Reply to: Eek's we're all doomed theory

[cojak]

This bickering is going nowhere. Time to move on. Thread closed.

[gables]

That's the start of this thread, created by semtex. The thread teapot created (which is who you quoted) wasn't IMVHO created to wind anyone up at all, but that thread has been removed anyway.

Unless you're saying semtex and teapot are the same poster

FTAOD, I'm Spartacus and so is my wife.

good spot, all these threads\forks worse than Linux ho hum, I'll just watch in future

[Oneoffpost]

To be clear, I didn't post the quoted thread to wind eek up - I did it because I thought his posts had value and were useful to newcomers.

Given that you were the person who caused eek to delete the posts and leave the site that's a bit rich. While you may have intended to rescue the content it probably really wound him up.

As for the idea that a site gets full copyright of content, the statement is made on sites to protect themselves however no consideration is made and hence it's highly unlikely the term would stand up in law. Not deleting it could have been a very expensive court case.. and one that could easily have gone a very long expensive way. But it's nice to see know nothing low count posters think they know better than the regular posters.

Finally, personally I expect that when this is finalised Eek's worst case scenario may still be an understatement. HMRC have just delayed their making tax digital project by months by stating everyone is inside and watching them leave. if HMRC are doing that other departments are going to be expected to do the same and the rules do say that status needs to be continually checked.

[RonBW]

Isn't the above the original statement? I thought it was, ho hum.

That's the start of this thread, created by semtex. The thread teapot created (which is who you quoted) wasn't IMVHO created to wind anyone up at all, but that thread has been removed anyway.

Unless you're saying semtex and teapot are the same poster

FTAOD, I'm Spartacus and so is my wife.

[gables]

And his sidekicks.

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

Isn't the above the original statement? I thought it was, ho hum.

Wasn't the opening post something like "for those looking for the deleted FAQs" and then quoting the deleted posts so that they wouldn't get lost since they were useful? I didn't read much of a wind up there

Glad to see that there's a reasonable alternative though - come May people are going to see their invoices short paid and need good advice.

^^yup

[RonBW]

And as an independent observer (I don't think I'm a sidekick) of the opening post and title, it certainly came across that way.

Wasn't the opening post something like "for those looking for the deleted FAQs" and then quoting the deleted posts so that they wouldn't get lost since they were useful? I didn't read much of a wind up there

Glad to see that there's a reasonable alternative though - come May people are going to see their invoices short paid and need good advice.

[MrMarkyMark]

One thing that is a common thread on here is for new posters / posters with a low post count to complain and betch like old men / women.

Often quite loudly should the answer be the one they didn't want to hear.

In addition they are also the sort of who contributes nothing of value at all.


Funny one that

[gables]

To be clear, I didn't post the quoted thread to wind eek up - I did it because I thought his posts had value and were useful to newcomers.

However, FaQQer has created a worthy alternative, so it would be nice if his could be made a sticky.

And as an independent observer (I don't think I'm a sidekick) of the opening post and title, it certainly came across that way.

[teapot418]

To be clear, I didn't post the quoted thread to wind eek up - I did it because I thought his posts had value and were useful to newcomers.

However, FaQQer has created a worthy alternative, so it would be nice if his could be made a sticky.

[WordIsBond]

Unless one of the mods removes it.

My point was that it would be entirely at your discretion, and that any talk about him exercising copyright to insist on its removal is unfounded. You and other mods, of course, can remove anything you want, and block anything you want. But the rest of us give up any rights to what we post here.

[cojak]

Eek's we're all doomed theory

I think that means you think I'm a "sidekick". Have some Internet points.

As for some of the other interesting conversations that have gone around here in the last 48 hours or so, we don't own the copyright on things we post here. CUK does.



If the information that was removed is still considered useful, there is nothing preventing anyone posting it again.

Unless one of the mods removes it. We don't remove quoted posts but Eek has actively removed his content - it won't be posted here again.

[WordIsBond]

somebody take those mushrooms off of this man

I think that means you think I'm a "sidekick". Have some Internet points.

As for some of the other interesting conversations that have gone around here in the last 48 hours or so, we don't own the copyright on things we post here. CUK does.

9. This site asserts copyright on all comments posted on the board. By using this forum, you authorize Contractor UK to continue to display your contributions to the site.

If the information that was removed is still considered useful, there is nothing preventing anyone posting it again.

[LondonManc]

FTFY.

Somebody, any body, please, won't someone think of the children?!?!

[WordIsBond]

Perhaps if CUK actually sent a briefing document to explain what constituted a role being inside or outside IR35 to those making the determination, there would be a better chance of the correct determination being made?

FTFY.

[LondonManc]

It was your view of the ESS - "it's pants"

I don't think it's a unique view but it's probably the only one that's repeatable.

Perhaps if HMRC actually sent a briefing document to explain what constituted a role being inside or outside IR35 to those making the determination, there would be a better chance of the correct determination being made? Currently there are too many reports of blanket decisions being made in either direction, which indicates a lack of understanding and PSBs being risk averse is trumping that understanding by some margin. All I see HMRC doing at the moment is muddying the IR35 waters in their favour at the risk of productivity within the public sector.