under the stewardship of Green.

Much more akin to a Government Ministry, directly, organising the child abuse in Rotherham and very similar in scale of scandal.
(Sorry, Slopers choice of analogy, not mine).

[abarro81]

It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know. I doubt the head of the physics department knows how much time I spend going climbing when I should be working.

[tomtom]

It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know. I doubt the head of the physics department knows how much time I spend going climbing when I should be working.

We're all tagged with RFID implants and our HoD has a real time location screen in his office....

[Sloper]

The real scandal is that our system of banking regulation (and this is where it does get political) failed to take any proper steps to enforce and assure good governance.

And on this both Labour and the Tories are guilty of sitting back and accepting handjobs from the city.

This may shock you but I do agree that there is a prblem with ex ministers taking roles within the industries they were previously involved in governing but this 'merry go round' is at its most pernicious in the world of banking regulation, tax and HMRC.

[Sloper]

Matt, you've worked at management level, you know that senior management don't have the detailed knowledge of what's going on on the shop floor etc and to think that there were reports delivered to the senior board that said, 'guys have I told you about our money laundering and tax evasion, christ some of the clients are dodgy but you should see the fees, now where's my bonus you fuckers' you've lost it.

The point about Rotherham is not that they activities are in any way comparable: rather I suggesting that your analysis giving Lord Green  imputed / contstructive knowledge was flawed.

Officers with very close links to Labour were directly involved in the causes of the failure to act, elected Labour officials took positive steps to ensure that the council failed to deliver its statutory responsibility, at least one of those councillors is now an MP, the leader of the Labour party has his seat in the general proximity of where this all happened.  And yet it would be ridiculous to say that Miliband has any stain on his character due to the failures of labour supporters and elected officials.

That is a shorter and stronger chain than the case of HSBC and the nefarious activities of part of the organisation.

I think you're right that Lord Green is tainted but I find this pillory by association rather unpleasant.

[Oldmanmatt]

Such is the nature of corporate responsibility.

Not what he knew, but what he should have known.

Much as a minister is, quiet rightly, expected to fall on the sword of office; in similar circumstance.

It represents a failure of corporate governance, for which he is (was) ultimately responsible.
If such entities are "ungovernable" or beyond the capacity of their Chief or board to govern; then it is time for global regulation.

Yes, I am aware of the current impossibility of such regulation.

Was this "Clandestine" in the same way that the events of Rotherham were?

I suspect not.

The information was leaked during his tenure at the bank, long before his Ministerial exit.

So, he was aware of what was going on.

I have not seen reported, any information regarding the actions he took to remedy that situation.

I do not find his position tenable.

There will be others who think like me (and yes I'm listening to the arguments, they don't sway me) and I suspect, of those others, a significant proportion will see the Gov's muted response and take it as tacit support of HSBC and acceptance that such practices are just "part of the game".

Just a bit of a shame the Proles found out.

I agree, to some extent, with your point about the Chimera that is HMRC.
Taxation is long overdue a complete overhaul and simplification. It is inherently unfair (and yes, I am also aware that, if followed to the letter, it is often grossly unfair to the wealthy).

None of that changes my opinion of this affair, nor do I see it as directly relevant.
Drawing such chains of causation, are as meaningful as drawing the same chains, from the disturbance of a wasps passage; to the hurricane battering some unfortunate port.

[slackline]

It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know. I doubt the head of the physics department knows how much time I spend going climbing when I should be working.

We're all tagged with RFID implants and our HoD has a real time location screen in his office....

You may jest....

[Sloper]

Matt,

I think the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is no longer what it was following the Critchell Down affair 60 years ago.

The head of the organisation does of course bear nominal responsibility but this is quite different from having actual or indeed constructive knowledge and your analysis and reasoning to seek to impose that is wholly flawed. 

No organisation can be wholly governable and all risk of malpractice or misconduct removed.  We're not calling for ministerial resignations when police officers get caught selling information, for the former Commissioner of the Met Police to resign because of malpractice in the ranks and so on.

You ask whether this was clandestine in the way that the offences in Rotheram were: I thought we wren't comparing the events?  But since we are: the officers and officials at Rotherham were presented with the information that the offences were going on, this went up to director and cabinet level in this form the misconduct and malpractice of the small Swiss office were more 'clandestine' than the failures in the Council.

As to his position being tenable or not, he has resigned from some positions: as for these events being grounds to withdraw his peerage is simply bizarre.

[Oldmanmatt]

Characterisation of the Swiss banking arm as a small branch, is a tad disingenuous...
It's not as if this is the Manager of the Warmington on Sea branch, passing out interest free mortgages to his Home Guard mates...
 
I'm not proposing a 38* petition to have him stripped of his peerage, that is merely a suggestion.
Not particularly bizarre, I don't want him sitting in HoL as part of Gov.
Yes, there are many others, elevated by the former bunch of clowns, who trouble me too, but they are not part of this discussion.

Please note the First person nature of the above. It is opinion only.