• 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.
  • FREE workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. More details here.

Liability insurance/sickness when inside

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Which, as usual with your tedious ramblings, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Another thread ruined.
    Oh I dunno, it brought Webberg into the conversation which I always enjoy :-)

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
      1. If anyone was going to be encouraged to follow the Winchester line, the fact that they settled with full payment would have provided all the encouragement they needed.

      2. If 100,000 contractors had followed the same line it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to HMRC. It's no skin off them if clients have to give holidays to people they've deemed inside. It would have changed nothing.

      3. "Forceful" resistance would have done nothing unless you were talking about actual force, in which case it would have put you in prison. The battle on IR35 was lost because A) David Cameron started the Tories on a 'Let's be like Labour' path which still hasn't been reversed, so 'fairness' rather than 'competence and economic soundness' are driving policy B) the BBC and others in the press drive a politics of envy and C) contractors tried too much to argue that it was 'fair' to be outside IR35 when they probably should have been pointing out just how unfair IR35 is, that it is an over-correction, and that IR35 itself (not the enforcement process) needs reformed.

      And contractors are missing the boat again. They should be screaming in the press that 'We were promised this wouldn't affect the truly self-employed, and look what your policy is doing!' They've made businesses afraid to hire the truly self-employed....
      "Forceful" resistance would have done nothing unless you were talking about actual force, in which case it would have put you in prison.
      Clearly I meant using all legal means to oppose IR35. However, many "representative" and involved organisations would naturally not want to rock the boat with officialdom as this might put them at a disadvantage. It's even looking like Dave Chaplin has been muzzled. I'm amazed that so many on here don't know how things work in this country.

      Brynle Williams, the organiser of the first fuel protest became an AM. Peter Hain is now Lord Hain. An acquaintance of mine who owns a haulage business and who was prominent in the second fuel protests, was visited by representatives of all the government agencies involved in regulating his business after the protests finished.

      If you think this is a free country, think again.

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Unix View Post
        If the current trend continues and most big private sector clients deem contractors inside, does the contractor need to still purchase insurances? Seems like the fact you have the insurances is a material pointer that you are not a disguised permie? Also what about sickness and holiday pay, is the client is saying you are really a permie and taxed like one, then surely they are due the same benefits?
        Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
        Clearly I meant using all legal means to oppose IR35. However, many "representative" and involved organisations would naturally not want to rock the boat with officialdom as this might put them at a disadvantage. It's even looking like Dave Chaplin has been muzzled. I'm amazed that so many on here don't know how things work in this country.

        Brynle Williams, the organiser of the first fuel protest became an AM. Peter Hain is now Lord Hain. An acquaintance of mine who owns a haulage business and who was prominent in the second fuel protests, was visited by representatives of all the government agencies involved in regulating his business after the protests finished.

        If you think this is a free country, think again.
        and that answers the OP's question, how???
        you really do talk utter twaddle.
        Entropy is NOT what it used to be.
        Inertia, however........................

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by BR14 View Post
          and that answers the OP's question, how???
          you really do talk utter twaddle.
          and that answers the OP's question, how???
          I only responded to inaccurate statements made by others and everyone who engaged with me is just as guilty of dragging the posts off subject.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
            I only responded to inaccurate statements made by others and everyone who engaged with me is just as guilty of dragging the posts off subject.
            Nope, it's just you.
            'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

            Comment


              #46
              Step 1, work a gig for a year outside IR 35

              Step 2, take one day off a week

              Step 3, get found inside IR 35

              Step 4, explain that every single day you took off was due to sickness

              Step 5, ???

              Step 6, Profit

              Comment


                #47
                I've read the material.

                There is no proof offered.

                You have a view that, whilst I can see you have tried to support with events, is inevitably biased.

                I see nothing that proves conclusively that the legal professionals you used were instructed or leant upon to withdraw; no Tribunal was using the law inappropriately.

                What you have is a series of connected events around a personal grievance at being dismissed from a job, probably through no fault of your own. You imply conspiracy between and invite suspicion to fall upon a series of advisers who failed you in some manner.

                There is nothing from the other side of the curtain. Nothing is produced which shows that the lawyers etc acted with anything other than adherence to their own rules. Even the FOI you made and received an answer on, did not disclose a fault other than perhaps some incompetence.

                Your materials sent to me are by their nature, just your point of view. I'm afraid that I do not see conspiracy or some grand plot to deny you and many others their rights.

                Now that we have shared this, perhaps we can return to the point of this thread and the others which are not about individual grievances but rather seeking a way forward.
                Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

                (No, me neither).

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
                  hopefully. However, the establishment have means to nobble cases. Given the total lack of any information, I would suggest that the case that IPSE were supporting and the Alcock case, where judgements should have already been given, have both been nobbled.
                  There is information on the IPSE fora for members on the case that they are supporting. Short version - it takes months, don't expect results soon.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                    There is information on the IPSE fora for members on the case that they are supporting. Short version - it takes months, don't expect results soon.
                    thanks for that at least.

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by webberg View Post
                      I've read the material.

                      There is no proof offered.

                      You have a view that, whilst I can see you have tried to support with events, is inevitably biased.

                      I see nothing that proves conclusively that the legal professionals you used were instructed or leant upon to withdraw; no Tribunal was using the law inappropriately.

                      What you have is a series of connected events around a personal grievance at being dismissed from a job, probably through no fault of your own. You imply conspiracy between and invite suspicion to fall upon a series of advisers who failed you in some manner.

                      There is nothing from the other side of the curtain. Nothing is produced which shows that the lawyers etc acted with anything other than adherence to their own rules. Even the FOI you made and received an answer on, did not disclose a fault other than perhaps some incompetence.

                      Your materials sent to me are by their nature, just your point of view. I'm afraid that I do not see conspiracy or some grand plot to deny you and many others their rights.

                      Now that we have shared this, perhaps we can return to the point of this thread and the others which are not about individual grievances but rather seeking a way forward.
                      yours is only one counter opinion. There are many whose opinion aligns with mine.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X