Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

yes it is dd. Which bit dont you understand?

Noooooooo!! Ankers if nothing else check out the difference in NI contributions if you really cannot understand the difference.

We employ people by the way. Including contractors.

That doesn't follow for a start, or are you just in wind-up merchant mode today?

Yes indeed, DD a three-year-old whose constant reply is "but why?" to every answer could learn a lot from ankers

I must remember not to hire a gardener on Ankers terms to mow my lawn for an hour a week - if he gets caught speeding going home he will expect me to pay the fine because I am responsible for everything he does wrong.

www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/freelancers-consultants-and-contractors

Note the word hire

Sorry Ankers, but the minute I see your name on a post, I am not inclined to join - life is too short

Elegran, you are not up to date with the posts.

What doesnt follow MawBroon?

Come in you lot!
Get right!

on not in!

From the HMRC website
"A contractor can be:
self-employed
a worker or an employee if they work for a client and are employed by an agency"
You can look up the rest of the definition of self employed for yourself.

What doesn't follow?
Your post of 15.27 and dd's of 15.22
As the daughter of a freelance journalist I am quite familiar with the concept of "freelance" <sigh->

From your own link, which you seem to fail to understand
" If you hire a freelancer, consultant or contractor it means that:

they are *self-employed or are part of other companies*
they often look after their own tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs)
they might not be entitled to the same rights as workers, eg minimum wage
you’re still responsible for their health and safety "
See that word "self-employed-"??

A journalist may be "employed" to write a regular column but the legal responsibility of the publishing agency starts and ends with the article or column.
A newspaper may choose to dispense with a journalist's services (also known as "ending their contract") if , by association, they bring the publication into disrepute.

Post 15.45pm I have answered all that lot already!

Post 15.40pm I have answered about self employment already too!

Methinks some posters already know only too well that I am right!!
So I am not going to fall into the trap of explaining myself over and over.

Make of that what you will

Is that definite and official * nkers* ( 15:28:49) and can be quoted?

Where you said "yes it is dd. Which bit dont you understand?" in answer to DD's "I've learnt from experience that it's futile explaining anything to you."

The lunatics have taken over the asylum now I truly understand that saying.

Read my (and others') lips
You
Are
Not
Right
In fact with all your obfuscation I wonder if even you know what the heck your original point was.
But as you have your own Bonkersunique take on a parallel reality, I too will leave you to it.

Naughty post Elegran. You , deliberately I assume, didnt quote all of DDs post.
You left out the part I was obviously responding to.

And that is one of the reasons why I will try not to post about it again.
I always hope that you do better posts than that.

Promises, promises

There is something not right about all of this.

This is my last post about it on here!

For those who don't want to read the article, he's saying that KH deleted the 'libellous' tweet as soon as she realised she'd mistaken Jack Monroe for someone else. The writer's argument is that that should have been the end of it. He thinks British libel laws are draconian and says that if he sued every time someone said anything nasty or harmful about him, he'd never be out of the courts

thatbags if that's an accurate summary of his article, he has been disingenuous. After KH had deleted the tweet, she then sent another one asking what's the difference between irritant Penny Red ( the one she had mistaken JM for) and social anthrax Monroe'

It was argued in court that this second tweet carried an innuendo that JM approved or condoned of the vandalism. Either way KH in that second tweet was being a toady fucker of the first league. She really is a piece of work

Goady <sighs>

And actually come to think of it, even if KH hadn't been paid for the libellous article and done it for free out of the goodness of her heart ( well yes forget that) the DM would still have been sued for libel because they published it