Eek's we're all doomed theory

[Semtex]

And his sidekicks.

What do you think of the latest statements from majority of PS orgs declaring many roles outside?

[jamesbrown]

Seems a little premature to me. We have a lot of anecdotal information. Here, for example. Perhaps someone is maintaining a list by PSB, I don't know. The new requirement for "reasonable care" will tend to discourage PSBs away from blanket determinations in the long-run if contractors dispute and win cases, but the anecdotal info. suggests that some PSBs are still doing this. As far as I can see, it's a mixed bag, but you're right insofar as it isn't blanket inside everywhere, for now. It would be better to return to this question in six months, because some PSBs simply haven't had the time to think about a long-term strategy and HMG hasn't had time to think about the stats coming back (and to compare them to the nonsense from HMRC about 90% being inside ). Also, the whole picture could change come the Autumn Budget.

[northernladuk]

If I were HMRC reading these threads I'd be freeing up the calendars of a number of my inspectors to visit some of the PS bodies that have a majority of outside contractors and putting the fear of God up them which could result in further unrest.

If they get a sniff that locums and social workers, who are already arguably inside, are not changing they should be over it like a rash, let alone the IT side of it.

The threads from a couple of contractors on here is hardly a yardstick to start a 'I told you so' thread though.

[Semtex]

it wasn't a told you so post. It was a post to see if, what we are seeing (albeit from a sample size of circa 0.001%of the Contracting Population ) was a surprise to you guys who pretty much posted doom and gloom (which it may still be).

just an observation

[northernladuk]

Tell that to PC and the double figure numbers of contractors that are having to leave at my ex-client. Trolling pillock.

[eek]

And his sidekicks.

What do you think of the latest statements from majority of PS orgs declaring many roles outside?

Which theory? I've posted a few in this forum..

But no one has a clue what to do at the moment. Hmrc are recording everyone as inside including project based work that isn't, others are doing the reverse.

I suspect the latter are going to have very awkward conversations in the near future.

[Semtex]

Tell that to PC and the double figure numbers of contractors that are having to leave at my ex-client. Trolling pillock.

I'm trolling? WT*?

That's all you do is sit on these forums 24x7 and poke fun at people asking questions.

Do me a favour.

And in answer to your Statement, what am I telling PC? I have made no statement whatsoever, just asking for yours and eeks opinion on the latest information coming to light

[bobspud]

Which theory? I've posted a few in this forum..

But no one has a clue what to do at the moment. Hmrc are recording everyone as inside including project based work that isn't, others are doing the reverse.

I suspect the latter are going to have very awkward conversations in the near future.

I dont see why that will happen. at the end of the day HMRC can moan but all the department needs to say is
no the contractor is not a office holder that has been engaged in a statutory role...
no they have never substituted ...

BUT

yes if they did we are going to accept a sub and the contractor needs to pay them.

ka - flipping - pow story over...

it was startlingly easy wasn't it

[cojak]

Well we haven't hit the 6th April yet. Let's see what happens after then.

[jamesbrown]

I'm trolling? WT*?

That's all you do is sit on these forums 24x7 and poke fun at people asking questions.

Do me a favour.

And in answer to your Statement, what am I telling PC? I have made no statement whatsoever, just asking for yours and eeks opinion on the latest information coming to light

TBF, you chose the combative tone of your OP (i.e. eek is an Eeyore, or that's how I read it). Eek contributes a fair bit around here afterall...