20 comments on “You still don’t get vermine Matey

  1. Corbyn has followed up the Manchester attack by laying flowers at the grave of a Palestinian terrorist. Dianne Abbott has repeatedly refused to condemn IRA terrorism. While the bodies are still warm.

    In a decent country they would be hanging from lamp posts.

  2. Murphy has found a report. He has not read it but the report’s conclusions are what he wants to hear so he endorses it.

    Elsewhere he admits that his teaching is now just one term a year.

    Clearly he is a rigorous academic deserving of his title.

  3. @AndrewC I sniggered where he said ‘I have not even read it in full as yet’. He’s implying that he has read most of it, and intends to read the rest later. He hasn’t and he doesn’t.

    Near the end the writers report the merits of amnesty programmes for tax evaders. Snippa would be apoplectic, as I suspect he wants them banged up.

    There’s a bit where Zucman estimates 10% of GDP is in tax havens. In round numbers accumulated wealth of a nation is 8-10 times annual GDP from what I’ve read, so around 1%-1.2% of the world’s wealth is in tax havens if I’ve understood that right. Doesn’t seem a lot to me. Governments operating growth friendly policies, and that amnesty Zucman mentions, has to be a better outcome to have more world wealth and more shared wealth than criminal investigation of all of the 0.01%.

  4. Financial wealth, what they’re talking about, is more like 3 to 4 x GDP. That’s the thing Piketty complains about.

  5. They ought to think of new name. Tax nasty. Tax prison. Tax dungeon. I dunno. But havens are nice things. They’re shelters.

  6. Would ‘tax asylums’ work for you? I grant that there’s a risk of ambiguity in that it would be open to conjecture whether a tax asylum was ,e.g., a P.O. box in Vaduz or a semi in Ely.

  7. Nah. Mostly falls into the same trap, although asylum as in ‘insane asylum’ almost works, but it’s archaic and most people wouldn’t get it.

    Why are we both trying to help them find a good tagline?

  8. Ms Abbott has apparently ‘moved on’ from her 30 year old position on the IRA. Why didn’t the interviewer ask in which direction she has moved??

  9. I suppose it’s because it’s a damp bank holiday Monday afternoon which lends itself to wool-gathering.

    But caution! A cuculine prof in Ely might resurrect the idea if prompted of taxing figurative wool on the basis that the real stuff was the major source of revenue to the crown in the middle ages.

  10. “Bongo

    @AndrewC I sniggered where he said ‘I have not even read it in full as yet’. ”

    It is a day of confession on Spud-U-Blog as he tells one reader that the Quakers have done an analysis of the party manifestos but admits he hasn’t read it.

  11. This is priceless Murphy – on the election.

    “But no one has embraced the concerns of the country sufficiently to offer the real solution it does not yet know it’s looking for.”

    Translated as – the people aŕe stupid and don’t know what is best for them. But I do.

  12. @Diogenes – possibly. But one can’t be confident he’d notice even if he were.

    He’s cuckoo, certainly – as has just be averred to Joylyon Of Tax by the High Court in Dublin!

    Quelle surprise!

  13. Good Lord; according to Guido, Jolyon raised £70k from donors for that shite bit of agitprop lawyering.

    Still, I suppose he’s got a windmill renovation to pay for.

  14. Jolyon raised £70k…
    Any news about Soapy Jo’s suit against Uber? He did a good bit of crowd-funding on that one, too.

  15. Guido:

    *The only people who claim there will be a hard border are remainiacs. No Irish party wants a hard border, not Sinn Fein not the Ulster Unionists. Nobody in the Dublin or Westminster governments wants or expects a hard border. There will not be a hard border. It is a figment of extreme remainers’ imaginations.

    Entirely correct. Unfortunately, EU Commissars will decide what UK/RoI border must be and their desire to punish the UK may punish RoI too.

  16. @dcardno,

    Oh look, when Soapy Jo’s own cash it at risk, suddenly all his speculative legal poking becomes a bit less important….

    “Uber have instructed Herbert Smith Freehills (“HSF”) to act for them in the proceedings and HSF have written several letters stating that Uber will look to recover its costs from Good Law Project Director, Jo Maugham, if they lose. This is no small matter: it is perfectly possible that Uber’s costs of litigating the matter will reach £1m in the High Court alone. And, absent costs protection, that burden will fall on him personally.

    Following that correspondence we took advice from a QC who specialises in costs. Having taken that advice we were able to issue proceedings. But we will need to resolve the costs issue early on in proceedings.”

    https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/uber/

  17. Noel

    Would be good if Herbert Smith were able to recover punitive costs personally from the smug twat on the basis that he is a vexatious litigant.

    I’d be happy to see a For Sale sign on the windmill

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.