So, would I be inside IR35

[malvolio]

I've been banging on about this for ages on the CUK and don't actually remember you supporting me in this Mal

You haven't been paying attention then.

You might also note which pointless, exclusive and self-centered organisation got contracts drafted, legally vetted and accepted by both REC and ATSCo that makes it possible actually to have such a thing.

[Denny]

You haven't been paying attention then.

You might also note which pointless, exclusive and self-centered organisation got contracts drafted, legally vetted and accepted by both REC and ATSCo that makes it possible actually to have such a thing.

I have been paying attention Mal. I always pay attention.

Why is it that there is no 'joined up thinking here' (there's a nice government inspired phrase for you) when, quite clearly, I have spoken to recruiters far and wide both affiliated and non affiliated to the PCG who have no idea what ir35 actually means as an 'in practice' way of working. ATSCO clearly aren't having enough round table discussions with their recruitment members educating them to communicate to all their staff exactly how they should be discussing contractor working practices either with their clients or with contractors. What checks and balances are the PCG imposing on their affiliate members to ensure they conform to ir35 exemption practices? What feedback mechanisms are in place that disclose the difficulties they are facing when such implementations are trying to be imposed? How do we know what is successful and what is not here? Why aren't there any reports on affiliate progress or ATSCO or REC inputs on this subject?

The template is a step in the right direction but it is a bit of a toothless tiger as things currently stand.

[Denny]

Not sure why but I have visions of Muhammed Ali shouting "I am the greatest" in front of a packed press conference"

I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet for my own self aggrandisement. Everything I say about myself on what I have said is absolutely true and my intentions now, as they have always been, on here and on other forums, is to benefit the entire contracting community.

I don't get that impression at all from so called helpful contributors on the PCG forum. When someone writes that ir35 may be a good thing as it might rock the boat too much to clarify the employment -v- in biz on own account because it might make things worse for 'all of us' because the tax rules might change to disbenefit them as well, then you have to wonder what the PCG agenda actually is. It seems to me that there are a few very cozy members on there who don't give a fig about the welfare of contractors as a unified body. These contributors also include those on the board and other accountability members on the CC not just the plebs to join and are merely handy for making up the numbers.

[Ardesco]

I don't get that impression at all from so called helpful contributors on the PCG forum. When someone writes that ir35 may be a good thing as it might rock the boat too much to clarify the employment -v- in biz on own account because it might make things worse for 'all of us' because the tax rules might change to disbenefit them as well, then you have to wonder what the PCG agenda actually is. It seems to me that there are a few very cozy members on there who don't give a fig about the welfare of contractors as a unified body. These contributors also include those on the board and other accountability members on the CC not just the plebs to join and are merely handy for making up the numbers.

Everybody is entitled to thier own opinions. If somebody thinks IR35 is a good idea and is happy to pay it that is up to them. You can't shoot down a whole organisation because some members have differing views, and not eveybody agrees with everything you say!

All you manage to do is come across as intolerant and inflexible with an absolute belief that you are always right.

[Denny]

Everybody is entitled to thier own opinions. If somebody thinks IR35 is a good idea and is happy to pay it that is up to them. You can't shoot down a whole organisation because some members have differing views, and not eveybody agrees with everything you say!

All you manage to do is come across as intolerant and inflexible with an absolute belief that you are always right.

I don;t think that is what they were doing. The whole debate was about what the PCG should be lobbying for in terms of changes to the legislation. It was not about individual contractors choosing to pay up under ir35 because of the current confusion.

Can you prove that I have been wrong? Why should I muddy the water by coming across as uncertain of what I am talking about? What good is that going to be to anyone?

Again you are of no help to anyone of here by making such personal attacks on me with no substance to back it up.

[tim123]

In fact I'm quite dismayed that the idea of no MOO within the contract not just at the end (not having to renew) is something new the HMRC have sprung on us as a result of this case.

No they haven't (sprung on us as a result of this case).

There was case law suggesting that there is enough MOO within a contract period to have no chance of reaching the "irreducible minimum" required for "lack of MOO" to make someone "guarenteed outside IR35", since before IR35 was invented.

I have been saying so, on this board, every time that Mal says "not having a notice period" is a big enough MOO pointer.

The only way that you can have the irreducible minimum MOO is to be able to walk off the job before it is complete.

tim

[malvolio]

No they haven't (sprung on us as a result of this case).

I have been saying so, on this board, every time that Mal says "not having a notice period" is a big enough MOO pointer.

Don't remember saying that either. I do remember saying it was one of a set of indicators towards a lack of MoO, and as something that you cannot legally offer to a permie, a good pointer away from employment. Let's not oversimplify things, the whole area of MoO is a minefield.

[Ardesco]

I don;t think that is what they were doing. The whole debate was about what the PCG should be lobbying for in terms of changes to the legislation. It was not about individual contractors choosing to pay up under ir35 because of the current confusion.

Can you prove that I have been wrong? Why should I muddy the water by coming across as uncertain of what I am talking about? What good is that going to be to anyone?

Again you are of no help to anyone of here by making such personal attacks on me with no substance to back it up.

You are saying that the PCG has a hidden agenda because some of it's members are arguing that the PCG should be lobbying for things that will benefit themselves in the long run.... All organisations have internal arguments over what is important and which way they should move forward, and all organisations will have people in them that are looking out for number one. Your point? Rather than slating the organisation you should be engaging in the debate to help others see your point of view and encourage then to vote against the suggestions that you don't agree with.

I don't have to prove that you're wrong, I am not the one trying to tarnish an organisation because of a perceived slight. If anything you should be backing up what you say with evidence because if you are wrong you could be causing damage for no reason at all. You are in effect saying I think I may be right so I am going to tell everybody that I am bloody right and you should all listen to me because I know best. If you always use that mentality how do we work out which bits of your monologue are right, and which bits of your monologue you aren't sure about but are stating them as fact anyway?

You seem to take any disagrement with what you say as a personal insult, is highlighting this fact a personal insult? Or should I be denied freedom of speech because you don't agree with what I say which obviously means that I am wrong and therefore unhelpful and evil.....

[Denny]

You are saying that the PCG has a hidden agenda because some of it's members are arguing that the PCG should be lobbying for things that will benefit themselves in the long run.... All organisations have internal arguments over what is important and which way they should move forward, and all organisations will have people in them that are looking out for number one. Your point? Rather than slating the organisation you should be engaging in the debate to help others see your point of view and encourage then to vote against the suggestions that you don't agree with.

I don't have to prove that you're wrong, I am not the one trying to tarnish an organisation because of a perceived slight. If anything you should be backing up what you say with evidence because if you are wrong you could be causing damage for no reason at all. You are in effect saying I think I may be right so I am going to tell everybody that I am bloody right and you should all listen to me because I know best. If you always use that mentality how do we work out which bits of your monologue are right, and which bits of your monologue you aren't sure about but are stating them as fact anyway?

You seem to take any disagrement with what you say as a personal insult, is highlighting this fact a personal insult? Or should I be denied freedom of speech because you don't agree with what I say which obviously means that I am wrong and therefore unhelpful and evil.....

It's really quite simple.

On your first point, go and read the purpose of the PCG - to get rid of ir35 - and then the posts I refer to on there that and moving away from this view.

On the second point, check what I say against what the advisers say as well.

Then come back to this forum and tell me I am wrong and that I am slating the organisation for no reason.

You have a wonderful way of accusing me of doing exactly what only you are doing and trying to discredit me for no reason. Perhaps there is a reason for that - you are threatened by what I say.

There can be no other reason.

[malvolio]

It's really quite simple.

On your first point, go and read the purpose of the PCG - to get rid of ir35 - and then the posts I refer to on there that and moving away from this view.

On the second point, check what I say against what the advisers say as well.

Then come back to this forum and tell me I am wrong and that I am slating the organisation for no reason.

You have a wonderful way of accusing me of doing exactly what only you are doing and trying to discredit me for no reason. Perhaps there is a reason for that - you are threatened by what I say.

There can be no other reason.

Well we could start with the bleedin' obvious, that the PCG 's sole purpose is not to get rid of IR35. That's what Shout99/PCG Mk1 was set up to do and singularly failed.

No wonder you can't get on with them if you can't even work out what they are trying to achieve.