Forum menu
TJ, may I call you "wolfie?" 🙂
The story is not in the payment or none payment of tax or what status Mr Ashcroft is for tax liability. Why not look at his donation and the company is comes from. Someone on here has already covered part of this but in my view the real point is being missed. Ashcroft has done nothing illegal as far as his tax payment is concerned, though some people are desperate to prove or smear otherwise. What exactly is the status of the company that donates the cash? What is the company for? Does the donation come from it's trading profit? The assetts jumped from £4m to £20m, why was that and were are those assetts?
Though I'm not suggesting anything illegal I do believe in the "spirit of the law" as guide to what is the right thing to do, if not then all the money grabing MP's have done nothing wrong.
Thats my 2p anyway.
Mt - absolutely agreed. However until the investigation is complete we have little to go on.
However you also miss the point - its not about his donations or tax status its about the clear deceit. he said clearly he would do one thing, did not do so and spent a decade attempting to avoid being found out until the information commissioner forced him to out himself
mt - The company is UK incorporated. There is no requirement in the law for the donation to come from trading profit, a "permissable donor" is in relation to a company
a company—
(i)registered under the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 or the [S.I. 1986/1032 (N.I. 6).] Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and
(ii)incorporated within the United Kingdom or another member State,which carries on business in the United Kingdom;
So as long as it is incorporated here and it carries on a business - this isn't a particular difficult test to meet (no requirement to carry on a business with a view to profit)- it is within the rules. I must admit to being staggered at the naivety of the drafting, it really is appalling and whoever was responsible for it is completely incompetent. However, I digress, I think the chances of Ashcroft being outside these rules is minute.
On the subject of spirit verus letter, in a utopian world I would agree with you, unfortunately the state has huge powers which are often abused by its servants. I think it is a bit rich for it to expect higher standards from its citizens.
mefty - Member
"On the subject of spirit verus letter, in a utopian world I would agree with you, unfortunately the state has huge powers which are often abused by its servants. I think it is a bit rich for it to expect higher standards from its citizens."
Is there a problem with asking for people to go with "spirit over letter"?
After all politicians are trying to win our trust. Whiter than white as Tony lying Blair once said. Utopia may be impossible but striving for it has got to be our aim, no?
Does that mean that you regard Ashcroft as a citizen?
mt - I think the genie is out of the bottle. The problem we have is that we have highly complex and detailed legislation in a lot of areas, it is expensive to comply with and lays down loads of hoops for you to jump through. Once you have got through them, is it reasonable to expect people to them endeavour to work out what the intention was. I think not, there is a cost to all this law and its demands on the citizens has to stop somewhere. If we had a simpler system then I think your expectation would be more reasonable.
I would personally prefer, a smaller state producing less but better law.
However, I don't think it is utopian to expect higher standards from our legislators. I think Ashcroft could probably argue he is within the spirit of the donation rules because he is resident here and the rules are designed to stop people who live abroad donating to political parties. But he is not going to bother, because eventually the story will lose its momentum.
As far as the undertaking is concerned, I see this more equivalent to a negotiated contract where I don't think it is reasonable to expect a "spirit" interpretation as the precise terms have been heavily negotiated.