Ritchie on BBC Guernsey

…and you’ll here a typical interview by a BBC employee in the Channel Islands – they’re always, without exception, on the side of the tax abuser, excusing that abuse is legiitmniate use of loopholes and so on. It’s not questioning – they put it as fact.

Hmm.

What does \”legitmate\” mean?

le·git·i·mate

(l\"\"-j\"\"t\"\"\"\"-m\"\"t)adj.

1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

As no one at all is suggesting that these companies are breaking the law then yes, it is a statement of fact that this is a legitimate use of loopholes.
It\’s entirely true that R. Murphy thinks that the law should be different, but as it is, this is lawful and thus legitimate. For what is lawful and what is not lawful is not decided by what R. Murphy thinks it should be. Yet, thankfully.

15 comments on “Ritchie on BBC Guernsey

  1. Dear Mr. Murphy,

    Campaign for a change in the law. That is fine and can even be worthy.

    Propose what you want, but please do not mislead, give unintentionally (here I give you the benefit of the doubt) erroneous information and allow the chip on your shoulder to cloud your view.

    What one wants is not necessarily legally correct at the time.

  2. Typical. The Daily Mail types are always accusing the BBC of left-wing bias. However, here we seem to have some right-wing bias.

    It’s about bloody time I think.

  3. @#4 It seems hard to define describing legitimate as legitimate an example of right wing bias.

    Absence of left wing bias maybe……..

  4. John Galt, if you think that this is “right wing bias” then perhaps it’s time to change the terms Right and Left to simply Right and Wrong.

  5. John Galt, it might that R Murphy thinks the BBC is right wing because he is so left wing himself that even with the BBC’s natural left wing bias it’s still to the right of him.

  6. Legitimate. Legal. Privilege. Legislation. Do you think Murphy is sufficiently well-educated to spot the etymological commonality?

    The whole thing is really Murphy’s cognitive block in evidence, which manifests itself as a latter-day reductio ad Hitlerum or as George Orwell put it: […]the word Fascism (cf Murphy’s illegitimate) has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable [by R. Murphy, for it is he].”

  7. Worstofall: even your link gives more definitions of legitimate including:

    2. conforming to established standards of usage, behaviour, etc.
    3. based on correct or acceptable principles of reasoning
    4. reasonable, sensible, or valid a legitimate question

    Why did you stop at number 1?

  8. 2. conforming to etc.
    Stupid. Obeying the law is doing exactly that.

    3. based on correct or acceptable principles etc.
    Stupid. The law is the law, it has been argued in Parliament and court and found to be correct and acceptable.

    4. reasonable, sensible, or valid
    Logic fail: petitio principii. Reasonable, sensible, correct – those are all weasel words in this context. It’s just this sort of question-begging that Murphy uses so egregiously. The generally accepted definition of ‘legitimate business practices’ in the sense that your 4 could be germane here does not magically transform by some criterion of ‘reasonableness’ into ‘being in breach of fiduciary duty by failure to minimise tax liability on the say-so of some jumped-up moral crusader with a bee in his bonnet.’

    Anyway, what if you and the vicar and your wife were all members of a swingers’ club?

  9. “jumped-up moral crusader with a bee in his bonnet”

    I doubt very much if Ritchie is moral: even he knows he’s a hypocrite that uses the law to avoid tax and receives huge salaries of the kind that he denounces in others. He’s not a crusader, merely a troll who has found a most excellent way of obtaining money from a particularly gullible sector.

  10. KT, I generally resile to my default position which is not to ascribe to knavery that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. As you say, however, Murphy is such an inexhaustible fount of inanity that his behaviour does smack more and more of wickedness than foolishness. His ignorance on the face of it would appear to be vincible, and the Jesuits among others would call that a sin. They also weren’t very hot on casuistry, which is his stock-in-trade.

    It still strikes me, however, as preferable to give the benefit of the doubt and cast my foes as merely thick as a bucket of pigshit rather than bad actors. “Forgive Murphy, Lord, for he knoweth not what he does” is to tack away from the Leftist trope of not just disagreeing with the Right but instead invoking it as the incarnation of Satan. Pity the poor silly man, rather than smite him. There are limits, of course. Harriet Harman, e.g.. Smite her. Smite her, ample hip and cellulite-ridden thigh. Smite her right in the ear.

  11. David Gillies: I pointed out that Worstofall was selective in giving a definition of legitimate. The subsequent definitions given in his source do not mention the law. Something may be lawful but not necessarily legitimate (do you dispute this?). After all libertarians are often of the opinion that the reverse is true. Something that is legal is often not regarded as legitimate. For example Worstofall argues that we should not tax companies because companies cannot pay tax. In his opinion this view is legitimate (see third definition above -“based on correct or acceptable principles of reasoning”).

    As for weasel words they are not my words but the words of the dictionary. The dictionary which Worstofall used. How do you tell which words in a dictionary are weasel and which are not?

    Tim adds: You, of course, have the freedom to insult me by making play with my name. Even here, at my place. Might I ask a small favour? You know, just a little one? Could you manage some play with my name that I have not, as a 48 year old, heard for the last 43, 44 years?

    Jus’ askin’, you know, but I rather enjoy original wit, playground not so much.

    Worstmeister! Worstallian! Worzel! Worstallist!

    Go on, trust your mind to be amusingly insulting, not just obvious. Oh, and: have the courage to use a name, eh? I do, why don’t you? Both a child and a coward is no way to go through life…….

  12. Worstofall:You might ask me the favour but I will not grant it. As for childish play with names you seem not to be averse to this yourself (Moonbat?). In any event you have not addressed the point I made about quoting a definition selectively.

    However it is, as you say, your place so feel free to stop me coming in if you wish.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.