Crowdfunding Question

[del.gue]

Is crowd funding subject to income tax?

[Rewulf]

10 hours ago, tandytommo said:

Yeah they've got to be seen to be taking this seriously but when it comes down  to the nitti gritty at the Crown Court a way will be found to make sure he gets off and thus justice can be seen to be done!

Is that not a contradiction? 

How can be they be seen to be taking it seriously if they 'let him off'? 

How can justice be seen to be done? 

You seem to believe its a foregone conclusion, as much as you'd like to see him strung up from a lamppost, you know it's not going to happen, so what's the point, except to blacken his name long enough to try to spoil his leadership bid? 

Is this OK in your book? 

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, it is most certainly hard line remainers put up the money, i hope Boris has a similar funding appeal, 

[wymberley]

Was half hoping that this would move on to the topic in general and away from the specific initial example - it was heading that way.

[old man]

1 minute ago, wymberley said:

Was half hoping that this would move on to the topic in general and away from the specific initial example - it was heading that way.

Perhaps the general principal of this is to allow free reign to people who have attitudes of wanting to interfere in other lives for whatever reason?

Seems to me a main thrust theses days sponsored by social media, maybe stemming from a deep seated puritanical streak sponsored by being an island race?.................ow zat?.......😀

[wymberley]

5 minutes ago, old man said:

Perhaps the general principal of this is to allow free reign to people who have attitudes of wanting to interfere in other lives for whatever reason?

Seems to me a main thrust theses days sponsored by social media, maybe stemming from a deep seated puritanical streak sponsored by being an island race?.................ow zat?.......😀

Heaven knows! The original intention for these I thought was a good idea, but for me any use like the example given does not seem fair. If it' not fair, then it's not right. Having said that, perhaps my example was not a good one as I have no doubt that BJ has the ability to raise funds for a very robust defence. But the question regarding recompense should it become appropriate remains.

[grrclark]

4 hours ago, del.gue said:

Is crowd funding subject to income tax?

In some cases yes it would be.

1 hour ago, old man said:

Perhaps the general principal of this is to allow free reign to people who have attitudes of wanting to interfere in other lives for whatever reason?

It isn't really a new thing though, just that the reach afforded by social media allows for a much bigger target audience.

In a way a church collection to pay for lead on the roof was crowd funding, or the 'charitable' collection pots to help out the neighbour who was flooded out, etc.  Folk have always collected for causes and the cause either appeals to you or not to decide if you want to stick your hand in your pocket to donate.

 

[Rewulf]

46 minutes ago, grrclark said:

In a way a church collection to pay for lead on the roof was crowd funding, or the 'charitable' collection pots to help out the neighbour who was flooded out, etc.  Folk have always collected for causes and the cause either appeals to you or not to decide if you want to stick your hand in your pocket to donate.

Very true, nothing new about crowdfunding or charitable donation.

Whats sticks in my craw is when you are told the collection or cause is one thing, and then it turns into something else , or never was.
That church collection feeds the vicars gambling addiction or penchant for ladies of the night ?
The gentleman involved in this, obviously believes he is entitled to dip into to it for 'wages' or 'running costs' as the charities often call it.

When this becomes apparent and proven, there should be a mechanism in place for donors to demand and receive their money back, as in most situations where this happens it  is  referred to as fraud and false representation.
The very thing he is accusing BJ of.

[pinfireman]

The smarmy man behind the case to prosecute Boris Johnson has been saying his case is not about stopping Brexit, just about stopping ‘lying in politics’. That will come as news to the original backers of Marcus J. Ball’s first (now deleted) crowdfunder which Guido can reveal was set up from “within a Facebook group called The 48%” in order to reverse the result of the referendum. Quelle surprise…

“Once these prosecutions have established that politicians did indeed lie to voters our next step will be to take other action to prevent Brexit. This may be in the form of a judicial review… We will also work to reverse Brexit and ensure our membership of the European Union is not lost”

After consulting his barristers, Ball deleted his original blogs, seemingly to hide his original intentions and then launched a new site claiming that he was “motivated by a desire to challenge the national problem of lying in UK politics.” In late 2018 a new ‘Brexit Justice Prosecution’ page was launched, a new financial target established, and new Twitter and Facebook profiles were set up as old ones are deleted. The old ‘Brexit Justice’ Page now reroutes to the new page, with all references to Ball’s political views removed. Crafty.

What started as an attempt to prosecute the Leave campaign turned into a campaign against the man who led it, which if successful would have hugely destructive consequences over our democracy, enforcing government regulation of political speech. A source close to Boris told Guido that:

“The claimant has openly admitted that his plan is to overturn the referendum via a legal challenge and he clearly intends to try and undermine the one man who can truly deliver Brexit. The decision to issue a summons is extraordinary, and flies in the face of hundreds of years of British democratic tradition.”

Boris has become the latest in a long line of Brexit champions who the establishment and dodgy bandwagon hoppers are trying to defeat in the courts. T