Does this describe you?

Richard Murphy says:
October 29 2016 at 9:25 pm
You are totally confused

I wrote a piece celebrating a win and suggesting where this could lead – all of which I contend could be correct. I am happy to accept the conditionality in ‘could’: we do not know as yet

But rather than take the points I raised in the piece – which was about why HMRC had not taken this case – or take the point that this is of major economic and social significance – you play the pedant

Now if you are saying that everyone who has celebrated this case because they think it says Uber drivers are employees are wrong and in fact they are just self employed workers (but frankly given what I have read I do not see how you could think so, but maybe you do) then you have a point.

If not, frankly you’re proving yourself to be the vey worst type of lawyer

And I have never had the time of day for them

So very politely, go and play on Tim Worstall’s web site where I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms. This site is for people who have a deeper understanding of life than you clearly possess, and maybe that’s why you’re confused

Apparently he’s not pleased with people pointing out the worker/employee distinction.

18 thoughts on “Does this describe you?”

  1. So very politely, go and play on Tim Worstall’s web site where I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms.

    He’s yet to figure out that most people picking apart his bullshit over there have been over here for years.

  2. This site is for people who have a deeper understanding of life than you clearly possess, and maybe that’s why you’re confused

    Said it before and will no doubt say it many more times, but the man is a one-man enemy generator. He has absolutely no clue how to deal with people, except rage.

  3. A small room
    Of Quakers (looking for a new Mrs Murphy?)
    Just look at the specimens of humanity in that photo

    Not many paying tax in that room, or at least a lot of tax. Pensioners, mostly.

    Who would have thought people who are gaining from taxing others would be all for “tax justice”?

  4. The ‘Scotland’ thread keeps giving:

    PSR says:
    October 29 2016 at 9:55 am

    ‘We spend and tax’.

    I love it Prof Murphy. I love it.

    To me this is the E=MC2 of fiscal policy – a major (re)-discovery that confronts an outright lie that has become received wisdom in societies the world over.

    Sorry to sound so gushing but you are worth a Nobel prize for stuff like this in my view because you have the courage to say it as it really is.

    I’d love to be there.

    ‘We spend and tax’. Fantastic. You’ve made my day so have a really good one yourself.

  5. Let’s hope this is not the first step in Murphy relocating up here. We’ve got enough moronic twats in Scotland already – an entire government of them.

  6. He seems to have banned me, as my recent comments don’t seem to be there, not even the “guess the country” thread. I think he objected to me pointing out how addition and subtraction worked.

    You lot here find it hard to believe he can call himself an accountant, I find it increasingly hard to believe he has the audacity to call himself a Quaker. More and more he advocates such authoritarianism and personal control of individuals that goes completely against what core tenets Quakerism has.

    We have plenty of “non-theist Quakers”, I wonder if this is the advent of having “non-liberal Quakers”.

  7. We have plenty of “non-theist Quakers”, I wonder if this is the advent of having “non-liberal Quakers”.

    Or “non-Quaker Quakers”?

  8. @Edward Lud

    Self-deprecation of that order really belongs on the Prof’s blog rather than here.

    Come to think of it, though, over there it would be more like self-denunciation in front of Judge Ulrikh given what lawyers did to him.

  9. It’s quite possible that he’s finally the seed for the kind of spontaneous fission among the Quakers that is seen in far-left politics. So, Quakers, Real Quakers, Quakers (George Fox) – the ‘back to basics’ faction, etc. etc. I assume there won’t be a Quakers ( Marxist-Leninist), but you never know.

  10. Oh, they’ve already had that over in the States. Gurneyites, Wilburites, Hicksites, revivalists, pastoralists, perfectionists, progressives, plymouthists.

  11. Bloke in North Dorset

    “I’m just staggered that anyone could read the comments on this blog and conclude that anyone is ever welcomed with open arms.”

    Which reminds me, where’s Arnie? I miss his jousting with Mr X and his nicknames for us.

  12. Neil Scoper et al:

    a) there was at least one non Quaker in the audience

    b) although I am partially obscured in the photo, I guess I fall into the category of “a specimen of humanity”

    c) as a pensioner, I am delighted that my financial adviser has successfully avoided tax on my behalf to a gratifying extent (as repeatedly emphasise to my ex tax inspector friend), so I accept the charge of not paying much tax.

    d) he referred to a present wife – whether that undermines any attempt to find a future Mrs Murphy, I am insufficiently socially skilled to judge

  13. @s2

    Ah, but Tim does not ban anyone. Which makes it different from the Demokratic Peepul’s Republik of Tax Justus Land.

Leave a Reply

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