On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>> receive .
>>>
>>
>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>
>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>> but not getting it.
>
> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>
> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
> agency, The Pensions Service.
>
> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>
> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>
> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
> public sector one).
>
> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>

That's largely wrong.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/07/2021 16:27, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> The people operating as "TV Licensing" ARE BBC minions. How could they
>> not be? "TV Licensing" is a wholly-owned trademark of the BBC!
>
> If you look in the Capita website, the group dealing with TV licences
> are referred to as "Capita TV Licensing". They are Capita employees.  As
> far as the BBC is concerned Capita is an outsource company with which
> the BBC has a contract, and how that contract is managed is entirely the
> responsibility of Capita management.
>>
>> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect money
>> for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working to
>> collect money for themselves. It can't be both.
>
> The typical financial outsource contract collects money which goes into
> some Suspense Account in the outsource company and at intervals defined
> in the contract the company transfers an agreed fee for the services
> into their own company accounts and transfers the rest to the contractor
> (in this case the BBC).
>
> Under no stretch of imagination can the Capita employees be called
> "minions".  They work for Capita and place money in a specific Capita
> account. Thereafter, the Capita accountants (who are *not* the people
> who obtained the money) execute the contract terms.

Exactly. It's easy to see what has happened here. No-gent didn't
understand how the system worked, probably because he only reads crap
sources of news, heard about the misbehaviour of what he didn't know
were Capita employees, assumed following his own well-known personal
bigotry that they must be BBC employees, and thus came to use the term
"BBC minion" (singular, as that happened to be the context). Now that
the world and his wife have all pointed out to him that he's just plain
factually wrong, he's too childishly stubborn to admit it, thereby
leading to a long string of unnecessary posts by him trying in vain to
rationalise his error after the event, requiring necessary replies by
others to correct his continued errors. Thus ever since the initial
mistake he's been acting like a rancid fatberg in a sewer overflow of
his own making.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>> receive .
>>>
>>
>> That is not true. If it were then:
>>
>> a. there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>> b. there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>> but not getting it.
>
> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>
> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
> agency, The Pensions Service.
>
> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>
> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>
> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
> public sector one).
>
> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>
In reality, the State Pension is paid tax free. That is possible because
if the state pension is the only income it is below the personal tax
threshold. However, the state pension is classed as earned income, and
thus the tax code for a pensioner is considerably lower than the tax
code for a working person because the state pension is deducted from the
tax free allowance, so that it doesn't take much more income on top of
the state pension to disqualify any claim for pension credit, and it
doesn't take much more to tip over the lowered tax free threshold and
end up with income tax being payable.

Jim

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>> receive .
>>>
>>
>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>
>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>> but not getting it.
>
> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>
> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
> agency, The Pensions Service.
>
> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>
> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>
> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
> public sector one).
>
> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>
>

HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
purpose.

On 23/07/2021 04:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:

> On 23/07/2021 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to pay
>> the viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.
>
> Then by the same token why do you force us here to read all your
> dishonest propaganda?  If you are going to apply that rule to the rest
> of us, apply it first to yourself, and shut the fuck up!

A. I do not provide any dishonest propaganda. That is exclusively your
province.

B. No-one is forced to read anything here, though you would probably
like your tripe to be compulsory reading for everyone.

On 23/07/2021 04:27 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> The people operating as "TV Licensing" ARE BBC minions. How could they
>> not be? "TV Licensing" is a wholly-owned trademark of the BBC!
>
> If you look in the Capita website, the group dealing with TV licences
> are referred to as "Capita TV Licensing". They are Capita employees.  As
> far as the BBC is concerned Capita is an outsource company with which
> the BBC has a contract, and how that contract is managed is entirely the
> responsibility of Capita management.

Irrelevant. They are working for the BBC and doing the BBC's bidding.
They collect money for the BBC, not for themselves.

>> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect money
>> for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working to
>> collect money for themselves. It can't be both.
>
> The typical financial outsource contract collects money which goes into
> some Suspense Account in the outsource company and at intervals defined
> in the contract the company transfers an agreed fee for the services
> into their own company accounts and transfers the rest to the contractor
> (in this case the BBC).

That's just pockets and wallets.
>
> Under no stretch of imagination can the Capita employees be called
> "minions".  They work for Capita and place money in a specific Capita
> account. Thereafter, the Capita accountants (who are *not* the people
> who obtained the money) execute the contract terms.

They do what the BBC asks / tells them to do.

At least, they should. They have no warrant for doing anything different.

On 23/07/2021 04:43 pm, Robin wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>> receive .
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>
>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension
>>> credit but not getting it.
>>
>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>
>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>
>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>
>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>
>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>> public sector one).
>>
>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>>
>
> That's largely wrong.

Which bit or bits is/are wrong?

I'll be happy to accept valid corrections.

On 23/07/2021 04:45 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>> receive .
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>
>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>>> but not getting it.
>>
>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>
>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>
>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>
>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>
>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>> public sector one).
>>
>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>>
> In reality, the State Pension is paid tax free.

Absolutely.

> That is possible because
> if the state pension is the only income it is below the personal tax
> threshold. However, the state pension is classed as earned income, and
> thus the tax code for a pensioner is considerably lower than the tax
> code for a working person because the state pension is deducted from the
> tax free allowance, so that it doesn't take much more income on top of
> the state pension to disqualify any claim for pension credit, and it
> doesn't take much more to tip over the lowered tax free threshold and
> end up with income tax being payable.

Quite so. And those administering private pensions liaise with HMRC
("the revenue") in order that the tax due - if any - is deducted from
private / occupational pensions under PAYE at the correct rate.

On 23/07/2021 17:13, Tweed wrote:
> HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
> purpose.

I suspect that they can have access to most of the information but do
not know all of it unless they make checks and of course if you did not
tell them on your tax return then they will not be happy.

If they had all the information then they could just post you a
statement showing what you owe them which would make life a lot easier
for us all. You would still need to check it and if you do not declare
something they had missed then you would still be in trouble.

On 23/07/2021 05:13 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>> receive .
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>
>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension credit
>>> but not getting it.
>>
>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>
>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>
>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>
>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>
>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>> public sector one).
>>
>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>>
> HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
> purpose.

It *is* their main function, but it's more of an aspiration than
something which is necessarily achieved.

They cannot know about income from self-employment, savings or
investments, for instance, unless they are told about it by the
taxpayer, to make just one obvious point. That's why form SA 300 asks
about those things.

And whisper it... I have heard that isn't exactly unknown for people to
under-declare - or even fail to declare - income to HMRC.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 17:13, Tweed wrote:
>> HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
>> purpose.
>
> I suspect that they can have access to most of the information but do
> not know all of it unless they make checks and of course if you did not
> tell them on your tax return then they will not be happy.
>
> If they had all the information then they could just post you a
> statement showing what you owe them which would make life a lot easier
> for us all. You would still need to check it and if you do not declare
> something they had missed then you would still be in trouble.
>
It’s all coming to a tax return near you shortly. Real time tax. Employers
will have to submit information each time the payroll is run, pension
payers, dividend payers etc likewise. People getting income from rental
properties and the like will have to submit quarterly returns. All online.
Well at least that’s the stated aim. Oh, and they’ll be able to have a look
inside your bank accounts too. The government is actually starting to get
reasonably good at linking up its databases, as evidenced by the covid jab
programme.

On 23/07/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 04:43 pm, Robin wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>>> receive .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>>
>>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension
>>>> credit but not getting it.
>>>
>>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>>
>>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>>
>>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>>
>>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment and/or
>>> investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>>
>>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is a
>>> public sector one).
>>>
>>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>>>
>>
>> That's largely wrong.
>
> Which bit or bits is/are wrong?
>
> I'll be happy to accept valid corrections.

I'm not going to keep on correcting your many contributions on the tax
and benefits system across multiple groups. But I'd like to know why
you do it. To take 2 examples here:

a. why do you state "only the Pensions Service has access to how much
"extra" old-style pensioners are getting" when the total amount is
reported to HMRC by DWP (DSS in NI)? There are now /daily/ returns to
HMRC of new pension entitlements.

b. why do you claim HMRC don't know about occupational and private
pensions other than public sector ones? The vast bulk of occupational
pensions paid in the UK - public sector and other - are within PAYE and
so returned to HMRC.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/07/2021 05:49 pm, Tweed wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 17:13, Tweed wrote:
>>> HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
>>> purpose.
>>
>> I suspect that they can have access to most of the information but do
>> not know all of it unless they make checks and of course if you did not
>> tell them on your tax return then they will not be happy.
>>
>> If they had all the information then they could just post you a
>> statement showing what you owe them which would make life a lot easier
>> for us all. You would still need to check it and if you do not declare
>> something they had missed then you would still be in trouble.
>>
> It’s all coming to a tax return near you shortly. Real time tax. Employers
> will have to submit information each time the payroll is run, pension
> payers, dividend payers etc likewise. People getting income from rental
> properties and the like will have to submit quarterly returns. All online.
> Well at least that’s the stated aim. Oh, and they’ll be able to have a look
> inside your bank accounts too. The government is actually starting to get
> reasonably good at linking up its databases, as evidenced by the covid jab
> programme.

Yes, now you remind me, I've heard of that.

But the revenue still has to depend on the taxpayer for the information
(and its accuracy).

On 23/07/2021 17:16, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 04:27 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> The people operating as "TV Licensing" ARE BBC minions. How could they
>>> not be? "TV Licensing" is a wholly-owned trademark of the BBC!
>>
>> If you look in the Capita website, the group dealing with TV licences
>> are referred to as "Capita TV Licensing". They are Capita employees.
>> As far as the BBC is concerned Capita is an outsource company with
>> which the BBC has a contract, and how that contract is managed is
>> entirely the responsibility of Capita management.
>
> Irrelevant. They are working for the BBC and doing the BBC's bidding.
> They collect money for the BBC, not for themselves.

Just how many times do you need to be told that they collect money for
*THE GOVERNMENT*. The BBC is merely acting as a tax-collector for the
government, and gives the net money after collection straight to the
government.

>>> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect money
>>> for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working to
>>> collect money for themselves. It can't be both.
>>
>> The typical financial outsource contract collects money which goes
>> into some Suspense Account in the outsource company and at intervals
>> defined in the contract the company transfers an agreed fee for the
>> services into their own company accounts and transfers the rest to the
>> contractor (in this case the BBC).
>
> That's just pockets and wallets.

In other words, it's an inconvenient truth which proves that you are
wrong, but you are too childishly stubborn to admit it. As I and others
have explained to you countless times already, the BBC has no legal
relationship with Capita's employees, only through TV Licensing with
Capita itself, therefore Capita's employees can not, by any stretch of
the imagination, be called "BBC minions".

>> Under no stretch of imagination can the Capita employees be called
>> "minions".  They work for Capita and place money in a specific Capita
>> account. Thereafter, the Capita accountants (who are *not* the people
>> who obtained the money) execute the contract terms.
>
> They do what the BBC asks / tells them to do.
>
> At least, they should. They have no warrant for doing anything different.

*That* is the basic nub of the problem, and why they were being
investigated, because it appeared that they weren't abiding by Capita's
contract with the BBC, and acting more like thuggish private debt
collectors.

And that's yet another reason why they can't be called "BBC minions",
because their behaviour appears to have been outside of what was deemed
acceptable by the BBC.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 16:33, MrSpud_pbcem@00r.biz wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:32:35 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 11:36, MrSpud_fp03fOm6i@fxbysu8r9ei.edu wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:00:10 +0100
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>>>>
>>>> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
>>>> issues. Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>>>> + To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>>>> + To fact-check claims before making them;
>>>> + To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.
>>>
>>> It must be national Hypocrisy Day and Mr Jive is getting in early.
>>
>> You should follow the above advice as well.
>
> Ah, it is. Thanks for clarifying!

So when are you going back to school?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
>
> I'll be happy to accept valid corrections.

ROTFLMAO! You've never accepted a valid correction yet.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 06:08 pm, Robin wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 17:17, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 04:43 pm, Robin wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 14:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2021 01:22 pm, Robin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/07/2021 12:01, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, HMRC already know how much income all pensioners
>>>>>> receive .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not true.  If it were then:
>>>>>
>>>>> a.    there'd be no need for people to claim pension credit; and
>>>>> b.    there'd not be up to 1 million people entitled to pension
>>>>> credit but not getting it.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed and there are several reasons for it.
>>>>
>>>> One is that HMRC do not pay retirement pension. That's DWP, via its
>>>> agency, The Pensions Service.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, only the Pensions Service has access to how much "extra"
>>>> old-style pensioners are getting (via the defunct Graduated
>>>> Contributions and SERPS schemes).
>>>>
>>>> Only HMRC has access to data about income from self-employment
>>>> and/or investments (not all of which are taxable, of course).
>>>>
>>>> And no government department necessarily has access to details of
>>>> occupational and private pension entitlement (unless the pension is
>>>> a public sector one).
>>>>
>>>> It is tempting to assume that "the state" knows everything, but it
>>>> doesn't. And arguably, shouldn't.
>>>>
>>> That's largely wrong.
>>
>> Which bit or bits is/are wrong?
>>
>> I'll be happy to accept valid corrections.
>
> I'm not going to keep on correcting your many contributions on the tax
> and benefits system across multiple groups.  But I'd like to know why
> you do it.  To take 2 examples here:
>
> a.    why do you state "only the Pensions Service has access to how much
> "extra" old-style pensioners are getting" when the total amount is
> reported to HMRC by DWP (DSS in NI)?  There are now /daily/ returns to
> HMRC of new pension entitlements.

Because they are the only ones who have access to the primary data. If
they do provide it to others, that doesn't mean that those others can
somehow cut the Pensions Service out of the information loop. They are
dependant on information from the Pensions Service.

It's the difference between having the information and having to be
provided with it. It's obviously similar with information that only the
taxpayer can provide (P&L account and similar).

> b.    why do you claim HMRC don't know about occupational and private
> pensions other than public sector ones?  The vast bulk of occupational
> pensions paid in the UK - public sector and other - are within PAYE and
> so returned to HMRC.

They only know about them because the pension providers tell them. They
too cannot be cut out of the loop.

On 23/07/2021 06:39 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 17:16, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 04:27 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The people operating as "TV Licensing" ARE BBC minions. How could they
>>>> not be? "TV Licensing" is a wholly-owned trademark of the BBC!
>>>
>>> If you look in the Capita website, the group dealing with TV licences
>>> are referred to as "Capita TV Licensing". They are Capita employees.
>>> As far as the BBC is concerned Capita is an outsource company with
>>> which the BBC has a contract, and how that contract is managed is
>>> entirely the responsibility of Capita management.
>>
>> Irrelevant. They are working for the BBC and doing the BBC's bidding.
>> They collect money for the BBC, not for themselves.
>
> Just how many times do you need to be told that they collect money for
> *THE GOVERNMENT*.  The BBC is merely acting as a tax-collector for the
> government, and gives the net money after collection straight to the
> government.
>
>>>> It doesn't matter who they are, they are either working to collect
>>>> money
>>>> for the BBC as minions of that corporation, or they are working to
>>>> collect money for themselves. It can't be both.
>>>
>>> The typical financial outsource contract collects money which goes
>>> into some Suspense Account in the outsource company and at intervals
>>> defined in the contract the company transfers an agreed fee for the
>>> services into their own company accounts and transfers the rest to
>>> the contractor (in this case the BBC).
>>
>> That's just pockets and wallets.
>
> In other words, it's an inconvenient truth which proves that you are
> wrong, but you are too childishly stubborn to admit it.  As I and others
> have explained to you countless times already, the BBC has no legal
> relationship with Capita's employees, only through TV Licensing with
> Capita itself, therefore Capita's employees can not, by any stretch of
> the imagination, be called "BBC minions".
>
>>> Under no stretch of imagination can the Capita employees be called
>>> "minions".  They work for Capita and place money in a specific Capita
>>> account. Thereafter, the Capita accountants (who are *not* the people
>>> who obtained the money) execute the contract terms.
>>
>> They do what the BBC asks / tells them to do.
>>
>> At least, they should. They have no warrant for doing anything different.
>
> *That* is the basic nub of the problem, and why they were being
> investigated, because it appeared that they weren't abiding by Capita's
> contract with the BBC, and acting more like thuggish private debt
> collectors.
>
> And that's yet another reason why they can't be called "BBC minions",
> because their behaviour appears to have been outside of what was deemed
> acceptable by the BBC.

They aren't the first BBC minions to do things which are completely
unacceptable, would they?

On 23/07/2021 06:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 16:33, MrSpud_pbcem@00r.biz wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:32:35 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 11:36, MrSpud_fp03fOm6i@fxbysu8r9ei.edu wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:00:10 +0100
>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
>>>>> issues.  Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>>>>>       +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>>>>>       +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>>>>>       +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> It must be national Hypocrisy Day and Mr Jive is getting in early.
>>>
>>> You should follow the above advice as well.
>>
>> Ah, it is. Thanks for clarifying!
>
> So when are you going back to school?

When does your course at charm school start?

Or is its cancellation now indefinite?

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 05:49 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 23/07/2021 17:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>> HMRC should know about all of your taxable income. That’s their main
>>>> purpose.
>>>
>>> I suspect that they can have access to most of the information but do
>>> not know all of it unless they make checks and of course if you did not
>>> tell them on your tax return then they will not be happy.
>>>
>>> If they had all the information then they could just post you a
>>> statement showing what you owe them which would make life a lot easier
>>> for us all. You would still need to check it and if you do not declare
>>> something they had missed then you would still be in trouble.
>>>
>> It’s all coming to a tax return near you shortly. Real time tax. Employers
>> will have to submit information each time the payroll is run, pension
>> payers, dividend payers etc likewise. People getting income from rental
>> properties and the like will have to submit quarterly returns. All online.
>> Well at least that’s the stated aim. Oh, and they’ll be able to have a look
>> inside your bank accounts too. The government is actually starting to get
>> reasonably good at linking up its databases, as evidenced by the covid jab
>> programme.
>
> Yes, now you remind me, I've heard of that.
>
> But the revenue still has to depend on the taxpayer for the information
> (and its accuracy).
>

Not necessarily. Only for self,employed style income will it be taxpayer
dependent. And when they snoop on your bank accounts etc they’ll soon work
out if you are being economical with the truth. The stated aim is to reduce
the amount of undeclared taxable income.

On 23/07/2021 17:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 04:32 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 23/07/2021 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> And there is no case at all for forcing working class viewers to pay
>>> the viewing pleasure of Guardianistas and similar.
>>
>> Then by the same token why do you force us here to read all your
>> dishonest propaganda?  If you are going to apply that rule to the rest
>> of us, apply it first to yourself, and shut the fuck up!
>
> A. I do not provide any dishonest propaganda. That is exclusively your
> province.

ROTFLMAO! This whole subthread has been caused by you making a
dishonest claim about the BBC.

> B. No-one is forced to read anything here, though you would probably
> like your tripe to be compulsory reading for everyone.

We are forced to read because we know that it will contain a great many
errors that need correcting, so that others reading the thread have
correct information.

So, I say again, if you are going to apply that rule to the rest of us,
incidentally without even consulting us, apply it first to yourself,
stop lying, and shut the fuck up!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 17:16, JNugent wrote:
> Irrelevant. They are working for the BBC and doing the BBC's bidding.
> They collect money for the BBC, not for themselves.

My reply contains 2 Ls and they bounce

On 23/07/2021 18:45, JNugent wrote:
>
> They aren't the first BBC minions to do things which are completely
> unacceptable, would they?

Ah, so now you think you see another way of not appearing to lose the
argument, you don't bother to reply to the part that conclusively proves
why you are wrong, but concentrate on a tiny chink of light elsewhere in
the dark hole that you've dug yourself into, that you mistakenly think
offers some chance of escaping with your dignity intact. 'Fraid not,
long since you've had none left to cling onto. What you need to
understand is that when you're in a hole, you should stop digging.

Those former genuine BBC minions who have transgressed the BBC standards
have sometimes found they're not BBC minions for very much longer,
meanwhile, back at the argument, Capita's staff themselves have no legal
connection with the BBC, and their behaviour was being investigated for
apparently contravening the BBC's standards, which makes two good
reasons why they cannot be described as "BBC minions", as was first
stated quite unambiguously in my reply to your original error umpteen
posts ago and many times since. Yet again, you're just plain wrong, get
used it; you should be able to easily enough, it's not as though you
haven't had plenty of practice.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 23/07/2021 17:49, Tweed wrote:
> Employers
> will have to submit information each time the payroll is run

Having worked on a payroll system before I retired, I can tell you that
they already do - plus the annual return which has to agree with the sum
total of the payroll runs.

Jim

On 23/07/2021 18:45, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/07/2021 06:40 pm, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 23/07/2021 16:33, MrSpud_pbcem@00r.biz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 14:32:35 +0100
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 23/07/2021 11:36, MrSpud_fp03fOm6i@fxbysu8r9ei.edu wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 18:00:10 +0100
>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/07/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have obvious anger-management issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have obvious English comprehension and rational understanding
>>>>>> issues.  Now fuck off back to infant school until you've learnt:
>>>>>>       +    To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
>>>>>>       +    To fact-check claims before making them;
>>>>>>       +    To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must be national Hypocrisy Day and Mr Jive is getting in early.
>>>>
>>>> You should follow the above advice as well.
>>>
>>> Ah, it is. Thanks for clarifying!
>>
>> So when are you going back to school?
>
> When does your course at charm school start?
>
> Or is its cancellation now indefinite?

As I've often stated openly here, I am quite consciously applying
aversion therapy - every time you make yet another false claim here,
you'll get hauled over the coals for it, and the more you persist in any
lie, the more abuse will be heaped upon you, so if you want it to stop,
it's in your hands, by learning:
+ To base your opinions on fact rather than bigotry;
+ To fact-check claims before making them;
+ To apologise when, as so often, you are wrong.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk