IPSE and alternatives ?

[mudskipper]

I posted a comment which was a variation on the chiefs and indians adage, and I was banned for 6 months for making a racist post. Officials of IPSE advised that during their assessment of the post, they had considered terminating my membership completely.

Did you argue against the ban? Was that perhaps what would have prompted such a reaction?

[JohntheBike]

Did you argue against the ban? Was that perhaps what would have prompted such a reaction?

no, I only asked for the reasons for the ban, which until an official responded, I didn't know. The banning process didn't advise which post invited the ban. However, my past "acrimonious" relationship with IPSE was quoted as an additional reason for considering termination of my membership.

To put the record straight, ever since IR35 was implemented, I contended that anyone caught by IR35 in the FTT would have a good chance of winning a case in the ET and continued criticising any position which sought to invalidate that point of view. It was my opinion that the IBOYOA ideology was being pushed as the only way forward against IR35 and that any other approach wasn't supported or welcomed.

It's ironic now that IPSE are actually supporting a case in the ET for someone who has been declared caught by CEST. However, there was no magnanimous acknowledgement of my original and continued stance against IR35. So if my criticisms of IPSE's approach to IR35 were considered to be "acrimonious" then so be it. At least I have remained constant and have never changed my opinion.

HMRC's conduct over IR35 has vindicated my position and in my opinion representative organisations should have been more robust in their approach to IR35 and HMRC. However, anyone who has any dialogue with officialdom has, by nature, to curtail their criticisms in order to maintain that dialogue. However, given Dave Chaplin's position, in my opinion he has been able to cause much greater reverberations in the halls of power than any one else has.

NLUK might have a different opinion though!

[mudskipper]

no, I only asked for the reasons for the ban, which until an official responded, I didn't know. The banning process didn't advise which post invited the ban. However, my past "acrimonious" relationship with IPSE was quoted as an additional reason for considering termination of my membership.

So no threats to IPSE from you then?

However, given Dave Chaplin's position, in my opinion he has been able to cause much greater reverberations in the halls of power than any one else has.

Well I think Dave's done a sterling job, but it was IPSE that got IR35 into the lib dem manifesto and got it debated at the hustings events. Without that, we would not have had statements promising to review the legislation from the other main parties. Whether that will come to anything remains to be seen, but I think on this occasion IPSE have pulled the stops out.

[JohntheBike]

So no threats to IPSE from you then?



Well I think Dave's done a sterling job, but it was IPSE that got IR35 into the lib dem manifesto and got it debated at the hustings events. Without that, we would not have had statements promising to review the legislation from the other main parties. Whether that will come to anything remains to be seen, but I think on this occasion IPSE have pulled the stops out.

So no threats to IPSE from you then?

obviously not. April 2020 might very well be though!

but I think on this occasion IPSE have pulled the stops out

possibly, but they claimed for many years to be influencing the powers that be without one iota of evidence to support that claim.

[malvolio]

no, I only asked for the reasons for the ban, which until an official responded, I didn't know. The banning process didn't advise which post invited the ban. However, my past "acrimonious" relationship with IPSE was quoted as an additional reason for considering termination of my membership.

To put the record straight, ever since IR35 was implemented, I contended that anyone caught by IR35 in the FTT would have a good chance of winning a case in the ET and continued criticising any position which sought to invalidate that point of view. It was my opinion that the IBOYOA ideology was being pushed as the only way forward against IR35 and that any other approach wasn't supported or welcomed.

It's ironic now that IPSE are actually supporting a case in the ET for someone who has been declared caught by CEST. However, there was no magnanimous acknowledgement of my original and continued stance against IR35. So if my criticisms of IPSE's approach to IR35 were considered to be "acrimonious" then so be it. At least I have remained constant and have never changed my opinion.

HMRC's conduct over IR35 has vindicated my position and in my opinion representative organisations should have been more robust in their approach to IR35 and HMRC. However, anyone who has any dialogue with officialdom has, by nature, to curtail their criticisms in order to maintain that dialogue. However, given Dave Chaplin's position, in my opinion he has been able to cause much greater reverberations in the halls of power than any one else has.

NLUK might have a different opinion though!

So might I and the rest of IPSE...

The case now is totally different to your case way back then, under different ruling legislation, on several levels.

IPSE were - indeed are - instrumental in driving the case within Whitehall, all Chaplin has done is try to get the great unwashed to wake up to the threat to their livelihood (without, sadly, much real success). And Chaplin's work seems to have mutated into money earning.

[JohntheBike]

So might I and the rest of IPSE...

The case now is totally different to your case way back then, under different ruling legislation, on several levels.

IPSE were - indeed are - instrumental in driving the case within Whitehall, all Chaplin has done is try to get the great unwashed to wake up to the threat to their livelihood (without, sadly, much real success). And Chaplin's work seems to have mutated into money earning.

The case now is totally different to your case way back then

I never mentioned my case, only my constant opinion that anyone judged caught by IR35 in the FTT would have a good case for employment rights in the ET. Subsequent legislation has not changed that situation. All it has done in my opinion is to show that HMRC cannot be trusted and if you sup with the Devil, then be that at your peril.