Yibble

This particular measure, yes, because it typically targets arrangements which were used by the self employed. However there has also been a huge push to tackle corporate and MNC avoidance (BEPS, Diverted Profits Tax etc.)

If it were just that, then I would agree that it's just 'tough titty' on the taxpayer if/when the courts find against them. They took the risk. However what I believe has happened here is that, rather than the courts rule on the (non)effectiveness of such schemes, the UK Government has introduced legislation that, in effect, applies retrospective taxation. That doesn't seem right. The best advice will always be to stay clear of such schemes though and it's good that the UK Government is taking a stand against aggressive avoidance. Despite all the noise from lefty gobshites, it's George Osborne and (to some extent) his Tory successors who have done the most to tackle aggressive (and sometime less aggressive) avoidance. It's just a shame when they resort to unfair methods in doing that. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Was there any such threat from anyone aside from the notorious bell-end who you made the flippant comment about? I can see that the police would need to investigate the complaint made by said bell-end, but I struggle to see anyone (aside from bell-end himself) could have thought there was any serious question of prosecution. Just curious.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/18/boris-johnsons-claim-eu-forces-kippers-packed-ice-pillows-exposed/ Yep, lazy journalism. However when reporting any 'new rule', the papers rarely to trouble to cite the law / regulation concerned.

Indeed. The IoM treatment appears to be the same as outlined in HMRC's guidance. Also 'implicated' are the European Court of Justice and the EU's Advocate General, whose rulings / opinion appear to have dictated the way the IoM must apply VAT law to the transactions in point. I can see why that might all be a bit of an embarrassment to those claiming foul play here.

As a strategic plan for dealing with this menace, I'd suggest: It to provide a good topic for incessantly bickering old farts to have an extended moan about on the internet. Somebody to demand mandatory proficiency tests, licensing, insurance, MOTs and airworthiness certificates for all skateboarders and skateboards. Skateboarding in groups of more than two to require an events licence and road closures, with local potato pickers to be sworn in as special constables and given powers to fine anyone who fails to show them due respect. IoMG to nationalise skateboarding, set up a department of skateboarding and then announce a public consultation on how to reduce costs incurred by the department. All common sense, relative risk perception or proportionality on the issue to be expressly forbidden.

Agreed*. And that's a good thing *Though I would have said 'cautious when' rather than 'scared of', but that's getting pedantic.

What new rule? The rule about giving cyclists plenty of room when overtaking them has been there since the (GB) Highway Code was introduced in 1931. What has changed recently is the police warning they will increasingly take action against dangerous drivers who flout the rule. Not before time too.

As 'NoTail' says above, it might be the absence of regulation and the ability to do all the sorts of things the EU doesn't like. Or it could simply be the growing importance of Dubai as a offshore financial hub. Personally I would question the current business logic of moving activities to a notoriously illiberal country, just across the gulf from Iran, where all the buildings are made of glass.

That would seem not the be the issue here, given that the United Arab Emirates is on the EU 'blacklist' of of non-cooperative (tax) jurisdictions, whereas the IoM is no longer even on their 'greylist'. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-list-of-non-cooperative-jurisdictions/

No it isn't, aside from amongst the stupid. Every time the issues come up the only sensible conclusion for those of rational mind is that introducing mandatory licensing or insurance for cyclists would be a very silly idea indeed. Those who advocate same are really just calling themselves out as fools (and sometimes as potentially dangerous road users). If you can come up with a new, credible argument that overturns that conclusion, great, I'm listening. However so far all we've heard here is the hard-of-thinking rolling out the same old tired, discredited arguments yet again. http://ipayroadtax.com/ http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/ https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/what-are-cycling-uks-views-regulating-cyclists-behaviour are just some of the sites / articles which will help dispel anything you are likely to argue. There are many more.

Not quite. That's roughly the UK figure for pedestrian collision deaths involving a bicycle, not those caused by cyclists. It includes accidents caused by pedestrians as well as by cyclists. It does not include cyclist deaths caused by pedestrians. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer-cyclists-roads-bikes-pedestrian-collision-deaths-britain

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure how mandatory cycling insurance would have helped in that situation though.

Nobody is missing the point. Is your argument that anyone whose actions may present any kind of risk to others, however remote that risk, should be have mandatory third party insurance? If so, you at least have a logically valid argument, if not a rational one. On the basis of your logic, cyclists should have cycling insurance, trombonists should have tromboning insurance, people purchasing newspapers should have newspaper carrying insurance (what if their paper blew away in a gust and obscured the windscreen of a tipper truck? Won't somebody think of the children?) However more rational human beings would conclude that, given the evidence of the widespread caused done by drivers and their motor vehicles, mandatory insurance for motor vehicle drivers makes sense. Whereas given the almost negligible incidence of harm caused by cyclists, trombonists and newspaper bearers, mandatory insurance would be silly. Nevertheless, cyclists, trombonists and newspaper enthusiasts remain just as liable for their negligence as motorists are for theirs. Again, read the links. They may help you get a grip on reality.

But the two links I provided gave detailed answers. Here they are again: http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/mar/18/should-cyclists-be-licensed-and-insured-robert-winston Your inability to understand the relative risks to third parties presented by motorists and by cyclists shows that you lack the judgement to be allowed to take charge of a motor vehicle.