This isn’t how it works Gruppenfuhrer

The taxfuhrer:

So very politely, I am happy for all who are innocent to prove the fact.

That’s not quite how freedom, liberty, work.

22 thoughts on “This isn’t how it works Gruppenfuhrer”

  1. “So very politely, I am happy for all who are innocent to prove the fact.”

    Is Murphy’s reluctance to publish his own tax returns because he’s been avoiding taxes?

    I’m happy for him to prove his innocence if not.

  2. If that is as it seems (context etc.), the guy is a fully-fledged authoritarian nut-job.

    When God sits down to dinner, the Holy Mary is on one side and Mr. Murphy on the other.

  3. @Andrew c – after doing various tax enquiries my bet is that he’s probably vastly overstated his expenses (probably) In fact one of the most egregious cases I came across was an accountant (who was also a model railway enthusiast) who worked from home. His claims were ludicrous if not laughable. In fact so much so that on the 20 minute drive to the office he had already rung the office and offered £20 k in settlement (not accepted as the bill was eventually MUCH larger) Please note that this was nothing to do with Ober Gruppenfuhrer Potato but it always reminds me of him.

  4. “You have made six contributions here so far Colin

    I hope you realise just what an unpleasant person you appear to be from them

    I will be deleting you in future. This is my place and I really do not want your company”

  5. I have a Generalised Portfolio of Badness here to be directed at any who displease me.

    Why would any decent person object to being accused of tax fraud, Islamophobia, racism, paedophilia, rape, cattle rustling, rape and Methodism unless they are guilty?

    What decent person would struggle to prove their innocence, beyond reasonable doubt, of vague and unspecified charges made without evidence or foundation? (Unless they were actually guilty, of course…)

    For such power, so enjoyable in my hands, could never ever be abused, or turned around to bite me in the fundament…

  6. In my one of my dystopian moods, I anticipate a future in which we are assumed at some stage to have committed x offence, based on an algorithm dealing with the probability based on one’s profile, whereupon the burden will shift to the accused to demonstrate he did not. It’ll be eased in, with promises of fines only.

    And to some extent, we’ve had this for many years. Cash forfeiture proceedings in the magistrates’ court, for instance. Or, more recently, being required to demonstrate the source of ‘unexplained wealth’.

  7. “I am by instinct a libertarian”.
    I think that’s mutually exclusive to instinctively wanting people to prove they’re not guilty, not just to HMRC but to any online nosy parker.

  8. This is the importance of the 4th Amendment. No one should have to explain their affairs, unless indicted.

    On the good news side, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that asset forfeitures are unconstitutional. States have gone nuts seizing property. Got some drugs in your SUV? Your SUV are belong to us. The Supremes say, “No, you can’t do that.”

  9. @Gamecock

    “…any legal code worthy of the name restricts the enforcers of law as well as its subjects”

    I like dropping that quote into letters I write to HMRC when they have over-stepped their powers.

    I don’t tell them it’s attributed to Dr Wilhelm Stuckart who wrote the ‘Blood & Honour” laws in Nazi Germany.

  10. Dennis the Peasant

    The fact of the matter is this: Nobody need prove anything to a fat, sweaty accountant in Ely.

  11. Where’s the link to the original article?

    Plus, tax, being highly arbitrary doesn’t work like normal justice. If somebody suddenly has £1 million in the bank, it’s fair enough for HMRC to ask whence it came.

  12. “Got some drugs in your SUV? Your SUV are belong to us.”

    It’s worse than that.

    Some people transport drugs along this road, that’s why we stopped you. Yeah, you’re not transporting drugs – but this cash and that camera gear you haven’t got a receipt for might be proceeds of crime so we’re taking it. Have a nice day.

    The prevalence of civil asset forfeiture in the US is astonishing. Even Trump supports it. The guns aren’t much use if you don’t use them.

  13. Bloke in North Dorset

    Its even worse than PJF says, police forces were making a profit out of civil forfeiture (my emphasis):

    Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

    Featuring Scott Bullock, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; and Marian R. Williams, Department of Government and Justice Studies, Appalachian State University; with comments by Scott Burns, Executive Director, National District Attorneys Association. Moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
    Under state and federal law, police departments can seize and keep property that is suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, however, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to permanently lose her cash, car, home, or other property. And according to a new report published by the Institute for Justice, “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture,” most state laws are written in such a way as to encourage police agents to pursue profit instead of seeking the neutral administration of justice. The report grades each state and the federal government on its forfeiture laws and other measures of abuse. The results are appalling: Six states earned an F and 29 states and the federal government received a grade of D. Please join us for a discussion of policing, constitutional rights, and government accountability.

  14. “The guns aren’t much use if you don’t use them.”

    I have believed for decades that the tombstone on our mass grave will read, “But they had the guns!?!?”

  15. Bravefart–Gab Dissenter–he can do nothing about that and anyone on Gab can see the comments. He can’t stop them.

    His acolytes won’t look. But everyone else will.

  16. Not quite? Is that supposed to be polite irony? It’s the exact opposite, even after “president” Blair.

  17. “I have believed for decades that the tombstone on our mass grave will read, “But they had the guns!?!?””

    I have a Steve like sense of optimism when it comes to the USA.

Leave a Reply

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