The Mayor, the Youth Worker and the Cash-in-Hand Job

[craig finton]

Another jaw-dropper. Surely it's time to call a halt on these power-mad, mavericks

http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk

[Jeff]

As a law abiding, over taxed member of the community, who pays over £2000 a year in council tax.  It beggars belief that our ceremonial Mayor can act in such an underhand way.  Come on MP Wright sort these crooks out.  We've had enough of being taken for fools by HBC. 

[norfolkngoode]

W.T.F. More 5hite from the ruling Liebour group...... Is anyone really surprised by anything these feckers do anymore? Do these people think that anyone representing Liebour, once voted in to any position of power, doesnt have to abide by any sort of rules? F.F.S

[fred c]

ROFPMSL at the Threads Title........ Cash-in- Hand Job

[stokoe]

sorry fred but it gives me the willys.

[ARC86]

Total none story as since the income tax threshold has risen to £9445 anybody on part time hours who recieves the minimum wage does not pay income tax or national insurance..

back to the drawing board im afraid

[ARC86]

Furthermore an employee is not guaranteed a "contract of employment" an employee can expect a "statement of employment".. do your homework before writing such nonsense..

so there we have it no tax paid no NIC paid and no "contract of employment" given.. only thing wrong in this case is the employee not recieving a pay slip.. im not saying that is right but what i am saying is look up employment law before writing such shabby journalism

[mk1]

Furthermore..................

I am amazed at a  Union man taking this issue so lightly.
I am afraid you are hopelessly biased here.

The fatties have a history of  dodgy  payments. Who can forget the time Mandy bunged them via his MP allowance. When a national newspaper reporter doorstepped them the only response was 'how did you find out' followed swiftly by the sound a door being slammed

[ARC86]

Im not taking it lightly or being biased at all, just pointing out the facts.. how many people in town have never had a cash in hand job.. i certainly have! But this story is really scraping the barrel.. i understand why you guys need to keep the pressure on but this story just wont run for the reason ive stated above.. everyone has at some point in there lives done a job for cash in hand whether that be through naivety or on the fiddle, everybody has done it

[Lord Elpus]

For SAB to place himself in such a compromising situation is amazing.

Many will see a much more sinister side to this story.

Not homophobic just stating a fact.

[testing times]

Im not taking it lightly or being biased at all, just pointing out the facts.. how many people in town have never had a cash in hand job.. i certainly have! But this story is really scraping the barrel.. i understand why you guys need to keep the pressure on but this story just wont run for the reason ive stated above.. everyone has at some point in there lives done a job for cash in hand whether that be through naivety or on the fiddle, everybody has done it

Clearly you're a labour man and there is nothing wrong with that but you are making the same mistake that too many other labour people are making in that you are trying to defend the indefencible actions of someone simply because they too are labour.

Just like Ms Wilcox, someone else who 'believes in labour principles', Akers-Belcher doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and as Mayor, people would not expect him to be involved in 'cash-in-hand' arrangements like some back-street garage.

As I read it, the point of the story is that, in the light of the revelations about Manor Residents, SAB has got to be crazy to be involved in something like this. If he wants to employ someone at the Rossmere Centre then what is the problem simply putting him on the pay roll and paying him his wages in the standard fashion complete with payslips and a contract of employment? ('statement of employment' if you like - a wasted point as he apparently received neither)

[ARC86]

You miss the point testing times it becomes serious when no tax and stamp are concerned in this case neither is or was payable for anybody to start paying income tax and NIC they must earn £181.63 a week before a penny is due. Im not defending anybody because they are Labour at all.. it would be the same reaction if it were PHF or tory or ukip.. this story just will not run and it does smack a bit of desperation.. of course the employee should have a statement of employment, but i could tell you at least 10 other companies who probably arent even aware of the legislation surrounding employment law

[testing times]

I cannot believe that you are trying to brush this away as if it is of no consequence.
When anyone starts work, the employer must inform the tax office who will send out to the employee and employer the appropriate tax code for the employee. From this it can be calculated whether any income tax or national insurance is due. Either way the employer must keep a record, even if no tax or national insurance is payable and the employee must receive a payslip so that he too can keep a record of both his earnings and the deductions made.
Should the employee leave his employment to take another job, he will be expected to give a P45, provided by his old employer, to his new employer. How exactly is this going to happen in these circumstances?

[fred c]

The comments by ARC86 makes me think he has been getting his employment info from Manor Residents.

It isn`t just about " employment law" it`s about the behaviour of an elected representative, there will obviously be questions about the motives of "The Consort" in acting in this manner, is he the "Employer"? if so, why become drawn into a situation that could be misconstrued in so many ways, if he isn`t, why would he have anything to do with this persons wages ?

At the very least it can only be seen as a massive error of judgment on the part of the Chairman of The Council, & for ARC to attempt to politicise the article is typical of the way the present ruling group operates.

[craig finton]

"i could tell you at least 10 other companies who probably arent even aware of the legislation surrounding employment law"

So because you know of 10 companies who 'aren't even aware of the legislation surrounding the law' you are suggesting that no companies or individuals should be made accountable when they break it?

Is this the labour view on the laws of the land? Can I ask just say that employment laws are generally there to protect the employee and I find it very interesting to see just how quickly the protection of the employee becomes secondary when it is a fellow party member doing wrong.

You're some union man, mate.