BBC presenters lose IR35 appeal

[JohntheBike]

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

agreed

you'd be forgiven if you thought that some of those on here support HMRC's position.

[simes]

Completely.

Posturing, for the sake posturing...

[webberg]

agreed, so we must employ any approach to counter this. However, there are many on here who frown on such action and opinion. Perhaps they are HMRC moles?

Who is "we"?

Contractors do not act as a coherent body.

Look around. No single body has enough clout to have their contracting members act as a body.

Taking on an end client (who is paying you or who has influence) own your own is a brave shout unless you are retired or no longer wish to contract.

And of course I'm an HMRC mole - speak to them every day.

[webberg]

Last post here.

Some of the posters above are either ignoring the real world or making assumptions just to create a scenario that is so unreal as to defy logic.

If logical arguments are made, logic can be used to counter them.

If illogical arguments are made, no logic can counter them.

I fear we are at the latter stage and I'll not waste any more time here.

[northernladuk]

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

It its an absolute key point. There is no useful precedent set if its settled out of court. You can make assumptions but that it very useful to anyone but the lay man chewing the fat over this. Many cases are settled before case that could actually have won. It's just too costly sometimes to go any further so they pay up. It doesn't mean they would have lost or the amount paid was anything like they would have got.

We know what you are trying to get at but the way you are phrasing it is wrong.

[WordIsBond]

Legal Precedent is a legal term.

Precedent, all on its own is 'an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.' No mention of legality or legalese.

Please, let's just pretend that you understand what the main thrust of this point is all about and try to resist scoring points.

Or not.

Try not to be stupider than necessary. Let me rephrase it for you since apparently that is necessary.

'Precedent' is a term often used in a legal context that has very specific meaning. Because this case had to do with a legal challenge, if you use that word people will assume that you are using it in the legal sense and rightly note that it does not apply. Therefore, if you wish to argue this point, you would do better to use a different word, or at least qualify it, so as to avoid pointless arguments over the word.

Hopefully that is not beyond you. I was trying to help you out, not score points, because I knew what you were trying to say and why it wasn't getting through.

Carry on now however you wish, even (futilely) insisting on using the unqualified word 'precedent' if you want. If you are actually interested in advice, you could perhaps use something like 'moral precedent' which takes us out of the legal realm. But I honestly don't care....

[simes]

I do not know how many more times I can say this, I have conceded, and do continue to concede all legalese honours.

That will include phraseology. And terminology. And, quite clearly, nomology.

[WordIsBond]

agreed

you'd be forgiven if you thought that some of those on here support HMRC's position.

One would also be forgiven if they thought some on here are idiots.

And now I will depart this thread in the hopes I can escape before NAT or cojak hammer me.

[simes]

But I honestly don't care....

Your word count would tend to suggest otherwise...

[JohntheBike]

Who is "we"?

Contractors do not act as a coherent body.

Look around. No single body has enough clout to have their contracting members act as a body.

Taking on an end client (who is paying you or who has influence) own your own is a brave shout unless you are retired or no longer wish to contract.

And of course I'm an HMRC mole - speak to them every day.

Who is "we"

the Royal "we" perhaps?

unless you are retired or no longer wish to contract

I'll be in that position after April 2020, make of that what you will.