March in London on the 26th?

[RDM]

Which is why i asked about the markup. Think about it though, if £80,000 is the turnover for one saturday afternoon, then we'll take it as a daily average turnover. Lets just say, for a second, that 1% of that ends up as pure profit. Just one percent, allows for whatever markup they're putting on it, wages, maintenance and procuring new stock. If that were the case then they'd be getting nearly 300,000 profit in a year, and i doubt if the figure is that low.

Because we do not know what other costs they have had without looking at the detailed books. A store refurbishment may have wiped out an entire year of profit for example.

 

[Pinkribbonscars]

Which is why i asked about the markup. Think about it though, if £80,000 is the turnover for one saturday afternoon, then we'll take it as a daily average turnover. Lets just say, for a second, that 1% of that ends up as pure profit. Just one percent, allows for whatever markup they're putting on it, wages, maintenance and procuring new stock. If that were the case then they'd be getting nearly 300,000 profit in a year, and i doubt if the figure is that low.

The profit they make on the goods isn't just a fixed percentage though. I'm trying to make sense of what you have written and can't, 'markup' doesn't come into it.

 

[Castiel]

Which is why i asked about the markup. Think about it though, if £80,000 is the turnover for one saturday afternoon, then we'll take it as a daily average turnover. Lets just say, for a second, that 1% of that ends up as pure profit. Just one percent, allows for whatever markup they're putting on it, wages, maintenance and procuring new stock. If that were the case then they'd be getting nearly 300,000 profit in a year, and i doubt if the figure is that low.

If only it were that simple, without detailed accounts you have no way of knowing anything.

It isn't just a case of sell x amount of y at z margin.

 

[PermaBanned]

It isn't just a case of sell x amount of y at z margin.

Essentially... it is though

Fair enough, i just found the numbers a bit strange.

 

[Castiel]

Essentially... it is though

Fair enough, i just found the numbers a bit strange.

If only it were. The numbers aren't strange just surprising given the Fortums reputation.

Although looking at the numbers posted it seems their profitability is good and they have had other costs we know nothing about.

 

[Danthus]

<tinfoilhat>Secret payments to the Police. </tinfoilhat>

 

[Castiel]

<tinfoilhat>Secret payments to the Police. </tinfoilhat>

Why the Police?

Surely they would be paying the Govt, because the Police are merely the iron fist of Government suppression......

 

[Al Vallario]

Irrelevant straw man.

Do you or do you not agree that in at least some circumstances we cannot be justified in breaking the law to highlight our grievances (i.e. to protest)? A yes or no answer, rather than falsely accusing me of committing a logical fallacy, would be appreciated.

They are no where near equal morally and by way of damage.

Although I expect little else than desperation to stick mud to anything related to public protest from yourself.

A violation of an individuals' rights is a violation of an individuals' rights. You hint towards comparing the two acts in terms of the damage they cause, but that won't work. If we assume Fortnum & Mason are correct in stating the disruption cost them £80,000 in turnover, and assume their gross profit margin is 10% such that this cost them approximately £8,000 in profit, surely me causing £5,000 damage to your house is therefore more acceptable than disrupting their business as such? No, forget the consequentialist nonsense. Both are indefensible.

This is a thought crime by circumstance if this is justification.

You cannot blindly brand any crime that requires intent as a 'thought crime'. Real people caused real disruption.

All protest causes disruption to certain extent dependent on your definition, and I am sure that is why people do it.

If we are being incessantly pedantic, this is true, but I would urge the application of common sense. The crucial point here is that protest involving aggravated trespass involves the violation of property owners' rights.

Which is not the same as setting out to commit aggravated trespass.

Again, I doubt most of these protestors looked up the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act beforehand, circled Section 68 and said "Yep, I'm going to commit aggravated trespass today!" I expect many of those involved had the intention of disrupting the business, however, not knowing that it was against the law.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Hundreds of people attend an organised 'sit-in' at a store, a large disruption occurs and the store suffers substantial financial harm. Are you honestly suggesting these events might only be correlated, and the latter may not be caused by the former? Pull the other one.

How are they in my living room then?

I don't leave my door unlocked or wide open.

How did the protesters get in my house if they have not broken and entered?

As I said pseudo public space and initial invitation are the differentiators.

It has nothing to do with breaking and entering, burning houses, not terrorism, nor silly long drawn out incomplete analogies that have the slightest of relevance if they weren't smothered with hyperbole.

The living room example was designed to point out the inconsistency in your argument that there is a meaningful distinction between property such as Fortnum & Mason and your own living room in the context of aggravated trespass. You think one instance of private property is fair game, and the other is not.

You dodged the example by pointing to irrelevant factors that make the cases incomparable (namely the fact that for someone to be in your living room they would have to break and enter your property, a separate offence).

I adjusted the example, and pointed out that these factors were irrelevant, and you have still failed to address it. You're still blathering on about the breaking and entering aspect in this latest response.

That would be constructive trespass.

This is still not a crime.

Alright, fantastic. So by remaining in your living room, on your private property, and disrupting you in your lawful activity (say by standing in front of your television), I ought not to be committing a crime according to you?

This nonsense is flawed and on the whole irrelevant. I am not going to discuss this particular argumentative angle any longer.

...and if I was removed from your living room, I could return time and time again, continuing to disrupt you in your lawful activity?

I can see why it might be frustrating for you having to deal with analogous examples; it seems you are incapable of doing anything other than crying "nonsense", "this example is flawed", "this isn't comparable", "this is hyperbolic", etc. without actually addressing the point.

I am arguing for liberty that has been taken away. You want to remove more of them.

You are wrong. I am arguing for some of the most fundamental, essential liberties. You are arguing for the unnecessary and unjustified liberty to strip others of those liberties.

Liberties conflict, but some liberties are more important than others.

Why do you profess one part of democracy, but support heavily subduing the other?

Give it up. Preventing people from committing aggravated trespass is not heavily subduing the right to protest, just as preventing me burning your house down is not heavily subduing my right to protest. The right to protest does not trump all other rights, do you accept that? Yes or no?

Protest can and always been used as a means to an end. We as a society possibly may have not made the improvements in society we did so early if it was not for the effect of protest.

Please cite one example of a case in which protest involving aggravated trespass has led to an improvement in society. Just one.

Skewed example.

How is it skewed? The government is democratically elected, and as such reflects the moral sentiment of the population. It has a clear mandate to establish in law that moral sentiment.

That would go from protest to harassment.

So you believe charging these protestors with harassment (if they engage in a course of actions, of course, such as multiple instances of aggravated trespass on the same property) would be a more appropriate means of dealing with them?

It's all hyperbolic nonsense.

Congratulations on dismissing one of the most widely practiced argumentative techniques as "hyperbolic nonsense".

I think civil disobedience is valid as long as no crimes are commited.

Weasel words. What do you consider to be crimes?

It is a valid premise regardless of target.
The economic impact is often unacceptable but this is, again, another problem when trying to balance the rights of people against that of land owners and buisness et al.

I have demonstrated previously that your argument could theoretically be used to drive businesses such as Fortnum & Mason into the ground, or at the very least hold them to ransom. Yet Fortnum & Mason and their employees have broken no law. The alleged tax avoidance the protestors are complaining about did not even involve the Fortnum & Mason business. Do you not think that is the slightest bit unacceptable? Yes or no? I believe it is completely unacceptable.

Land owners are not the most important people, the freedom of our society is.

A person is not free if they are having their rights infringed upon. The right for businesses not to have aggravated trespass committed against them constitutes part of the freedom of society; the two are not divergent goals.

I keep reiterating the peaceful aspect to counter act your biased insinuations, peaceful protest is morally unassailable;

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot emphasise enough how much this is wrong.

In your opinion of course, which is as usual half right.

Aggravated trespass is open to some interpretation as are most things, but that doesn't detract from it being a valid method of protest where companies are acting illegally which is perfectly lawful, and cases where a private enterprise has been shown to be by accused perspective to be acting unlawfully it has a lot of the time gone no where. That would leave an implied moral validity.

Your point is unwarranted. The law states that in order for it to be aggravated trespass, it must be a lawful activity that is being disrupted or obstructed. In these cases you describe, in which business are acting unlawfully, the crime of aggravated trespass does not apply.

Try again. Where else is it a valid method of protest? Clue: It is never a valid method of protest. Do you agree, yes or no?

Why are the same population not allowed to come to their own conclusions about the current tax arrangements and protest as such?

If we vote on such matters, tax gap pledges et al, why is disagreement so frowned upon?

Cherish this quote of yours, because this is a genuine example of a straw man (unlike the countless instances you have attempted to levy the criticism against me). I never stated the population should not be allowed to come to their own conclusions about these matters or protest as such. They are completely free to do so as long as they do not infringe on others' rights in doing so. If you have any sense you will have admitted by now that aggravated trespass is never a valid method of protest.

Disagreement is not frowned upon at all. Disagreement should be fostered and encouraged; it enriches and makes more representative the sphere of debate. Acting on disagreement by infringing on others' rights is, however, frowned upon.

It is also not libel as those on the right are also happy to throw about, it is a matter of opinion. It is the business media have the monopoly on the use of libel and matter of opinion to attack individuals publically. As do MP's.
Your over eagerness to band libel at people you don’t agree with politically is a bit hyperbolic, again.

Accusing Vodafone UK of "dodging" £6bn worth of tax is not an opinion, it is an accusation. A deeply damaging accusation that has already no doubt caused them significant financial harm through subsequent actions against them. If it is a false accusation, as the HMRC statement that the figure is an "urban myth" implies, then it is libellous. I'm not making political use of the term. It's application is pure and simple in this case. Do you understand that?

There is no moral position like you claim is written in law, it is ever changing policy.

Policy that is guided by moral sentiment, although you are reticent to accept it.

Quite simply I feel civil disobedience is acceptable in a peaceful way. I do not hold the rights of business above people in a civil context. You do, this is the difference between me and a tory. I believe the economic doctrine, it should not be paramount in our moral compass however.

This is that 'us vs. them' mentality I was speaking of. It's pathetic. Give it up.

I contest that, and stop pulling in 'burning down houses'; this analogy is worthless.

That is my view on the matter, clearly stated. On what grounds do you contest it?

 

[Danthus]

Why the Police?

Surely they would be paying the Govt, because the Police are merely the iron fist of Government suppression......

It was cheaper to pay direct, capitalism at its very best.

 

[Al Vallario]

Further to our brief discussion of the Vodafone case, Tim Worstall has written an excellent paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs titled 'UK Uncut Unravelled' (PDF) detailing the numerous flaws in UK Uncut's methodology.

Here are a few particularly interesting points in relation to the Vodafone case, although I strongly suggest you read the whole thing if you wish to continue with the assumption that UK Uncut are protesting to a reasonable end:

[...] This leads us to our first observation: there never was a £6 billion tax bill. This seems to have been calculated by noting that there was £18 billion of profits in the Vodafone Luxembourg accounts using a corporation tax rate for the UK of 30% (appropriate at that time) and calculating that £6 billion must be owed. However, the dividends from the German operations would have been taxed in Germany, according to German rules, the interest in Luxembourg according to their rules and tax rates and so also with the capital gains. So the maximum that could possibly be owed would not be the full 30% UK corporation tax rate but the difference between the tax already paid and that 30% rate.

[...] Everyone in the tax debate seems to agree that if Vodafone had set their subsidiary up in the Cayman Islands, or the Bahamas or other non-EU countries, then they would have had to pay the extra tax under the CFC rules. But if the company was set up in the EU then the EU’s laws normally override the UK’s. However, the matter has nevertheless been debated in court.

[...] So the Vodafone case was absolutely not about a supposed £6 billion tax dodge. The sum over which the lawyers were arguing was much less than that and the argument was about which laws to apply, EU laws or UK laws? It is worth reiterating the main point. Vodafone had paid the relevant tax required in the countries in which the subsidiaries were operating. The only question is whether they should pay additional UK tax on the profits generated from economic activity that took place in a different EU country.

Furthermore, applying UK law over EU law in circumstances such as these would not lead to a huge tax windfall for the UK government; in fact it could have quite the opposite effect.

If we start requiring German subsidiaries of British companies to pay UK taxes on their German operations, what is to stop the German government forcing British subsidiaries of German companies to pay German taxes on their British operations? It works both ways, and this is precisely why we have EU law.

 

[Danthus]

UKUnCut will just ignore that though and the fact that Vodafone settled whatever was outstanding in agreement with HMRC.

 

[magick]

I went down to this thanks to the free coaches put on by Unison. Didn't even go on the march and just went round all the pubs and got blasted. We did goto the 'party' set up in hyde park and thought what a load of ********.

Couldn't believe all the dumb people smiling and cheering in hyde park actualy thinking they had achieved something.

 

[Al Vallario]

UKUnCut will just ignore that though and the fact that Vodafone settled whatever was outstanding in agreement with HMRC.

Facts and reason undermine their entire raison d'être, so I think it's safe to say they'll ignore them

Nevertheless, this highlights the danger of the 'end justifies the means' justification for such protest that Biohazard is attempting to defend here.

What happens when the end is bogus? Are we to just accept all the damage, destruction, harm and violation of rights that have been justified as means to that end? No, this is why peaceful protest that violates rights and causes harm (as in the Fortnum & Mason case) is not and should not be unassailable, and those who engage in such protest ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

 

[Lysander]

I was in Deptford this afternoon, the local job centre has the shutters up and this on the door, sorry for the bad picture.

'Disused'? Funny, it wasn't a few weeks ago. Basically the place is being occupied by a load of protesters. Anyway:

"We are not fooled by the lies of government ministers that we cannot afford vital services like a 21st century health and education system. We know full well that billions of pounds was used to bail out the bankers and this year they are receiving over £7bn in bonuses...

We are part of a growing movement across Britain where people are determined to defend our communities and challenge those who seek to control our lives by taking control ourselves.

Wherever there is a threat of closure we will strike and occupy to prevent closure"

The only problem with that last part is that when they 'strike and occupy' no-one can use the bloody places.

 

[scorza]

Facts and reason undermine their entire raison d'être, so I think it's safe to say they'll ignore them

Nevertheless, this highlights the danger of the 'end justifies the means' justification for such protest that Biohazard is attempting to defend here.

What happens when the end is bogus? Are we to just accept all the damage, destruction, harm and violation of rights that have been justified as means to that end? No, this is why peaceful protest that violates rights and causes harm (as in the Fortnum & Mason case) is not and should not be unassailable, and those who engage in such protest ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Facts and reason from a former UKIP campaigner working for free-market think tank? Just a bit dubious. The £6bn figure is fanciful that's true but the decision by HMRC to drop the legal action is totally inexplicable. If you want facts and reason, google for the progressive tax blog and (if you can understand it) find out why Vodafone's tax settlement is so controversial.

 

[Tefal]

I went down to this thanks to the free coaches put on by Unison. Didn't even go on the march and just went round all the pubs and got blasted. We did goto the 'party' set up in hyde park and thought what a load of ********.

Couldn't believe all the dumb people smiling and cheering in hyde park actualy thinking they had achieved something.

When even magick looks down on your anti government rantings you know you've lost.

 

[PermaBanned]

The only problem with that last part is that when they 'strike and occupy' no-one can use the bloody places.

So you think we should apply some Jimmy Reid logic to the situation? I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the movement isn't nearly coordinated enough

The argument of the broken pane of glass is the most valuable argument in modern politics. There is something that Governments care for far more than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy.

 

[Al Vallario]

Facts and reason from a former UKIP campaigner working for free-market think tank? Just a bit dubious.

Facts and reason are facts and reason regardless of who they are coming from, so let's not go down the line of attacking character.

The £6bn figure is fanciful that's true but the decision by HMRC to drop the legal action is totally inexplicable. If you want facts and reason, google for the progressive tax blog and (if you can understand it) find out why Vodafone's tax settlement is so controversial.

I've just had a read through a relevant article on the Progressive Tax Blog, Vodafone and how the EU enables tax avoidance. Worstall does not for one moment deny the matter is controversial. More importantly, he acknowledges that it is one that has more far reaching implications than UK Uncut seem to appreciate.

HMRC could well have refused a settlement and pursued Vodafone under the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules, overruling EU law, but doing so would have set a dangerous precedent, one not necessarily in HMRC's favour.

Vodafone took deliberate action to minimise their tax liability in the acquisition of Mannesmann, make no doubt about it, but that action was in accordance with EU law, and it would be unreasonable to use UK law to overrule EU law in this instance.

 

[scorza]

HMRC could well have refused a settlement and pursued Vodafone under the Controlled Foreign Companies (CFC) rules, overruling EU law, but doing so would have set a dangerous precedent, one not necessarily in HMRC's favour.

Under EU law the UK CFC rules can be enforced where the arrangement is "wholly artificial". I don't know about you, but where I work a £50k a year (total staff costs at Vodafone Luxemboug) manager wouldn't be overseeing a loan worth £35bn. I think there's more than a good chance that a court would agree that arrangement was wholly artificial, more to the point HMRC should have pressed this through the courts to set a precedent.

 

[Al Vallario]

Under EU law the UK CFC rules can be enforced where the arrangement is "wholly artificial". I don't know about you, but where I work a £50k a year (total staff costs at Vodafone Luxemboug) manager wouldn't be overseeing a loan worth £35bn. I think there's more than a good chance that a court would agree that arrangement was wholly artificial, more to the point HMRC should have pressed this through the courts to set a precedent.

The suggestion that the CFC rule might be able to coexist with existing EU law only came about after HMRC appealed the High Court decision in Vodafone's favour, after the Special Commissioners had also sided with Vodafone.

This would, of course, depend on your definition of "wholly artificial". Vodafone could potentially have argued that the €50,000 annual staffing costs — assuming Richard Brooks is correct on that figure — demonstrated their presence in Luxembourg does not in fact meet the "wholly artificial" criteria. Their presence there is not just a letterbox or a forwarding address, they do have at least one member of staff employed.

Ultimately, it was HMRC who decided they would rather not fight the case in the Supreme Court and run the risk of losing, but rather seek a settlement from Vodafone. They are now actively seeking similar settlements with other UK companies, dozens of whom engage in the same practice. If UK Uncut disagree with that decision, they should be occupying HMRC offices, not Vodafone stores. As the saying goes, "don't hate the player, hate the game." Vodafone have a duty to their shareholders to minimise their tax liability in accordance with the law, and that is what they have done.

But on a more theoretical level, on what grounds should HMRC be taxing a Luxembourg company for operations conducted in Germany, when the relevant taxes have already been paid in Germany and Luxembourg respectively? As Worstall puts it, "no developed country could develop a corporate tax system that taxed profits twice in the way UK Uncut are suggesting should happen in the case of Vodafone."