Discussion:
Tonight's TA Friday 1.1.21
(too old to reply)
Vicky Ayech
2021-01-01 22:38:17 UTC
Permalink
I thought both main story lines unlikely. What has Lynda done that
merits a MBE? Not even on OBE. And why would they arrest Kirsty like
that and hustle her off? Surely they'd interview her on Monday and
refer it to the CPS and think about it.She actually called them about
it all so it doesn't make sense.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2021-01-02 02:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
I thought both main story lines unlikely. What has Lynda done that
merits a MBE?
Agreed, I wondered the same; I like L, but - especially as she's spent a
lot of the year (well, feels like it to me; I haven't checked, that's
unUMRAtic) laid up - I didn't think she'd done a lot.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Not even on OBE.
(I _think_ OBE is higher than MBE. If I'm wrong, my Grandma did even
better than I thought!)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And why would they arrest Kirsty
Well, thinking about it afterwards, I did think she would at least be
strongly suspected - seems like she'd dodged suspicion a bit implausibly
- but ...
Post by Vicky Ayech
like
that and hustle her off? Surely they'd interview her on Monday and
refer it to the CPS and think about it.She actually called them about
it all so it doesn't make sense.
... I agree, the sudden bundling-off did seem a bit odd. (I fear her
reporting it _wouldn't_ exonerate her from suspicion.)

I was a bit confused over who actually did/reported what at the first
visit, when Roy was banging on the door and Kirsty and Philip were
inside, and the police turned up; I wasn't sure whether Roy or Kirsty
had called them, and (if Kirsty) whether she'd reported human
trafficking or just* domestic abuse.

(*DA is _not_ "just", but YKWIM here.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sarcasm: Barbed ire
Vicky Ayech
2021-01-02 09:40:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 02:07:11 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I thought both main story lines unlikely. What has Lynda done that
merits a MBE?
Agreed, I wondered the same; I like L, but - especially as she's spent a
lot of the year (well, feels like it to me; I haven't checked, that's
unUMRAtic) laid up - I didn't think she'd done a lot.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Not even on OBE.
(I _think_ OBE is higher than MBE. If I'm wrong, my Grandma did even
better than I thought!)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And why would they arrest Kirsty
Well, thinking about it afterwards, I did think she would at least be
strongly suspected - seems like she'd dodged suspicion a bit implausibly
- but ...
Post by Vicky Ayech
like
that and hustle her off? Surely they'd interview her on Monday and
refer it to the CPS and think about it.She actually called them about
it all so it doesn't make sense.
... I agree, the sudden bundling-off did seem a bit odd. (I fear her
reporting it _wouldn't_ exonerate her from suspicion.)
I was a bit confused over who actually did/reported what at the first
visit, when Roy was banging on the door and Kirsty and Philip were
inside, and the police turned up; I wasn't sure whether Roy or Kirsty
had called them, and (if Kirsty) whether she'd reported human
trafficking or just* domestic abuse.
(*DA is _not_ "just", but YKWIM here.)
I don't think she was reporting or that there was any domestic abuse.
Serena Blanchflower
2021-01-02 09:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I thought both main story lines unlikely. What has Lynda done that
merits a MBE?
Agreed, I wondered the same; I like L, but - especially as she's spent a
lot of the year (well, feels like it to me; I haven't checked, that's
unUMRAtic) laid up - I didn't think she'd done a lot.
I suspect that most of the community recommendations are more in the way
of lifetime achievement awards, rather than rewarding a one-off
achievement. I would imagine that the nomination talked about her
contribution to the village over recent decades, more than anything
she's done this year.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Not even on OBE.
(I _think_ OBE is higher than MBE. If I'm wrong, my Grandma did even
better than I thought!)
It is.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And why would they arrest Kirsty
Well, thinking about it afterwards, I did think she would at least be
strongly suspected - seems like she'd dodged suspicion a bit implausibly
- but ...
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
like
that and hustle her off? Surely they'd interview her on Monday and
refer it to the CPS and think about it.She actually called them about
it all so it doesn't make sense.
... I agree, the sudden bundling-off did seem a bit odd. (I fear her
reporting it _wouldn't_ exonerate her from suspicion.) >
I was a bit confused over who actually did/reported what at the first
visit, when Roy was banging on the door and Kirsty and Philip were
inside, and the police turned up; I wasn't sure whether Roy or Kirsty
had called them, and (if Kirsty) whether she'd reported human
trafficking or just* domestic abuse.
(*DA is _not_ "just", but YKWIM here.)
I'm not sure what the normal procedure would be but their reaction
didn't seem too improbable to me. I'm pretty sure that the timing would
be at the police's convenience, not Kirsty's.

She didn't actually report it to the police though; it seemed pretty
clear that it was Roy who called them and for a domestic disturbance.
OK, we know that this was at Kirsty's request and because of the
slavery, not because she was in danger of assault, but the police don't.
It may well have come across, to them, as a falling out amongst
thieves (so to speak) and they may well assume that Kirsty telling them
about the slavery was done out of spite, following a domestic. We know
it was the other way around, and that the argument was caused by
Kirsty's discovery of the slavery, but the police don't.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Plodding wins the race. (Aesop)
Chris
2021-01-02 10:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I thought both main story lines unlikely. What has Lynda done that
merits a MBE?
Agreed, I wondered the same; I like L, but - especially as she's spent a
lot of the year (well, feels like it to me; I haven't checked, that's
unUMRAtic) laid up - I didn't think she'd done a lot.
I suspect that most of the community recommendations are more in the way
of lifetime achievement awards, rather than rewarding a one-off
achievement. I would imagine that the nomination talked about her
contribution to the village over recent decades, more than anything
she's done this year.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Not even on OBE.
(I _think_ OBE is higher than MBE. If I'm wrong, my Grandma did even
better than I thought!)
It is.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And why would they arrest Kirsty
Well, thinking about it afterwards, I did think she would at least be
strongly suspected - seems like she'd dodged suspicion a bit implausibly
- but ...
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
like
that and hustle her off? Surely they'd interview her on Monday and
refer it to the CPS and think about it.She actually called them about
it all so it doesn't make sense.
... I agree, the sudden bundling-off did seem a bit odd. (I fear her
reporting it _wouldn't_ exonerate her from suspicion.) >
I was a bit confused over who actually did/reported what at the first
visit, when Roy was banging on the door and Kirsty and Philip were
inside, and the police turned up; I wasn't sure whether Roy or Kirsty
had called them, and (if Kirsty) whether she'd reported human
trafficking or just* domestic abuse.
(*DA is _not_ "just", but YKWIM here.)
I'm not sure what the normal procedure would be but their reaction
didn't seem too improbable to me. I'm pretty sure that the timing would
be at the police's convenience, not Kirsty's.
She didn't actually report it to the police though; it seemed pretty
clear that it was Roy who called them and for a domestic disturbance.
OK, we know that this was at Kirsty's request and because of the
slavery, not because she was in danger of assault, but the police don't.
It may well have come across, to them, as a falling out amongst
thieves (so to speak) and they may well assume that Kirsty telling them
about the slavery was done out of spite, following a domestic. We know
it was the other way around, and that the argument was caused by
Kirsty's discovery of the slavery, but the police don't.
I reckon Philip said she knew as Gav had told her and even though it is
only a guess, Philip’s trying to say she is the brains in ut, he’s the
carrier out of plan.

Sincerely Chris
Philip Hole
2021-01-02 11:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
I reckon Philip said she knew as Gav had told her and even though it is
only a guess, Philip’s trying to say she is the brains in ut, he’s the
carrier out of plan.
Sincerely Chris
Arresting Kirsty was premature. They have assume that Kirsty will say
nothing at the station and so they must then decide whether to charge
her on the (verified) information they have. And then take her to a
magistrate with no evidence.

They cannot risk that as the suspect could not be tried again even if
guilty.

BUT ... where is Harrison. He would have been much more circumspect when
dealing with the son of the Voice of Borchester Radio and not throw wild
accusations around.
--
Flop
BrritSki
2021-01-02 12:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Serena Blanchflower
I'm not sure what the normal procedure would be but their reaction
didn't seem too improbable to me. I'm pretty sure that the timing would
be at the police's convenience, not Kirsty's.
She didn't actually report it to the police though; it seemed pretty
clear that it was Roy who called them and for a domestic disturbance.
OK, we know that this was at Kirsty's request and because of the
slavery, not because she was in danger of assault, but the police don't.
It may well have come across, to them, as a falling out amongst
thieves (so to speak) and they may well assume that Kirsty telling them
about the slavery was done out of spite, following a domestic. We know
it was the other way around, and that the argument was caused by
Kirsty's discovery of the slavery, but the police don't.
Good points by Serena.
Post by Chris
I reckon Philip said she knew as Gav had told her and even though it is
only a guess, Philip’s trying to say she is the brains in ut, he’s the
carrier out of plan.
You should make that an OP Chris.

And I'll further OP that Gavin will get her off the hook...
Mike McMillan
2021-01-02 12:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Chris
Post by Serena Blanchflower
I'm not sure what the normal procedure would be but their reaction
didn't seem too improbable to me. I'm pretty sure that the timing would
be at the police's convenience, not Kirsty's.
She didn't actually report it to the police though; it seemed pretty
clear that it was Roy who called them and for a domestic disturbance.
OK, we know that this was at Kirsty's request and because of the
slavery, not because she was in danger of assault, but the police don't.
It may well have come across, to them, as a falling out amongst
thieves (so to speak) and they may well assume that Kirsty telling them
about the slavery was done out of spite, following a domestic. We know
it was the other way around, and that the argument was caused by
Kirsty's discovery of the slavery, but the police don't.
Good points by Serena.
Post by Chris
I reckon Philip said she knew as Gav had told her and even though it is
only a guess, Philip’s trying to say she is the brains in ut, he’s the
carrier out of plan.
You should make that an OP Chris.
And I'll further OP that Gavin will get her off the hook...
With the help of a barge pole?
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
Chris
2021-01-03 19:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Chris
Post by Serena Blanchflower
I'm not sure what the normal procedure would be but their reaction
didn't seem too improbable to me. I'm pretty sure that the timing would
be at the police's convenience, not Kirsty's.
She didn't actually report it to the police though; it seemed pretty
clear that it was Roy who called them and for a domestic disturbance.
OK, we know that this was at Kirsty's request and because of the
slavery, not because she was in danger of assault, but the police don't.
It may well have come across, to them, as a falling out amongst
thieves (so to speak) and they may well assume that Kirsty telling them
about the slavery was done out of spite, following a domestic. We know
it was the other way around, and that the argument was caused by
Kirsty's discovery of the slavery, but the police don't.
Good points by Serena.
Post by Chris
I reckon Philip said she knew as Gav had told her and even though it is
only a guess, Philip’s trying to say she is the brains in ut, he’s the
carrier out of plan.
You should make that an OP Chris.
And I'll further OP that Gavin will get her off the hook...
OP then.

Where’s Sodders with that crystal ball?

Sincerely Chris
krw
2021-01-02 16:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC. You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people). The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.

My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike McMillan
2021-01-02 16:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC. You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people). The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.
My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
Three Horse-Power?
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
krw
2021-01-03 15:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC. You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people). The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.
My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
Three Horse-Power?
Apologies I assume Philip employs only his son and not the other three.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike McMillan
2021-01-03 17:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC. You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people). The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.
My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
Three Horse-Power?
Apologies I assume Philip employs only his son and not the other three.
If one were to argue that to ‘employ’ indicates engaging staff to carry out
work in return for payment, then very loosely, Phillip ‘employed’ the three
horses as, by one means or another, they had a roof over their heads and a
small amount of food and all the playstation time they could want. If
however, one were to say ‘monetary return’, then, no Phillip probably
didn’t employ them.
--
Toodle Pip (My other iPad is an old Pro)
krw
2021-01-03 23:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC. You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people). The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.
My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
Three Horse-Power?
Apologies I assume Philip employs only his son and not the other three.
If one were to argue that to ‘employ’ indicates engaging staff to carry out
work in return for payment, then very loosely, Phillip ‘employed’ the three
horses as, by one means or another, they had a roof over their heads and a
small amount of food and all the playstation time they could want. If
however, one were to say ‘monetary return’, then, no Phillip probably
didn’t employ them.
I was thinking of the HMRC definition under which he accounts for tax
and NI.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
John Ashby
2021-01-03 19:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC.  You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people).  The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.
My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
Three Horse-Power?
Apologies I assume Philip employs only his son and not the other three.
But the books Kirsty saw must have had the horses' wages on or she would
have twigged earlier. At least in a world where the scriptwriters knew
about anything.

john
Vicky Ayech
2021-01-03 21:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by krw
Post by Mike McMillan
Post by krw
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Yes, apart from anything else, it came out that she had been doing the
books for Philip and they may be rather unwilling to believe that she
was unaware of the real situation.
About the time I retired (many many many years ago now) they implemented
new reporting from payroll to HMRC.  You can't just do someone's books
these days (if they employ people).  The payroll has to have a direct
data feed to HMRC and the employer then has to pay over the reported NI
and income tax by the relevant due date or you get nasty letters from
HMRC and NEST auto-collects the pension deduction.
My two little charities have 3 employees (like Philip's) and getting the
payroll done each month for both of them (two different agencies do it)
means quite a bit of effort by someone.
Three Horse-Power?
Apologies I assume Philip employs only his son and not the other three.
But the books Kirsty saw must have had the horses' wages on or she would
have twigged earlier. At least in a world where the scriptwriters knew
about anything.
john
I think when groups of East Europeans in gangs worked on the Kings
Cross Channel Tunnel site they were recruited daily. They'd be in a
group and only the leader would speak English. They'd stand and wait
in the morning and either be employed or not. I should think the
leader would get a sum for all. Maybe that went in the books at petty
cash?

I was at the time visiting the site as new regs meant workers would
have to pass a H&S exam and we set up and ran English courses to help
them be able to pass whatever level NVQ it was. I'm a little vague
on the details of their employment and I think it was a very long time
before any NVQs were passed.
Loading...