David Gauke - More evidence of duplicity

[AtW]

Looks like I was wrong -

"Eventually the judges prevail and regain control of the streets. The local Frendz boss still can not be tied to the recent violence, but when over three hundred unpaid parking tickets come to light he is sentenced to thirty days per ticket: a total sentence of over twenty-five years (in much the same way that Al Capone was brought to justice for tax evasion in 1931)."

The Pit (Judge Dredd story) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oi BB, have you got all your parking tickets paid up or your are still trying to argue that your car is registered offshore and you are just a chauffeur?

[AtW]

He payed everything he was supposed to pay.

3% income tax?

[BrilloPad]

I like justice to be done.

How many years would Judge Dredd give to BB?

Less than would be given to you for your taste in sofas.

[AtW]

Less than would be given to you for your taste in sofas.

I don't have one

Sofa that is - DFS promised to deliver in late 2014

[AtW]

There are certainly way too many cretins here who think that retrospectively changing the law is a good thing. FFS.

All is fair in love, war and aggressive tax avoidance.

I'll be sending a Christmas card to Mr Gauke this year.

[speling bee]

He payed everything he was supposed to pay. You owe him an apology. But then I think BB is used to general and that to post here to have to be a thick skinned rude c**t and people spouting bollux.

There are certainly way too many cretins here who think that retrospectively changing the law is a good thing. FFS.

Like the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994?

I am sure that you deeply disapprove of war crimes. However I now understand that you would not like to see retrospective law changes to catch those who had engaged in reprehensible acts, that were not at that time covered by effective laws.

[AtW]

Like the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994?

Both can only be enforced is enough tax is paid, therefore those crimes are minor compared to aggressive tax "avoidance", which is the crime against the people!

[SantaClaus]

He payed everything he was supposed to pay. You owe him an apology. But then I think BB is used to general and that to post here to have to be a thick skinned rude c**t and people spouting bollux.

There are certainly way too many cretins here who think that retrospectively changing the law is a good thing. FFS.

+1

Well said Brillo.

[centurian]

Not often I agree with AtW, but I am finding it hard to see the issue here. Gauke paid all the tax that was due - and paid considerably more tax than he benefitted in interest relief.

Sure, he still made a profit, but there was no rule (explicit or implicit) that said all the profits need to go to the taxpayer. If there was, presumably the taxpayer would then have to underwrite losses as well. William Hague mentioned that he sold his second house for a loss - this was just before the big explosion in house prices 10 years ago.

[BrilloPad]

Not often I agree with AtW, but I am finding it hard to see the issue here. Gauke paid all the tax that was due - and paid considerably more tax than he benefitted in interest relief.

I agree with that. BUT the point BB made in addition was that Gauke has approved retrospective legislation for people who have done similar. I would like to see the law changed retrospectively to see how he likes it.

Well that is a lie actually (gosh - cuk poster lies - shock horror). I would like to see retrospective legislation banned. Only 5 countries in the world allow it. Not even Zimbabwe allows it. When India tried it the UK was among many to condemn it.

Gauke was against retrospecion in opposition but now approves it. People like that should not be allowed in any position of office. But the sheepish voters will carry on voting in cretins like that. I reckon if sas was to stand as an MP he would get in.