I thought it sounded like she'd been served. But either way, this is ridiculous - she has been going on for at least 5 years about owing HMRC money (in 2010, she said she was "ignoring" HMRC) - this has hardly come out of the blue. I have no sympathy at all - this is not the big bad Revenue hounding a poor soul for cash, it is someone self-employed who REPEATEDLY did not pay what she owed to HMRC out of her SUBSTANTIAL earnings and has shown no restraint in her spending. Paying tax is apparently for the little people, like me, who have no choice.
I'd be furious is she is allowed to get out of her debt by going bankrupt, like so many "celebs" seem to do. The large corporations (rightly) get a lot of abuse for avoiding tax - letting yourself go bankrupt because you spent all your money and apparently could not get your tiny brain around the concept of tax (viz Mrs Freeman's excuse of "not being organised") is just as bad IMO.
It looks like this is what has happened (assuming she's telling the truth - who knows):
"Bankruptcy proceedings
If you don't pay or your debts exceed your assets, you could be bankrupted and lose your home, business, savings and investments: a statutory demand for payment will be served on you personally at your home
if within 21 days you don't pay or agree to settle, a bankruptcy petition will be filed at the High Court
the petition will be served personally at your home
you'll need a solicitor - they may be able to have the hearing adjourned to agree settlement terms
if you can't pay, the court can make a bankruptcy order
a trustee can be appointed to use your assets to pay bankruptcy costs and contribute towards your debts"
She did go through the same process last year - as I recall, she was listed for a bankruptcy hearing but managed to stay this by paying up at the last minute. She said she extended her mortgage (which must already be huge) to pay her HMRC bill. There was talk of HMRC taking out a lien over her property, but then we didn't hear anything further about that.
It looks like this is what has happened (assuming she's telling the truth - who knows):
"Bankruptcy proceedings
If you don't pay or your debts exceed your assets, you could be bankrupted and lose your home, business, savings and investments: a statutory demand for payment will be served on you personally at your home
if within 21 days you don't pay or agree to settle, a bankruptcy petition will be filed at the High Court
the petition will be served personally at your home
you'll need a solicitor - they may be able to have the hearing adjourned to agree settlement terms
if you can't pay, the court can make a bankruptcy order
a trustee can be appointed to use your assets to pay bankruptcy costs and contribute towards your debts"
She did go through the same process last year - as I recall, she was listed for a bankruptcy hearing but managed to stay this by paying up at the last minute. She said she extended her mortgage (which must already be huge) to pay her HMRC bill. There was talk of HMRC taking out a lien over her property, but then we didn't hear anything further about that.
I seem to remember that she used the CBB fee? And then boasted in one of the Drearies that her financial problems were over and acquired a CONVERTIBLE MERCEDES which seemed to get mentioned on a weekly basis.
The financial woes are getting really boring now. Why doesn't she just do what most freelancers on her sort of salary do and employ an accountant that deals with all of her cheques and then pays her a salary each month.
Probably not a good idea either - when owing money in back taxes- to use your weekly column to boast about splashing cash on convertable Mercedes, Range Rovers (parked in disabled spaces), trips to Paris/South of France, your employees and your total distain for a ring deemed "too cheap".
Liz has a huge sense of entitlement that she deserves only the best in life and that enverything else is beneath her. However if she continues on this path the Baker's scruffy council flat make be the only roof over her head soon
Has anyone seen this incoherent garbled mess from today's MoS? and interestingly I've noticed she's recently downgraded David from fiance to mere boyfriend:
Apart from the photospread about the engagement, I don't think she's ever called him her fiance in print, has she? It's as if she doesn't actually believe in it because he didn't use a sufficiently fancy ring or something.
I do love the "other people lie and suck up in print, which is why they are rolling in dosh and comfort, whereas I who am honest am punished and must suffer in a gutter oh woes" inference.
I expect that LJ is seething that her attempted cliffhanger/big "crisis" reveal was drowned out by Royal Baby stories - we'll probably see anti-Royal baby/Will & Kate stories in coming weeks - even her former supporters seem to have lost interest and largely deserted the Dreary
My goodness, she's one jealous and twisted woman! What the hell is she on about, that her ex 'friend', whom she 'mentored' (really?) has 'stolen' her ideas ... just because the woman has a lovely home, horses, husband? Really? Honestly, Planet Liz Jones is a very very weird place.
As for HMRC, I had dealings with them back in the Nineties - not the same as what I suspect Jones's problems are, mine were more with questions of residency and my recently deceased husband's tax affairs. I found HMRC very kind, reasonable, and helpful. I also had very good accountants and I LISTENED to their expert advice and I certainly didn't spend spend spend like there was no tomorrow, but made sure there were sufficient funds set aside for future tax liabilities - yes, I was a freelance journalist too.
I wonder if, now, Jones will embellish future 'Drearies' about how people are sending her money via the Wail on Sunday!
I expect that LJ is seething that her attempted cliffhanger/big "crisis" reveal was drowned out by Royal Baby stories - we'll probably see anti-Royal baby/Will & Kate stories in coming weeks - even her former supporters seem to have lost interest and largely deserted the Dreary
I expect it to be on how much pressure they have put on the new princess by giving her THAT middle name, how can the little one possibly live up to a woman loved and adored the world over, a fashion icon who could make or break a designer by wearing their clothes and yet had been treated so cruelly by the men she loved and who all ultimately betrayed her. Yes, giving the princess the middle name of Elizabeth was indeed an unfortunate choice. ;-)
I expect it to be on how much pressure they have put on the new princess by giving her THAT middle name, how can the little one possibly live up to a woman loved and adored the world over, a fashion icon who could make or break a designer by wearing their clothes and yet had been treated so cruelly by the men she loved and who all ultimately betrayed her. Yes, giving the princess the middle name of Elizabeth was indeed an unfortunate choice. ;-)
So ... the ONLY reason someone would dislike UKIP is because they want to signal that they're "right-on" and anti-racist? Not because they disagree with UKIP's policies, or happen to be black or brown? (Then again we already know that in Liz's world anyone not white is there for her to patronise and insult by turns)
"Why are they eating and offering food their grandparents probably turned their noses up at?" - You mean grandparents who lived through an era of food rationing?
So her train of thought goes like this:
Vegetarian food she personally doesn't like -> These kids can't be all that clever then can they -> They should KNOW that this is all I've been served at formal events for the last 30 years -> Grandparents would have turned up their noses at this swill -> Where's the creativity -> Why aren't they turning their big fancy brains to solving the food crisis -> We'll be out of food by 2050 -> The poor will starve -> Poor people like me -> Selfish, so bloody selfish these kids are
How the **** do you go from Point A to Point Z? It boggles the mind. It's like that infamous article where she tried to link the Joanna Yeates murder to the INJUSTICE of having to pay a bridge toll!
Grandparents would probably have uttered a phrase Miss Jones should have heard many times in her life before she became rich: "you'll get what you're given and like it".
Of course for Liz, turning your nose up at rough food/boring food/goat's cheese is a virtue. Like in Bunty or the deathless 19th century tome Eric.
Several commenters have pointed out that "really smart" people wouldn't invite Liz anyway and that at these events the students don't usually choose the menu or do the catering themselves, although one not at all bitter person claimed:
What a lovely way of saying these smug, opinionated, indulged and self-important but unworldly and deeply immature bright young things actually aren't that bright at all.
Because there's nothing smug, opinionated, indulged, self-important, unworldly or immature about throwing a tantrum that someone served you goat's cheese, now is there?
"Blimey! At her age, I wasn’t even allowed to write a caption for Lyons Mail, the newspaper for employees of the chain of tea shops, which is where I got my first job." - And you still shouldn't be
LJ has a terrible chip on her shoulder about not going to University - especially Oxbridge - she always finds something to criticise about the students
- last year it was people being overconfident and not wearing grey baggy jumpers
- she was scathing about the students in Italy when she attended the graduation with the baker
- now they are responsible for her goat's cheese (why didn't she order a vegan meal anyway?)
Someone supposedly wrote to Liz (regarding David):
"'For heaven’s sake, he’s courting a beautiful woman with sophisticated tastes, elegantly dressed and immaculately groomed: a woman at the top of her profession. In order to keep her it is necessary to make an effort to please. I used to work myself to a frazzle before my lover was expected.
'Days cleaning, ironing napkins, shopping for his favourite food, hair appointment, new outfit, eyelash tint, manicure, garden tidy, etc. What’s the matter with David? Is he deliberately sabotaging the relationship because he’s scared he can’t live up to your standards? It’s worth a thought.’ !!
Someone supposedly wrote to Liz (regarding David):
"'For heaven’s sake, he’s courting a beautiful woman with sophisticated tastes, elegantly dressed and immaculately groomed: a woman at the top of her profession. In order to keep her it is necessary to make an effort to please. I used to work myself to a frazzle before my lover was expected.
'Days cleaning, ironing napkins, shopping for his favourite food, hair appointment, new outfit, eyelash tint, manicure, garden tidy, etc. What’s the matter with David? Is he deliberately sabotaging the relationship because he’s scared he can’t live up to your standards? It’s worth a thought.’ !!
Why do I not believe this?
Sounds like Nic wrote it - judging by the text attributed to her last year and the very flowery prose that went with it - or perhaps it is actually Liz herself
‘Well, he comes here, and the house is so beautiful, and the view, and the lawn slopes down to the pristine river, and you have horses, and collies, all be they mad, and staff…’
....
‘He is still jealous. As you drove off in your convertible Mercedes, he said to me, and you didn’t hear, because you’re deaf, “Yeah, we are going to have dinner in a pub because I’m certainly not cooking tonight” and he was showing off.
'You bought £300 of shopping from Sainsbury’s, he knows you are out looking after animals from dawn to dusk, he should be happy to cook for you. He should have brought you a bottle of prosecco.’
How does she know it was David's sister who posted one certain comment to the MOS column unless said sister used a DM name of something like "Ann, Sister of David Scrace" ?
And if Nic told her most of the comments on the column were on David's side but then later Liz found she was LYING, what does that say about Nic? (If it weren't 2:30am and bolstering the spirits of my hospital bound sister via imessaging I might look it up to see what the pro and con ratio was... But I am, so I won't)
So, given she feels Nic lied and most of the comments were NOT on the side of David, why is she writing a column about it?
Yawn. "But why should I compromise? Am I not a prize? Many commenters support me!"
I wonder when "I don't deserve David. How could he truly love me? Does he really just want me for my money - oh wait I haven't got any due to being served by the bank, I forgot" will resume? Perhaps next week when she is forced to confront her Love Rival From 40 Years Ago. Will her Love Rival aka the mother of David's child make Liz feel a) inferior, due to her effortless beauty and fabulous new husband with manicured lawns? Or b) inferior due to her apparent happiness with life despite being a frowzy frazzled shell of the Woman He Left Me For (By Which I Mean Actually Went Out WIth Rather Than Shared A Pub Table With Once)?
Someone supposedly wrote to Liz (regarding David):
"'For heaven’s sake, he’s courting a beautiful woman with sophisticated tastes, elegantly dressed and immaculately groomed: a woman at the top of her profession. In order to keep her it is necessary to make an effort to please. I used to work myself to a frazzle before my lover was expected.
'Days cleaning, ironing napkins, shopping for his favourite food, hair appointment, new outfit, eyelash tint, manicure, garden tidy, etc. What’s the matter with David? Is he deliberately sabotaging the relationship because he’s scared he can’t live up to your standards? It’s worth a thought.’ !!
Why do I not believe this?
Because it's a lie, obviously posted by Nic, Jones or some other minion ?
No, scrub Nic - I've seen actual examples of her literary ability (i.e. not from the Dreary), and she's just not that articulate.
Someone supposedly wrote to Liz (regarding David):
"'For heaven’s sake, he’s courting a beautiful woman with sophisticated tastes, elegantly dressed and immaculately groomed: a woman at the top of her profession. In order to keep her it is necessary to make an effort to please. I used to work myself to a frazzle before my lover was expected.
'Days cleaning, ironing napkins, shopping for his favourite food, hair appointment, new outfit, eyelash tint, manicure, garden tidy, etc. What’s the matter with David? Is he deliberately sabotaging the relationship because he’s scared he can’t live up to your standards? It’s worth a thought.’ !!
Why do I not believe this?
And we are supposed to believe that negative comments are from David's biased family and friends and positive comments are from totally neutral strangers, yeah right.
Also the Mail hardly lets any comments through any more so no bias there.
If she wanted a true idea what we think she should look at back issues when the" press" was a lot more free.
"'For heaven’s sake, he’s courting a beautiful woman with sophisticated tastes, elegantly dressed and immaculately groomed: a woman at the top of her profession."
How does she know it was David's sister who posted one certain comment to the MOS column unless said sister used a DM name of something like "Ann, Sister of David Scrace" ?
And if Nic told her most of the comments on the column were on David's side but then later Liz found she was LYING, what does that say about Nic? (If it weren't 2:30am and bolstering the spirits of my hospital bound sister via imessaging I might look it up to see what the pro and con ratio was... But I am, so I won't)
So, given she feels Nic lied and most of the comments were NOT on the side of David, why is she writing a column about it?
BIB - I suppose that, in LJ-world, Nic lied for all the 'right' reasons, i.e. to spare Liz the pain, oh the agony of the truth of the post bias! Therefore, Nic is beyond censure as far as Liz is concerned - she was only trying to 'protect' Liz, blah blah.
Of course, the rules are not the same for anyone else, only when it suits Liz's purpose! And, like others, I don't believe many of the so-called 'real life quotations' are anything of the kind. I've never read anything Nic's written, but no one speaks or writes the way that we're led to believe everyone does in LJ-world... unless they're writing some OTT fiction piece... oh, wait...
And of course, no hint of introspection from Liz along the lines of "Maybe I need to look at myself, my attitudes and my behaviours", just more "Poor me, poor 'ickle me, it's not FAIR" *stamps foot*
I don't understand - not for the first time, when reading the meandering paths LJ creates - about Nic "lying". Did she not say that most posts were on DS's side? Which is true. Or have I missed something?
Comments
I'd be furious is she is allowed to get out of her debt by going bankrupt, like so many "celebs" seem to do. The large corporations (rightly) get a lot of abuse for avoiding tax - letting yourself go bankrupt because you spent all your money and apparently could not get your tiny brain around the concept of tax (viz Mrs Freeman's excuse of "not being organised") is just as bad IMO.
"Bankruptcy proceedings
If you don't pay or your debts exceed your assets, you could be bankrupted and lose your home, business, savings and investments:
a statutory demand for payment will be served on you personally at your home
if within 21 days you don't pay or agree to settle, a bankruptcy petition will be filed at the High Court
the petition will be served personally at your home
you'll need a solicitor - they may be able to have the hearing adjourned to agree settlement terms
if you can't pay, the court can make a bankruptcy order
a trustee can be appointed to use your assets to pay bankruptcy costs and contribute towards your debts"
She did go through the same process last year - as I recall, she was listed for a bankruptcy hearing but managed to stay this by paying up at the last minute. She said she extended her mortgage (which must already be huge) to pay her HMRC bill. There was talk of HMRC taking out a lien over her property, but then we didn't hear anything further about that.
I seem to remember that she used the CBB fee? And then boasted in one of the Drearies that her financial problems were over and acquired a CONVERTIBLE MERCEDES which seemed to get mentioned on a weekly basis.
Probably not a good idea either - when owing money in back taxes- to use your weekly column to boast about splashing cash on convertable Mercedes, Range Rovers (parked in disabled spaces), trips to Paris/South of France, your employees and your total distain for a ring deemed "too cheap".
Liz has a huge sense of entitlement that she deserves only the best in life and that enverything else is beneath her. However if she continues on this path the Baker's scruffy council flat make be the only roof over her head soon
Apart from the photospread about the engagement, I don't think she's ever called him her fiance in print, has she? It's as if she doesn't actually believe in it because he didn't use a sufficiently fancy ring or something.
I do love the "other people lie and suck up in print, which is why they are rolling in dosh and comfort, whereas I who am honest am punished and must suffer in a gutter oh woes" inference.
As for HMRC, I had dealings with them back in the Nineties - not the same as what I suspect Jones's problems are, mine were more with questions of residency and my recently deceased husband's tax affairs. I found HMRC very kind, reasonable, and helpful. I also had very good accountants and I LISTENED to their expert advice and I certainly didn't spend spend spend like there was no tomorrow, but made sure there were sufficient funds set aside for future tax liabilities - yes, I was a freelance journalist too.
I wonder if, now, Jones will embellish future 'Drearies' about how people are sending her money via the Wail on Sunday!
I expect it to be on how much pressure they have put on the new princess by giving her THAT middle name, how can the little one possibly live up to a woman loved and adored the world over, a fashion icon who could make or break a designer by wearing their clothes and yet had been treated so cruelly by the men she loved and who all ultimately betrayed her. Yes, giving the princess the middle name of Elizabeth was indeed an unfortunate choice. ;-)
How could they have called her anything else? Liz Jones IS the Duchess after all...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2125187/Help-Im-turning-Kate-Middleton-LIZ-JONES-falls-victim-Duchess-Cambridge-effect.html
"Why are they eating and offering food their grandparents probably turned their noses up at?" - You mean grandparents who lived through an era of food rationing?
So her train of thought goes like this:
Vegetarian food she personally doesn't like -> These kids can't be all that clever then can they -> They should KNOW that this is all I've been served at formal events for the last 30 years -> Grandparents would have turned up their noses at this swill -> Where's the creativity -> Why aren't they turning their big fancy brains to solving the food crisis -> We'll be out of food by 2050 -> The poor will starve -> Poor people like me -> Selfish, so bloody selfish these kids are
How the **** do you go from Point A to Point Z? It boggles the mind. It's like that infamous article where she tried to link the Joanna Yeates murder to the INJUSTICE of having to pay a bridge toll!
Of course for Liz, turning your nose up at rough food/boring food/goat's cheese is a virtue. Like in Bunty or the deathless 19th century tome Eric.
Because there's nothing smug, opinionated, indulged, self-important, unworldly or immature about throwing a tantrum that someone served you goat's cheese, now is there?
"Blimey! At her age, I wasn’t even allowed to write a caption for Lyons Mail, the newspaper for employees of the chain of tea shops, which is where I got my first job." - And you still shouldn't be
- last year it was people being overconfident and not wearing grey baggy jumpers
- she was scathing about the students in Italy when she attended the graduation with the baker
- now they are responsible for her goat's cheese (why didn't she order a vegan meal anyway?)
Because she had one of her memory lapses and forgot about her claims to be vegan?
"'For heaven’s sake, he’s courting a beautiful woman with sophisticated tastes, elegantly dressed and immaculately groomed: a woman at the top of her profession. In order to keep her it is necessary to make an effort to please. I used to work myself to a frazzle before my lover was expected.
'Days cleaning, ironing napkins, shopping for his favourite food, hair appointment, new outfit, eyelash tint, manicure, garden tidy, etc. What’s the matter with David? Is he deliberately sabotaging the relationship because he’s scared he can’t live up to your standards? It’s worth a thought.’ !!
Why do I not believe this?
Sounds like Nic wrote it - judging by the text attributed to her last year and the very flowery prose that went with it - or perhaps it is actually Liz herself
And if Nic told her most of the comments on the column were on David's side but then later Liz found she was LYING, what does that say about Nic? (If it weren't 2:30am and bolstering the spirits of my hospital bound sister via imessaging I might look it up to see what the pro and con ratio was... But I am, so I won't)
So, given she feels Nic lied and most of the comments were NOT on the side of David, why is she writing a column about it?
I wonder when "I don't deserve David. How could he truly love me? Does he really just want me for my money - oh wait I haven't got any due to being served by the bank, I forgot" will resume? Perhaps next week when she is forced to confront her Love Rival From 40 Years Ago. Will her Love Rival aka the mother of David's child make Liz feel a) inferior, due to her effortless beauty and fabulous new husband with manicured lawns? Or b) inferior due to her apparent happiness with life despite being a frowzy frazzled shell of the Woman He Left Me For (By Which I Mean Actually Went Out WIth Rather Than Shared A Pub Table With Once)?
Because it's a lie, obviously posted by Nic, Jones or some other minion ?
No, scrub Nic - I've seen actual examples of her literary ability (i.e. not from the Dreary), and she's just not that articulate.
And we are supposed to believe that negative comments are from David's biased family and friends and positive comments are from totally neutral strangers, yeah right.
Also the Mail hardly lets any comments through any more so no bias there.
If she wanted a true idea what we think she should look at back issues when the" press" was a lot more free.
Porky pies highlighted.
BIB - I suppose that, in LJ-world, Nic lied for all the 'right' reasons, i.e. to spare Liz the pain, oh the agony of the truth of the post bias! Therefore, Nic is beyond censure as far as Liz is concerned - she was only trying to 'protect' Liz, blah blah.
Of course, the rules are not the same for anyone else, only when it suits Liz's purpose! And, like others, I don't believe many of the so-called 'real life quotations' are anything of the kind. I've never read anything Nic's written, but no one speaks or writes the way that we're led to believe everyone does in LJ-world... unless they're writing some OTT fiction piece... oh, wait...
And of course, no hint of introspection from Liz along the lines of "Maybe I need to look at myself, my attitudes and my behaviours", just more "Poor me, poor 'ickle me, it's not FAIR" *stamps foot*
Vile woman.