PDA

View Full Version : Calling all IPSE Members



SimonMac
10th December 2018, 22:16
If you are a current IPSE member can you please other make yourself known in this thread, or message me directly.

Thanks in advance

Simon
IPSE Consultative Council Member

***17/12/2018***

Please read the post here:

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/general/130697-calling-all-ipse-members-5.html#post2608712

or here (members only):

Log in | IPSE Community | Forums (https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/resignation-of-fiona-titcombe-from-the-board-of-directors.115722/page-2#post-1054812)

AtW
10th December 2018, 22:17
:tumble:

minestrone
10th December 2018, 22:23
"Open the red envelope marked to 'do not open', your target will be inside, good luck"

NickFitz
10th December 2018, 22:48
:wave:

cojak
11th December 2018, 05:55
:wave:
WNFS

woohoo
11th December 2018, 08:17
Proud pcg memeber here.

ckms
11th December 2018, 08:25
Yes. Why?

Sent from my SM-N960F using Contractor UK Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=79863)

DaveB
11th December 2018, 09:04
:wave:

pjt
11th December 2018, 09:58
I'm a member for now. Starting to wonder if its worth the money. All I seem to get are marketing emails from them these days.

Grasser73
11th December 2018, 10:03
Yes. :wave::

Eirikur
11th December 2018, 10:03
Useless and expensive club.
London-centric
Has achieved nothing whatsoever in regards to the new IR 35 legislation

wattaj
11th December 2018, 10:32
*waves*
:wink

mudskipper
11th December 2018, 10:34
*waves*

If only we had a smiley for that. :wave:

original PM
11th December 2018, 10:47
*waves*
:wink

Since 2006

that's like less than 6 posts a year

must be a record that!

wattaj
11th December 2018, 10:51
Since 2006

that's like less than 6 posts a year

must be a record that!

That many?
Need a life.
:(

malvolio
11th December 2018, 11:00
Never heard of them... :smokin

spoons
11th December 2018, 11:15
Yup

IPSE
11th December 2018, 13:22
Ooh, yes. :wave:

Well, sort of at least. :smile

Pherlopolus
11th December 2018, 13:27
yup

Jog On
11th December 2018, 13:28
:wave:

Pondlife
11th December 2018, 13:29
:wave:

Dark Black
11th December 2018, 13:42
:wave:

(since the days of the PCG)

bullseye
11th December 2018, 13:52
:music:

Scruff
11th December 2018, 14:04
:wave:

BlueSharp
11th December 2018, 14:06
:wave:

Eccystig
11th December 2018, 15:19
:yay:

blacjac
11th December 2018, 16:13
:banana:

NickFitz
11th December 2018, 17:48
There's got to be a more efficient way of updating their mailing list :rolleyes:

SimonMac
11th December 2018, 17:49
There's got to be a more efficient way of updating their mailing list :rolleyes:

You mean like a CRM?

ladymuck
11th December 2018, 18:22
#metoo

Acme Thunderer
11th December 2018, 18:53
:wave:

Lockhouse
11th December 2018, 20:05
So what's this about then?

PhiltheGreek
11th December 2018, 20:59
So what's this about then?

Free bottle of whisky for all members. And a revolver. :eyes

vetran
11th December 2018, 23:01
#ipsetoo


FTFY

Not any longer!

Batcher
12th December 2018, 16:53
:wave:

vwdan
12th December 2018, 16:58
:wave:

Bean
13th December 2018, 09:38
:wave:

SimonMac
13th December 2018, 12:03
Thanks for all those that have responded, if you are still in the shadows please come forward

FarmerPalmer
13th December 2018, 13:15
:wave:

ehhwhat
13th December 2018, 13:47
:nerd

Yorkie62
13th December 2018, 14:36
Thanks for all those that have responded, if you are still in the shadows please come forward

Is that the same as the dark side?

MrButton
14th December 2018, 17:36
:wave:


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=79863)

Rabotnik
14th December 2018, 17:43
IPSE crew checking in.

jonskids
15th December 2018, 08:49
And me

Andy O
15th December 2018, 12:24
:wave:

ladymuck
15th December 2018, 18:27
Is that the same as the dark side?

It's more half-in, half-out thing I think

ShandyDrinker
17th December 2018, 10:48
Current IPSE member and been so since the PCG days.

mokster
17th December 2018, 10:57
Yes, a member

Dark Black
17th December 2018, 10:58
What's this all about then?

ladymuck
17th December 2018, 15:40
The IPSE AGM has just been announced.

The CC are not supportive of the Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Association without any consultation and there have been resignations because of the changes.

More will follow asap but please do reach out to your CC members here (or you can find us on the IPSE forum) if you have questions.

We would like members to support the CC in their rejection of the new Articles of Association.

GreenMirror
17th December 2018, 15:46
The IPSE AGM has just been announced.

The CC are not supportive of the Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Association without any consultation and there have been resignations because of the changes.

More will follow asap but please do reach out to your CC members here (or you can find us on the IPSE forum) if you have questions.

We would like members to support the CC in their rejection of the new Articles of Association.

Does this affect the CUK articles of association?

Scruff
17th December 2018, 16:50
Does this affect the CUK articles of association?

Clearly not, but if you are a Member of IPSE, I would suggest that you grant one of the CC Members your Proxy to try and prevent their Articles of Association being changed, as well as to prevent the dissolution of the Consultative Council?

SimonMac
17th December 2018, 16:59
Clearly not, but if you are a Member of IPSE, I would suggest that you grant one of the CC Members your Proxy to try and prevent their Articles of Association being changed, as well as to prevent the dissolution of the Consultative Council?

I would temper that by saying

"...if you are a Member of IPSE, I would suggest logging onto the IPSE forums and learning why we feel you should reject the changes"

Spoiler
17th December 2018, 17:36
:wave:

PerfectStorm
17th December 2018, 19:51
A group wants to remove Caroline Morgan as director but the group has aroused my suspicion already by not explaining in their lengthy email why that should be the case

BR14
17th December 2018, 19:54
Does this affect the CUK articles of association?

CUK has those? - well, stone me! :smokin

Lockhouse
17th December 2018, 19:54
Can someone please explain what's going on in plain English. PM me if necessary. Ta.

SimonMac
17th December 2018, 19:55
A group wants to remove Caroline Morgan as director but the group has aroused my suspicion already by not explaining in their lengthy email why that should be the case

The CC does not have access to the member mailing list

Nut
17th December 2018, 20:03
IPSE member here. Could someone give me a TLDR of what's going on?

eek
17th December 2018, 21:03
IPSE member here. Could someone give me a TLDR of what's going on?

The IPSE board wishes to change the way it is appointed, as having lost the battle against IR35 (sorry to be blunt) it's trying to maintain its existence...

In separate news Contractor Calculator are looking for people to visit their MP and explain to them why IR35 is a bad idea prior to the Finance Act being voted on... For details see Dave Chaplin on LinkedIn: "IR35 CAMPAIGN: Another percent up we go. 63%.

Two weeks ago we were at 52% and 545 activists. Since then more than 200 people have decided to carve some time out of their busy lives to try and defend their contracting careers.

We at ContractorCalculator have prepared everything you need to go and visit your MP. We have over 50 pages of documents, fact packs, which are hitting home and being well received by MPs. We just need more boots on the ground.

Were you one of the 200? If not, why not? Are you puckering up to kiss goodbye to up to 30% of your income? You have a few weeks to get yourself organised.

Book a meeting with your MP to go and see them after Xmas. Email me YOUR MP NAME on info@contractorcalculator.co.uk to get a fact pack. Print it out, visit your MP, make the key points.

Then pat yourself on the back and include yourself in the team of those that are trying to make a difference." (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6480491712509808640)

cojak
17th December 2018, 21:15
The IPSE AGM has just been announced.

The CC are not supportive of the Special Resolution to amend the Articles of Association without any consultation and there have been resignations because of the changes.

More will follow asap but please do reach out to your CC members here (or you can find us on the IPSE forum) if you have questions.

We would like members to support the CC in their rejection of the new Articles of Association.

I think that we could manage that...:happy

<Pulls on A-Team t-shirt and throws on cape>

I haven't said this in many a year, but I think it's time to take a Christmas camping holiday - anyone care to join me? :glasses

BR14
17th December 2018, 21:33
oh, dear, - has it all gone arse over IPSE ? :smokin

eek
17th December 2018, 21:56
oh, dear, - has it all gone arse over IPSE ? :smokin

Well they are trying to find a way to survive beyond April 2020. After all in a Public Sector contract, if you are deemed outside IR35 as a contractor you've got nothing to worry about so when that's rolled out to the private sector.....
Meanwhile I'm going to get the :popcorn: out

Equally though IPSE are targeting the Gig economy and the only Uber driver who stood for the CC didn't get elected so it's understandable that the board may feel that CC no longer functions as a sounding board of all members...

ladymuck
17th December 2018, 22:26
Well they are trying to find a way to survive beyond April 2020. After all in a Public Sector contract, if you are deemed outside IR35 as a contractor you've got nothing to worry about so when that's rolled out to the private sector.....
Meanwhile I'm going to get the :popcorn: out

Equally though IPSE are targeting the Gig economy and the only Uber driver who stood for the CC didn't get elected so it's understandable that the board may feel that CC no longer functions as a sounding board of all members...He was a bloody good candidate too. Absolutely gutted he didn't get in.

wattaj
18th December 2018, 08:33
A group wants to remove Caroline Morgan as director but the group has aroused my suspicion already by not explaining in their lengthy email why that should be the case

Hi, that's not entirely correct and I would urge members to visit the IPSE forums to discuss this in more depth.

But, in summary, the IPSE Board of Directors wish to make significant changes to the IPSE Articles of Assocciation that would render it a different organisation; one, IMHO, that is not so member focused and that will be lacking in the structural checks and balances that were created by our founders.

The majority of the IPSE Consultative Council have rejected these changes and have called for a resolution to remove the Chairman of the Board (Caroline Morgan).

The Board and the Senior Management Team have issued their side of the story in the EGM announcement, but they have not given equal access to the CC to put their case to the members.

This is why "our" side of the story is missing from the EGM announcement and no doubt the lack of transparency by the Board is the reason for your suspicions.

I hope that this helps.

wattaj
18th December 2018, 08:37
Equally though IPSE are targeting the Gig economy and the only Uber driver who stood for the CC didn't get elected so it's understandable that the board may feel that CC no longer functions as a sounding board of all members...
George was an excellent candidate. Like M'Lady I was disappointed that he didn't get onto the CC.

westtester
18th December 2018, 08:40
Prior to the baffling emails regarding the urgency of a vote which failed to actually explain what I would be voting for, I had received an email offering special prices on free range turkeys.

Whilst I appreciate you looking after your members by giving us the opportunity to save money on Christmas dinner, I would prefer you'd concentrate on stopping the calamitous rollout of IR35 legislation.

If it wasn't for the insurance perks, I'd have cancelled my membership years ago.

eek
18th December 2018, 08:46
Hi, that's not entirely correct and I would urge members to visit the IPSE forums to discuss this in more depth.

But, in summary, the IPSE Board of Directors wish to make significant changes to the IPSE Articles of Assocciation that would render it a different organisation; one, IMHO, that is not so member focused and that will be lacking in the structural checks and balances that were created by our founders.

The majority of the IPSE Consultative Council have rejected these changes and have called for a resolution to remove the Chairman of the Board (Caroline Morgan).

The Board and the Senior Management Team have issued their side of the story in the EGM announcement, but they have not given equal access to the CC to put their case to the members.

This is why "our" side of the story is missing from the EGM announcement and no doubt the lack of transparency by the Board is the reason for your suspicions.

I hope that this helps.

Wait for the anonymous (Board) member to attack you here using a sockie account...

mudskipper
18th December 2018, 08:54
Prior to the baffling emails regarding the urgency of a vote which failed to actually explain what I would be voting for, I had received an email offering special prices on free range turkeys.

Whilst I appreciate you looking after your members by giving us the opportunity to save money on Christmas dinner, I would prefer you'd concentrate on stopping the calamitous rollout of IR35 legislation.

If it wasn't for the insurance perks, I'd have cancelled my membership years ago.

In fairness, the shopping emails come from perkbox - they are not controlled by IPSE. You can unsubscribe from them separately from the IPSE emails.

PerfectStorm
18th December 2018, 09:19
Prior to the baffling emails regarding the urgency of a vote which failed to actually explain what I would be voting for

Don't ask questions - just vote for IPSE!

GreenMirror
18th December 2018, 09:20
Why would anyone with IPSE forum membership want to spend time on CUK forums?

How many people are there who could be reached by this thread.

Quite amusing to see IPSE washing their dirty linen in public. Hopefully LCAG, NTRT etcetc. will do the same......

Lockhouse
18th December 2018, 09:25
So have I got this right?

IPSE BoD wants to scrap the CC and give themselves a bigger yacht (or something). IPSE CC says, "hang on, you'll have to wait a sec, we don't like sailing, we're the voice of the people, we are going to reject your changes and just to prove it we're going to sack your leader".

So,

Voice of the Norms; Vote against changes, vote for sacking.
Voice of the "Progressives"; Vote for changes, vote against sacking.

Is that about it?

wattaj
18th December 2018, 09:33
Wait for the anonymous (Board) member to attack you here using a sockie account...
That may happen, but that would be quite hard to do as I believe that I am factually correct.
:wink

GreenMirror
18th December 2018, 09:38
That may happen, but that would be quite hard to do as I believe that I am factually correct.
:wink

What is the weather like on your planet?

ladymuck
18th December 2018, 09:47
Why would anyone with IPSE forum membership want to spend time on CUK forums?

How many people are there who could be reached by this thread.

Quite amusing to see IPSE washing their dirty linen in public. Hopefully LCAG, NTRT etcetc. will do the same......The CC really tried to avoid doing this particular bit of laundry in public. The attitude from the board and SLT was that they didn't want to discuss, consult, collaborate. They had made up their minds it it's their way or highway.

I'm very disappointed that they phoned around a selection of the CC to tell them how damaging our approach was while saying, in the next breath, that there was no scope for discussion

eek
18th December 2018, 09:53
That may happen, but that would be quite hard to do as I believe that I am factually correct.
:wink

Since when did facts matter.

Personally you've played this wrong - the EGM should have been for the removal of the entire board as it would have given the board far less option to a) make / imply things are personal and b) hide the reasons behind the request.

And given that IPSE really aren't doing what's required at this moment in time (Contractor Calculator are doing it instead) it really doesn't matter. IPSE is merely a tax insurance policy with random benefits on top.

wattaj
18th December 2018, 09:56
What is the weather like on your planet?
The atmosphere is decidedly chilly at the moment.
:wink

wattaj
18th December 2018, 09:58
Since when did facts matter.

Personally you've played this wrong - the EGM should have been for the removal of the entire board as it would have given the board far less option to a) make / imply things are personal and b) hide the reasons behind the request.

And given that IPSE really aren't doing what's required at this moment in time (Contractor Calculator are doing it instead) it really doesn't matter. IPSE is merely a tax insurance policy with random benefits on top.
I disagree. Removal of the entire BoD would have been unnecessarily destructive; perhaps terminally so. The CC's response is measured and proportionate.
I hope that you understand.
:)

original PM
18th December 2018, 09:59
The CC really tried to avoid doing this particular bit of laundry in public. The attitude from the board and SLT was that they didn't want to discuss, consult, collaborate. They had made up their minds it it's their way or highway.

I'm very disappointed that they phoned around a selection of the CC to tell them how damaging our approach was while saying, in the next breath, that there was no scope for discussion

Indeed - it is often difficult to get a large bureaucratic organisation with its own self preservation as its highest ideal to discuss things logically and to implement change.......

:rolleyes:

ladymuck
18th December 2018, 09:59
Since when did facts matter.

Personally you've played this wrong - the EGM should have been for the removal of the entire board as it would have given the board far less option to a) make / imply things are personal and b) hide the reasons behind the request.

And given that IPSE really aren't doing what's required at this moment in time (Contractor Calculator are doing it instead) it really doesn't matter. IPSE is merely a tax insurance policy with random benefits on top.Board vs Chair was the subject of much debate. The CC had no desire to completely destabilise the organisation at this time.

eek
18th December 2018, 10:05
Board vs Chair was the subject of much debate. The CC had no desire to completely destabilise the organisation at this time.

And I can already see how that played out - going for the board removes any personality argument and would have meant the board would have had to explain rather more instead of just saying they disagree with the motion. By not going for the entire board you have given them options they otherwise would not have had...

I suspect (in fact I would bet money) that the board will get both their new articles through and win the vote thanks to people who will vote and don't visit any of the boards...

Cirrus
18th December 2018, 10:29
My personal opinion is IPSE is a bunch of arrogant, self-serving ****s.

I'm still of a mind to report them to the FCA for selling illegal financial products.

Sack them all, I say.

wattaj
18th December 2018, 10:34
My personal opinion is IPSE is a bunch of arrogant, self-serving ****s.

I'm still of a mind to report them to the FCA for selling illegal financial products.

Sack them all, I say.

Well, that's certainly one view.
:D

malvolio
18th December 2018, 10:39
My personal opinion is IPSE is a bunch of arrogant, self-serving ****s.

I'm still of a mind to report them to the FCA for selling illegal financial products.

Sack them all, I say.
Feel free. Nothing they "sell" is in the scope of the FCA... :wink

Cirrus
18th December 2018, 12:40
Feel free. Nothing they "sell" is in the scope of the FCAIgnoramus.:spank:

They sell insurance and they are registered with the FCA to do so.

SimonMac
18th December 2018, 12:43
Ignoramus.:spank:

They sell insurance and they are registered with the FCA to do so.

Nope


This is a firm or individual that can act on behalf of another firm (its principal) that is authorised in the UK or regulated in another EEA country. The principal is responsible for the appointed representative's activities.

Financial Conduct Authority (https://register.fca.org.uk/ShPo_FirmDetailsPage?id=001b000000Mfe1pAAB)

Eirikur
18th December 2018, 13:28
My personal opinion is IPSE is a bunch of arrogant, self-serving ****s.

I'm still of a mind to report them to the FCA for selling illegal financial products.

Sack them all, I say.

Agreed Most useless bunch of idiots. Haven't achieved anything whatsoever regarding IR35 which is their only reason why they exist.

PerfectStorm
18th December 2018, 13:38
My personal opinion is IPSE is a bunch of arrogant, self-serving ****s.

I'm still of a mind to report them to the FCA for selling illegal financial products.

Sack them all, I say.


What issue do you have with the products?

GreenMirror
18th December 2018, 14:29
The CC really tried to avoid doing this particular bit of laundry in public.

Could it really not be done on the IPSE forums?

Its jolly fascinating for those of us without access though.....

Spoiler
18th December 2018, 14:42
Agreed Most useless bunch of idiots. Haven't achieved anything whatsoever regarding IR35 which is their only reason why they exist.

Pretty much agree with this - the impression for me is that IPSE has achieved nothing.
Just checking though - we should NOT vote for change, right :wink

contractorinatractor
18th December 2018, 15:00
Jeez-Louise.

This is a contracotr forum; supposedly with many PMs. Can someone PLEASE summarise (properly) a few bulletpoints being made by each side of this? Try to be impartial when writing it, too. This thread is mostly fluff and the semi-informative post summaries lack information for us to make a decision.

One side proposes changes which involve removing Caroline from the board with immediate effect, amongst probably some other resolutions. The other want to continue their status quo ideals but with some alterations that don't sound great either.

Too much flim flam flying about and not enough facts. Many of us don't bother with IPSE forums, as it's full to the gunnels of absolute cunnets, even more so than this forum.

Mordac
18th December 2018, 15:26
Since when did facts matter.

Personally you've played this wrong - the EGM should have been for the removal of the entire board as it would have given the board far less option to a) make / imply things are personal and b) hide the reasons behind the request.

And given that IPSE really aren't doing what's required at this moment in time (Contractor Calculator are doing it instead) it really doesn't matter. IPSE is merely a tax insurance policy with random benefits on top.

And you can get that (and more) from QDOS without paying a pointless subscription, or having to tolerate all the histrionics. IPSE has become another trade-union, with all the associated power struggles, screaming like children and achieving nothing of use.

Cirrus
18th December 2018, 15:58
What issue do you have with the products?
They appear to underwrite their own products (eg insurance against your agent going bankrupt). They are not registered to do that.
They don't as far as I can see send out mandatory documentation (eg Key Facts) (The agent insurance does not reveal the name of the registered underwriter)
They don't handle complaints in a satisfactory manner.

Nut
18th December 2018, 16:27
To be perfectly honest i'm still none the wiser as to what the issues are around people trying to sack that woman.

Additionally, and I say this as an IPSE subscriber, I feel that they have utterly failed at their primary purpose. I do not think they have represented the interests of contractors and self employed effectively AT ALL. From what I can see they have achieved the square root of F all. If they have done anything then it surely hasn't been promoted.

The only reason I continue to pay it is the package of insurance benefits it offers, and the perkbox access which offsets a nice chunk of their annual cost for me.

Can anyone recommend an alternative which offers those? I'm not overly bothered about my money going to them from a representation perspective due to them not really achieving anything

GreenMirror
20th December 2018, 12:47
Can someone PLEASE summarise (properly) a few bulletpoints being made by each side of this?

BoD : CC are cretins
CC: BoD are cretins.

Much the same as the br***t vs remoan*r debate.

GreenMirror
20th December 2018, 12:48
sack that woman.


Are you Jeremy Corbyn?

Epiphone
20th December 2018, 14:39
Why is this entire thing being played out in public and not kept internally to the IPSE fora?

Surprised they're still going to be honest. They've done nowt for IR35 in their existence and any time they get involved things get worse. What exactly are they for these days?

malvolio
20th December 2018, 15:47
Why is this entire thing being played out in public and not kept internally to the IPSE fora?
No Idea. Ask the various CC members who have brought this on to these boards. Although I defy anyone to wade through the pages of "debate" on the IPSE forum and get a clear message.


Surprised they're still going to be honest. They've done nowt for IR35 in their existence and any time they get involved things get worse. What exactly are they for these days?
Quite a lot actually. For example, while Contractor Calculator are urging people to get their MPs to react to the private sector IR35 proposals, IPSE and others are working directly with HMG to make their case. Not sure anyone will succeed but it is simply not true that nobody is doing anything.

To be fair, IR35 itself is a dead issue, is not going to change and the world has moved on. Far better to work on getting the scope right and working out who is inside in a somewhat less random/expensive/subjective/ill-informed/FUD-driven manner (delete as appropriate).

SimonMac
20th December 2018, 19:33
Why is this entire thing being played out in public and not kept internally to the IPSE fora?

Surprised they're still going to be honest. They've done nowt for IR35 in their existence and any time they get involved things get worse. What exactly are they for these days?

There are more IPSE members than just those on the IPSE forums

We are starting to put concise content and our point of view here:

IPSE CC - Why the stand and EGM? (http://www.ipse-AGM.co.uk)

BR14
20th December 2018, 20:13
So has it all gorn IPSE's up, then? - or not? :smokin

Coalman
20th December 2018, 21:09
Another IPSE member here

Sent from my SM-T830 using Contractor UK Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=79863)

mudskipper
20th December 2018, 22:37
I think it's important for people to make up their own minds.

The board think that governance changes are necessary to allow IPSE to fulfil its potential. They are doing this for what they believe are sound reasons, and you can read their reasons in the AGM videos and leaflets.

As the (ex)director who resigned, I don't share their views, but neither am I arrogant enough to assume I'm right.

I'm against the changes for much the same reasons as the CC members who raised the EGM motion. For members who are interested, I've outlined my reasons on the IPSE forum. See below.

Log in | IPSE Community | Forums (https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads/resignation-of-fiona-titcombe-from-the-board-of-directors.115722/page-2#post-1054812)

I do think the board have been somewhat selective in which bits of the change they've highlighted - as an example, one has to read beyond the obvious to find that the CC is being abolished, it's not spelled out. If the board believe in their changes, then communication needs to be transparent, open and honest. There will be no CC to do the reading between the lines going forward, so they really do need to get this nailed now.

For me, the EGM motion raised by a majority of CC members on whether the Chair is the right person to lead the organisation depends on what the membership decides about the governance changes. If they decide that the CC should stay, then I think it will be an uphill task to rebuild trust and respect, but that's not to say that with a genuine will to make it work she could not do it - if she has that will. If however they like the board's proposal, then Caroline is the right person to take it forward.

Please read the presented material from both sides, make up your own mind and cast your vote accordingly. If you're not interested enough to follow the arguments, then either don't vote, or give your proxy to someone who is sufficiently interested.

I suspect the vast majority of members really aren't that interested, and whichever way it goes most will be unaware of noticeable changes. The people who stand for board and volunteer for the CC care deeply, and IPSE is richer for that. The current disagreement and resignations are because people do care, so while it may be messy and possibly tedious to the casual observer, it's a sign of the emotional commitment that the people you have put in charge of your organisation have made to its future.

malvolio
21st December 2018, 00:30
I hope I'm being absolutely neutral here. It concerns the next AGM where various changes have been tabled.
There are several elements to this, some of which both sides do actually agree on.

To be fair to both sides it is a complex argument, despite appearances. At its absolute basic level it's the CC saying that they are doing their job and holding the BoD to account for trying to take IPSE in a direction the CC feel is wrong, and it's the BoD saying the CC aren't doing their job and/or they have outlived their usefulness and IPSE need a better solution.

It's not something that can easily be summarised, and not something that needs discussion outside IPSE, so you will have to get on the IPSE website and either read the various notices or wade through the several threads on the forums. Or even both.

Also there is a separate item, which is the EGM calling for the removal of the current chairman - allegedly regardless of who that actually is - in protest at the way the BoD have approached the whole matter. That I do disagree with, not because I agree or disagree with the point being made, but because in my view it is divisive and unnecessary and will do far more harm than good. But again, I urge those interested to do the reading and make their own decision.

eek
28th December 2018, 08:56
Interesting comment here from a former CC member LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:article:8589132677406724602?commentUrn=urn% 3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28article%3A8589132677406724602% 2C6484223709287636992%29) which seems to have been intentionally hidden by the author of the article.

mudskipper
28th December 2018, 09:43
Interesting comment here from a former CC member LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:article:8589132677406724602?commentUrn=urn% 3Ali%3Acomment%3A%28article%3A8589132677406724602% 2C6484223709287636992%29) which seems to have been intentionally hidden by the author of the article.


Unfortunately the ability to delete a comment appears to be broken, so the author had no option but to turn commenting off which removes all existing comments. Unfortunate, but the commenter has a personal grudge that he has failed to explain despite several prompts, and the claims he made are fundamentally untrue. The author likes her linkedin profile to remain professional. :) (Depending which former CC member you were referring to - two had commented and only one of those was a problem)

eek
28th December 2018, 09:59
Unfortunately the ability to delete a comment appears to be broken, so the author had no option but to turn commenting off which removes all existing comments. Unfortunate, but the commenter has a personal grudge that he has failed to explain despite several prompts, and the claims he made are fundamentally untrue. The author likes her linkedin profile to remain professional. :) (Depending which former CC member you were referring to - two had commented and only one of those was a problem)

In the past the IPSE board denied attacking me anonymously even though the mods on here had confirmed the identity of the culprit via their IP address - so shall we just say that some IPSE members have form for being rather unprofessional and then denying it when all evidence pointed otherwise.

And in case I haven't been clear I probably should state my opinion. Once IR35 comes in the private sector in April 2020 IPSE will be irrelevant for most contractors - it's core offering won't be required by most contractors so this is a case of either fiddling while Rome burns or fighting over pennies while tripping over pounds...

mudskipper
28th December 2018, 10:06
In the past the IPSE board denied attacking me anonymously even though the mods on here had confirmed the identity of the culprit via their IP address - so shall we just say that some IPSE members have form and I suspect there is some truth in the commentator claims...

And the fact that people may think there is truth in the claims where there is none is why it had to be deleted.

mudskipper
28th December 2018, 10:16
In the past the IPSE board denied attacking me anonymously even though the mods on here had confirmed the identity of the culprit via their IP address - so shall we just say that some IPSE members have form for being rather unprofessional and then denying it when all evidence pointed otherwise.

1) The "IPSE board" do not post on this forum - individuals who post do so in a strictly personal capacity.
2) I do not know whether the post "attacking" you was posted by a board member or not
3) Shared IPs are an indicator at best - there are plenty of instances where I have shared an IP with other users.
4) I'm pretty sure that revealing a posters identity to other posters unless required by the courts is a DPA breach (even before GDPR)
5) If you don't want to be called a ****ing dick, then don't behave like one.

eek
28th December 2018, 13:33
1) The "IPSE board" do not post on this forum - individuals who post do so in a strictly personal capacity.
2) I do not know whether the post "attacking" you was posted by a board member or not
3) Shared IPs are an indicator at best - there are plenty of instances where I have shared an IP with other users.
4) I'm pretty sure that revealing a posters identity to other posters unless required by the courts is a DPA breach (even before GDPR)
5) If you don't want to be called a ****ing dick, then don't behave like one.

Deleting a post in anger rather than answering that the allegation is without merit could be seen to give the allegation more value than it would otherwise have...

As for the above did I hit a nerve

I will happily destroy your points 1 by 1 as well if you so desire...

GreenMirror
29th December 2018, 16:47
If you don't want to be called a ****ing dick, then don't behave like one.

Gosh IPSE sounds fun right now! Even worse than the Brexit firum?

I have a mind to join to access the forums...

cojak
29th December 2018, 17:05
I would like to remind all posters that although this is General, there is still a modicum of moderation here.

No coming to blows please.

minestrone
29th December 2018, 17:27
:eek:

MarillionFan
29th December 2018, 19:40
Whereas I have read the said LinkedIn post and have Liked the aforementioned Lady for CUK/IPSE I have no personal opinion. I have never joined IPSE or whatever they used to be called as I’ve never seen the point. There has only been one contractor organisation I have been proud to have been a member of for 20 years. Paid my stamp every year, have not supported any moderator in all those years and have been happy to stick my oar in without being asked anytime I see fit or have had a few.

NamesFacesPlaces is where it’s at people, where it’s at!

northernladuk
29th December 2018, 20:06
There has only been one contractor organisation I have been proud to have been a member of for 20 years.!

I'm sorry to drop this on you but Grindr isn't a contractor organisation.

BR14
29th December 2018, 20:13
I'm sorry to drop this on you but Grindr isn't a contractor organisation.

nah, - more for expandors, really :igmc:

minestrone
29th December 2018, 20:25
Whereas I have read the said LinkedIn post and have Liked the aforementioned Lady for CUK/IPSE I have no personal opinion. I have never joined IPSE or whatever they used to be called as I’ve never seen the point. There has only been one contractor organisation I have been proud to have been a member of for 20 years. Paid my stamp every year, have not supported any moderator in all those years and have been happy to stick my oar in without being asked anytime I see fit or have had a few.

NamesFacesPlaces is where it’s at people, where it’s at!

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2013-12/enhanced/webdr03/6/21/enhanced-buzz-orig-4426-1386383021-18.jpg

SimonMac
29th December 2018, 21:43
I'm sorry to drop this on you but Grindr isn't a contractor organisation.

Ask for a sub on FetLife and SDC will be the least of your problems

MarillionFan
29th December 2018, 22:01
Ask for a sub on FetLife and SDC will be the least of your problems

Do you know I can't even be bothered to look up either one of those two things you mentioned above here, I shall assume you're further in the closet than Narnia and leave it at that.

ladymuck
29th December 2018, 22:07
Time out, children!

Whatever you think of IPSE, there is currently a lot of discussion going on about the manner in which the board are choosing to change aspects of its governance.

Now, a lot of members won't give a fudge about this as long as the insurance pays out when they need it to. However, we know that there are also a lot of members who do care about these things and we'd like to make sure they know what the changes could mean for future running of the organisation.

All we're trying to ensure is that all members are aware of an alternative point of view, and take the time to ask whatever questions they need to, of the board, before they vote.

mudskipper
29th December 2018, 22:11
Time out, children!

Whatever you think of IPSE, there is currently a lot of discussion going on about the manner in which the board are choosing to change aspects of its governance.

Now, a lot of members won't give a fudge about this as long as the insurance pays out when they need it to. However, we know that there are also a lot of members who do care about these things and we'd like to make sure they know what the changes could mean for future running of the organisation.

All we're trying to ensure is that all members are aware of an alternative point of view, and take the time to ask whatever questions they need to, of the board, before they vote.

Who made you the sensible one? ;)

WSS - the point here is that if you're going to vote at the AGM, please read and consider all viewpoints and make an informed decision on the special resolution - don't simply tick the boxes without reading round. This isn't about this board or this CC and the personalities (or lack of!) within, but the future governance of your membership organisation going forward.

malvolio
29th December 2018, 22:12
Time out, children!

Whatever you think of IPSE, there is currently a lot of discussion going on about the manner in which the board are choosing to change aspects of its governance.

Now, a lot of members won't give a fudge about this as long as the insurance pays out when they need it to. However, we know that there are also a lot of members who do care about these things and we'd like to make sure they know what the changes could mean for future running of the organisation.

All we're trying to ensure is that all members are aware of an alternative point of view, and take the time to ask whatever questions they need to, of the board, before they vote.
So what is your alternative...?

contractorinatractor
30th December 2018, 12:08
Sooo let's get this straight:
If I want to vote I have to trawl their forums, posts, articles, hope I don't miss anything and make a decision based on aggregate info I find myself rather than a few bulletpoints for/against from both sides or a single For article and single Against article? Have IPSE been smoking meth?!

My sub is due in January. I won't be renewing. The organisation seems to be a glory contest for people who wish to flatter themselves rather than instigate true change. I also notice I receive a lot of emails - mostly marketing guff for junk offers - that have nothing to do with the core of what most members likely want which is a robust organisation to progress contractor (no, not deliveroo folk; sorry) interests and help inform the government and masses at large of just what we do, how we do it and why we do it.

The main issue I can see is the IPSE board want sweeping changes, partially hidden and not 100% explicit versus a CC who are rightly protesting but want the removal of members of the board. On both sides: why the iron fists? Calm down and negotiate properly.

Won't be paying any more fees. Both sides can get to **** as far as I'm concerned.

GhostofTarbera
30th December 2018, 15:00
why the iron fists? Calm down and negotiate properly.
.

Because the board presented a done deal with NO possible negotiations

The unpaid volunteer elected by the membership CC tried its hardest to engage but were rejected at every avenue




Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=79863)

malvolio
30th December 2018, 15:10
Because the board presented a done deal with NO possible negotiations

The unpaid volunteer elected by the membership CC tried its hardest to engage but were rejected at every avenue




Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=79863)
The history is much more complex than that. We could (in fact, should) ask why the BoD weren't engaging with the CC, for example. We could also ask what are the options different to the proposal on the table that will effect a proper long term solution to whatever the problem actually is. And so on...

Were we really cynical we could ask why just over half the CC are fighting to retain a power they don't actually possess and why some CC have resigned.

The end result of all this is that nothing that IPSE does for its members is under any kind of threat, now or in the future. That seems to have got lost in the noise. In fact the only threat is the campaign to remove IPSE's chairman in protest, which will do far more harm politically than the governance changes under dispute, and will weaken their position with HMG significantly.

GreenMirror
30th December 2018, 20:19
I would like to remind all posters that although this is General, there is still a modicum of moderation here.

No coming to blows please.

Bah!

It was quite fun having the non IPSE posters standing round chanting "fight fight fight"....

GreenMirror
30th December 2018, 20:20
will weaken their position with HMG significantly.

It can get weaker?

malvolio
30th December 2018, 21:00
It can get weaker?

It's far stronger than most believe, so yes, this is potentially damaging.

mudskipper
30th December 2018, 21:06
It's far stronger than most believe, so yes, this is potentially damaging.

I agree with mal on this - IPSE do have more influence than is immediately apparent, and the governance stuff is a distraction that, fortunately for those of us who are members, won't stop the staff from doing their job.

At the end of the day c 90% of the members won't care about which way the AGM vote goes and it probably won't make an obvious difference, but for those of us who do care it's important that people do realise what it is that they're voting for.

BR14
30th December 2018, 21:09
It's far stronger than most believe, so yes, this is potentially damaging.

yes, the force is strong with ipse wan :smokin

Old Greg
30th December 2018, 21:16
Gosh IPSE sounds fun right now! Even worse than the Brexit firum?

I have a mind to join to access the forums...

+1

mudskipper
30th December 2018, 21:22
+1

PM me for a discount code ;)

ladymuck
30th December 2018, 21:24
PM me for a discount code ;)Or see my signature :D

Old Greg
30th December 2018, 21:53
PM me for a discount code ;)


Or see my signature :D

I don't contract in the UK these days.

GreenMirror
31st December 2018, 07:42
PM me for a discount code ;)


Or see my signature :D

Oh I see now. Nothing is happening on IPSE. Its just a cunning recruitment ploy.......

malvolio
31st December 2018, 08:22
Oh I see now. Nothing is happening on IPSE. Its just a cunning recruitment ploy.......
Damn... You spotted it... :tongue

Cirrus
31st December 2018, 08:52
will weaken their position with HMG significantly.
HMG: Contractors are just like employees. You've got to pay PAYE and NI.
IPSE: The UK needs us more than we need the UK
HMG: Use this tool - it will confirm you are like an employee, not like a business.
IPSE: Don't bully us. We won't pay our CT if you try that.
HMG: Yeh, whatever.
HMG: Contractors are just like employees. You've got to pay PAYE and etc

...rinse and repeat...

malvolio
31st December 2018, 09:27
HMG: Contractors are just like employees. You've got to pay PAYE and NI.
IPSE: The UK needs us more than we need the UK
HMG: Use this tool - it will confirm you are like an employee, not like a business.
IPSE: Don't bully us. We won't pay our CT if you try that.
HMG: Yeh, whatever.
HMG: Contractors are just like employees. You've got to pay PAYE and etc

...rinse and repeat...
Yeah, whatever. Would you prefer that nobody makes the case for our side?

Have you tried lobbying your MP, for example? Their level of ignorance about the whole arena of contracting vs false employment vs HMRC's outright lying is appalling. One reason nobody is getting anywhere is because HMG doesn't know there's a problem to solve; they are still thinking in terms of chaps with top hats owning factories.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 11:18
Yeah, whatever. Would you prefer that nobody makes the case for our side?

Have you tried lobbying your MP, for example? Their level of ignorance about the whole arena of contracting vs false employment vs HMRC's outright lying is appalling. One reason nobody is getting anywhere is because HMG doesn't know there's a problem to solve; they are still thinking in terms of chaps with top hats owning factories.

I've not been following the UK contractor tax scene very closely recently. Did IPSE take a position in the dodgy scheme folks? If so, hopefully they made sure to sharply differentiate them from honest contractors using the approximate approach of 11k p.a. salary, divis and CT, with or without pension.

Cirrus
31st December 2018, 11:29
Their level of ignorance about the whole arena of contracting vs false employment vs HMRC's outright lying is appalling. Thus should be in Brexit (aka Miscellaneous Self-delusion).

HMRC seem to me to talk 100% sense. It's not complex. It's pay income taxes if you are a contractor. All this we're not employees is just so puerile.

If you watch Narcos on Neflix you'll notice the drug barons proudly call themselves 'bandits'. They don't try and persuade the forces of law and order that cocaine is really talcum powder. With PCG you could be proud you were running rings around HMRC. All this It isn't fair - we're the modern day equivalents of Robin Hood is so blatantly cock-and-bull.

(The good thing about Brexit is we all now know the figures: approximately 50% of contractors will know they are evading tax whereas 50% will think they really are little IBMs or that it's HMRC's job to fund their holdays, sickness, pensions etc)

malvolio
31st December 2018, 11:30
I've not been following the UK contractor tax scene very closely recently. Did IPSE take a position in the dodgy scheme folks? If so, hopefully they made sure to sharply differentiate them from honest contractors using the approximate approach of 11k p.a. salary, divis and CT, with or without pension.
That's a whole other discussion.

Given that both groups were looking to avoid IR35, clearly there were very few PCG members using the schemes: from memory it was double figures only. When HMRC started that particular war, PCG weren't really involved since, obviously, their first concern was for their own members. They thought it better to leave the complex issues around the schemes to far more qualified people like webberg and support where necessary. Which, as far as I know from the outside, is what they've been doing.

I also wonder if the schemes issue was actually a distraction from their own focussed negotiations and lobbying around the roles of contractors in the economy, so keeping out of the way was a sensible move.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 11:33
That's a whole other discussion.

Given that both groups were looking to avoid IR35, clearly there were very few PCG members using the schemes: from memory it was double figures only. When HMRC started that particular war, PCG weren't really involved since, obviously, their first concern was for their own members. They thought it better to leave the complex issues around the schemes to far more qualified people like webberg and support where necessary. Which, as far as I know from the outside, is what they've been doing.

I also wonder if the schemes issue was actually a distraction from their own focussed negotiations and lobbying around the roles of contractors in the economy, so keeping out of the way was a sensible move.

If PCG and IPSE, kept out of the way, then that seems sensible enough.

mudskipper
31st December 2018, 11:36
I've not been following the UK contractor tax scene very closely recently. Did IPSE take a position in the dodgy scheme folks? If so, hopefully they made sure to sharply differentiate them from honest contractors using the approximate approach of 11k p.a. salary, divis and CT, with or without pension.


If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-writes-to-chancellor-on-loan-charge.html)
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/mps-increase-pressure-on-government-s-loan-charge.html)
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-house-of-lords-criticising-loan-charge-.html)

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

GreenMirror
31st December 2018, 12:26
If PCG and IPSE, kept out of the way, then that seems sensible enough.

PCG are superb! IPSE are splitters.....

GreenMirror
31st December 2018, 12:36
If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-writes-to-chancellor-on-loan-charge.html)
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/mps-increase-pressure-on-government-s-loan-charge.html)
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-house-of-lords-criticising-loan-charge-.html)

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

The IPSE stance on HMRC and schemes is much appreciated.

HMRC believe that "honest contractor" is an oxymoron and that everyone should pay whatever tax they decide. Since IR35 PCG had the first fight against HMRC with arctic. DTA had the second. LCAG have the third. HMRC are gearing up for the next round "the future of contracting" and the more we stand against the common enemy the better we will be. Not that I can ever see the various factions working together.

Of course, OldGreg is an oxymoron without the oxy. Agrees with everything assguru says. Claims to have lost a contract being undercut by a contractor using a scheme. Despite clearly being not up to the job. A honest, proper contractor gets the gig then negotiates on price. The contractor industry must be rid of these "johnny come latelys".

Still, OG must have some good blackmail piccies of admin to get away with the CUK posts that no-one else would get away with without a ban.....

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 12:54
The IPSE stance on HMRC and schemes is much appreciated.

HMRC believe that "honest contractor" is an oxymoron and that everyone should pay whatever tax they decide. Since IR35 PCG had the first fight against HMRC with arctic. DTA had the second. LCAG have the third. HMRC are gearing up for the next round "the future of contracting" and the more we stand against the common enemy the better we will be. Not that I can ever see the various factions working together.

Of course, OldGreg is an oxymoron without the oxy. Agrees with everything assguru says. Claims to have lost a contract being undercut by a contractor using a scheme. Despite clearly being not up to the job. A honest, proper contractor gets the gig then negotiates on price. The contractor industry must be rid of these "johnny come latelys".

Still, OG must have some good blackmail piccies of admin to get away with the CUK posts that no-one else would get away with without a ban.....

You think you're angry with me, but really you're angry with yourself. But you shouldn't be. It's not your fault that you're a cretin. Blame your genetics or your upbringing. Blame the education system, but move on and find peace.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 12:57
If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-writes-to-chancellor-on-loan-charge.html)
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/mps-increase-pressure-on-government-s-loan-charge.html)
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-house-of-lords-criticising-loan-charge-.html)

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

This is problematic. iPSE should have thrown the dodgy scheme users under the bus (or ignored it) and concentrated on supporting the honest contractor model.

GreenMirror
31st December 2018, 13:10
This is problematic. iPSE should have thrown the dodgy scheme users under the bus (or ignored it) and concentrated on supporting the honest contractor model.

Perhaps they were worried that HMRC would define "the future of contracting" to be "the past of contracting" using their time machine.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 13:21
Perhaps they were worried that HMRC would define "the future of contracting" to be "the past of contracting" using their time machine.

Maybe. But it muddles the message that one man band Ltd contracting is legitimate, for IPSE to pitch in on behalf of the dodgy scheme spivs.

malvolio
31st December 2018, 13:31
Maybe. But it muddles the message that one man band Ltd contracting is legitimate, for IPSE to pitch in on behalf of the dodgy scheme spivs.
Do you actually read what has been said or do you simply have problems with English?

IPSE haven't done anything for or against the scheme users, They have, obviously, supported those opposing the HMRC approach, which is fine, and as MS said their advice has been to stay away from schemes for many years. They have not, as far as I know, expressed any opinion on the scheme users themselves, other than noting there were less than 100 out of their 20-odd thousand members involved.

Also - and again something that is routinely ignored - is that the people mainly caught up in now this are not the usual CUK customers but an awful lot of agency-led casual workers, especially in medicine and teaching, who do not even think of themselves as contractors in the first place and have been given absolutely appalling advice when the PS IR35 changes were dumped on them. Plus, of course, the media where the aim was for the employers to save lots of money by outsourcing their own employees.

Which of those groups would have joined IPSE do you suppose? Perhaps a lot more, arguably, if there wasn't a constant refrain on here and elsewhere about how pointless IPSE are and how they are only in it for the money - unlike all those other commercial IR35-related companies - and how the only real contractors are in engineering and IT.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 13:43
If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-writes-to-chancellor-on-loan-charge.html)
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/mps-increase-pressure-on-government-s-loan-charge.html)
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-house-of-lords-criticising-loan-charge-.html)

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."


Do you actually read what has been said or do you simply have problems with English?

IPSE haven't done anything for or against the scheme users, They have, obviously, supported those opposing the HMRC approach,
Do you actually read what you have said or do you simply have problems with English?

Can you not see how supporting those who oppose the HMRC approach is doing something for the scheme users? Now you may think that is OK and you're entitled to your view, but sort out your basic logic before flying off at others.

mudskipper
31st December 2018, 14:02
IPSE's statements pretty much reflect my own views on this. Don't use schemes. If you do use schemes, then you should expect HMRC to come after you. But coming after people 20 years down the line when those people have been upfront about their scheme use, and have had no indication from HMRC that what they're doing is "wrong" is an appalling way to behave and is wrecking people's lives.

Clearly some will feel IPSE should have done more and some will feel they have said too much. My own view is that they've got it just about right on this.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 14:07
IPSE's statements pretty much reflect my own views on this. Don't use schemes. If you do use schemes, then you should expect HMRC to come after you. But coming after people 20 years down the line when those people have been upfront about their scheme use, and have had no indication from HMRC that what they're doing is "wrong" is an appalling way to behave and is wrecking people's lives.

Clearly some will feel IPSE should have done more and some will feel they have said too much. My own view is that they've got it just about right on this.

The problem with getting involved at all is that standing up for the dodgy scheme users dilutes IPSE's moral authority when it comes to standing up for the one man band Ltd Co. contracting model.

We may all take a view on whether or not it is wrong to come after the scheme users, but IMO, it is not the business of an organisation trying to stand up for contracting.

malvolio
31st December 2018, 14:16
The problem with getting involved at all is that standing up for the dodgy scheme users dilutes IPSE's moral authority when it comes to standing up for the one man band Ltd Co. contracting model.

We may all take a view on whether or not it is wrong to come after the scheme users, but IMO, it is not the business of an organisation trying to stand up for contracting.
Sigh...

They are not for or against the scheme users in the slightest. Caveat Emptor applies...

They are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users and, in other cases, against other victims - sorry, customers - of their mendacious application of the law. And that has a far wider application for all of us.

Nuff said. Sad to hear June Whitfield had died.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 14:21
Sigh...

They are not for or against the scheme users in the slightest. Caveat Emptor applies...

They are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users and, in other cases, against other victims - sorry, customers - of their mendacious application of the law. And that has a far wider application for all of us.

Nuff said. Sad to hear June Whitfield had died.

So they are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users but that is not supportive of the scheme users. Thanks for clarifying. :laugh

malvolio
31st December 2018, 14:24
So they are against HMRC's actions against the scheme users but that is not supportive of the scheme users. Thanks for clarifying. :laugh
:tumble:

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 17:44
:tumble:

I accept your admission of defeat and apology.

malvolio
31st December 2018, 18:57
I accept your admission of defeat and apology.
More like resignation and exasperation. Clearly you are one of those sad souls who think continually and pointlessly trying to argue a point that hasn't been made makes you somehow intellectually superior.

There's a new year coming up. Perhaps resolve to try harder to make sense. And perhaps even listen to what's being said.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 19:10
More like resignation and exasperation. Clearly you are one of those sad souls who think continually and pointlessly trying to argue a point that hasn't been made makes you somehow intellectually superior.

There's a new year coming up. Perhaps resolve to try harder to make sense. And perhaps even listen to what's being said.

You did rather make a hash of things.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 19:56
If you are interested, please see the links below

IPSE urges government reconsideration on retrospective tax | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-writes-to-chancellor-on-loan-charge.html)
MPs increase pressure on Government's Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/mps-increase-pressure-on-government-s-loan-charge.html)
IPSE agrees with House of Lords report criticising HMRC’s 2019 Loan Charge | IPSE (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/news-listing/ipse-house-of-lords-criticising-loan-charge-.html)

"IPSE has long advised its members against using Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes. However, the Government’s retrospective approach to this issue is clearly causing serious distress for many taxpayers and their families."

The first link is interesting. It states:


For the last twenty years those who work outside of traditional employment have been pushed from one tax model to another while successive governments have frantically legislated to close loopholes, increasing the compliance burden in the process. Now the government is reaching back in time and demanding payments on arrangements that many believed, albeit incorrectly, were compliant, putting tremendous strain on hard-working families.



What is the 'incorrectly' about? Is IPSE saying that the arrangements were never compliant? I understand the NTRT position to be that the schemes were compliant, but that legislation has been retrospectively changed this. I appreciate that this is now wandering off topic, but this is General, and I'm interested in insights into IPSE's position.

mudskipper
31st December 2018, 21:46
The first link is interesting. It states:



What is the 'incorrectly' about? Is IPSE saying that the arrangements were never compliant? I understand the NTRT position to be that the schemes were compliant, but that legislation has been retrospectively changed this. I appreciate that this is now wandering off topic, but this is General, and I'm interested in insights into IPSE's position.


You're unlikely to get an IPSE official response on here, just various interpretations. As I posted the links, I'll give you my personal interpretation, which is that I think IPSE has always claimed these schemes "don't work" but believe the Loan Charge amounts to retrospective taxation - if the schemes "don't work" they should have been dealt with in a timely manner. Six years is the limit for most tax investigations - 20 years is reserved for the most serious evasion and this is not it.

IPSE and NTRT probably have some overlap and a lot of differences. I'm no longer close enough to the former to confirm, and have never been close enough to the latter to understand the detail.

Old Greg
31st December 2018, 22:03
You're unlikely to get an IPSE official response on here, just various interpretations. As I posted the links, I'll give you my personal interpretation, which is that I think IPSE has always claimed these schemes "don't work" but believe the Loan Charge amounts to retrospective taxation - if the schemes "don't work" they should have been dealt with in a timely manner. Six years is the limit for most tax investigations - 20 years is reserved for the most serious evasion and this is not it.

IPSE and NTRT probably have some overlap and a lot of differences. I'm no longer close enough to the former to confirm, and have never been close enough to the latter to understand the detail.
Thanks.

And Happy New Year. :hug:

mudskipper
31st December 2018, 22:05
Thanks.

And Happy New Year. :hug:

And to you.

ladymuck
7th January 2019, 19:17
Time out, children!

Whatever you think of IPSE, there is currently a lot of discussion going on about the manner in which the board are choosing to change aspects of its governance.

Now, a lot of members won't give a fudge about this as long as the insurance pays out when they need it to. However, we know that there are also a lot of members who do care about these things and we'd like to make sure they know what the changes could mean for future running of the organisation.

All we're trying to ensure is that all members are aware of an alternative point of view, and take the time to ask whatever questions they need to, of the board, before they vote.

I must be doing something right, this comment solicited negative rep with the comment "Oh **** off" from MarillionFan. I'd suspect they were a board sockie but I don't think the entry level IQ requirements are that low.

Scruff
8th January 2019, 13:16
I must be doing something right, this comment solicited negative rep with the comment "Oh **** off" from MarillionFan. I'd suspect they were a board sockie but I don't think the entry level IQ requirements are that low.

Would you class that as "abuse"? I suspect that he must have been on the Santa-Juice, since those Reindeer pack a mean kick...:wave:

Old Greg
8th January 2019, 16:22
Would you class that as "abuse"? I suspect that he must have been on the Santa-Juice, since those Reindeer pack a mean kick...:wave:

That's MF flirting.

MarillionFan
9th January 2019, 11:57
That's MF flirting.

Wait till I come on to him.

northernladuk
9th January 2019, 12:35
Wait till I come on to him.Just make sure he shuts his eyes first.

Lance
9th January 2019, 12:37
Just make sure he shuts his eyes first.

unless you want to see the tears

Old Greg
9th January 2019, 12:37
Just make sure he shuts his eyes first.

There are no lights in the cellar in any case.

OwlHoot
9th January 2019, 13:52
Just make sure he shuts his eyes first.

Wouldn't matter with his gimp mask on.

Scruff
16th January 2019, 15:57
If you can attend the AGM at Grange City Hotel, 8-14 Coopers Row, London EC3N 2BQ on Saturday 26 January 2019 at 10.00am to cast your vote, this would be much appreciated.

If you cannot attend, then please consider appointing a Proxy to vote on your behalf?

Your proxy appointment needs to be submitted via the internet at
IPSE - Notice of Annual General Meeting | IPSE (https://ipse.in/agm2019) must be received not later than 10.00am on Thursday 24 January 2019 or, in the case that the meeting is adjourned, not less than 48 hours before the time appointed for the adjourned
meeting (excluding non-working days).

Pondlife
16th January 2019, 16:48
To instruct the chair to vote as you instruct for the AGM including, if you so wish, to vote against Special resolution 4 (changes to AoA) Linky (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/about-us/agm2019/agm-2019-proxy-to-chair-with-instruction.html)


To instruct the chair to vote as per your wishes at the EGM
Linky (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/about-us/egm2019/egm-2019-instructing-the-meeting-chair.html)

Spoiler
17th January 2019, 15:13
I'm planning on using the Chair for proxy voting and ...

Vote Against the AGM special resolution. IPSE is a membership organisation, primarily funded by the members. I don't see an issue with those members still having oversight via the CC.

Vote Against the EGM resolution. I haven't been interested enough to research and vote someone out of a job.


Think I got the voting options the right way round :wink

Scruff
17th January 2019, 15:56
...
Vote Against the EGM resolution. I haven't been interested enough to research and vote someone out of a job...


It isn't a "job" per se. The Directors receive a stipend and they are not employees of IPSE (other than the CEO, who is a Director, ex-officio).

ladymuck
17th January 2019, 15:58
It isn't a "job" per se. The Directors receive a stipend and they are not employees of IPSE (other than the CEO, who is a Director, ex-officio).Agreed, the directors (incl the Chair) all have 'day jobs' as freelancers and IPSE is an additional income stream for them.

malvolio
17th January 2019, 16:11
Agreed, the directors (incl the Chair) all have 'day jobs' as freelancers and IPSE is an additional income stream for them.
Which, as you full well know, is to cover lost income from their day job for the time necessary to be directors.

So it is not an additional income, in some cases it is not even a replacement one.

Spoiler
21st January 2019, 09:42
It isn't a "job" per se. The Directors receive a stipend and they are not employees of IPSE (other than the CEO, who is a Director, ex-officio).

Proves how little I know then :laugh

Spoiler
21st January 2019, 14:36
Just received Chris Bryce's email, requesting I support the board's proposals.


Sorry Chris, I submitted my proxy votes an hour before your email arrived. Not sure you'll be too keen on the way I voted on the AGM proposal...

Scruff
21st January 2019, 14:56
Just received Chris Bryce's email, requesting I support the board's proposals.

I did too. There have been no direct communications from IPSE where a balanced view has been put forward.

I sincerely hope that all IPSE Members who are reading this thread can understand where the proposed Special Resolution will take IPSE if it is passed on Saturday?

We need 25% of Members, present, or by Proxy, to vote against the adoption of the Special Resolution.

malvolio
21st January 2019, 15:44
I did too. There have been no direct communications from IPSE where a balanced view has been put forward.

I sincerely hope that all IPSE Members who are reading this thread can understand where the proposed Special Resolution will take IPSE if it is passed on Saturday?

We need 25% of Members, present, or by Proxy, to vote against the adoption of the Special Resolution.
It's a lot more balanced than the propaganda from the CC who are claiming they are losing a role they don't actually fulfil at present.

The rationale for the Members Forum bears close inspection as well - it is hardly a diminution of the democratic process, quite the opposite in fact. And nobody's saying existing CC can't apply for membership of course.

The main argument against is that there is a potential for any future BoD to be a lot more selective about who gets on the list as a candidate for an elected director (they will always have to outnumber any appointed ones to ensure member representation under current - and proposed - rules). Given that IPSE is a substantial organisation, such selectivity is not necessarily a bad thing, but equally the membership need assurance that IPSE will continue to do what IPSE does and not transform into a Bentley dealership or some such non-lobbying activity, or ditch the idea of member representation entirely. Personally I don't see either as a sensible risk, but other opinions are available.

Scruff
21st January 2019, 15:54
Oh Malvolio...

In your world it is going to be like Turkeys voting for Christmas! It will be a BoD selected Members' Forum, where they can appoint as many Yes-Men as they choose.

See you Saturday.

malvolio
21st January 2019, 15:59
Oh Malvolio...

In your world it is going to be like Turkeys voting for Christmas! It will be a BoD selected Members' Forum, where they can appoint as many Yes-Men as they choose.

See you Saturday.
Says the man with the QDOS advert in his sig. :tongue

My votes has been proxied in already, so I'm not going on Saturday.

My views on the IPSE forums are pretty clear. Out here in public I've been trying to explain both sides of the argument, no more, no less. I will say that as one of the architects of the current structure, I have a reasonable understanding of both sides of the argument and have aimed to stay totally neutral.

Scruff
21st January 2019, 16:07
Says the man with the QDOS advert in his sig. :tongue


That is the non-sequitur of the day.

QDOS - There is nothing wrong with having a referral code (not an advert) in my signature. They offer complementary services to IPSE, and I pay both Companies for their services.

malvolio
21st January 2019, 16:32
That is the non-sequitur of the day.

QDOS - There is nothing wrong with having a referral code (not an advert) in my signature. They offer complementary services to IPSE, and I pay both Companies for their services.
Well I won't argue, but one of the stated aims of a CC member under the current rules is to promote IPSE to members and non-members where possible. So just for balance, and ignoring all the lobbying baggage, what do QDOS offer that IPSE doesn't?

Lost It
22nd January 2019, 02:08
Am I too late? Sorry, I've beeen ill....

Scruff
22nd January 2019, 06:49
Am I too late? Sorry, I've beeen ill....I'm glad that you are now well enough to post.

Not at all. You have until 10am, Thursday 24 January, to appoint a Proxy, or attend in person.

GhostofTarbera
23rd January 2019, 00:07
Am I too late? Sorry, I've beeen ill....

Yes your post here is highlighted on the forums over in ipse :)

Vote No to the AOA changes


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

Lost It
23rd January 2019, 04:58
Yes your post here is highlighted on the forums over in ipse :)

Vote No to the AOA changes


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK ForumReally? Which post?

malvolio
23rd January 2019, 10:51
Really? Which post?
I think he means the Blam and Dast thread. You made the mistake of mentioning IPSE in a peripheral sort of way, so clearly you are a fanatical supporter of theirs...

GoT is something of a fantasist on occasion :wink Damnit, he agreed with me once.

deanosity
23rd January 2019, 14:19
I'm a current member.

SimonMac
23rd January 2019, 17:17
I'm a current member.

Then I urge you to read

IPSE AGM — Why I am voting against the Special Resolution to change the Articles of Association (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ipse-agm-why-i-am-voting-against-special-resolution-change-mccartney/)

or

IPSE CC - Why the stand and EGM? (https://ipse-agm.co.uk)

And get your proxy registered for the AGM before tomorrow's deadline

IPSE - Notice of Annual General Meeting | IPSE (https://ipse.in/agm2019)

ladymuck
23rd January 2019, 19:10
If you're going to vote, you must register your proxy by the links above BEFORE 10:00 tomorrow (Thursday 24th January).

Irrespective of your opinion it's important you do vote as it's the only way the Board can gauge the opinion of a membership that hasn't been consulted on the changes and haven't been told the whole truth about the full scope of the changes.

RANT/

Even if you think the CC should burn in hell, at least make sure you vote knowing that you accept EVERY change that's covered by the pithy Special Resolution wording and don't rely on the crappy seven whitewashed bullet points that gloss over the fact that the Members' Forum and structure of NomCo are NOT covered by the AoA and so can be dropped/changed without consulting anyone.

/RANT

SimonMac
23rd January 2019, 19:15
To add to LMs point.

Rejecting the changes does not mean we reject change, just we reject the change on offer.

malvolio
23rd January 2019, 19:35
To add to LMs point.

Rejecting the changes does not mean we reject change, just we reject the change on offer.
A fine distinction...

I would also encourage everyone whose interested to read the other side of the story - basically go here (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/about-us/agm2019.html) and read the links on the right of the page - and make their own decisions

mudskipper
23rd January 2019, 20:17
A fine distinction...

I would also encourage everyone whose interested to read the other side of the story - basically go here (https://www.ipse.co.uk/our/about-us/agm2019.html) and read the links on the right of the page - and make their own decisions

Agreed - whilst I will be voting "no", anyone who is voting should read both sides and make their own mind up.

Pondlife
23rd January 2019, 20:29
Agreed - whilst I will be voting "no", anyone who is voting should read both sides and make their own mind up.

And in doing so bear in mind that this is about how a future BoD might choose to prioritise issues and membership funds on.

malvolio
23rd January 2019, 21:09
And in doing so bear in mind that this is about how a future BoD might choose to prioritise issues and membership funds on.

Oh grow up. That kind of panic mongering is destroying your case. There is much more to it than the CC losing a role that they don't actually have. People need to decide on merits, not some future doomsday scenario

ladymuck
23rd January 2019, 21:49
Oh grow up. That kind of panic mongering is destroying your case. There is much more to it than the CC losing a role that they don't actually have. People need to decide on merits, not some future doomsday scenario

One example:
The new AoA do not define who sits on NomCo they just say that such a body exists. Therefore, a future board could put anyone they like on it and that body will define how elections will operate. This isn't a doomsday scenario, I don't have a stash of tin foil hats on hand. It's a real concern that the lack of ToR for such an important body will be removed should the current AoA and The Rules be abolished.

You may say, aha! But in the leaflet on the IPSE website it says NomCo will be made up of two members (no info on how they will be selected), two board members and an independent chair! Yes it does say that. Please don't confuse a sales leaflet with the legally binding AoA though. One isn't worth the time spent drawing it up (it still rankles that #7 isn't a change and shouldn't be numbered), the other has had a lot of legal man hours spent on it to make it compliant to the Companies Act but be as wooly as possible.

malvolio
23rd January 2019, 21:57
One example:
The new AoA do not define who sits on NomCo they just say that such a body exists. Therefore, a future board could put anyone they like on it and that body will define how elections will operate. This isn't a doomsday scenario, I don't have a stash of tin foil hats on hand. It's a real concern that the lack of ToR for such an important body will be removed should the current AoA and The Rules be abolished.

You may say, aha! But in the leaflet on the IPSE website it says NomCo will be made up of two members (no info on how they will be selected), two board members and an independent chair! Yes it does say that. Please don't confuse a sales leaflet with the legally binding AoA though. One isn't worth the time spent drawing it up (it still rankles that #7 isn't a change and shouldn't be numbered), the other has had a lot of legal man hours spent on it to make it compliant to the Companies Act but be as wooly as possible.
Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

SimonMac
23rd January 2019, 22:05
Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them

Whether it’s the doomsday scenario or death by a thousand cuts, the results are the same. The difference is at the moment the transparency and openness allows us to better challenge the facts laid in front of us, if SR4 is approved this will not be the case going forward.

ladymuck
23rd January 2019, 22:16
Yes but...

IPSEs whole reason for existing would be destroyed if some fantasy board decided to diversify and its members and staff would desert it in their thousands. Why in God's name would anyone want to commit commercial suicide.

And let's be clear, the people charged with preventing that happening have signally failed to prevent the new proposals from being put forward.

So yes, it is a doomsday scenario. There are many reasons these proposed changes may a bad idea but this isn't one of them



It would be nice, as you are so keen on accepting the changes, to hear how you believe they will benefit IPSE and enhance the organisation. I am genuinely keen to hear such an opinion because the only voice I've heard in favour is the Board's.

malvolio
23rd January 2019, 22:48
It would be nice, as you are so keen on accepting the changes, to hear how you believe they will benefit IPSE and enhance the organisation. I am genuinely keen to hear such an opinion because the only voice I've heard in favour is the Board's.
OK, let's leave aside potential dangers for now.

The Pros:

1. Directors are elected by the whole membership, not a localised electoral college of largely self-selected people, some of whom appear to be following their own agenda.

2. The Members Forum (or whatever it ends up being called) will be drawn from the whole membership, with support from the centre, and is targeted at the whole UK and the whole freelance community

3. The existing CC has not been hugely communicative, certainly back to the membership and has failed to answer clear questions about why the BoD thinks it is now surplus to requirements. And to be clear, the MF proposal indicates to me that the BoD still value input from the membership, but from a group that is designed to be far more engaged with that membership.

4. The changes put IPSE's governance more closely in line with good practice for such bodies, countering criticism from Whitehall and others that it is still run by amateurs.

The Cons:

1. Yes the BoD can load the NomCom to game the selection of candidates for directorship. Why they would need to do so is another issue altogether

2. Yes, the MF will be selected from people who meet set criteria. However that is a clear statement that the current CC is seen to be neither representative nor of benefit to IPSE.

3. YEs the NomCom has set the directors' stipend at any level it thinks fit. The auditors and external FD may have something to say about that, given IPSE is a not-for-profit organisation.

And FTAOD all of this has been said on the IPSE forums, plus a lot more.

SimonMac
24th January 2019, 12:28
OK, let's leave aside potential dangers for now.

The Pros:

1. Directors are elected by the whole membership, not a localised electoral college of largely self-selected people, some of whom appear to be following their own agenda.




1) The CC is not self-selected, we are chosen by the membership, you derise a situation in the same sentence in which you compliment the exact same situation.

While at first glance this seems a positive step and the Board will say it is handing control back to the membership, it is actually a retrograde step. The membership already votes for the CC, and in recent years the turn out has been low. In 2018 587 people voted out of a membership that runs into tens of thousands, and all that entailed was reading a personal statement of each candidate.

The last Director elections comprised of a video pitch, face to face hustings and weeks of forum activity where candidates we grilled and probed by members of the CC to ensure those fortunate to be elected were deemed worthy not only the legal responsibility that comes with such a role, but also the duty to the membership to represent their best interests. I am all for members voting for the directors, but until the organisation finds a better way for people to engage, I feel removing the checks and balances that the CC give will be a backwards step.



2. The Members Forum (or whatever it ends up being called) will be drawn from the whole membership, with support from the centre, and is targeted at the whole UK and the whole freelance community

2) The existing CC is drawn from the whole membership, at the last CC elections we had members of Uber stand, creatives and many other type of freelancers and self-employed.


3. The existing CC has not been hugely communicative, certainly back to the membership and has failed to answer clear questions about why the BoD thinks it is now surplus to requirements. And to be clear, the MF proposal indicates to me that the BoD still value input from the membership, but from a group that is designed to be far more engaged with that membership.

3) I don't think it is on the CC to explain why the Board thinks it is now surplus to requirements, the the deafening silence from all but the CEO allows people to make up their own minds on how communication between the SLT/BOD/CC currently runs. Whereas the CC have been very vocal (as proven by this very thread and many others) in why we do not support the changes, which has drawn out some members from the shadows to be active again in the discussion.

4. The changes put IPSE's governance more closely in line with good practice for such bodies, countering criticism from Whitehall and others that it is still run by amateurs.
4) The work that the CEO and his team have shown IPSE is not run by amateurs, I would hazard a guess those in the corridors of power do not know about the CC, they are more focused on the number of voices we claim to represent. These changes, which as mentioned are not all disagreeable

malvolio
24th January 2019, 14:04
1) The CC is not self-selected, we are chosen by the membership, you derise a situation in the same sentence in which you compliment the exact same situation.

While at first glance this seems a positive step and the Board will say it is handing control back to the membership, it is actually a retrograde step. The membership already votes for the CC, and in recent years the turn out has been low. In 2018 587 people voted out of a membership that runs into tens of thousands, and all that entailed was reading a personal statement of each candidate.

The last Director elections comprised of a video pitch, face to face hustings and weeks of forum activity where candidates we grilled and probed by members of the CC to ensure those fortunate to be elected were deemed worthy not only the legal responsibility that comes with such a role, but also the duty to the membership to represent their best interests. I am all for members voting for the directors, but until the organisation finds a better way for people to engage, I feel removing the checks and balances that the CC give will be a backwards step.

1. 14 places and 16 candidates is not exactly democracy in action, especially when a fair number of those standing are already in post.

2. Here we go with the "checks and balances" thing. You don't offer any and never have. It's not in your remit, which is to be a point consultation and an electoral college.

3. I've done the director election thing. I was not impressed buy the quality of questioning, nor by the preliminary efforts by the then CC to examine the candidates.


2) The existing CC is drawn from the whole membership, at the last CC elections we had members of Uber stand, creatives and many other type of freelancers and self-employed.

OK, but how many outside the standard member profile were actually elected? How many of the 20-odd thousand members voted? More than 1%?

To be fair the Members Forum will still be self selecting, from those who are interested enough to volunteer. OK, the BoD will have the final say, but there are people on the existing CC I wouldn't want in there anyway, so that's not exactly a major issue.



3) I don't think it is on the CC to explain why the Board thinks it is now surplus to requirements, the the deafening silence from all but the CEO allows people to make up their own minds on how communication between the SLT/BOD/CC currently runs. Whereas the CC have been very vocal (as proven by this very thread and many others) in why we do not support the changes, which has drawn out some members from the shadows to be active again in the discussion.
Yes it is. You have made no attempt to understand why you have been sidelined in recent years. To be blunt, your complaints lack credibility


4) The work that the CEO and his team have shown IPSE is not run by amateurs, I would hazard a guess those in the corridors of power do not know about the CC, they are more focused on the number of voices we claim to represent. These changes, which as mentioned are not all disagreeable
Well you clearly know more than I do. I beg to differ.


Anyway, this is not the forum to discuss these issues in any detail. You haven't been so vocal on the IPSE boards I notice.

GreenMirror
24th January 2019, 14:09
1. 14 places and 16 candidates is not exactly democracy in action, especially when a fair number of those standing are already in post.


I am an outsider so this is really none of my business. But 16/14 seems wrong. Why do so few members stand? Is it like the CUK meet ups which are cliquey?


Anyway, this is not the forum to discuss these issues in any detail. You haven't been so vocal on the IPSE boards I notice.

He is too busy Darren Upton spotting.

Seriously, I never understood why this is being discussed on CUK at all. Jolly amusing for those of us who are not members.

mudskipper
24th January 2019, 18:22
I am an outsider so this is really none of my business. But 16/14 seems wrong. Why do so few members stand? Is it like the CUK meet ups which are cliquey?



He is too busy Darren Upton spotting.

Seriously, I never understood why this is being discussed on CUK at all. Jolly amusing for those of us who are not members.

The pre-voting is closed now, so I hope the discussions will close.

PhiltheGreek
24th January 2019, 18:23
Seriously, I never understood why this is being discussed on CUK at all. Jolly amusing for those of us who are not members.

Last time one's valet looked, there were 5 times more contractors on here than independent professionals on there. One assumes, that's why.

administrator
26th January 2019, 17:01
Thread locked as requested.