I was on the BBC this morning discussing what is termed the call “from MP’s” to “name and shame” those companies who are not paying the requisite amount of tax. I HAD wanted to bring up Margaret Hodge’s personal experience of minimising her tax affairs via the Stemcor company in which she has a “tiny” amount of shares (£1.8m) but was warned off the issue as the famously litigious Hodge might have chosen to take action against the BBC. I respected the wish of the BBC on this occasion but it annoys me that they treat Hodge as some sort of crusader (Oops, that might offend a particular group) for fairness and “justice” when in fact she is a bully and a hypocrite and they KNOW it. I was not going to attack Hodge for tax avoidance but rather congratulate her since we should all be making every effort to starve the beast – the State – of OUR cash.
HODGE THE DODGE
Bookmark the permalink.
“she is a bully and a hypocrite and they KNOW it”
But they still invite her.
Hypocritical lefties like Maxwell, Sheridan, and Galloway always threaten legal action, and the BBC always folds when they do. When they think they have a Tory scalp all reserve goes out the window as the MacAlpine affair shows.
I’m old enough to remember when politicians regarded it as all part of the job and took it on the chin.
How times change.
When I was active in the building and construction trade group of the TGWU (pick the bones out of swp stooges)we called journos intellectual lumpers,when the reason they wouldn’t run with the story of wide spread bogus self employment (despite the massive loss in tax and NI revenue) became clear.
I think something similar is happening here.i.e. they don’t want their own tax affairs scrutinised.
Proof then that the BBC is not willing to report everything of interest to the public. Interesting that commercial media groups have reported this but the state-owned one refused point-blank. Sounded more like a threat from the BBC to you David rather than any worries of litigation against them.
Surely the way she has structured her shareholdings is documented fact? And that her tax bill is lower than it might otherwise be because of this, whether intended or not?
How could raising that point possibly lead to litigation? I agree with Rufus: the BBC simply didn’t want you to mention it as it might not give the message they wanted to send. Which raises the question – should you appear on the BBC if they are going to stop you from raising legitimate and pertinent points? I honestly don’t know the answer to that as then you wouldn’t be heard at all.
One way round might be to be vague – rather than stating the known facts of her tax avoidance, simply say “It seems odd that she should be so focussed on tax avoidance when a lot of questions have been asked about how she manages her own affairs – including large shareholdings.”
That might cause some harrumphing by the BBC interviewer – which would actually underscore the implied charge of hypocrisy – but there is no direct risk of defamation action ?
‘How could raising that point possibly lead to litigation?’
And on them, as opposed to the person featured?
By that logic surely the BBC can be held to account for every RoP virgins & honey aspirant or recruiting sarge they serve up 24/7?
‘was warned off the issue’
To clarify, the BBC, the home of holding power to account, picks and chooses not only what is debated and who debates, but what they can say in said ‘debate’.
Thus rendering it not a debate at all, more an echo chamber of approved thoughts.
Islingtons Childrens Home Coldie!
She still your woman of the year…or might that be Sharon Shoesmith again?
Please remind me how much has the BBC spent on legal fees to prevent the Balen Report reaching the eyes of the license fee payers?
I asked my MP, a David Cameron, if he could get me a copy. The BBC refused.
Silly fool, probably doesn’t realise who has the real mandate to speak for the country and lead, especially by not bothering with that voting silliness.
Let’s get the facts right first. Lady Hodge is not directly avoiding tax. However she is taking advantage of her father’s avoidance of (inheritance) tax through his settling of a trust of which she is a beneficiary and which is the holder of “her” shares in the family company (Stemcor). If she is leading a “moral” crusade against tax avoidance then her benefiting from arrangements which avoid tax is hypocrisy of the most blatant sort. The broadcasting of the basic and uncontested facts of the matter are not – even for a Labour MP – grounds for litigation.
Moreover – and I appreciate DV’s position here – IMHO the last thing Lady Hodge would do is to create a public sh*tstorm where the reality of her hypocrisy would be front and centre. After all, she knows she’s a hypocrite: she knows she’s benefiting from arrangements which avoid tax: why would she risk that being confirmed in open court?
Meanwhile the BBC is, of course, enabling her hypocrisy since silence on that serves the Narrative. DV was silenced because damaging Lady Hodge’s “reputation” would damage the Narrative. What has happened to DV has, I’m sure, happened before to others who might bring an unwelcome point of view or just basic facts to the BBC audience. Thus the BBC can claim to be “impartial” by bringing on what the BBC would call “deniers” while persuading them (in the nicest possible way I’m sure – “Please DV, don’t make life uncomfortable for us. You know how difficult Lady Hodge can be!!”) not to bring the full weight of their evidence and opinions to bear.
What would have happened if DV had refused to play the game? IIRC DV (or others) have been replaced or, in the event, not called to the studio at the last moment (or had a technical failure of the radio car or the phone system occur at an inconvenient point in discussion). Of course, unwelcome opinions do occasionally get voiced on the BBC and it would be foolish to assert that no counter-Narrative arguments are broadcast. However, in the case in point, it’s interesting that Lady Hodge’s own financial arrangements are beyond criticism or (AFAIAA) even mention in the viewing/listening part of the BBC service when she is attempting to trash another private sector employer/taxpayer in respect of the very sin she is committing.
Perhaps DV should consider casually hinting to the B-BBC that he has some damaging dirt on tax avoidance by a Tory member of the Cabinet when he next speaks with them. Anybody want to bet that he would be welcomed with open arms and encouraged to “spill the beans” rather than beinf silenced by fictitious claims about possible litigation?
Yep, it’s that thing again.
As with I****, you could – almost – give the BBC a pass on this, except that they then put about and give Hodge a platform to press her talking points as though she was a disinterested seeker after truth.
In effect, the BBC is a party to fraud. They claim to be airing the debate, but then they allow Hodge to make her points without telling you that she uses legal threats to silence her opponents.
…yes she’s so litigious that she hasn’t quite got round to suing Guido Fawkes who’s been airing her hypocrisy for a year or so now.
The BBC always plume themselves on what ‘brilliant journalists’ they all are – none of them could lick Guido’s boots. Of course he only gets paid if he’s good whereas they get paid regardless – and don’t it show.
The whole edifice of excuse they have tried to cover themselves in is falling off like crepe in a rainstorm.
And they do say that often it’s the cover up that damages more.
Next time don’t mention the Hodge specifically. Just innocently opine that you’re in favour of avoiding taxes in the way she is avoiding them. Be very specific about the methods but don’t mention her by name.
She can’t do anything because you haven’t mentioned her specifically.
She also can’t criticise what she is doing herself in case the awful truth becomes known more broadly.
So then you have her on the horns of a dilemma: she has to concede the point that some tax avoidance is OK and explain why all other tax avoidance is bad.
That is a difficult position to defend and should give you many opportunities to put the boot in.
Same should apply to any Labour party figure because they must all know about it by now and it would undermine their party.
A yes the delightful woman who was so proud to announce last week on the Andrew Marr show that she was protected in her outbursts by parliamentary privilege. What a brave crusader.
Typical Alinsky-style action from the BBC instead of common sense. How about suggesting that the law be changed instead of all this crap? Sure, the Beeboids won’t get to feel good about themselves for being right-on, self-righteous anti-corporate warriors, but it would actually be a solution worth discussing rather than making attacks on companies and public figures.
Funny how David bottles so easily. Is your reluctance down to the reality that your innuendos could not be substantiated?
.Easier to snipe from a blog. Or is it? Glad it’s not my home on the line.
Don’t you mean how the BBC bottles so easily?
colditz, mate, do yourself a favour, go and see what order-order has to say about the hodge ‘innuenduo’.
Innufacto more like.
Oh, and stay there.
Have I asked you yet about Margarets role in suppressing pretty serious allegations made by a boy at one of those childrens homes that she used to ” have lead responsibility for back In Islington ?
Sometimes I forget if I`ve mentioned that to you!
Good job David didn’t mention Hodge’s expense fiddling, which has been airbrushed from her wikipedia entry –
“Margaret Hodge, the MP for Barking, claimed more than £2,200 for “PR support” from Chilli and Spice, a firm based in Chelmsford, Essex, between May and August 2007…..MPs are barred from claiming expenses for self-promotion or PR”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5425232/MPs-expenses-Margaret-Hodge-hired-her-former-press-officer-for-PR-support.html
…of course the beauty of wikipedia is that anyone can ‘edit’ in Hodge’s airbrushed expenses taradiddles.
I’m thinking DV was in a win-win situation. So Hodge sues the BBC or the BBC censors you out and you report they have. Whistleblowers are the in thing at Patten Palace are they not?
“…when in fact she is a bully and a hypocrite and they KNOW it.”
How exactly is she a bully and a hypocrite Mr Vance? Because she objects to newspapers printing lies about her?
“Contrary to our report ‘Hodge faces challenge over family firm’s taxes’ (Nov 20), Stemcor, in which Ms Hodge has a small shareholding, has not abused transfer pricing to avoid tax. We accept that there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in Ms Hodge criticising other companies for tax avoidance and apologise to her for any contrary impression.”
http://goo.gl/ph84G
I seem to remember you threatening someone on this blog for calling you a “racist bigot”. Does that make you a bully or just a hypocrite?
Dear Dez – go and pontificate on Guido’s blog, he’s not so patient of idiots as DV is. The facts are out there, proven and published; if she is so litigious why is she not suing him? Could it be that if she did the whole shabby situation would be out in mainstream media? Really, defendants of your ilk do not do the BBC any service.
Call the dezmond!
I refer my learned friend to the colditz deposition here in the court of public opinion.
Your Honour , amy I move…
“Islington Childrens Homes” sometime ago, so I`m reliably informed m`lud!
No further questions .
Hope you forgot to lock your bike on the court railings dez, you old plonker!.
, Interim verdict as at 0900 21.02 Anno Dez 2013.
(This is only an interim judgement based on public record depositions, and in no way can be expressly considered the considered and final judgement at this moment in time)
Case dismissed shock.
Error in line three …thats 3…T..H..R…E…E!
Court victory to Mr Dezmond and Troll Tag Team
See you in Strasbourg Dezzie…near Belgium or summat!
The things you call people Dezional Sozialist are typical of the type of nazi hypocrite you are.
What evidence do you have that you don’t wear nazi uniforms on a weekend? None, of course. You are just a nazi scum.
Now ,now demon!
Dez De Mona is just the kind of passionate, progressive and caring kind of vulnerable young person( well, I just don`t judge…he might as well be, because I`m just so …well, VIRTUOUS!) who our policies here at bBBC(Passionte Caring Resourcing) is exactly who we are to welcome and to share with.
Come Mr de Mona…pull up a beanbag(no, not that …Mr Savile seemed to have left that one!)
Now dez…may I call you that ..do share!
Mr Lorry Taylor will be pulling in soon with a Yorkie(gender neutral version) for you soon!
Signed R Bless.
It’s just a bit of fun between Dezional (Delusional?) and me. He calls me things, for fun, that he knows I’m not and I call him things, for fun, that he clearly is. If you’d seen his inference about the Jews on a previous thread you would see I am right.
Michele, if the facts are out there why did Vance bottle?
Hmm well to a defender of the bully like you it would seem he had nothing to fear but then again the BBC cowards you love so much wouldn’t have let him on to get any of his views across ! but that is what you want really isn’t it censorship and control ?
“Welcome to Remedial Flokking #101.
Colditz is one of our slower new members, but what he lacks in anything much, he makes up for in volume.
He at least has grasped the ‘repeat it often enough technique’ inspired by our founder, with this week’s word being ‘bottle’. Say ‘bottle’ again Colditz, and you will get a nice death’s head badge for your beanie.
And to all those nasty folk who may use the word that may not be spoken, preced*nt, no… when the BBC pulls stories because they are in chaos over conflicting PC mandates, it is not bottling, it is ‘world class journalism’.
Oh, Dez, while repetition is what we teach, it is best not to do it too lazily or overtly, so sticking ‘Oh my God’ at the front of too many posts, and Duh at the end, may rather cast a negative spotlight applied to anything sandwiched inbetween.
Plus our inclusively-welcomed students at the back who just won’t take off their satchels are telling us the ‘OMG’ thing is theirs alone to invoke, and like Johnny Marr have forbidden all others to use it. Maybe it’s best we obey; just in case. That bomb-proof bunker in the assembly room won’t fit everyone you know.”
Guess who…David Vance?
‘And next week, we’ll be introducing the children to… verbs, which make getting points across slightly easier. We can only hope.’
If Mr Vance is a “bottler”, as some on this site accuss him of being, I expect he will remove all comments on this page that say Margaret Hodge through her family firm and her family tax arrangements dodges tax.
Lets wait and see.
This site isn’t worth wasting a lawyers letter on. However repeat the comments on the radio and you have a libel. Of course he didn’t repeat his comments on air as he’d be unable to substantiate them in court and would lose his home. So he bottled. Bottled because he was bigging up about what he was going say, and didn’t.. If that isn’t bottling what is?
You`re trying to stop lawyers now?
The BBC employs a couple of them and they`ll not be happy at your proposed boycott .
Send for Judge Henry Hodge…something big in Brussels or Leiwshan I expect.
NOTHING is ever wasted when it comes to lawyers letters, many of them are 100 recycled , you prejudiced bigot.
Restraint of trade, urging boycotts or blockades of the trade of the honest artisans of Lincolns Inn.
You cur sir! for shame sake , withdraw!
‘This site isn’t worth wasting a lawyer’s letter on.’
Is this on a Gallowagian ‘we’ basis?
Gorgeous’ latest flounce, and accompanying justification may put the BBC in another of those precedent pickles, mind.
All that Conservative lass the BBC stitched up on the Eastleigh hustings, or indeed any future BBC interview invitee has to say is ‘I don’t debate with [stick unique, BBC-fudged ‘ism-exception here]’ and they really can’t get too hurt about it as their go-to guy seems to have set the gold standard now.
Well he wasn’t allowed to mention them “on air” was he? That was the decision of the BBC.
Frankly, it this is the best you can come up with – name calling – then it is pretty pathetic.
It’s what lefties do best.
‘I was on the BBC this morning ‘
Does nobody ever see the irony in this? And in all his appearances, has he ever cited bias in his treatment?
I agree with TheGerman
I agree with Colditz
I agree with Nicked Emus
With all these German names you sound like a meeting of the SS Old Boys club.
I’d agree, but two really seem to be more of a William Joyce variety.
Where’s there a von Stauffenberg with a better packed Samsonite when the opportunity is presented?
Still, as echo chambers go, what better embodiment of ‘birds of a feather flokk together’ could there be, or that they seem but a cubicle apart?
I resent the fact that just because I am from Gloucester you assume that I am an ex-Nazi.
Beware of the puddles, they might go up to your middle.
I thought you were never going to go there again?
I have a creative relationship with the truth.
‘I have a creative relationship with the truth.’
On a ‘setting you free’ basis?
If so, a significant chunk of BBC senior editorial and management stand ready to welcome you, brother.
Dr Foster’s message wasn’t on when I made that comment. But if you join Fritz, the Kaiser and Herman (let alone Dezi) there does seem to be a theme developing.
That’s not true. There have been times when the BBC displayed bias against DV, or on the topic under discussion when he’s been on. Nolan has done it, and they’ve stacked the deck on other occasions.
Will dez, cioditz etc allow us to refer to the Learned Rght On (RT HON)Ladys fiduciary munificences as …well a Hodge Fund , surely!As in, I mugged that bugger the other day, stuck the proceeds in my knicker drawer and Tessa Jowells old man says its a mortgage…but I say it`s technically a Hodge Fund because no-one mentioned it in polite society.
Or will they tell her that we`re being a bit …well McShaney..with her?
The difficulty with planning to make comments that carry the risk of a lawsuit (be it defamation, libel, or some other tort) is that you rarely decide whether to proceed on the facts but rather on the cost of defence. The costs (which you may succeed in retreiving if you win, or may not) can commonly be disproportionate to the value of the point you wanted to broadcast in the first place.
Quite agree. But if you constantly harp on about someone’s integrity at some point you need to either put up or shut up. I suspect someone in the BBC pointed out to Vance before he broadcast that he hadn’t a foot to stand on AND that he’d never darken the airwaves again if he did repeat his accusations.
The tiny number of posts defending Vance suggest that the loyal readers can see what actually happened. He bottled.
Yay, a hat-trick!
Silver death’s head badge for the beanie en route.
Ah…the ” most of us think that” idea again…very E.U and New Labour.
Like we all wanted A.V and congestion charges…well the BBC did, and we were meant to all talk of nothing else…and,of course, both as told.
Funny though isn`t it?…every time we get a cold vote, you always lose coldie boy doncha?
Hence your love of the courts, Leveson and judicial reviews, Strasbourg etc…because no one votes for it, no one wants it…but we`re goiung to get it nonetheless.
Two words here …gay marriage?
As for Mr Vance…I owe him big…as does the NHS and countless school staffrooms.
Don`t tell the unions though will you?
I carry a Guardian isf any is worried…I`m scared of course to do otherwise.
Like Mr Vance…we`ree all chickens and are scared of Hodge and your kind.
Which is why we`ere not allowed to vote like prosecuting Hodge over Islington etc.
Typos because bloody cat want`s feeding!
Vance tested his ideas twice in elections? Didn’t he lose his deposit.?Twice.? Hence his fear of the BBC closing the door if he repeated his comments. It’s clear that faced with the prospect of no more cozy chats on Nolan, Vance parked his principles and bottled.
Next time he pontificates about others lack of morality, moral fibre etc, a reminder of this will come in handy.
We’re now on full circle so I’ll end any further notes to this thread. Knuckle scrappers can abuse at will!
colditz, you keep ignoring the fact that the BBC told him to keep his mouth shut. Why not comment on the BBC’s cowardice?
because he’s typical of the rentagob gobshites who come here to talk lefty B/S
they ignore the real stuff and head for the cheap shot
every time
This constant buzzing around someone else’s blog with clever little sneering comments is a bit childish. We all know where DV stands and most of us who like to come here share his views. I far as I am concerned those who do not agree should start their own blog and bugger off. Post a link to it if you like but I for one will not bother to look at it. Please just go and stand on your own soap box somewhere else and stop annoying the adults.
Anyway, the point seems to have been missed now. If I am to understand it, it was that people in green houses shouldn’t throw stones. Complaining about other people’s or company’s dirty tax tricks when you are up to it, or sailing very close to it yourself is hypocritical and it isn’t just DV who has the courage to say it. National newspapers have made an issue of it, they do of course have deep pockets but not as deep as our tax sponsored BBC, so the fact that the BBC is unwilling to speak up is nothing to do with litigation it is cronyism, pure and simple and it is bloody obvious to anyone with half a brain.
For instance, the darlings of the BBC are also frighten to spell out in clear language what religious convictions the bombers from Birmingham convicted today are. They are, “central figures in the plot”. They are; “committed, passionate extremists”. They “had received training from al-Qaeda contacts in Pakistan”. They “had a real stated intention to kill and maim as many people as they possibly can”, but that’s it, no background or deep analysis of these fine fellows.
Is there any hint that the country is full of these “men” and that thousands of them are continuing to indoctrinate even more “men” with this poisonous and odious way of thinking and that there are hundreds of their sanctuaries across the country that continue to broadcast their evil propaganda and where our police dare not enter.
Then there is the NHS, another wonderful British corporation with a tendency towards a “keep your mouth shut or we will sue you” tendency. In the meantime they will just put a few hundred more old folks out of their misery who they can’t be bothered with.
The BBC is indefensible and way past its sell by date and its appeasers and cronies are traitors .
You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the uninformed mediocrity of some of my critics on this thread.
Perhaps it is just their ignorance but when one is politely requested not to go down a specific line of debate for possibly litigious reasons, one respects that. During my “bottling” I damned Labour hypocrisy, condemned Red Bishop Stephen Lowe and agreed with a caller who attacked Nolan as a tax avoider! I also had a go at the NHS.
I had a long debate with the production team before going on air they are also crystal clear on my views re Hodge.
Debating almost any issue on the BBC means entering a minority position but I do it because it seems right to do. If people choose to mock me for taking the argument to theBBC that is their choice and readers will note that I choose not to censor criticism of me even when, as some comments on this thread indicate, they are poorly constructed spleen.
How much did they pay you?
I think we should be told.
It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or advice. Perhaps you can write next articles referring to this article. I want to read more things about it!