If Ritchie cannot do accounts then why is he trying to design an accounts system?

Let Christy show you what I mean.

20 thoughts on “If Ritchie cannot do accounts then why is he trying to design an accounts system?”

  1. So if Ritchie can’t read and understand a set of accounts (for which he is supposedly qualified) then why in the name of all sanity should we be expected to give any weight to his analysis of a legal judgment, which he *hasn’t* been trained to interpret? Oh wait, he didn’t actually read the Mehjoo case before writing on it for the Times, did he.
    In other news, I note that he is ‘exercising editorial freedom’ to delete unread any blog comment which doesn’t come from someone he knows will agree with him. But that’s not censorship, no. And of course explains why he hasn’t happily updated his blog with the explanation of his error; the notification came from someone disagreeing with him.

  2. Wow.

    In all seriousness, it’s clear Ritchie didn’t put more than five minutes into trying to figure this out – which is par for his course – and that partially accounts for the error he made. Nevertheless, he obviously stumbled over accounting concepts you’d have to master before graduating with a degree in accounting.

    In any event, one must always remember that facts never trouble the bigot or the crank… and Ritchie is both.

  3. And note that on Twitter he makes no attempt to defend his comments on the accounts, just slags others.

    Anyway, seems the UK’s leading tax expert (with no tax qualifications), forensic accountant (who can’t read accounts) and tax campaigner (who even the TJN didn’t touch to redo their new Secrecy Index report, Action Aid don’t seem to use to do any reports any more and even resorts to the Mirror as the Guardian won’t touch him now) is slowly being reduced to ranting from behind his 27″ iMac in his office, that’s not an office for Business Rate purposes.

    Once Hodge, Lucas and the BBC twig he’s a loon, he’ll fade away.

  4. Noel,
    I bow to no man in my contempt for Ritchie, but I think you underestimate him. I work for a huge accounting firm, and we are talking externally about ‘how the CbC reporting debate has moved on in the last couple of years’ and talking to clients about it. This is clearly a symptom of his work. Yes he’s a nut, but he is changing things…

  5. Why? Because

    a) lots of fairly important people listen to him and regurgitate his drivel, which must be a nice stroke to the ego,

    b) he really believes in what he is doing (although opinions vary between that being honestly striving for greater economic ‘justice’ and being cynically supplementing the R Murphy & wife retirement fund),

    and c) he’s the world exemplar of the Dunning-Kroger effect.

  6. I think I have much to do with Ritchie flying off the handle these last couple of days.

    I am truly afraid to say that SE has probably made a correct clinical diagnosis. How else can one explain his apparent comfort at engaging in debate with Tim Worstall on a subject matter he obviously knows nothing about?

    And he most certainly is incompetent. I offer for your amusement three separate exchanges I have enjoyed with him over the past week – and I’m sorry to say I did enjoy them:

    In the first I took Tim’s lead and persisted in knowing what he meant by honest taxpayers being ‘fleeced’. We ended up with him stating what he was ‘confident’ in what he ‘believed’ was meant by the title to his own post. He also couldn’t reconcile his concern for the tax gap with his call for ever greater levels of gov’t debt.

    In the second exchange he first called for very poor people to be exempt from the TV licence, then couldn’t explain how this was compatible with his call for universal beenfits and his railing against high marginal rates of tax suffered by the poor.

    In the third, he argued that the EU’s rules were actually facilitating tax avoidance, but when challenged couldn’t say how.

    Now I admit, I was just having sport with him. I did begin, however, genuinely to feel like a bully. It was only thinking about the influence Ritchie exerts – the Chair of the PAC for example – that I came back to myself.

    Tim, Christy et al are performing a public service in exposing this charlatan. if I, we, can add just a little bit to that effort then I am pleased.

  7. If he’d have stuck with “it’s difficult to reconcile”, I might have agreed with him, and offered a polite helping hand.

    But he had to go that step further, accusing Centrica of getting its numbers wrong and accusing PwC, their auditors, of failing to pick up the error. It’s inexcusable.

    Note that he also said that he’d publish the explanation if Centrica pointed out where he had gone wrong. But so far he has neither retracted his allegations, nor has he published the explanation. And he wonders why I take the piss out of him?!

    [No, it wasn’t difficult for me to reconcile 😉 ]

  8. Wow. It seems that Christie hates him more than you do.

    Having read some of the R related posts, some new appallingnesses emerged. I particularly liked the Amazon one – the company is corrupt and disgusting so the public should boycott all of Amazons goods except R’s Kindle books that he sell through them.

    Unbelievable.

  9. I refuse to acknowledge the response by a person who claims to be a FCA and uses a pseudonym. That person’s argument is therefore nonsensical and absurd and wrong.

    Until a person whose identity I can verify makes the exact same arguments to me on my blog, I am at liberty to deny the existence of this correction that does not exist.

  10. Umm,, Murphy, won’t you delete them without looking at them?

    BTW, your toasters are really magnificent.

    Or am I confusing you with the great chess player?

  11. So Ritchie’s accounting knowledge is really only fit for smaller businesses, likewise his tax knowledge, his knowledge of economics is bordering on the non-existent. So anybody from JRF, PCS, Unite, and whatevr ‘funders’ are out there, this is where your money goes.

  12. I don’t hate Ritchie. I hate the way he abuses accounting standards, tax law, auditing standards, ethics and professional standards in order to argue for his pet political positions.

    He mistakes my criticism for abuse, but the fact is I’ll stop banging when he stops lying.

  13. He responds to criticism and argument alike WITH abuse and then labes the recipient an abuser.

    Other that I thibk he’s great.

  14. Malry

    The point is laws and standards allow dysfunction. They are geared for abuse by those that can afford to circumvent them and they always open to interpretation. The idiots on here will always slither in Worstall’s wake, playing up to them is like watching Farage talk about Bulgarians.

    The abuse of laws are there. The difference is you don’t care about them.

    Were those numbers audited? And just you wait when the personal attacks come raining in. And you wonder why no one bothers to say anything apart from vile abuse.

    It can be correct to criticise methodology, but to ignore the holes, well, that’s your ideological bent.

  15. Arnald –

    You don’t know enough about the laws and standards involved to identify either abuse or dysfunction. You slither in Ritchie’s wake simply because his ideological bent matches his.

    And another thing… if you can’t get the methodology right, you can’t find the holes. But then, given your level of ignorance of the subject at hand, you wouldn’t understand that.

  16. Arnald answers your question, Tim. Some people aren’t equipped to read beyond headlines. Arnald is one of them. He’s the type who would happily kill millions in pursuit of a slogan.

  17. Wow, just…. wow …..

    Peter Richardson says:
    November 7 2013 at 9:16 pm

    Are you going to respond to this or admit you have got this wrong?

    http://www.fcablog.org.uk/2013/11/this-is-why-ritchie-needs-to-stay-away-from-accounting/
    Reply

    Richard Murphy says:
    November 7 2013 at 9:22 pm

    I do not respond to anyone who breaches almost every rule on professional ethics ever written
    Reply

    That must be getting close to libelous?

    Also, I wonder what their standards body makes of it?

    Christie may not hate Richard, but Richard seems to hate Christie.

  18. Now ahe agrees.
    “His numbers work

    I never denied a reconciliation was possible

    My point it is absurd to publish numbers that few could reconcile

    I stand by the point; indeed if accounts are to be meaningful it has to be right.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *