Mumsnet is breaching section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (harassment) by hosting feminist forums that discuss gender-critical issues - legal case?

I genuinely don't foresee that person running off with the money and assuming a new identity.

No, the risk is negligible, definitely. It's a watertight plan.

IAmNotInvisible

LOL now this antipodean is completely confused 🤷🏼‍♀️. Completely off topic but I'm trying to smother my giggling. So over in the UK you're calling it shapewear. Here we call them Bridget Jones Undies, well sometimes, when casually chatting with friends.

And that's probably good night from me.

Re the share capital thing, a company can issue as many shares as it likes when forming.

The theory is that if each shareholder pays £1 per share, the company is formed with that amount of capital in the bank. So along comes Mr Supplier, thinking of doing business, goes to credit check them and yay, that company apparently has £0.5m in the bank! I'll sell them something on credit as they will be good for it.

Actually however, shares only have to be paid for over the life of the company. So if nothing is paid for the shares upfront and the company only has a life of 12-15 months then ceases to exist the shares may never get paid for. But nobody will ever be any the wiser because accounts will never be filed...... and once the company ceases to exist so does any obligation on a shareholder to pay for shares in it if they haven't already.

We need a like button

IAmNotInvisible Fair enough.

Righto, at no cost to yourself, the Company has consulted with a real erm..."Consultant."

One Susie Orbach. She is sending you her book " Fat is a Feminist Issue" and in the interim she advises:

“Dare to be as physically robust and varied as you always were.”
hth

Thanks, it just struck me as odd, especially when one recent company started up with (in theory) £0.5m!

Should have added, it doesn't necessarily have £50000 in the bank, it just looks like it should!

Because you're likely to get a better credit rating.

Capital as stated is a company asset (even if the shares haven't actually been paid for).

So on paper, a new company that has issued 150 £1 shares is worth £150 and that's the only known capital available to pay debts until accounts are filed.

A company that has issued 50000 shares is worth £50000 and in theory has that much available to pay any debts.

In practice both are just numbers on a piece of paper.

Yambabe - thanks, very interesting explanation.

Birdseye - Invisible, sorry that XX said your bum looked big in them there trousers, and here is a hanky to dry your tears, but you have no chance of a hurty feelz court case or for claiming constructive dismissal for your office flounce

So very very cruel of you - surely my hurty feelings are worth a few bob so I can buy decent shape wear ?

Yambabe, thanks, all very interesting. Do you know why when starting a company you would choose to incorporate with a non-trivial statement of capital?

Jack

I'm in Australia that's how far you're reaching.

Always good to remember that there are gender critical women in many MANY places that can both help and support victims of TRA bullying, TRA's assume GC feminists are just a bunch of middle aged, stay at home mothers, how wrong they are.

Heya Danaquestionseverything,

Indeed that thread was my doing. Thanks very much for the compliment, I'm glad it's resonated with some people over here.

J 👍👍

Yambabe and all.

Thank you, Yambabe, you've explained possible actions very well

re costs - from what I understand if you are taken to the county court, put up a watertight defence, and the other party loses, then you can claim 'reasonable costs' ie not all and can be awarded costs less X% by the judge. So you may be able to recoup a large proportion but not all costs. If they do not pay up then you have to go through the bailiff palava. They are really good at financial checks though and all sorts comes up.

I do know vaguely a builder I checked out who is on his fifth company, charges against the first four. Banks hold the charges. Is this how it works. The mind boggles.

I remember a small time crooked businessman once bragging to OH that bank managers were like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them plenty of shit.

Yambabe - wow what a great wheeze.... I wonder how common it is.

Re the lots of companies thing. HMRC have actually clamped down on this now and there is scope to make directors personally liable for company debts, but this is only a fairly recent change.

So previously, a company can set up and trade at very small cost. While trading, it can quite happily pay some or all of its bills. If it's a personal service company (ie a business that makes its money by charging an hourly or fixed rate for an individual to perform a service involving their personal skillset - for example a lawyer, accountant, or even bricklayer) the overheads and bills are likely to be small anyway.

So lets imagine that a company "X Legal Ltd" is set up, with a single director and shareholder. It provides legal advice, given by that person, who may or may not hold a legal qualification. It charges say £100/hour for that service. Over the course of a year that person might be spending an average working week of 40 hours providing that service pretty much constantly. So that business receives payments form clients of in the region of £200k in the first 12 months. Overheads? Maybe an office or a PO box, perhaps a landline and mobile, possibly a vehicle. The director should also be being paid a wage, HMRC has fairly strict rules about these types of company, but if it's a new business they won't know that these rules should be applied. So if the director pays themselves a wage of under the tax and NI thresholds there's no PAYE liability. So lets say expenses of £50k. being generous.

OK so now we have a company with a profit of £150k. This should be declared in the accounts and taxed under the corporation tax rules, but the company ceases to exist before the filing date then there is nothing anyone can do. A struck-off company can't be chased to file accounts or pay tax, it can't be fined, cos it doesn't exist. HMRC, if they suspect the company might be going to do this, can apply to have the strike-off held whilst they investigate, but that will only happen once a discernible pattern of behaviour emerges. So if one or two companies have say a different director, or a different trading activity, they could stay under the radar for a good while.

Going back to our hypothetical "X Legal Ltd". if that £150k progit is in a bank account in the company name, the bank will take it as it belongs to the Crown once the company is struck off and the account has to be closed. If however that £150k is elsewhere, it can't be touched because nobody knows it actually exists.

So that's one reason why a person might start a number of companies, and have them struck off before they have to file accounts.

So if I have to pay my own libel costs in a court case perhaps a gofundme campaign would be advisable.

To be balanced if the Sun printed a load of untrue tosh against me I would be on my own then if I decided to call them out??

So to precis, if the media say mean things about me, I need deep pockets?

JackRoth

Are you the same person that did an amazing twitter thread about the creepy waxer and furries?

If you are I just want to say thank you x100000. I'm not on twitter myself (but I have "magical" ways of checking what's happening). Just want to say you did good.

How odd, that DM article was written in September and contains all the info that has been posted on here and more, yet Steph isn't suing the DM or the journalist who wrote it.

Love the comment at the bottom:

"Graham Lineham is a gender critical person (meaning he believes nobody is born in the "wrong" body). A transactivist took offense and apparantly started harassing his wife to shut him up. GL had none of it and wrote and article about the transactivist's behaviour. Transactivist denies everything and gets the police involved.

synopsis: the world's gone stark raving bonkers"

There are very few instances where doxing could be a criminal act which is why harassment is often cited. I found this article quite interesting, although the pop up adverts are exceedingly irritating!!

metro.co.uk/2017/07/05/what-is-doxing-and-is-it-illegal-heres-how-people-dox-and-what-you-can-do-to-avoid-it-6757123/