FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Lorraine Kelly vs Esther mcvey
Lorraine Kelly vs Esther mcvey
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Is this the woman who's not paid her tax because she claimed she's just playing a jolly TV character and none of it is actually her?.
If so I think she owes some back tax. 
I wonder if her character is a typical Scottish socialist tax avoider  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Is this the woman who's not paid her tax because she claimed she's just playing a jolly TV character and none of it is actually her?.
If so I think she owes some back tax.
I wonder if her character is a typical Scottish socialist tax avoider "
If her home address is officially in Scotland - and I think she lives in Dundee - she'll be paying a higher rate of tax than you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is this the woman who's not paid her tax because she claimed she's just playing a jolly TV character and none of it is actually her?.
If so I think she owes some back tax.
I wonder if her character is a typical Scottish socialist tax avoider
If her home address is officially in Scotland - and I think she lives in Dundee - she'll be paying a higher rate of tax than you."
Thing is she hasn't paid any at all.
1.2 million was due... she argued she wasn't due to pay it... and she won!!!
So I think its a bit rich that she takes the high road (as opposed to the low road..  )
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax. "
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"They worked together on the 1990s breakfast show. McVey was a presenter. Lorraine did not want to talk about their time together when asked by Reid and Morgan.
"
wonder if its sour grapes because mc vey took her job presenting with holmes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
"
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less."
Yes she will ... if her registered home address is in Scotland...have you checked?
I thought folks on here liked a good witch hunt when it comes to pointing out when people or companies manage to wangle their way out of paying tax to the country...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less.
Yes she will ... if her registered home address is in Scotland...have you checked?
I thought folks on here liked a good witch hunt when it comes to pointing out when people or companies manage to wangle their way out of paying tax to the country...
"
only if they are tories |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less.
Yes she will ... if her registered home address is in Scotland...have you checked?
I thought folks on here liked a good witch hunt when it comes to pointing out when people or companies manage to wangle their way out of paying tax to the country...
only if they are tories "
hahahaha yes  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Using words like "wangle" implies some immoral or dishonest behaviour. Tax tribunals exist to resolve disputes between companies, citizens and HMRC.
HMRC was found to be acting unlawfully. Government does sometimes get things wrong and treats citizens unfairly.
I discovered quite recently, through my own efforts, that I had been overpaying Income Tax.
I contacted HMRC, who accepted my case without the need for any tribunal adjudication. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Using words like "wangle" implies some immoral or dishonest behaviour. Tax tribunals exist to resolve disputes between companies, citizens and HMRC.
HMRC was found to be acting unlawfully. Government does sometimes get things wrong and treats citizens unfairly.
I discovered quite recently, through my own efforts, that I had been overpaying Income Tax.
I contacted HMRC, who accepted my case without the need for any tribunal adjudication."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less."
.
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less..
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself. "
Then she has better accountants than you x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less..
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself.
Then she has better accountants than you x"
.
Probably  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less..
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself. "
No I got it...
A neat trick if you like... to pay less tax..
Normally on here there is absolute uproar at such a thing happening...
however today seems to be.. "oh its absolutely legal, fair, and nothing wrong with it"
fucked up place this... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
Basically , the rich can pay what we want because we can afford top accountants and the rules we adhere to are set by the rich ,,,, and while ever the poor continue to vote for those who cut our taxes it will stay the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less..
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself.
No I got it...
A neat trick if you like... to pay less tax..
Normally on here there is absolute uproar at such a thing happening...
however today seems to be.. "oh its absolutely legal, fair, and nothing wrong with it"
fucked up place this... "
Dont you just love hypocrisy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it."
.
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress "
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress "
Coincidence then that she “Lorraine Kelly the actress” makes a cameo appearance in the soap Coronation Street??
Almost like she is sticking 2 fingers up to hmrc..
Nah... that’s just me being cynical |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
"
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
"
And it turns out she was right, she doesn't. Are you suggesting that HMR should be above the law and allowed to claim money from people when it's not actually due. Or are you saying that people should voluntarily pay more tax than the law says they should, in which case how much extra are you volunteering to pay this year above your legal tax liability?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
And it turns out she was right, she doesn't. Are you suggesting that HMR should be above the law and allowed to claim money from people when it's not actually due. Or are you saying that people should voluntarily pay more tax than the law says they should, in which case how much extra are you volunteering to pay this year above your legal tax liability?
"
I’m personally not paying any extra to cover the shortfall created by one individuals desire to reduce their tax liability.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less..
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself.
No I got it...
A neat trick if you like... to pay less tax..
Normally on here there is absolute uproar at such a thing happening...
however today seems to be.. "oh its absolutely legal, fair, and nothing wrong with it"
fucked up place this... "
I've always said on threads where this has been raised that tax avoidance is legal and should not be included with tax evasion, which is illegal. The government make the tax rules so, if they want to close down any method of legal tax avoidance, they can. If they leave it open then people will rightly take advantage of it and reduce their personal liability. We all do it, even if it's just avoiding VAT or Duty when we buy Duty Free at the airport.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
And it turns out she was right, she doesn't. Are you suggesting that HMR should be above the law and allowed to claim money from people when it's not actually due. Or are you saying that people should voluntarily pay more tax than the law says they should, in which case how much extra are you volunteering to pay this year above your legal tax liability?
I’m personally not paying any extra to cover the shortfall created by one individuals desire to reduce their tax liability.
"
Quite right, but why should she?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Lolol
She lives in Scotland, so she pays tax at a higher rate than someone living in England.
I really don't see what you've got to whine about, other than spitting the dummy because she avoids endorsing the Tory henchwoman of the sick and disabled.
Suck it up baby, she's toast now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less..
I think my point went over your head a little.
Her argument was that she plays a lovey dovey "character" for TV and no part of it is "Lorraine Kelly", if her show was "Lorraine Kelly" playing "Lorraine Kelly" she would have owed 1.2 million more in tax the judge then agreed and let her off the 1.2 million in tax however it would appear she might be lying and she is playing herself after all?.
You were right about one thing though,she does pay more tax than myself but according to get court records she pays a lower tax rate than myself.
No I got it...
A neat trick if you like... to pay less tax..
Normally on here there is absolute uproar at such a thing happening...
however today seems to be.. "oh its absolutely legal, fair, and nothing wrong with it"
fucked up place this...
I've always said on threads where this has been raised that tax avoidance is legal and should not be included with tax evasion, which is illegal. The government make the tax rules so, if they want to close down any method of legal tax avoidance, they can. If they leave it open then people will rightly take advantage of it and reduce their personal liability. We all do it, even if it's just avoiding VAT or Duty when we buy Duty Free at the airport.
"
Absolutely correct |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It was wonderful seeing Lorraine yesterday - it brightened my day. McVey is an awful excuse for what should be a decent human being responsible for millions of peoples' lives and wellbeing. I accept the others are awful but she's mastered the art - I'm guessing Lorraine has even further insight to this person's character, that's not particularly positive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A ruling by a tax tribunal that she is self-employed, not an employee of ITV, does not mean she pays no tax.
hahaha, correct... but the basis for her argument was that she was an actress when presenting her tv show, and as such was outside the scope of being taxed personally on those earnings...
End result... she doesn't have to pay 1.2 million in tax!..
Im sure she does pay tax... but she thought she shouldn't have to pay that much.
HMRC brought in a complex rule called IR35.
It argued that payments made by ITV to Albatel, a company she runs with her husband, were de facto payments for the services of Lorraine Kelly, not Albatel.
So HMRC argued it should be taxed as personal income instead of a contractual payment between two companies.
It raised important issues for the self-employed about the interpretation of IR35.
I have no idea how much tax she pays on her income from Albatel.
But to go back to the original snide point, she will pay more in tax because she lives in Scotland, not less.
Yes she will ... if her registered home address is in Scotland...have you checked?
I thought folks on here liked a good witch hunt when it comes to pointing out when people or companies manage to wangle their way out of paying tax to the country...
only if they are tories "
The nature of how people may manage their tax affairs is the larger issue and I don't know if anyone knows how Lorraine Kelly votes.
How the Inland Revenue wished to tax her was clearly at odds with the style of her business income generation and contractual relationship with ITV, where she did not have employee status, received no employer National Insurance contribution or other pension benefit, holiday/sick pay etc. Her business contracted their services with multiple customers, such that she should have been categorised as someone supplying services via an inter-business contractual relationship, rather than as an employee. Any employee income she may take from the business that contracts her to ITV will be subject to PAYE tax and National Insurance deductions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
Mcvey was are local MP when she first entered parliament,she was so bad we all voted against her in the following Election even though the tories increased there majority.She is hated on the Wirral by most tory voters,many of us voted labour to get rid of her, she was an incompetent bitch.Dispite this as a new MP Camaron put her in the cabinet,very odd.Please draw your own conclusions but a good looking woman if nothing else
If she cannot represent a tiny constituency how the hell can she run the country?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lorraine is doing a superb one woman hit job on scuppering esthers bid. To become pm....
She is making her more toxic as ever.... I love it "
Ester broke the cardinal rule....you don’t fuck with lorraine kelly 
They say Lorraine Kelly is so powerful, even Piers Morgan has to get permission to speak from her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere "
This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others . "
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Carry on and smear Lorraine Kelly at your peril.
She is the queen mother of the showbiz world - untouchable.
"
A female version of Jimmy Savile in his heyday then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done..."
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I just read that Lorraine said that she had her own show in 1992 and Esther came later on. And that they shared a small room which was apperently hardly a dressing room. And has no idea what Esther is going on about with this promotion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
"
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't know why the tory hopefuls are doing tbese tv appearances anyway. They are voted in by other shitbag tories. They might be impressed with McVey being a right sly lying bastard who bullies the vulnerable and disabled so vote for her |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"She comes across as nasty, lies to parliament too.. She is nasty and a lier definitely"
you would not want to know how much she was dispised in the position at the DWP, so many "not nice" words...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The plot thickens, now fiona Phillips has come up and said that Esther wasn't promoted but covering her maternity leave. So Esther went around friends and family etc announced a promotion she never had and even to this point as well. Now if that isn't someone who lies I'm howling |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Why wouldn't anyone snub Esther McVey? She's a despicable excuse for a human being who was content to increase the suffering of the vulnerable. Basically, Katie Hopkins with some measure of political power. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did. "
Yes, you are both clueless.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did. "
You took the same data and came to the same conclusion. I offered a different hypothesis which also fit the data. Doesn't make me right in all instances. Doesn't make you right. Just shows neither of us can say for sure what someone's circumstances are just by time and number of posts.
Either which way I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the quality of one's posts...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"She comes across as nasty, lies to parliament too.. She is nasty and a lier definitely
you would not want to know how much she was dispised in the position at the DWP, so many "not nice" words......"
Hi. Would it matter if some people dispised her ? People who drive innovation and changes are not always popular. What actually matters is the end result.
Margaret Thatcher was not popular with everyone ( or that is what people would like us to believe despite the fact that she won three elections) yet she transformed the economy and made all of us better off .
People are judged on the end result .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
Yes, you are both clueless.
"
As Pat is fond of thatcher I thought he would like this quote from thatcher.
"If they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
You took the same data and came to the same conclusion. I offered a different hypothesis which also fit the data. Doesn't make me right in all instances. Doesn't make you right. Just shows neither of us can say for sure what someone's circumstances are just by time and number of posts.
Either which way I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the quality of one's posts...
"
An interesting post .
However I would be surprised if many employers would want their staff accessing sites such as this during working hours. Whilst access may be possible via a mobile device you would expect firewalls to be installed to prevent access in a work environment .
With self employed people again you would hope that they would be spending their time in a more constructive manner than accessing this site.
Whilst you points are very valid, the opinions of a poster who is knocking up a sixty hour shift or more on this site are likely to be heavily biased.
It might of course be that someone has had an accident , received substantial compensation and due to unfortunate circumstances the internet is their lifeline .However circumstances such as these should become apparent from their posts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
Yes, you are both clueless.
As Pat is fond of thatcher I thought he would like this quote from thatcher.
"If they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
"
Hi. A great post. Hopefully some people on here night absorb it but I expect not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did. "
A shared ignorant perspective and assuming is still ignorance etc..
Real life is more varied.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
You took the same data and came to the same conclusion. I offered a different hypothesis which also fit the data. Doesn't make me right in all instances. Doesn't make you right. Just shows neither of us can say for sure what someone's circumstances are just by time and number of posts.
Either which way I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the quality of one's posts...
"
It's sneering at others, Pat has used the same thinking before when he realised his claims have been rumbled..
Probably stems from an over inflated sense of his own importance.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
You took the same data and came to the same conclusion. I offered a different hypothesis which also fit the data. Doesn't make me right in all instances. Doesn't make you right. Just shows neither of us can say for sure what someone's circumstances are just by time and number of posts.
Either which way I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the quality of one's posts...
It's sneering at others, Pat has used the same thinking before when he realised his claims have been rumbled..
Probably stems from an over inflated sense of his own importance.. "
An observation about the amount of time a poster spends on a website is hardly sneering . An observation is simply that. The other poster had previously made a similar observation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
You took the same data and came to the same conclusion. I offered a different hypothesis which also fit the data. Doesn't make me right in all instances. Doesn't make you right. Just shows neither of us can say for sure what someone's circumstances are just by time and number of posts.
Either which way I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the quality of one's posts...
It's sneering at others, Pat has used the same thinking before when he realised his claims have been rumbled..
Probably stems from an over inflated sense of his own importance.. An observation about the amount of time a poster spends on a website is hardly sneering . An observation is simply that. The other poster had previously made a similar observation. "
Snidy and sneering runs through your postings Pat on all of your multiple profiles in relation to those who are of a different political persuasion or who challenge your false claims which is common..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"I imagine you must be a joy to work beside
I assume what matters is what you actually achieve in work and how you interact with work colleagues . "
That's all you ever seem to do - assume.
Definition: to accept something to be true without question or proof; to pretend to have a different name or be someone you are not or to express a feeling falsely; to take responsibility without the right to do so.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I imagine you must be a joy to work beside
I assume what matters is what you actually achieve in work and how you interact with work colleagues .
That's all you ever seem to do - assume.
Definition: to accept something to be true without question or proof; to pretend to have a different name or be someone you are not or to express a feeling falsely; to take responsibility without the right to do so.
"
Hi . At work the feedback which you receive is live and real time. On a internet forum anyone can type in anything that they like.
In any event if a source is reliable no back up or further investigation is necessary. You simply accept the facts as they are.
It works for me and allows a lot more things to be done . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't read the Sun, so I cannot comment on your tittle-tattle account.
The contract is between ITV and Albatel, not between ITV and Lorraine Kelly, as HMRC tried to imply.
She won. Get over it..
She won because of the argument I've already stated 3 times.
If she's playing the character then she's an employee of albatel, however if she's Lorraine Kelly playing Lorraine Kelly then legally she's an itv and employee and in which case owes 1.2 million extra in tax as a paye employee?.
Now if she's playing the character who's as she claimed in court "lovey dovey" then her spat with ester McVey shows she's either a liar or a shit actress
Ok, some random geezer on a swingers site thinks a tier one tax tribunal erred in its judgement on IR35 after a hearing.
Noted.
.
We can't all be captains of industry and law shoving in 60hrs a week on a swinger's site like your goodself.
Some of us have a job elsewhere This is the best post that I have seen today. I am member of a vehicle site for heavy commercials where you can see who is logged on and how many posts they have made .
There are some posters logged on here constantly. It can only be assumed that they do not work yet are constantly spouting out advice to others .
Or they are self employed. Or have employers who measure them by work done, not hours done...
Or are fortunate to have been retired early and not have to work..
Oh and Pat, leaving ones device logged on to the site does not mean one is on the site all the time..
I was however referring to the number of posts made and the times at which they were made . My observations were identical to that of the other poster and it was interesting to see that he came to the same conclusion as I did.
You took the same data and came to the same conclusion. I offered a different hypothesis which also fit the data. Doesn't make me right in all instances. Doesn't make you right. Just shows neither of us can say for sure what someone's circumstances are just by time and number of posts.
Either which way I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to the quality of one's posts...
It's sneering at others, Pat has used the same thinking before when he realised his claims have been rumbled..
Probably stems from an over inflated sense of his own importance.. An observation about the amount of time a poster spends on a website is hardly sneering . An observation is simply that. The other poster had previously made a similar observation.
Snidy and sneering runs through your postings Pat on all of your multiple profiles in relation to those who are of a different political persuasion or who challenge your false claims which is common..
"
Hi. I will assess your feedback and see if it has any validity against that which I receive in real life .
Luckily I assess things on a very regular basis and for non paid work which I have done also receive feedback from Doctors , nurses , carers and other patients at the hospital concerned.
Anyhow thanks for the feedback. It is much appreciated. I will run a slide rule through it , analyse your motives for giving it and add it to my personal scoring system.
Hopefully when I am retired I will be doing voluntary work, helping people and being active. I would not be want to be spending to much of my time on a site such as this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
