ably explained by David (now Clair) Quentin
‘As ‘ee just deadnamed someone?
Does the ravening pack now descend?
As a consequence, everything DAG says in his blog post is a pure straw-man argument.
And ain’t that a stunning lack of self-perspicacity?
ably explained by David (now Clair) Quentin
‘As ‘ee just deadnamed someone?
Does the ravening pack now descend?
As a consequence, everything DAG says in his blog post is a pure straw-man argument.
And ain’t that a stunning lack of self-perspicacity?
Ok, but I feel sure it would be remiss of me not to say…
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/clair-quentin
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! 😀
Straw-PERSON argument, bigot.
The entire thread is Golden. For someone who churns out so many insults he’s remarkably thin skinned:
It is unfortunate that DAG failed to notice the follow-up thread and blog as a result of exchanges with David Wolfson: a lawyer really should assemble all their evidence, and DAG has not. He should read that blog to get up to speed.
I have noticed how detailed Murphy’s posts on things like Bank Funding (For example) are in terms of ‘gathering all the evidence’
This helped me, because what it showed is that DAG is making up what I said. Nowhere did I say that the rich should not have access to lawyers. It is quite absurd to claim that I did. As a consequence, everything DAG says in his blog post is a pure straw-man argument.
The country’s leading producer of straw men in the form of the Tax Gap, the Accountancy and Audit professions misdemeanours, ‘Tory fascism’ and other classics feels he can point out other people doing so – ‘Physician, heal thyself’…
At the same time he used the defence Lord Wolfson also used, which is that I am wrong to blame this situation on a lack of access to the law, to which his solution, like Wolfson, is to suggest that in an ideal world this would be resolved by providing equal access to the law for all and the problem would go away. This, he apparently thinks (as David Wolfson did) to be his killer argument. I, of course, agree. That would be wonderful, just as a fully functioning democracy, an NHS that could deal with all patients without massive delays in ambulances outside hospitals and an education system that really provided equal opportunity for all would all be similarly great things. But we have not got them and are unlikely to see them for some time to come, just as the prospect of a legal system where all have access to a lawyer looks as unlikely as Ipswich Town winning the Premiership this season, much as I might wish it.
Not quite sure what this has to do with the price of fish or eggs but apparently it counts as highly intellectual discourse in the eyes of his sycophants
In addition, DAG needs to note why I said all this. I did so when referring to the abuse that is heaped on those supposedly left-wing lawyers who do actually uphold the rule of law on behalf of the victims of abuse from those in power to prevent injustice from arising
Of course his motivation is pure and only a neoliberal or ‘fascist’ would question it
I look forward to his apology, and his acceptance that I have raised an issue that does need to be addressed because it is very apparent that some lawyers do act in the way I suggest.
Pomposity combined with obnoxiousness which is very reminiscent of a certain PG Wodehouse character….
It’s a genuine classic – in the absence of the great Noel Scoper I’ll have to preserve it for posterity…
They spent several years in practice as a barrister
Shirley it should be Xe ?
Thanks for that Steve. I need a bit of a lie down, now.
Risk mining is a totally stupid idea. Firstly, it’s all arse about tit: it’s like saying you deliberately risk killing your family when crossing the road, whereas you’re actually just going shopping. Then it presumes the risk is understood by all parties in advance. It rarely is, so risk mining is hopeless as an ex ante model for tax behaviour.
aaa
humph.
I always wear a hat when I go out, in case a bit of SkyLab falls on my head.
OT But I did find this quite amusing. A German economist I follow is going by train from, presumbly Leipzig where he’s based:
Follow the science !
BiND
The whole edifice in Austria crumbled when the government’s high watermark of mandatory vaccinations in April or May was found to be unconstitutional and they started rolling back the restrictions thereafter.
aaa:
What is risk mining, and who is trying to use it to understand tax? I went and looked at Murphatollah’s collection of inanity and didn’t see it in a quick skim.
Risk mining is the shit idea that David Quentin had before xe metamorphosised into Clair Quentin. It basically says that any time a company enters into a tax position xe doesn’t like, it is taking tax risk from the moment it does it. Complete fucking bollocks.
Steve: afraid I need to send you a bill to clean the puke out of my keyboard.
I had to click Steve’s link to see what all the fuss was about. I now regret doing that.
What’s wrong with saying Claire (née David) Quentin? Perfectly cromulent.
It’s Clair, without the ‘e. Therefore, they?
RlJ: doesn’t work in Der Kartoffeler kopf. The author of his ‘evidence’ is David, not Clair.
And indeed it really is.
Purely in it for himself. The sheer self-aggrandisement, the basking in the worship of his moronic followers and the gain of filthy lucre are obvious subsets and there may well be more in that appalling psyche that we don’t want to be anywhere near.