How odd this is

The blog will, however continue. I was never funded to write or publish it: it has always been something I have thought I have done in my time.

Didn’t his annual accounts show that, or claim that, his grants were to write his blog? Could he have been lying to Companies House? To stakeholders?

11 comments on “How odd this is

  1. Yes, 2012 accounts state principle activity is the blog.

    Also on Companies House, Mrs. Ritchie is declared as having significant influence or control over the LLP (so the 1% holding is a tax dodge then).

    Also looks like the accounts filing for TRUK will show as late for 2016 as well. There could be a lag between filing and updating on the website, but to have a screenshot of overdue accounts will be most amusing!

  2. Being a Progressive means you don’t have to remember what you said yesterday, let alone four years ago. It’s a fabulous fantasy land where what you say is whatever sounds great at the time.

  3. What Theo said?

    What are the next steps – it’s important that Christie Malry, whose excellent analysis was removed by the activities of this evil buffoon is avenged. What law has he broken? And what agency needs to be engaged to get him fined/ censured?

  4. You put it better than I did, VP.
    If it would help, I would be willing (as I’m retired) to make a formal complaint to whoever, providing someone gives me chapter and verse.

  5. Signing a set of accounts as a designated member and now saying something different would i think be a prima facie case under the icaew’s code of ethics in respect of the fundamental principles of:

    integrity
    professional competence and due care
    Professional behaviour

    320 1-6 of the guidance for accountants in business covers preparing and reporting information. There would probably be an issue under 320.4 and possibly elsewhere ( if the accounts are audited for example there would be additional obligations to fairly disclose to auditors)

    Code of ethics is on icaew’s website if anyone wants to look – there is plenty in there for someone to get their teeth into

    I would have thought, for example, that an admission of libel was an incontrovertible breach of at least 4 of the 5 fundamental principles and certainly worse than what they got malry for. Being offensive may be objectionable but it isn’t generally actionable . . .

  6. Didn’t he also get a grant for producing the blog? Was from Friends Provident or some such Quaker operation? I would expect they would have an ethics committee.

  7. He stated is a perception ‘I thought’ rather than factual so maybe not totally unaware of previous statements, though more likely lucky incompetence than clever strategy

  8. “Didn’t his annual accounts show that, or claim that, his grants were to write his blog?”

    If this was the case, would it be likely that he’s shown costs of writing the thing against tax. And if he’s now saying he wasn’t paid, what would be his tax position.? If he did show, this wouldn’t be tax avoidance, would it? Oh no! This is tax evasion.

Leave a Reply

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