bridge too far

Indeed and there's a lobby formed by SMEs saying that if these tax avoiders did pay their fair share, there'd be more money in the economy to help develop the SMEs. From little acorns ...............

Yep, true. I rather thought Sergei was implying that he did that because he thought Communist was coming to the UK. To me that suggested either fear or beating communism at its own game.

He gave up ownership to a Trust that distributes dividends to the company's employees. That's not the same as giving away half the company because he thought Communism was coming. Where does it say that? I edited my previous post to add a bit and, far from doing out of fear, it would seem he did it out of fairness.

No he didn't. His employees are partners in the business. Here's the firm's history for your edification, education and delight: http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/Display.aspx?MasterId=22a9dc47-a9bc-4f02-9d00-23e120f885c9&NavigationId=747 "John Lewis Spedan Lewis who was the son of the founder John Lewis believed quite simply that it was unfair for either the private owners of a business, or shareholders who invested money in it, to have a greater claim on its prosperity than those who invested their time and labour. The democratic nature and profit sharing basis of the business were continually strengthened and were ultimately secured by two Settlements in trust in 1929 and 1950. These provided for distribution of profits among Partners, established a written constitution for the business and transferred all Spedan Lewis's rights of ownership to trustees. "

Sorry Nick - I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here. The actual sentence doesn't make sense. I think you're implying that he deliberately introduced an Act of Parliament with the sole purpose of benefiting his wife. Any legal firm will benefit from ANY new laws passed - of course they will. It's their job to analyse,interpret and apply any new law. Even the Mail climbed out of its bunker to recognise that. If she had been a heart surgeon and he'd introduced a law to say that heart surgery has to increase by 50%, no doubt you'd say that he did that deliberately too - to benefit her.

Well that's what he did. Other entrepreneurs may well pay the taxes they're supposed to, though.

ConDem

This guy is more interesting than I thought! I've just read an article about him by a financial journalist. I don't understand company finance but, reading the article, it seems that not only does he avoid paying tax but that he borrows money from Arcadia to pay dividends to his wife and writes off that loan against any tax the company might be liable for. Apparently (and allegedly) this is against Company Law. http://taxresearch.wordpress.com/2006/06/19/sir-philip-green-the-rewards-of-tax-avoidance/

Resident lefties rarely defend the last Labour government.

pile

Hmm and the bit implying that her Chambers gained significantly from the 1998 Human Rights Act is also bizarre. All that Act did was to reinforce the ECHR apart from allowing UK law to be declared 'incompatible' with ECHR laws where there is a conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998 I'm sure loads of other Chambers benefited too - indeed the Mail article says as much. This thread deviated because Nick suggested that, somehow, Tony Blair was instrumental in getting ECHR laws changed to suit his wife.

Two wrongs don't make a right. HTH

Here's the timeline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3583801.stm Our adoption of decimal currency was not predicated by joining the EU. It may, however, at the time, have been considered a 'declaration of intent' perhaps. And the link, as I said, was to explain how the EU and the ECHR are two separate organisations. However, a requirement of membership of the EU is signature to the ECHR. What legislation specifically was passed when Blair was in power that would have 'helped' his wife?

Like Portsmouth Football Club you mean? Would you admire me if I avoided paying tax too? If we all did - because, after all, we've worked for that money? How the hell would you fund any public service (army, police, fire service) if everyone took that attitude. Which is kind of the point.

My bad - we APPLIED to join in 1961 but our application was vetoed by the French. We actually joined in 1975 (now I remember because I was pregnant at the time and, ironically, was out campaigning for a 'no' vote whilst very very large). All members of the EU have to sign up to the ECHR - it's a condition of membership. However, they're two separate bodies. Do read the link I posted above because it explains the correlation between the two bodies better than I ever could. OK here's the link again: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm

I don't think I've accused him of fraud and nor did the link. Excerpt: "Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure" I do think what he is doing is as immoral as fiddling the benefits system, actually. If he and his ilk paid what they should then maybe some of the swingeing cuts in public services to come could be avoided.

You really are scraping the barrel here aren't you . Changes to the law are voted on by ALL member countries. Not just the UK. Tony Blair or any other PM before or since could not and cannot DICTATE changes to the law. The legislation is Europe-wide. In fact, it could be argued that the opt-out could deliver the situation you envisage as the opt-out declares that, in some areas, UK legislation takes precedence where there is a conflict with EU legislation. However, the opt-out did not come into force until 2009 - after TB left office. So, to summarise, TB drafted legislation before he was born, to benefit the woman who was going to be his wife before she was born. We entered the EEC as it was then, under a Tory government, in 1961, when Cherie Blair was 19. She didn't become a barrister until 1976. Of course she knew, in 1976 that this bloke TB (also a pupil in the same chambers) was going to be PM and have an inordinate influence over the passage of Human Rights legislation by becoming PM in 1997 Get real, sunshine. But thank you for an amusing interlude this afternoon

In fact it's much, much worse: http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

Of course it's changed. All laws evolve as society evolves. I'm going to post below a link to an interesting history of ECHR. You may be interested to see that the original legislation was drafted very much influenced by the UK. That was in the late 40s and early 50s. We joined the EU in 1961 under Harold MacMillan's Conservative government. No one country or Prime Minister has the power to change the law (to suit his wife LOL). Changes to the legislation are voted on by all member countries. The laws have changed whilst a number of UK Prime Ministers have been in power. Your 'argument' is not holding water, Nick http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm

The ECHR was established in 1950 - before CB was born Here's the Wiki entry: The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe,[1] the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity The protocol (i.e. the potential re-writing of part of the legislation) was not established until 2009. So either Tony Blair was clever enough to draft the legislation before he was born to the potential advantage to his future wife who also hadn't been born, or your assertion that somehow he manipulated things to suit his wife is just plain wrong Again from Wiki: She specialises in employment, discrimination and public law and in this capacity has occasionally represented claimants taking cases against the UK government Her chambers specialises in Human Rights matters but, no doubt, will have other QCs specialising in other aspects of HR law.

sheep

A regular reader of my posts will know that I've said many times that I think faith schools should be phased out. Education should be secular. I went to a grammar school because there was selection in Southampton at the time. It didn't cost anyone any more to educate me there than at the local secondary school (there weren't comprehensives then because you don't get comprehensive schools where there's a selection process, obviously). What any church does with its money is of no concern to me. I'm an aetheist so have no reason to have an opinion on any church's finances. I don't pay into them.

Piece in the Guardian about Dr Kelly's death: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/16/david-kelly-inquest-hutton-inquiry

Human Rights legislation is Europe wide - it's not the perogative of a British PM to 'tailor make' them. It's silly to equate QCs with ambulance chasers. That's like comparing a heart surgeon to a school nurse, or a chief constable to a wheel clamper

It was a (state) convent grammar school but, given her age, there probably was an 11+ selection system in force at the time. It wouldn't have been an 'advantage' that was paid for. If there was 11+ selection, there wouldn't have been comprehensive schools at that time. She was raised by her grandmother, a devout Catholic, and CB is a catholic so it's understandable she went to a catholic school. Her school was amalgamated with another and is now a state secondary school.