The Father Ted Defence

[scottycelt]

Are we sure they didn't assemble a good case? Or was it that the jury were all Spurs supporters, or had inside news that the defendant might shortly be called up for work of national importance?

Quite seriously I can well imagine that a jury of 12 average Brits would be pretty reluctant to convict a popular public figure of tax evasion. Different of course if defendant was a banker or mega-rich businessman...

Good point ... I instinctively found myself wanting Harry to be cleared as he's one of those guys who just comes across as so amiable and affable, and there are far worse things than being suspected of tax evasion, eh? ... after all the mighty USA was veritably built on that very illegal idea, for goodness sake.

Now if it were, say, Nigel Farage or Professor Dawkins ...

[gradus]

Ken Dodd.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Ken Dodd.

And on the other hand, Lester Piggott.

[Pabmusic]

I think it far more likely that the evidence with which the jury was provided was simply not strong enough for them to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, of the guilt of Mr. Nap-handed.

Quite the opposite in fact. If Rednapp were able to raise enough confusion (along the lines of "It's all too complicated for a simple soul like me to understand. That's why I had accountants" - which is of course what he did) I doubt very much it would have mattered how strong the prosecution case was. To convict him in those circumstances, the jury would have to be satisfied that (1) he did it, and (2) that he had come to court and deliberately tried to pull the wool over their eyes. Quite a tall order if the person is 'likeable' in the first place.

[Stillhomewardbound]

There is a significant proportion of British society that seems to actively enjoy being gulled. One thinks of Thorneycroft, while chairman of the Conservative Party, who hollared 'good luck to them' when the Vestey meat family were revealed to be 'lax' in their tax arrangements, or the jury who were, apparently, well and truly tickled by Ken Dodd waiving his 'national treasure' card; and it seems to me, the jury in this latest case.

What seems to percolate on these occasions is the little englander syndrome and a certain frisson at just the notion of someone having got one over the demon taxman. It doesn't seem to occur to them that where someone
is failing to pay, it is actually they who are having to dip further into their pockets to make up the difference.

In this latest case the defence was along the lines of tax not being due on the Monaco deposit because it had been gifted to the accused. It was a present, if you like. Well every year my company is inclined to thank me for my labours by giving me a gift, a present, of a modest xmas party and maybe a few meals out now and then. But no, the tax man doesn't see it that way. He tells me I'm in receipt of a benefit in kind.

Yes, I'd like to argue the toss with HMRC over their definitions, but the opportunity doesn't arise, does it, because my tax is deducted at source.

How different the world of the Dodds, the Piggots, the Vesteys, the Cloughs and the Redknapps would be if they got to be treated just like any ordinary PAYE taxpayer. They'd never be troubled again about forgetfulness, financial naievety (I am but a child in all of this), confusion about the rules etc. Yes, the taxman would take care of all of those troublesome details and save them the worry.

[Pabmusic]

Yes, I'd like to argue the toss with HMRC over their definitions, but the opportunity doesn't arise, does it, because my tax is deducted at source.

How different the world of the Dodds, the Piggots, the Vesteys, the Cloughs and the Redknapps would be if they got to be treated just like any ordinary PAYE taxpayer. They'd never be troubled again about forgetfulness, financial naievety (I am but a child in all of this), confusion about the rules etc. Yes, the taxman would take care of all of those troublesome details and save them the worry.

Absolutely. I've always been subject to PAYE (even in retirement) and have never been at risk of tax fraud, however naive or dishonest I might be.

[mangerton]

There is a significant proportion of British society that seems to actively enjoy being gulled. One thinks of Thorneycroft, while chairman of the Conservative Party, who hollared 'good luck to them' when the Vestey meat family were revealed to be 'lax' in their tax arrangements, or the jury who were, apparently, well and truly tickled by Ken Dodd waiving his 'national treasure' card; and it seems to me, the jury in this latest case.

What seems to percolate on these occasions is the little englander syndrome and a certain frisson at just the notion of someone having got one over the demon taxman. It doesn't seem to occur to them that where someone
is failing to pay, it is actually they who are having to dip further into their pockets to make up the difference.

In this latest case the defence was along the lines of tax not being due on the Monaco deposit because it had been gifted to the accused. It was a present, if you like. Well every year my company is inclined to thank me for my labours by giving me a gift, a present, of a modest xmas party and maybe a few meals out now and then. But no, the tax man doesn't see it that way. He tells me I'm in receipt of a benefit in kind.

Yes, I'd like to argue the toss with HMRC over their definitions, but the opportunity doesn't arise, does it, because my tax is deducted at source.

How different the world of the Dodds, the Piggots, the Vesteys, the Cloughs and the Redknapps would be if they got to be treated just like any ordinary PAYE taxpayer. They'd never be troubled again about forgetfulness, financial naievety (I am but a child in all of this), confusion about the rules etc. Yes, the taxman would take care of all of those troublesome details and save them the worry.

Absolutely, Shb. I agree with every word of that. And because of all the people you mention, the rest of us have to pay more, just as we do because of shoplifters and insurance cheats.

They are all theft by another name.

[Flosshilde]

What seems to percolate on these occasions is the little englander syndrome and a certain frisson at just the notion of someone having got one over the demon taxman. It doesn't seem to occur to them that where someone
is failing to pay, it is actually they who are having to dip further into their pockets to make up the difference.

Or suffer the job losses & reduction in services that we are experiencing now. If the Government were as hard on the high-level tax evasion & downright fraud as they are on 'benefit cheats' then a significant part of the deficit would be wiped out.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Or suffer the job losses & reduction in services that we are experiencing now. If the Government were as hard on the high-level tax evasion & downright fraud as they are on 'benefit cheats' then a significant part of the deficit would be wiped out.

... and for Shb's post, too.