I thought Neil was bad at accepting other viewpoints, but now thanks (actually no thanks at all - like him I wish I hadn't) to Longrider, I become aware of this bloke.
Of course he has a perfect right to an opinion just like anyone. What I find depressing is that such an apparently well qualified bloke takes such a patronising approach to comments on his blog:
Tax Research LLP wrote:
Georges comment has been allowed simply to show just how anti-social some who seek to use the Nazi excuse for tax haven secrecy are.
Posted on 25-Mar-08 at 6:09 pm |
At what point in promoting an open debate on anything does grudgingly "allowing" someone the dubious honour of commenting on his sacred blog and then setting in the context that such an opinion is anti-social really help?
and
PS Please don’t bother to reply - as you know, I find your style so offensive I won’t be repeating this unusual exception of allowing you on here for a change
Of course no-one's obliged to have comments on their blog at all, and no-one (I agree with Richard on this) should have to put up with abuse or illegal comments.
However, appearing to select comments using a number of other less worthwhile (in my humble opinion) criteria*, and then sneering at the comments (or indeed the contributors) you don't like, isn't very endearing, and it doesn't seem a very grown up way of debating the issues.
*Comments are apparently disallowed if a bogus e-mail address is entered and "Pseudonyms are strongly discouraged" (whatever that may mean). I'm not sure why this should be so; evidently anyone using either (or both) couldn't have a valid opinion according to Richard.
Furthermore, in spite of his long list of qualifications, he is apparently unable to master the use of the humble apostrophe:
Actually, I don’t buy that. Lot’s (sic) of people are available 24 hours a day and don’t get as much coverage. TJN, for start, even though we (unlike the TPA) actually try to provide considered analysis and real research on stories.
and
I am, to be candid, shocked that the ACCA let’s (sic) him say such things, for these reasons..
Yes (schoolboy errors aside), we'll all be better off when membership of a professional body determines exactly what one is allowed to say.
Richard also claims that there is no difference between tax evasion and avoidance - and to his credit, allows a comment from Devil's Kitchen in response - just the one though - he shuts down the debate as outlined above rather than risk a conversation with DK. Presumably he fears that DK has the intellectual rigour to offer a serious challenge to his assertion. We'll never know.
All of this is a shame as I found some stuff to agree with in what he writes. Although he doesn't offer much evidence for his assertion that tax secrecy in Switzerland was less of a response to the rise of Nazism than the popular historic consensus suggests (he posts one link and as a lucky commenter points out, that just supports the consensus view), he has a point in saying that 70 years on, there's no similar excuse. Unfortunately, if people like this are the best advocates of a fairer tax regime, I don't think they're going to make much real headway; certainly no real debate.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Notwork Rail
So I sat there at 6.30 - the Train manager was very apologetic, but he said overrunning engineering works meant that he had no idea when we'd be leaving for London.
Later (we hadn't moved) he said the advice from Network Rail was to bale out if our journey was not essential. OK, I thought - taxi home and regroup - only half an hour sat on a train going nowhere.
Which I did (although getting a cab home when a few hundred others on the train have just had the some idea wasn't easy).
Back at the ranch I discovered that the information available online was, as is so often the case, sketchy and conflicting. The National Rail Enquiries site had a dire warning about people being tipped off trains and onto buses at Shenfield. Elsewhere on the same site delays of only an hour or so were showing and trains appeared to be running into Liverpool Street.
In what may have been a triumph of spin, the Network Rail site was trumpeting the successful completion of the works on time. No mention of our major disruption and certainly no apology - so if that was true did that mean the train manager, London Travel Watch and the BBC web site, all of whom were blaming overrunning works, were wrong?
Someone's not playing straight.
Later (we hadn't moved) he said the advice from Network Rail was to bale out if our journey was not essential. OK, I thought - taxi home and regroup - only half an hour sat on a train going nowhere.
Which I did (although getting a cab home when a few hundred others on the train have just had the some idea wasn't easy).
Back at the ranch I discovered that the information available online was, as is so often the case, sketchy and conflicting. The National Rail Enquiries site had a dire warning about people being tipped off trains and onto buses at Shenfield. Elsewhere on the same site delays of only an hour or so were showing and trains appeared to be running into Liverpool Street.
In what may have been a triumph of spin, the Network Rail site was trumpeting the successful completion of the works on time. No mention of our major disruption and certainly no apology - so if that was true did that mean the train manager, London Travel Watch and the BBC web site, all of whom were blaming overrunning works, were wrong?
Someone's not playing straight.
Facebook Can Ruin Your Life
Over at John Allsopp's excellent blog is a thoughtful piece on this shock expose from the super soaraway Independent. I agree that people who say the firm they work for is shit, or brag about drinking on facebook shouldn't be surprised if this comes back to bite them. It staggers me that people can be so dense as not to realise.
However, as far as privacy is concerned, if only friends can see details, how are employers able to check what's on there? Or are all the people bragging about drinking and how shit their employer is also daft enough to have open profiles? I've been digging around trying to find out without success.
I know that since joining I have received an unsolicited "friend" request from a bloke I don't know - and I don't think he's one of my friend's friends, so how did he know I exist? There's nothing sinister about that in itself - we were all strangers before we were friends of course.
I am lucky enough not to need to worry too much what an employer might find on my blog or Facebook because:
I work for myself
I don't blog under my own name
My Facebook profile doesn't use my real name
I do this because before I worked for myself I did have to worry about what Employers might make of my trenchant views on the government's diabolical ID card scheme, for example.
I did, however, want to blog about this and other stuff. I still do, and since my blog isn't really for much other than my own interest (I never did manage a diary so this is as close as I'll probably ever get), I don't care to shout about who I am.
One thing I did think was a little sinister though, and I hope it's not serious:
Update: A friend made this excellent point: "Will job opportunities be withheld for not having a site? Socially disinterested, inhibited, no friends?"
It's an excellent point, but I hope it never becomes reality. I mean, thinking about my close friends:
Mrs Urko (actually we're not married, but no matter) Highly qualified IT project manager - no interest in Facebook.
K&M - have an Internet connection but rarely use it. Both highly qualified engineers and good pals. No Interest in Facebook.
P&H - Have an Internet connection (business has a web presence), both highly qualified in IT, one still works in IT the other in own non-IT business. No Interest in Facebook.
D&L Highly sucessful at doing what I've just started doing (IT contractor) over a number (10+) of years, had own e-commerce site more than 5 years ago - no interest in Facebook.
T&D - Lawyer and IT pro have an internet connection (indeed were successful in signing up most of their small village in order to obtain broadband). No interest in Facebook.
If any of these people were denied a job because they didn't have a Facebook presence, it would be more fool the employer.
By the way, I'm not anti-Facebook - I just haven't really worked out what it it's offering me yet. I guess I might get more out of it if I used my real name - although as outlined above, most of my friends aren't involved. But then everyone would know I can't stand Mrs Thatcher (to this day), June Sarpong or the late Ned Sherrin, and because some people can't get past the idea of an honestly held opinion, that could count against me.
However, as far as privacy is concerned, if only friends can see details, how are employers able to check what's on there? Or are all the people bragging about drinking and how shit their employer is also daft enough to have open profiles? I've been digging around trying to find out without success.
I know that since joining I have received an unsolicited "friend" request from a bloke I don't know - and I don't think he's one of my friend's friends, so how did he know I exist? There's nothing sinister about that in itself - we were all strangers before we were friends of course.
I am lucky enough not to need to worry too much what an employer might find on my blog or Facebook because:
I work for myself
I don't blog under my own name
My Facebook profile doesn't use my real name
I do this because before I worked for myself I did have to worry about what Employers might make of my trenchant views on the government's diabolical ID card scheme, for example.
I did, however, want to blog about this and other stuff. I still do, and since my blog isn't really for much other than my own interest (I never did manage a diary so this is as close as I'll probably ever get), I don't care to shout about who I am.
One thing I did think was a little sinister though, and I hope it's not serious:
Update: A friend made this excellent point: "Will job opportunities be withheld for not having a site? Socially disinterested, inhibited, no friends?"
It's an excellent point, but I hope it never becomes reality. I mean, thinking about my close friends:
Mrs Urko (actually we're not married, but no matter) Highly qualified IT project manager - no interest in Facebook.
K&M - have an Internet connection but rarely use it. Both highly qualified engineers and good pals. No Interest in Facebook.
P&H - Have an Internet connection (business has a web presence), both highly qualified in IT, one still works in IT the other in own non-IT business. No Interest in Facebook.
D&L Highly sucessful at doing what I've just started doing (IT contractor) over a number (10+) of years, had own e-commerce site more than 5 years ago - no interest in Facebook.
T&D - Lawyer and IT pro have an internet connection (indeed were successful in signing up most of their small village in order to obtain broadband). No interest in Facebook.
If any of these people were denied a job because they didn't have a Facebook presence, it would be more fool the employer.
By the way, I'm not anti-Facebook - I just haven't really worked out what it it's offering me yet. I guess I might get more out of it if I used my real name - although as outlined above, most of my friends aren't involved. But then everyone would know I can't stand Mrs Thatcher (to this day), June Sarpong or the late Ned Sherrin, and because some people can't get past the idea of an honestly held opinion, that could count against me.
Memory and Aging Generally
I've been watching a fascinating BBC Horizon programme on memory. Having noticed a deterioration recently (I'm in my 40s) and hearing about Terry Pratchett being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, I've been worried. Talking to contemporaries has made me feel a little better, but seeing a bloke in his 50s with quite bad Alzheimer's made me worry some more. I dunno - I had to give someone my car registration the other day and not only could I not remember it (I've never been that good at this) - I couldn't even call to mind the general format of a car reg number.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Driving Bans
The Tories have a point - what on earth is the point of a driving ban you can "serve" whilst you are inside and can't drive anyway?
Mucking about with Embryos
I haven't totally made up my mind about this. Instinctively I am against it, but then the dogmatic opposition on faith grounds I am hearing about makes me think I probably ought to reconsider.
As for MPs who seem to think they should have special treatment because of their faith - I have no sympathy. You joined the party, and you have to accept their dogma, you can't expect the dogma of your faith to override that as a politician. Set that particular precendent and Sharia law can't be argued against - it just becomes a numbers game rather than a principle of maintinaing a secular democracy.
As for MPs who seem to think they should have special treatment because of their faith - I have no sympathy. You joined the party, and you have to accept their dogma, you can't expect the dogma of your faith to override that as a politician. Set that particular precendent and Sharia law can't be argued against - it just becomes a numbers game rather than a principle of maintinaing a secular democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
