Member Since: 8th Jan 2002
14th May 2020
Er, no, that's not my point. My point is that thousands are not "needlessly" going to die.
14th May 2020
First, make sure the measures that have been taken comply with the appropriate workplace advice issued this week by the Government.
Second, if the employee has been with you for less than two years, just terminate his employment. (Check first that he doesn't have any of the protected characteristics that could give rise to a discrimination claim.)
If more than two years service, suggest he takes annual leave and/or unpaid leave. If he declines, start disciplinary proceedings.
Should he initiate a claim in the ET, note that the burden of proof that the workplace is unsafe is on the claimant - hence point one.
14th May 2020
Would that be the Chris Whitty who repeatedly told us that, for the vast majority of people, Covid-19 is a mild - even asymptomatic - disease and that we shouldn't panic? That Chris Whitty?
Well, he was right. The purpose of the lockdown is to stop NHS resources from being overwhelmed. Once that has been achieved, flattening the curve doesn't reduce the number of people who catch the disease, it just spreads the epidemic out over a longer period.
"Britain's lockdown strategy "only pushes the severe cases into the future" and has not prevented them, Prof Giesecke argued, adding: "There is very little we can do to prevent this spread. A lockdown might delay severe cases for a while but, once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear."
30th Jan 2020
Interestingly, according to Sajid Javid, we have had three years to prepare for this..
We have had three years to prepare. Three years in which to work out the origin breakdown of our products, ready to apply whatever regime is enacted at the end of the transition period.
3rd Oct 2019
It would be good to take the opportunity of Brexit to replace VAT with something much simpler ... but of course we won't.
21st Jan 2019
Police investigation ongoing, so not a good idea for HRH to say anything that might indicate culpability. Also, too much contact between the Palace and the other parties might be construed as interfering with witnesses. Finally, the tendency of the other parties to report everything that is said to the Daily Mirror is likely to inhibit the Palace's enthusiasm for further dialogue!
17th Jan 2019
Are there any CGT implications regarding loss of a proportion of PPR relief on sale of the home?
6th Jun 2018
Wasn't Tomlin (LJ), in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Duke of Westminster (1936) simply following The Lord President Clyde (Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1929))?
"No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow to take every advantage which is open to it under the taxing statutes for the purpose of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is, in like manner, entitled to be astute to prevent, so far is he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Revenue."
10th Apr 2017
Euan MacLennan wrote:
Paul Scholes wrote:
I'd suggest that the "them & us" is a reality rather than an image created when educational establishments for "them" were first allowed to happen.
Did you know that Eton College was founded in 1440? Indeed, most public schools for "them" were founded long before there were any achools for "us".
Actually, in those days, schools were founded as acts of charity and attended by "us": the children of the "them" (the boys, anyway) were educated by tutors.
3rd Apr 2017
Perhaps when consultants from the Big 4 start getting told by their public sector clients that they've got to operate under the new regime, the Government might start to experience some heavy duty lobbying.