-
It's a vaguely interesting article from someone who's spent half an hour on Companies House and found a few things. It's not a particularly strange structure, if they really wanted to hide things they'd have been better not incorporating or setting up an LLP.
If you're collecting a load of sensitive data (email addresses, etc) then this approach may limit liability if you breach the data protection act or similar.
It could be interesting but as it is it's a bit of a nothing article.
-
• #829
so....you missed the point of the article then.
To be fair, attempting to decipher the point of the article was the main reason it had any traction anyway.
-
so....you missed the point of the article then.
No, I got the article just fine. If you read my original post about it, I argue that there is no opaque structure, at least not on the 'evidence' presented. The paragraph of my post that h2o highlighted was merely in addition to all that.
And yes, because of the lack of evidence and/or research, the article was largely pointless.
-
If you read my original post about it, I argue that there is no opaque structure, at least not on the 'evidence' presented.
No, you argue that it doesn't matter that the structure is opaque because you assume there's not much money in it. You then also say it'd only be a story if he was pilfering. You're basically defining your own criteria for whether it's a story or not in a way that will fail your test. Straw man isn't quite the right term, but it's disingenuous.
-
You know you're in the right thread for Labour politics when it's just a whole page of people arguing about strawman arguments.
-
You're a strawman.
-
No, you argue that it doesn't matter that the structure is opaque because you assume there's not much money in it. You then also say it'd only be a story if he was pilfering. You're basically defining your own criteria for whether it's a story or not in a way that will fail your test. Straw man isn't quite the right term, but it's disingenuous.
None of this is what I said. I first said:
What a ridiculous article. They're really grasping at straws. I say it's ridiculous because it tries to make a lot of very little, styling itself à la Panama Papers ('complex snarl of companies'--errr no, not by the evidence you present).
This is obviously a contestable claim. However, I didn't say 'it doesn't matter that the structure is opaque because [I] assume there's not much money in it'. Instead, I said that it would be a more substantial story if there was more information on how much money is involved. I quite explicitly said that I don't think the structure is complex at all:
The 'good bank/bad bank' comparison is hilarious. There are legal requirements to fulfil when you're employing people and those structures will have been set up/be required for doing that, no more. There also seems to be nothing 'complex' about these simple companies.
But it's clear that my post wasn't very clear--as is the matter with Internet posts, it was written quickly, with no expectation that someone would pick up on it in this way. The paragraphs could probably be re-ordered (e.g., moving the contested paragraph to the end) and a few conjunctions added to make it clearer. For instance, the point about pilfering could have had 'either' at the end or an 'also' or 'additionally' at the beginning to make clear that it wasn't meant to replace or explain what went before, but be an addition.
-
You know you're in the right thread for Labour politics when it's just a whole page of people arguing about strawman arguments.
I find this sort of thing really interesting, as I believe Plato thought that the content of a dialogue could influence its form, which is something that he shows in many dialogues. The situation with the dialogue in the Labour Party seems to be really intractable because of some systematic problem at the heart of it that a lot of people can't overcome and that they keep snapping back into, and that may well influence the form it takes. Who knows, perhaps something like that even influences this thread.
I don't know what that problem is, but I suspect the 'official' unelectable/leadership style/bullying blah vs. Blairite rightwingers blah ((don't) pick your side) is only reflections on the surface of it. There's probably something in it about people either supporting 'real world' 'socialism' (Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky/Mao etc., (don't) take your pick :) ) or socialism as a theoretical/utopian construct. I don't think it's as simple as 'some people are more rightwing, some people are more leftwing', but I don't have enough knowledge of the Labour Party to try to understand it further.
-
You're wrong, though.
-
more polls.
ICM has released a poll today giving the Tories a 16-point lead over Labour. Here are the figures.
Conservatives - 43% (up 4 on ICM two weeks ago)
Labour - 27% (down 2)
Ukip - 13% (down 1)
Lib Dems - 8% (down 1)
ICM says that is Labour’s lowest figure since October 2009.and nicly you can pick your bias for this one, is it JC or is it the PLP. I would go with a bit of both but I don't trust the polls ect
-
• #843
They are one beast.
But here's some more (very interesting) context:
-
• #850
Fuck this, I'm starting my own party. And my party will have alcohol.
dst2
aggi
Oliver Schick
h2o
Sproutrock
snottyotter
hoefla
Chalfie
Velocio-
Post a reply
About
Labour Leadership 2016
Posted by
@William.
No, I have not, and what I said is not a strawman argument. I never attributed any views to the author. I am fully aware of what he said and merely dismissed it as insubstantial because what he presents isn't very interesting or goes very far, even though he tries to make it appear as if there is a 'complex snarl of companies'.
I merely said that in order for the allegations that he makes to be more substantial, he would need evidence of there either being a lot of money (my point is nobody's going to be interested if the political 'slush fund', to use h2o's word, is very small, e.g. enough to pay for the photocopying, but if it's thousands of pounds then that's a different story, even if the structures set up for both are the same in being completely unaccountable), or of someone benefiting personally by siphoning off donations. That's all there is to what I said there. I can't think of other possibilities, but perhaps there are some.
Everyone is obviously welcome to disagree that the article is insubstantial and to think that it is substantial on the evidence it presents.