Justice triumphs for the little people

[mattobrien]

I wonder if the two acquitted sisters are now facing an enormous tax bill?

There is the possibility that their spending on personal items with a company card, however legal as determined by a court of law, could be construed as a benefit in kind, receive while employed.

Obviously if this is a benefit in kind, it has been declared to HMRC and the tax has been paid, then no need to worry.

Just a thought

 

[Crackle]

Is not guilty the same as innocent? And is this a height'ist thread?

 

[Smurfy]

You've not lost any of your old charm Spinners

Who is 'Spinners'?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Is not guilty the same as innocent?

In legal terms yes, any more than that is down to individuals opinion.

*generally* I guess Nigella's dirty linen has been aired as it appears that the PA's have used her (lets say) recreational habits as the basis of their defence and the blind eye turned to their spending as a reward/hush money.

 

[albion]

Maybe being a 'celebrity' will always be, at times, 'catch 22'.

Saatchi just maybe created this case as a counter balance to that 'media machine.'

 

[glenn forger]

Those stupid Australian djs:

Hear what happened when FIfi and Jules played back audio from the viral video Nigella Talks Dirty to her. Lets just say it didn't go down too well.

http://www.fox.com.au/shows/fifi-and-jules/video/nigella-lawson-watches-nigella-talks-dirty/

 

[Fnaar]

+1 for Alexi Sayle. What's he up to these days?

Saw him do a stand-up gig in that London in Feb... on very good form, he was!!!.

 

[Fnaar]

Me too. Is it a tag team?

GC

I'm not letting anyone else near her bain-marie, thank you very much.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Is not guilty the same as innocent? And is this a height'ist thread?

Well. It's not a Tall-ist thread. The Tea? thread is the tallest.

 

[ASC1951]

It can't be "in kind" as it was money.

No, I think mattobrien is correct. The sisters were not given money, they were given the use of their employers' credit cards, and with that credit they were allowed to buy goods.
Anyway, his point is surely valid: if this was a legitimate perk of their employment - as the trial has found that it was - it must surely be liable to PAYE and NIC in their hands.

 

[Linford]

I'm getting confused now, is this about justice or just little people in general. We need input from @martint235 .

You forgot Felicity Kendal...or just haven't yet bothered to quote simon the vikings post....there are others you can interact with on here Adrian. You don't have to chase me all over the place.

 

[Crackle]

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tchi-ugly-face-patriarchal-power-grillo-trial

Good article on what this trial is really about. So no, no victory for the little people but a resounding success for the Satchi's of this world, who let's face it, has always been a scumbag.

 

[ASC1951]

Which would represent an obligation to tax on the employer.

Yes indeed. I would hope HMRC are sharpening their quills even as we speak.

 

[derrick]

Who really gives a s**t. i still would.

 

[theclaud]

Richard Hammond is a very amenable chap in the real