The HMRC goons who dreamed up the LC aren't looking so clever now

[DealorNoDeal]

Serves 'em right.

Now they're going to have to do what they always should have done, and get off their fat lazy arses and work the open cases.

[webberg]

What is said above is undoubtedly true. Whilst the report stops short of summarising as you have.

Be aware also however that the report also says that targeting of individual HMRC officers in public places is something that SAM found to have stepped beyond the mark.

You may agree or not that the anonymity of HMRC officers is a good or bad thing, but ultimately 95% or more of them are doing as they are told, have families, friends and (speaking from personal experience) a work ethic that has a strong sense of public duty. They have suffered huge cut backs in numbers, forced relocations and frankly a failure from those above them to offer protection and support.

Yes, there is much wrong about HMRC. I remain of the view that they are unfit for purpose and need a root and branch review. But the failings of the department being visited upon the head of individuals is - in my opinion - unfair and I'd agree with SAM on this one.

[dammit chloe]

The general low level staff I agree. The senior ones, if they are trying to destroy you and your family, I really don't care.

Being knighted or promoted whilst being responsible for this debacle and none of them losing their job or family over it. I wish the worst for them. Same goes for certain Treasury ministers.

[webberg]

If you joined a private company whose business was buying in debt from say credit card companies and were asked to devise, design, implement and execute an algorithm that identified those most likely to be able to repay arrears, would you do it?

Would you do that job if there was a more senior person who was responsible for the algorithm design which you were required to test/train people on/implement, and where you identified a flaw but were rebuffed in efforts to have it corrected?

What if that flaw meant that vulnerable people were ignored, but you cannot correct it?

Would you walk away?

[dammit chloe]

If you joined a private company whose business was buying in debt from say credit card companies and were asked to devise, design, implement and execute an algorithm that identified those most likely to be able to repay arrears, would you do it?

Would you do that job if there was a more senior person who was responsible for the algorithm design which you were required to test/train people on/implement, and where you identified a flaw but were rebuffed in efforts to have it corrected?

What if that flaw meant that vulnerable people were ignored, but you cannot correct it?

Would you walk away?

I wouldn't do it in the first place. Debt collection, gambling etc I would not want to be involved. I wouldn't, and have never even wanted to be involved in finance of any sort. I am not good at, not remotely interested, hence I outsourced to professionals and here we are.

But you ignore the bigger problem. This is Govt, this is Civil Service. They are rewarded for such behaviour, the power imbalance and the lack of accountability compared to your scenario is not remotely close. It can't always be they go low, we go high.

[DealorNoDeal]

My venom is aimed at the (senior) people who devised the LC.

Apart from their obvious disregard for the harm it would cause, HMRC should be ashamed at having to resort to a 20-year retroactive measure to fix a problem they allowed to spiral out of control.

[GhostofTarbera]

If you joined a private company whose business was buying in debt from say credit card companies and were asked to devise, design, implement and execute an algorithm that identified those most likely to be able to repay arrears, would you do it?

Would you do that job if there was a more senior person who was responsible for the algorithm design which you were required to test/train people on/implement, and where you identified a flaw but were rebuffed in efforts to have it corrected?

What if that flaw meant that vulnerable people were ignored, but you cannot correct it?

Would you walk away?

Walk away all day everyday


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[lowpaidworker]

Walk away all day everyday


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

I think the point is there are many contractors working in the financial and IT industries that do just that, without realising it. Probably contracted to write programs to value everyday loans mortgages and credit cards. Figuring our default probabilities etc. The data they see is just numbers. They dont realise behind all these numbers are real human beings.

[webberg]

The point is that any policy that impacts a large group of people will inevitably have some very negative consequences for some.

Where those consequences are known and a deliberate decision is taken to not correct them, then approbation of the perpetrators is completely necessary.

It is also necessary that those who are at the bleeding edge of delivery of such heinous policy should have the personal moral courage to take whatever action that they believe is justified.

Therein lies the rub.

How many of us, without the protection of perhaps several years of high paid work and consequently a degree of financial security, would actually walk away?

Whilst I suspect we would all like to think that we would, the truth is we would instead invent reasons and logical constructs to justify ourselves.

Where individuals do not have that financial comfort blanket, the move to internal justification of our acts happens more urgently, because the real truth is that there is no choice short of putting self anf family at risk.

So I agree that the loan charge designers should be removed from HMRC and the Civil Service. I agree that those who presided over the policy teams should also be removed for displaying such a callous and arrogant disregard of the people they are meant to serve. (Ponder on the root of the word "civil").

The reality is that this will not happen.

It's not fair, it's not justice and it's rubbing salt into the wound, but it happens and if you allow such matters to fester away in your soul, you will become a bitter person.

[dammit chloe]

The point is that any policy that impacts a large group of people will inevitably have some very negative consequences for some.

Where those consequences are known and a deliberate decision is taken to not correct them, then approbation of the perpetrators is completely necessary.

It is also necessary that those who are at the bleeding edge of delivery of such heinous policy should have the personal moral courage to take whatever action that they believe is justified.

Therein lies the rub.

How many of us, without the protection of perhaps several years of high paid work and consequently a degree of financial security, would actually walk away?

Whilst I suspect we would all like to think that we would, the truth is we would instead invent reasons and logical constructs to justify ourselves.

Where individuals do not have that financial comfort blanket, the move to internal justification of our acts happens more urgently, because the real truth is that there is no choice short of putting self anf family at risk.

So I agree that the loan charge designers should be removed from HMRC and the Civil Service. I agree that those who presided over the policy teams should also be removed for displaying such a callous and arrogant disregard of the people they are meant to serve. (Ponder on the root of the word "civil").

The reality is that this will not happen.

It's not fair, it's not justice and it's rubbing salt into the wound, but it happens and if you allow such matters to fester away in your soul, you will become a bitter person.

I know I would, I have walked away from city contracts before because I thought they would be toxic to me.

However the big difference is that Govt are in a unique position of setting laws. Most companies will have to do stuff that abides by those laws but they can't change them. Heads will often roll in companies that don't follow the law ( not enough probably ) but in the Civil Service and the upper echelon of Govt the opposite that sort of behaviour is either rewarded or covered up.