Fuse board / consumer unit change - EIC / EICR required?

[JohnW2]

I think you underestimate the tentacles that HMRC have into everybody’s life

I don't, but nor do I believe that HMRC are so daft that they would bring about the introduction of legislation which might help them to detect tax evaders which only applied to electricians (and {for EFLI} others who undertook paid electrical work)

 

[JohnW2]

I think that if you take the word “Murdochat” alter the letters slightly, then add just a few more letters and then remove only a few then you end up with “Conspiracy Theorist” . How amazing is that?

I personally don't think this one is even a credible 'conspiracy theory' - it's just a plain silly suggestion!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Murdochcat]

I personally don't think this one is even a credible 'conspiracy theory' - it's just a plain silly suggestion!

Kind Regards, John

But it does give HMRC another view on peoples lives ............. and i did say "thought"

 

[JohnW2]

But it does give HMRC another view on peoples lives .............

It does, and they will undoubtedly attempt to make use of any sources of 'intelligence' about people's lives that may help them to detect tax-evading criminals. However, the suggestion that the appearance of Part P had something to do with it's possible use by HMRC in the manner you suggest is just total nonsense.

 

[Murdochcat]

It does, and they will undoubtedly attempt to make use of any sources of 'intelligence' about people's lives that may help them to detect tax-evading criminals. However, the suggestion that the appearance of Part P had something to do with it's possible use by HMRC in the manner you suggest is just total nonsense.

Did I say it was - no

 

[JohnW2]

Did I say it was - no

No, you didn't say it was. You said that you "thought" it was, so maybe it's just your thinking that's nonsense?

 

[Risteard]

No, you didn't say it was. You said that you "thought" it was, so maybe it's just your thinking that's nonsense?

The way I read it is that he stated that it was the suspicion (of many), and didn't elucidate his own view on that.

 

[JohnW2]

The way I read it is that he stated that it was the suspicion (of many), and didn't elucidate his own view on that.

He wrote "I thought ...." - which I think most people would 'read' as indicating that it was what he personally believed, or at least suspected.

However, whether it be "the suspicion (of many" or his own view / suspicion / belief, it remains a silly suggestion.

As I've written (and others have agreed) the (well-intentioned, but flawed) reason Part P was introduced would seem to be fairly obvious.

 

[Risteard]

He wrote "I thought ...." - which I think most people would 'read' as indicating that it was what he personally believed, or at least suspected.

However, whether it be "the suspicion (of many" or his own view / suspicion / belief, it remains a silly suggestion.

As I've written (and others have agreed) the (well-intentioned, but flawed) reason Part P was introduced would seem to be fairly obvious.

I searched for the "thought" post you have alluded to, but failed to locate it.

 

[Murdochcat]

I thought Part P had more to do with taxes

Fyi