[The Phazer]

Originally Posted by Lawrencetero

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1695265

I await apologies from certain peoples

But you were wrong, and I was correct. The Mail is wrong too.

So, errr. No.

Phazer

[technologist]

But read what the BBC said a fortnight ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/abouttheb...-reports.shtml
what a leading agent said google "TV agents including Jonathan Shalit have leaped to the defence of the BBC"
and what HMRC say .. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/fi-notes-apr11.pdf
and specifically http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/esmmanual/ESM4121.htm

Actors, ballet dancers, opera singers, musicians and other performers/artists who appear live in the theatre, opera, ballet, or in clubs, or perform in film, video, radio or television productions may be engaged under either contracts for services or contracts of employment.

There are a number of standard contracts commonly used to engage performers/artists in these industries. These contracts incorporate a comprehensive range of standard terms and are the result of negotiations between bodies representing engagers and performers/artists in the industry. They are often referred to by reference to the union which has negotiated on behalf of the performers, and accordingly there are a range of contracts known for example as standard Musicians Union contracts and standard Equity contracts

It seems that DM and M Hodge are rather out of line .....

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Am I missing something?

But the BBC changed its tune last night when whistle-blowers came forward ....
....
Paul Carrington said he had been given no option when he joined the BBC in 2007.
.....
‘Presenters hired by the BBC are not given any choice but to form their own personal service limited company,’ he said.
.....
‘I was told that this is the only way the BBC hires on-air personnel. To be honest, the rigmarole of setting it up was a pain.
.....
Mr Carrington said he had been unable to see any tax advantage for himself from the arrangement, which he ceased immediately on leaving the BBC in 2010.

A 'whistleblower' denying the basis of the story, that it's a tax dodging scheme?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by Spot

It's standard practice within the industry - that's the point which needs to be emphasised here.

I worked as a presenter on several commercial radio stations from the 1970s until the early 2000s.

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

Avoiding national insurance saves the BBC millions of pounds.

When you were freelancing, did you pay your own NI 'stamp', and was that 'cost' met by your freelance fee?
If so, would you agree that this Mail allegation is illogical?

I would be quite interested in knowing whether freelance rates in the commercial sector are determined by negotiation with recognised Trades Unions,
as the are (or at least were in my time) at the BBC - I'll quite understand if you choose not to make this public tho'.

Would you care to comment on the use of "other benefits due to regular staff" and "workers to go ‘off the books’"?

I was an 'Established Staff' post holder, as you know, for nigh on a quarter of a century - the post I held was declared 'redundant'.
There was an expectation that I might freelance across the entire 'market'.
It was all a consequence of Thatcherism, 'Producer Choice', and the 're-regulation' of the 'programme supply market'.

I thought the Daily Mail applauded such moves! What is their problem?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

I thought the Daily Mail applauded such moves! What is their problem?

Their problem is the BBC, so much so that they can choose to shift their ground and ignore objectivity and facts in order to make the bad story fit.

I think that it's called an obsessive agenda.

[Spot]

Yes of-course, all freelances are covered under the normal 'Schedule D' arrangements for self-employed persons and pay a Class 2 'stamp', plus Class 4 contributions on a percentage of their earnings.

[Lawrencetero]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

For what, a thread that suddenly has cred because of a Mail story?

the "cred" came from orginal article, this is just backing it up... mail or not - i'm not sure that every story the mail print are lies....

[Burstfire]

Unless I've missed something here, this is a complete non-story.
The BBC have been openly doing this for years. I'm sure I remember Chris Moyles saying on his show that management told him to go freelance as its more beneficial tax-wise. Also most radio presenters are either freelance or paid through their own company. Its completely legal.

I thought this was common knowledge.
Either the DM have only just found out about it, or they need an excuse to BBC bash.

Either way its a non-story.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by Burstfire

...
Either the DM have only just found out about it, or they need an excuse to BBC bash.

Either way its a non-story.

Unfortunately the Mail never needs an excuse to BBC bash.

I just wish that the rest of the media were subject to the FOIA, particularly after the hacking scandal, but it would be good to know how many people at the Mail are similarly freelance. I suspect the majority of the names that you see in the paper are freelance.

[Burstfire]

Originally Posted by tim59

Why so many people on here defend the BBC amazes me the BBC is willing to rob this country of tax by doing this.

Shifting some staff to a different tax band is hardly 'robbing the country of tax'. Don't over-exaggerate.

[ray.ray.returns]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

Can you explain what you mean there pls.

Dan was with holding money from the tax system. So is the BBC. Although the BBC as a whole probably robbed a lot more.

and since the BBC is meant to be non profit, bigger companies like Tesco will probably be holding lots more money from the system!

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

The story was also discussed on The Wright Stuff and rightly so, the conclusion was that they were doing no wrong and I can't see anything wrong either.

Those concerned are now freelance and it saves the BBC money that way.

The key issue is are they freelance contractors operating their own limited service companies providing services to the BBC or are they in reality employees of the BBC who are being treated as if they are not purely to reduce the BBC's costs and potentially those of the individual. Those on the Wright Stuff are hardly qualified to determine that.


If they are the former then there is no issue with it, if they are the latter then there is. As for saving the BBC money yes it obviously does but it may well be costing the Treasury money in lost employer's NICs and income tax revenue if in reality they are employees.

It appears HMRC have been very lax in investigating this issue when it occurs in the public sector and I include the BBC in that for this purpose.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by ray.ray.returns

Dan was with holding money from the tax system. So is the BBC. Although the BBC as a whole probably robbed a lot more.

Hell, "robbed" is rather strong.
Apart from which, Dan's case was a personal one, not connected with the BBC, HE decided to claim benefits, the BBC did not force him to do so. HE was not withholding tax, he was claiming benefits to which he was not entitled


Maybe, on the basis that the current arrangements save the BBC money, the BBC should pay their staff much much more, so that they pay more tax.

Or maybe that's as stupid a concept as yours.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by ray.ray.returns

Dan was withholding money from the tax system. So is the BBC. Although the BBC as a whole probably robbed a lot more.

Really hard to follow this!

You allege that the BBC is 'witholding' money from the tax system simply because some labour is bought using a taxation system other than PAYE,

and from that conclude the BBC is 'robbing'.

Why do you describe it as 'robbing', and from whom do you allege the BBC is 'robbing'?

Are you arguing that the BBC, and the BBC alone, by statute should only employ labour on terms that invoke PAYE, and saddle the Licence Fee payer with additional costs,
particularly those involved in declarations of redundancy brought about by editorial decisions,
for example, an editorial decision to cease the transmission of 'Newsnight' and the cosequential lack of need for the staff posts held by Paxman, Wark and Esler?

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

Are you arguing that the BBC, and the BBC alone, by statute should only employ labour on terms that invoke PAYE, and saddle the Licence Fee payer with additional costs, particularly those involved in declarations of redundancy brought about by editorial decisions,
for example, an editorial decision to cease the transmission of 'Newsnight' and the cosequential lack of need for the staff posts held by Paxman, Wark and Esler?

The issue is whether they are employees of the BBC or not.

You can't just make employees into freelance contractors employed through limited service companies just to avoid redundancy and employer NI costs.

[cnbcwatcher]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

For what, a thread that suddenly has cred because of a Mail story?

I thought it was a new story when I posted it

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

You can't just make employees into freelance contractors employed through limited service companies just to avoid redundancy and employer NI costs.

If HMRC have no issue with it, then why not?

Especially so if the BBC also saves money.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

For what, a thread that suddenly has cred because of a Mail story?

Considering the Mail's sub headline is "BBC admits...." the entire article is a bit lacking in any direct quote from the BBC admitting that.
The BBC preferring or requiring self employed or service companies is utterly common in the industry and almost everywhere. The delivery drives at a retailer I worked for were asked to move to a service company (can't recall if they were made to or just asked).
And that is very very different to "we're doing this to save NIC"

If the Mail is true, and the BBC are doing this to save money, and avoid pension funds, sick pay etc, then isn't that exactly what the Mail has been demanding for years? Hasn't the Mail been complaining about BBC wage bills, pensions etc?

So they complain the BBC pays too much, and now complain when the BBC reduces its wage bill.

The BBC could find a cure for cancer and solve world hunger and the Daily Mail (large ITV shareholder*) would still find a way to spin it as bad news.

*The Mail ran an article criticising BBC reporters for not disclosing potential conflict of interests a while ago. Funny how they never disclose to their readers they own a big chunk of ITN, direct competitors of the BBC.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

The issue is whether they are employees of the BBC or not.

You can't just make employees into freelance contractors employed through limited service companies just to avoid redundancy and employer NI costs.

Why not? I worked for a retailer that did this seven years ago. Asked all its home delivery drivers to set up service companies to do the deliveries. All the drivers had to buy or lease a van, pay for the fuel, take out liability insurance etc and each customer was charged £10 paid directly to the driver.

The company saved money and admin cost and time. The drivers were motivated to do more deliveries and made more money. The customers got a faster service.

The drivers worked solely for this one retailer (they even discussed making signwriting the van with the retailer brand a requirement) yet it was all above board, all taxes were paid etc.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by zz9

Considering the Mail's sub headline is "BBC admits...." the entire article is a bit lacking in any direct quote from the BBC admitting that.
The BBC preferring or requiring self employed or service companies is utterly common in the industry and almost everywhere. The delivery drives at a retailer I worked for were asked to move to a service company (can't recall if they were made to or just asked).
And that is very very different to "we're doing this to save NIC"

If the Mail is true, and the BBC are doing this to save money, and avoid pension funds, sick pay etc, then isn't that exactly what the Mail has been demanding for years? Hasn't the Mail been complaining about BBC wage bills, pensions etc?

So they complain the BBC pays too much, and now complain when the BBC reduces its wage bill.

The BBC could find a cure for cancer and solve world hunger and the Daily Mail (large ITV shareholder*) would still find a way to spin it as bad news.

*The Mail ran an article criticising BBC reporters for not disclosing potential conflict of interests a while ago. Funny how they never disclose to their readers they own a big chunk of ITN, direct competitors of the BBC.

A very accurate summing up.

Lawrence Tero take note! And anybody else who says "I'm not influenced by the papers".....

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

The issue is whether they are employees of the BBC or not.

Not the 'issue' that I am raising a all.

Historically, all broadcasters have hired 'front of camera' personnel on a freelance contract basis because the creation
of 'staff' positions to do so would impinge on the editorial freedom to close down the 'show' if it bombed or whatever.

Such people originated as 'contributors' and were paid fees accordingly,
the 'staff' were concerned with making that contributor's contribution available to the potential audience.

There is nothing new in this Mail story, there is nothing different about this employment practice.

Freelancers' / contributors' rates have been determined by negotiation between various employers and employees' representative bodies,
both sides being professionally advised on relevant taxation law.

The Daily Mail really needs now to substantiate its allegations against all these professionals or keep its mouth shut.
I note it hasn't even managed a rent-a-quote from the Tax Payers Alliance this time - that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[The Phazer]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

The key issue is are they freelance contractors operating their own limited service companies providing services to the BBC or are they in reality employees of the BBC who are being treated as if they are not purely to reduce the BBC's costs and potentially those of the individual. Those on the Wright Stuff are hardly qualified to determine that.

No, indeed. But then nor are you to be blunt, given you claimed in the previous thread that length of service was a factor in considering if someone was an employee when that is not the case, and your repeated assertions in this thread that the HMRC hasn't considered this issue when it in fact has a fairly substantially sized unit that looks entirely at television talent and has clobbered a few people for very large amounts of money in the last five years or so.

[mike1948]

Originally Posted by zz9

Considering the Mail's sub headline is "BBC admits...." the entire article is a bit lacking in any direct quote from the BBC admitting that.
The BBC preferring or requiring self employed or service companies is utterly common in the industry and almost everywhere. The delivery drives at a retailer I worked for were asked to move to a service company (can't recall if they were made to or just asked).
And that is very very different to "we're doing this to save NIC"

If the Mail is true, and the BBC are doing this to save money, and avoid pension funds, sick pay etc, then isn't that exactly what the Mail has been demanding for years? Hasn't the Mail been complaining about BBC wage bills, pensions etc?

So they complain the BBC pays too much, and now complain when the BBC reduces its wage bill.

The BBC could find a cure for cancer and solve world hunger and the Daily Mail (large ITV shareholder*) would still find a way to spin it as bad news.

*The Mail ran an article criticising BBC reporters for not disclosing potential conflict of interests a while ago. Funny how they never disclose to their readers they own a big chunk of ITN, direct competitors of the BBC.

The Mail would not admit it but they have been doing something very similar for years.

They employ a core body of full-timers as reporters and sub-editors but every day they use a number of freelances in both roles. These freelances may work for several national newspapers as and when there is a shift. The reason is obvious: to save on employment costs.

The Mail does not seem to realise that picking on its bete noir endlessly, often for flimsy reasons, turns people off. Then when there is a valid reason for criticism of the person of organisation, the criticism is blunted simply because it comes from an arch complainer.

Tony Blair is another constant target of the Mail. Sure he made some bad decisions as PM - they all do - but he was not all bad and he got some things right.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

You can't just make employees into freelance contractors employed through limited service companies just to avoid redundancy and employer NI costs.

Who can't?
Are you implying its illegal?

I held a staff post - the post was closed - I was made redundant and paid off - it was expected I may freelance for my former employer, someone else, or both.

Why are you alleging redundancy costs were saved by this?

This whole exercise was a direct result of the move to contracted programme making, the skilled and experienced 'operative' could move with the show to a new contracting company.

This was the dictat of the right-wingers, now you're right whingers about it all; make your minds up as to what you really want!

Coincidentally

Originally Posted by Object Z

BBC S&PP will get sold off.. most of their `ops staff` are freelance anyway.

refers to my former colleagues, who over they years have had no option but to set up as freelancers and sole traders, as production has been 're-structured'.

[jmclaugh]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

If HMRC have no issue with it, then why not?

Especially so if the BBC also saves money.

HMRC wouldn't have introduced IR35 if they didn't see a problem with it.