It's yet another method of draining money from private individuals into Government Inc. This cash will allow Government Inc. to employ more people to carry out the checks (jobs that contribute nothing to the economy). These people will owe thier jobs to NuLab policy so will, presumably, vote for NuLab.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Guilty until proven innocent
Collapse
X
-
-
£64 cost for each check, with nearly 11 million check
£650 million quids for the govt
every little helpsComment
-
1) If it's a job requirement, why is she paying it?
It's an EB requirement. She's self-employed.
2) Vince has been ok in my dealings with him.
Not so with us. Depends upon the issue I guess. This is certainly out of his control, but he could respond, at the very least.
3) isn't a single agency what is being implemented here?
The current requirements are separate checks for different societies, clubs, organisations and EBs. They may be processed through the same agency, but unless they change the rules, you'd still have to request (and pay for) separate CRB checks for, say, being a scout leader, and driving kids to clubs unrelated to scouting.Comment
-
No that's wrong according to Pravda:Originally posted by Andy2 View Post£64 cost for each check, with nearly 11 million check
£650 million quids for the govt
every little helps
Even so, the money is the least of it.Registration will cost £64 in England and Wales, but unpaid volunteers will be exempt from the charge.
I think we can expect more of this kind of 1984-esque legislation in the final 'Downfall' days of New Labour.
Scorched earth and all that.
You've come right out the other side of the forest of irony and ended up in the desert of wrong.
Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- IT contractor demand climbed in August 2026 to 40-month high Today 04:53
- 5 steps before your client ‘does a Foreign Office’ and puts 90% of contractors inside IR35 Yesterday 01:11
- Luke’s Story: “I knew it was a loan. But they changed the rules.” Sep 23 00:00
- I registered my company with my home address. Whoops. Here's what Companies House shows the world about you Sep 22 13:06
- The Tories’ three IR35 replacement options — but contractors are right to be sceptical Sep 22 03:51
- Conservatives to replace IR35 outright, Griffith vows — advisers who met him reveal what it should contain Sep 21 05:06
- HMRC’s tax calculation errors: why contractors must check their bill now Sep 17 05:14
- HMRC names 12 loan charge-type schemes, one with ‘Tardis’ clause Sep 15 00:12
- Inside IR35 contractors as zero-hours reform victims is why Kate Dearden must meet us Sep 14 06:37
- Simple Assessment letters: How ex-Personal Service Companies are on HMRC’s radar Sep 11 12:16

Comment