Cobol? SQL?

First of all, why the Cobol reference? Yes, SQL is embeddable in Cobol, but the article never touched on that.

'Proper SQL' - what's that then? The opposite of 'improper SQL' perhaps?

Mainframe-derived SQL was/is/should probably be written in CAPS, whereas *nix-derived SQL should probably be lower case. Mixed case? Ugh! Windows-derived SQL? Who cares.

Why mix database design/normalisation and SQL as topics? The two only come together after mucho-arguing when it's time to finally, like, lay down a schema. Even then the modern-fangled way is to use a modelling tool to do the doing, often in complete ignorance of DBMS-specific best practices . Pah!

Is S.Q.L. (never, ever, ever 'sequel', that's a follow-up) even a language? Not in my book.

Triggers - dangerous? Agreed. Also often expensive. They don't get a look-in on big-data MPP systems.

Remember, neat SQL is efficient SQL ;-)

There is no GM plant in Merseyside

The Vauxhall plant is in Ellesmere Port, which is, and always has been, in Cheshire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Port

It's often possible to smell Ellesmere Port from Merseyside, but that's another matter :-)

Liability

He's personally liable.

The company setup is essentially a sham vehicle in the eyes of HMRC, even though it's insisted upon by agencies before they will supply a contractor to a client.

The company income minus allowed expenses is treated as deemed salary on which employers NI, employees NI and income tax is assessed.

Dull, dull, dull...

...hasn't IR35 been done to death?

First off, I've been a permie (like 99% of contractors) and a contractor. There are well-documented pros and cons attached to both. Some people prefer 'permanent' employment, others prefer to be contractors. Some people prefer to do one at a certain life stage, and then switch to the other, again for personal reasons. Live and let live, surely?

IR35 is law. It's been debated, challenged, fought and generally done to death. There is no 'new news' to this story, just a headline-grabbing £99k tax bill.

The guy had no demonstrable right of substitution (as acid a test as it gets twixt permie and non-permie); was under the direct control of a client permie staff member; and had 'mutuality of obligation' (MOO).

He clearly fell within the remit of IR35. To try and claim otherwise based on the evidence available is a very, very high-risk strategy. Whoever advised him to take this stance is ill-informed imho. He should have weighed up the facts and coughed up the dough, simple as that.

Some contractors are 'caught' by IR35 and some are not. This guy clearly was, so why was he taking such a high-risk approach given the sums involved? Greed? Maybe. Bad advice? Maybe.

I agree with the sentiment that the AA should give him employee benefits though if HMRC are going to treat him as an employee.

Mr Fleetwood...do tell...

...how you got the maps re-enabled.

Smiley coz I sent the story into El Reg and it got published ;-)