Junior8

I think that's very fair comment - where it falls down for me is that you can use someone you trust, get out a scheme and a spec and then someone insists on the three quote system thinking they'll get the same thing cheaper. (These people would be appalled of the same system was applied to their salaries.) And things are not always the consultants fault or even down to the sales rep. Back during Labour's 'building schools for the future' programme I was buying some kit for a tiny village hall - 12 ways of dimming and a few lanterns. I called in one of my usual contacts who told me that they'd stopped quoting for the 'schools for the future' work due to the grossly over-specified stuff being ordered. They felt it was ethically very dubious to spend public money on stuff that would probably never be used. No doubt someone supplied it and we paid.

Public sector procurement is so poor one wonders why it hasn't been investigated over the years. Back in the seventies the council where I was at college would insist on a discount and give the job to any load of rubbish who offered one even if the local reliable bloke without the discount was the same price. The same council had a central procurement section who manged to saddle all their secondary schools (who still then insisted on kids using fountain pens) with zillions of unsized paper exercise books! (It's like blotting paper.) The three quote system is one of those things which appears to give best value and often does nothing of the sort. To anyone new to it I'd only give this advice. Write the specification as tight and specific as possible and then insist, being as unpleasant/determined as your status allows, that the usual 'suppliers are permitted to suggest alternatives of identical quality' condition is deleted from the invitation to quote. Even with that if it works chances are they'll still throw public money down the drain somehow. The last time I used it my preferred supplier who got the work offered, as a sweetener, a further discount for payment in 30 days. He was paid I think in 90.

Virgin haven't seemingly - I was notified the other day about the change.

Of course there is no need for a grill but it all depends if your uncle wants to continue banging his head against the wall of such stupidity. He could, for what it's worth, show them the data sheet https://www.theatrecrafts.com/archive/documents/patt60_instructions.pdf and ask them to identify the part number of said grill from the list.

Taking the first step in anything is always like this I think and as Kerry points out the process of continuous learning means that the feeling of being overwhelmed lies hoof in mouth round the corner in every career. Just ask when you don't know and do nothing less than your best and, number one, be reliable and you'll be on your way. Remember too everyone else will be out of their comfort zone over something. It's called being alive. Being a pro means coping with that. When Torvill & Dean won the Olympics and Ravel's Bolero was being programmed in concert halls everywhere a very eminent principal percussionist reported, in a R4 feature, feeling petrified each time he had to start the damned thing off. Didn't stop him loving the job. Just enjoy the ride.

Well that's not a question that any mainland UK court decision could answer in terms of this regulation. My own simplistic view has always been that hire or reward' applies in the case of any journey only made where there is some contract either implied or written involved irrespective of the ownership of the vehicle of contents which is why I have alwsys had business cover on the car. (Over the years I have argued the toss with all sorts of vintage vehicle exhibitors who think the mere absence of a cash payment means this doesn't apply. But it seems to me that the courts could have a fine old time with this in the case of a steam engine loaded with free coal going home from the show which issued it that then has an accident.) Keeping the show on the road as above is not any more of a defence really than leaping onto the seat of an 18 tonner without an HGV licence to keep the show on the road.

Well at the risk of repeating what has been said for what it's worth my advice (for over forty five years now) for all infrequent users of anything technical is invariably to hire. Please do not let anybody he suggest you get into the business of thinking that you can buy the stuff and then work off the purchase price of anything by hiring it out yourself. Many a beautiful friendship has run aground on those rocks. Andrew is right though - factor in returning and collection however it's done. It does take time and need to be planned for.

Tell them to speak up. It's not rocket science it's called projection.

Alteration without recalculation??

In answer to your first question it all depends. As far as tax is concerned strictly speaking I can't see how anybody who works under your direction with your equipment on a date and at a place that you specify can be counted as self-employed for that work - especially if they have no other customers. They are not self-employed they are workers in employment status terms. Employers Liability Insurance is essential of course but it is as well to also remember that you can't just take on these workers and leave them to it - things have moved on from the days when you could pay someone cash in hand for a bit of heavy lifting. If anything goes wrong and you haven't done the right induction and training no matter how trivial/unnecessary it might seem and taken real care of compliance with safety (as it seems you won't be on site) there will be trouble.

I used them for years too - they were absorbed by Edmunson years ago and seem to still exist though with a different focus https://www.sld-london.co.uk/ Theatre and Studio is still listed under Specialist Lamps on their website but with no catalogue

This is the nub of things. Most markets that take place frequently already have mains power of some kind available and in reality the needs of the average market are tiny. Truth is the style of fairground presentation in this country has meant that any idea of providing hard power would always fail a cost benefit analysis since the infrastructure might be in use for three days a year in reality about 30 hours maximum probably - and in the past wold have been further discouraged by the requirement for 110v DC which would have made it even more inflexible for other uses. The city nearest to me which has one site that takes both a fair annually and a circus every other year has its biggest one day fair on a car park elsewhere. Permanent power will never happen here - nobody will pay. It simply won't pay them either landlord or tenant and the public wouldn't see it as any kind of priority. What happens over the next thirty years is anybody's guess but both the tenting circus and travelling fairground trades are in for a very uncertain time one way or another I fear.

Yes the exemption has been there for years - and a few have been caught in the past too. (Just like the general population!) The likelihood of being caught has increased exponentially in the last twenty years as enforcement has got much stricter. In 2000 the tax loss was estimated at about £1.6bn (that's £2.5bn at today's prices) its now estimated at £50m.

Agreed but they do their best as they see the exemption as being too valuable to lose - and the farmers organisations haven't been much more effective in this area with the mavericks. On the second it's always seemed to me that the question is actually quite easy in practice. A fun bag is prima facie an amusement device and could on its own constitute a fair the same with a juvenile. As in the law of markets and fairs no definition of what constitutes a market or fair in terms of size has ever been drawn up I don't see any alternative. My own view re canteens is simple. If you are open with other amusement devices you might have a case for red - and I suspect in practice the question here would never arise - in a layby or a market or a B&Q car park you might struggle. In the real world the authorities if they were out dipping would have more interest in what was in the tank of the truck than the little set for the tea urn. And let's be honest they know just where to go dipping if they want to feel a few collars... In any event when I last looked into it maybe three years ago the detection hit rate for commercial vehicles was about 3% of tests carried out a figure whereas the rate for private vehicles and bulk storage sites as well as the few fuel launderers was 14%. In reality they know exactly where to target these days as they monitor the supply chain from source to retail. In mainland UK the last figure I saw for estimates of revenue losses due to misuse was £50m. When I started covering the trade in 1999 it was about 20 times that.

Showmen's Guild Rule 21 B (5) Fuel Oil. A member shall be guilty of an offence if the Section Committee (or Appeals Committee on appeal) are satisfied on one or both of the following matters: (a) that rebated fuel has been found in the road tank of any vehicle operated by him, or has been used to propel such vehicle. (b) that he has used rebated fuel in the propelling engine of a licensed road vehicle when such engine is employed for generating electricity, unless the propeller shaft of such vehicle is disconnected by removing the coupling bolts, and the engine draws the rebated fuel from a tank or drum not mounted on the vehicle. (c) The Section Committee may authorise any two Members of the Committee to inspect and report on any particular vehicle in relation to matters in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, but the Committee shall impose no penalty based on such report unless and until a complaint has been laid and determined against the member concerned. A Section Committee or Appeals Committee shall have power to act under this clause, whether or not a prosecution in a Court of Law has been brought against a member, but conviction by such Court may be treated as proof of an offence under this rule.

I looked into this some years ago before buying someone a 5cm folding lockable knife for basket making and the clearest and simplest advice I came across on a retail site was that if you don't need it for a specific use you can prove, even if it's just hiking, don't buy it.

Sorry you're quite right. Anything over 3" and anything lockable needs reasonable cause. Lockable knives are not illegal per se otherwise it would be illegal to sell them in the UK.

The important point to remember here is that unless the person with the lockable blade raises a defence of reasonable cause under the act the crown is seen to have proved its case which is why the Judge removed discretion from the jury. A person found with a lockable blade of more than 3" in a public place will be found guilty if they don't bother to try and raise a defence or that defence is considered unreasonable. What a jury might consider a reasonable defence is quite another matter...

Quite right Kerry - but as you know I have this penchant for looking at the detail and they did ask. The sole trader in not usually looked at too closely as the tax recovered would never merit the time expended. Of the five or so contacts who have had tax inspections there is one I would mention as a warning to others. It concerns a chap who thinks he was 'shopped' by a retailer after using a company credit card for what were clearly not business linked purchases (they found that was fine but a lot of travel disallowed by the way).

Agreed. But you never know.

Always go the manual with questions like this - the tax manual is online. The test here (see https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim35660) seems to be whether the training is to update existing skills relevant to the business as it exists at the moment which are deductible and training in completely new skills which usually are not at least as far as being set against profits is concerned, which I assume is what you are asking. Kerry is right in pointing out the standard HMRC disclaimer but it is also worth remembering that at bottom all the rules are designed, and case law reinforces this, to ensure as far as possible that an allowable business expense does not put the sole trader in a more favourable position than an individual personal taxpayer. It seems to me, speaking as a completely unqualified person, that given the info in your OP that your situation is not clear cut and could fall into that most hazardous of areas - the grey one. Personally I would take qualified advice but only if the cost was worth the trouble in tax saved.

To be fair the guidance has always acknowledged the need of some venues to balance access with security but it has always seemed to me that anything which cannot be easily checked visually is a risk. Mind you just yesterday I passed a venue where someone had chosen to store a stack of traffic cones and a wheelie bin in what is clearly an escape route - it always needs the sort of constant monitoring too often it simply doesn't get.

That was one Kieren Woodbury.

That's true of course but I think you just have to accept the unpleasant reality of bad debts that simply aren't worth chasing through any system, and that applies in any business. If they won't pay, and serial non-payers are shameless, they won't pay.

I am still owed £20 from 1972 but the lesson paid for itself many times over the years. On the other point I was called in for a MIlenium Ball event where the organiser was struggling and it was only at a meeting the day before in answer to a question about the licence all I got was in reply 'What Licence?'