Americans why still soo dumb??

[Sun_Tzu]

first

Can think of three things I like about Bush for a start, first he's straight talking, none of this waffling crap that seems to typify politians these days, where they never actually say anything much that can't be denied later as having been misunderstood ("I did not have sexual relations" comes to mind). You might not like what he's saying, but then again Winston Churchill was vilified prior to the Second World War, he didn't have the highest IQ in history and his public speaking was shockingly bad for many years.

Bullshit. He lied about the WMDs at best and was casually ignorant at worst, he didn't take his time to understand what was going on, he didn't finish working on Al Qaida or Osama bin laden, he just sent US and British troops into this giant clusterfuck in Iraq for no goddamn reason, then him and his republican cronies find it fit to tar every democrat opposed to the war as anti-patrotic for not wanting to kill innocent civilians and our own military personnel. Grats !

Second when he talked about his past, such as the drinking, the arrest for drunk driving etc he was open about it, said yep did that not proud of it, but I did it. Not like Clinton's "I smoked, but I didn't inhale" for which no one should have voted for him, cos either he did inhale, but didn't have the guts to admit it or he did as he claimed and didn't have the guts to refuse the joint and just pretended to do it. Either way completely lame.

Bullshit again. He never said anything about the Kennebunkport (i live near there. 's why i know :O ) arrest, it was uncovered by a news reporter overhearing the cop who arrested him in the Portland, ME courthouse. Thats the reason why it came out 4 days before the election, and saying Bush was honest and straightforward is nonsense. He never told anyone until it was a big news story all over CNN and everywhere.


---

American's have a strange view on poilitics. Lived there a year (not long I know, but gives me a bit of an insight) and it came across loud and clear that they do NOT like government. They don't trust someone else to make decisions for them, and especially distrust large bureaucratic governments. They are also uncomfortable electing anyone they regard as more intelligent than they are - there are undoubtedly some very keen minds working in Washington, but the guy that stands at the front needs to be "electable".

And in America that equates (in some cases) with "stupider than me".

(some) Republicans are the kind of people who don't want the government interfering in their lives, but have no problems with it interfering in other's lives.

With the intellectual thing - you're damn right. Bush is commonly seen as a "man of the people", while Kerry (and Gore) were some kind of Ivory-tower eggheads who dont understand the common man. There's lots of people who didn't vote for Kerry because they don't feel *comfortable* with the man - but to paraphrase Bill Maher, its not like you have to sleep with him for god's sake.

</pissed-off-american>

By the way, I blame Ohio and Florida.

*Edit: And if bush starts a draft, Texas is going first.

 

[Dukat]

Bit late in the day to be posting, ah well here goes...

First off, I'm British. I consider my self a patriot. I have heard the phrase "If it wasnt for us, you'd be speaking german right now" too many times, and so I have a rather dim opinion of american attitudes in general. (even so I still have a few american friends)

I dont like what happened in Iraq, primarily because it really didnt accomplish anything, we (the uk and the us) are now stuck in a situation where we cannot easily pull out without the place becoming the next bosnia. however we cannot easily stay without having alot of our people killed.

In my opinion Bush(or the people who actually press the buttons) showed that he doesnt care about the UN or its decisions in the way that he went into iraq without first getting 'permission' (using that word as loosely as possible). We dont tell america what to do, but there was no reason for the US to go in without first getting the legal side of things sorted out, afterall the UN is (or was) meant to be on the same side as the US.

Saying that Europe cannot look out for itself is pathetic. I'm not going to open that can of worms, as its a very big issue and isnt at all relevent to this discussion, infact bringing either The Great War, or World War 2 into this conversation is the most stupid thing I've seen in a LONG time. both happened under completely different circumstances and also happened in a completely different political/economical environment.

Saying that the US was going into Iraq to continue its 'war on terror' is stupid, as anyone who knows the first thing about terrorism will know that for years Lebanon's Bekaa Valley was more of a hotbed for terrorism than Iraq ever has been.

Also remember that the US could have persued thier war on terror much more successfully(and with less loss of life) if they had of concentrated on stopping americans funding the IRA (it has been going on for a long while, kinda takes the piss tbh).

Lets look at one thing that the americans havent been too quick to bring up yet: We (the UK) have been FAR more successfull in our actions against terrorists than any country in the world. We had our problems with the IRA, but nothing to ever rival the kind of shite the US has gotten itself into.

Why bother with the large operations into hostile countrys when there are existing assets that could do the job? The SAS, the CIA, the Navy SEALs, the Rangers and Delta Force to name but a few. then theres the air power, which could've done the job without even setting foot on enemy soil. Why oh why did they decide to go in like the did?

I thought it was common knowledge that going in with large numbers against an enemy like Al Queida (sp?) will do no good at all. The resistance situation that we are currently facing in Iraq was obvious from day 1, and yet there is little that has been done to protect the troops that i can see.

I dont really understand why things are happening like they are anymore, I just hope that this situation doesnt end in a catastrophic loss of life on either side (though i admit having those hostage-takers killed wouldn't be a bad thing).

All of the above is my opinion only, I dont profess to know all, but with the facts that i know those are the conclusions i have reached.

 

[Litmus]

Heh, yea i bought the mirror yesterday. Some good stuff slaging off bush which was a nice read. Also another Collum which i found amuseing was the "top 10 things about America".

1) Florida is a very nice place to go on holiday as the sun is always shineing.(something along those lines anyway.)

2) Ermmm

3) Thats all folks

 

[Litmus]

Bit late in the day to be posting, ah well here goes...

First off, I'm British. I consider my self a patriot. I have heard the phrase "If it wasnt for us, you'd be speaking german right now" too many times, and so I have a rather dim opinion of american attitudes in general. (even so I still have a few american friends)

Aye, just ask any random american why they speak english though and not Canadian French or Mexican. The reason being most are desendants of English criminals who were deported to America afew hundred years ago. Thats bound to get there back up.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Leading your country to ruin don't make you a good leader. Think you might have confused good public speaker with leadership

Like i said, if it weren't for a silly mistake of two front war and the whole genocide thingy, he was a good leader...atleast in a war sence if nothing more. And not all nazi thingies were bad, they had this whole, "do what you do best" as one of the policies. In other words, if you made damn good bread, you'd be a baker and so forth.

Buut, sidetracking here

I agree with Lumikki, comparing Bush to Hitler is a bit unfair to hitler.

 

[Escape]

Can think of three things I like about Bush for a start, first he's straight talking, none of this waffling crap that seems to typify politians these days, where they never actually say anything much that can't be denied later as having been misunderstood ("I did not have sexual relations" comes to mind). You might not like what he's saying, but then again Winston Churchill was vilified prior to the Second World War, he didn't have the highest IQ in history and his public speaking was shockingly bad for many years.

Second when he talked about his past, such as the drinking, the arrest for drunk driving etc he was open about it, said yep did that not proud of it, but I did it. Not like Clinton's "I smoked, but I didn't inhale" for which no one should have voted for him, cos either he did inhale, but didn't have the guts to admit it or he did as he claimed and didn't have the guts to refuse the joint and just pretended to do it. Either way completely lame.

Third the Guardian type journalists hate him, which would get my vote on its own, if they hate him hes gotta be doing something right.

Says the Sun reader...

I'd much rather see a cunning, intelligent leader who tells lies instead of a thick fuck who's too dumb to lie. Have you already forgotten his campaign against Iraq, so sure was he about their WMD he practically swore it was true.. but all the time he was lying and knew it, as did his croonies. The same when he implied Iraq had links with Al Qaeda. He's not as innocent as you think, which you would know if you weren't so ignorantly biased.

Why do you bring up the holocaust in every thread about war, was it the only atrocity in history? You could draw similarities between Hitler and Bush... and their hunger for war, although that wasn't your point! But it's ironic you'd support one prick but not the other. No doubt you believe Bush is doing this to help the Iraqis...

 

[Marc]

lol@the mirror. Such a voice of integrity. And yeah, im a sun reader as they are the only paper that truly got behind by our boys. All the other left wing shite newspapers are only good for wiping your arse with or wrapping chips in.

and lol@the people posting here who know all there is to know about iraq. Silly me, in your spare time, you are all heads of the CIA and MI6 arent you. rofl.

Saddam is gone. End of. Yes, the WMD is gonna haunt both Blair and Bush but dont forget, this war ended 12 years of Saddam taking the piss out of the rest of the world. Bush had the balls to do it (unlike his father) Wether they found them or not, there is evidence that he had made them, or was planning to make them and for christs sake, if he wasnt up to anything why didnt he just let the weapons inspectors in. Whereas the majority of people are voicing their opinions based on cock and bull conspiracy theories, im using plain old common sense, but please, feel free to prove me wrong with your stories of oil etc.

I know a handful of people currently serving in iraq, or home from iraq (remember the lad on the front page of the newspapers who had allegedly been shot 5 times and his helmet saved him? hes a mate of mine) and they all believe they are/were fighting a "just" war. They believe in the reasons why they are there and its their opinions that matter most with regards to Iraq, not some armchair left wing maggot. They believe in Bush, but after all, what do they know, they are only grunts right?

 

[Driwen]

if he wasnt up to anything why didnt he just let the weapons inspectors in.

he did afaik? Besides that having the threat of having wmd's is something Saddam might not have wanted to loose aswell, because he might have lost face to his people and having the possibility of having them might deter people from attacking him (off course it didnt).

And people just mentioned Iraq as it has very little to do with defeating terrorrists. Which is supposedly what Bush is trying to do and they mentioned it in the fact that Bush did lie (he was so sure Saddam had WMD's and that it even was a possible threat to the western countries(or did Blair only say that?)).

 

[Marc]

Says the Sun reader...

I'd much rather see a cunning, intelligent leader who tells lies instead of a thick fuck who's too dumb to lie.

and bush is in control of the worlds most powerful country, while you, are, erm, in a roleplay guild.

Not bad for a "thick fuck" eh

 

[Tesla Monkor]

Yeh, but he's still a 'thick fuck'.

 

[Vireb]

I agree with Lumikki, comparing Bush to Hitler is a bit unfair to hitler.

agree completly hitler took a ruined country made it great (economicly and military strenth). Bush took a great country and is ruining it ,econimicly (huge spending and cutingtaxes,) and its relations with the rest of the world. America thinks it can scare people into being its friends... your either with us or your against us attitude.... i know 3 year olds with more intellect than to say that sort of crap. half of europe wants nothing to do with america now go back 4 years was that the case ?
And to be honest its not bush who is that bad, bush is just chaineys (spelling?) puppet , andwe al know chainey is fkn crazy from bush seniors term in office, only person who has remotly sane in bush's old admin was colin powell he has now resigned (due to working with a bunch of fkn loonies) , imo good luck world and goodluck america , even more good luck to the next president he isgoing to have to fix A lot of shit.

 

[Vireb]

And people just mentioned Iraq as it has very little to do with defeating terrorrists. Which is supposedly what Bush is trying to do

iraq = war on terrorism due to links with al queda and wmd.
1 month after 9/11 a report was made by the bush stating allthe countries alqueda worked out of , iraq is not listed. uk, usa, grmany , and lots of other countries are but iraq is not.
next thing we know bush makes a speech saying saddam hussain aids and harbors terrorists including Alqueda ..............

a report was published april 2004 report by Intenational Institute for Static Studies says war on iraq has INCREASED al queadas Strength by publicity and media. so what has bush achieved in the war on terrorism he holds so greatly? hes put america at more risk and strengthed his main threat.......... WD QQ

A great line american comedian Bill Maher said . "on sept the 11 2001 america was attacked by a squad of terrorists working from germany pakistan and afghanistan, and by that i mean we were attacked by Iraq!" thing is that line is so true

 

[Naetha]

Those who are intelligent should understand why Bush won, and the implications it will have for the US, and to some extent the rest of the world.

Whether you agree with Bush's politics or the core of neo-conservatism that runs through his government, you have to understand that the issues and policies that he supports and endorses mean a lot to a very large proportion of America.

Its difficult to understand how important a part religion plays in American politics when we are brought up in the relatively secular regimes of Western Europe, but these are people who many think that 9/11 was God's way of punishing them for allowing abortion, homosexuality, and removal of compulsory prayer from schools. They believe the only way they can redeem themselves is to remove "evil" from the world in the form of dictators. For them, this isn't a war, its a crusade.

The people who have no excuse for supporting Bush are "thick fucks" like Marc who look at the world with blinkers on, refusing to accept anything that doesn't fit into their ideology. That is the difference between being un-educated, and plain stupid.

 

[Marc]

So basically, im a thick fuck because i dont have an excuse for supporting Bush, wheras you, spout all this babble about neo-blah-blah-blah. Well, you know, i could of watched the 3 part documentary about it too thats been showing on bbc2 over the past 3 weeks, and read about why america voted for bush in the newspapers (good piece in the papers today, which is where im guessing you are basing most of your arguments from as its almost word for word) and then bring it to here to try and make myself look inteligent. But alas, i chose not too. (i have probably got more academic qualifications than you)

The reasons i support bush, is because he had the balls to stand up and do something about Saddam. Thats it. I feel he comes under a serious amount of unwarranted criticism (usually from the lefties) for doing his job. Tony Blair sees Bush as a close ally, and why not? AMerica is the most powerful country in the world, that has "had the UK's back" many more times than the rest of europe has.

 

[Ormorof]

and now ask me if I care

well you should, because with up to 58% of trade that could be lost (wont be that much but will be alot) that means a HUGE drop in GDP which for your average joe means either a) lower wages or b) job cuts

now with housing market as high priced as it is, especially in the south, alot of people can hardly afford houses as it is, if their wages are lowered it will fuck up the country even more (and its pretty fucked up tbh )

oh and about supporting bush i do agree he has had a lot of undeserved critisicm, but then, as i believe Teh Seel mentioned.... americans are a completely different type of people now, theres a huge difference in thinking between most of europe and the US, no wonder we cant agree on anything

 

[Naetha]

The reasons i support bush, is because he had the balls to stand up and do something about Saddam. Thats it. I feel he comes under a serious amount of unwarranted criticism (usually from the lefties) for doing his job.

Since when was "Doing something about Saddam" the mandate of the US president? Iraq hadn't invaded anyone (well not recently anyway^^), Saddam said he had no WMDs, he allowed the inspectors in (reluctantly, as I'd imagine virtually any country would) and no WMDs were found. The links between 9/11, Al-Qaeda and Iraq were tenuous at best. People say that Iraq was invaded on human rights grounds - for suppression of religious, ethnic and women's rights, but why not invade China, or Morocco, or the Philippines, or even look to redress the same issues in the US? The reason Bush organised the US invasion of Iraq was due to money and power, and his need for both.

As for academic qualifications, I don't see why they have anything to do with this - I'm a qualified geologist, but that doesn't help or hinder me having an interest in politics

 

[Marc]

well you should, because with up to 58% of trade that could be lost (wont be that much but will be alot) that means a HUGE drop in GDP which for your average joe means either a) lower wages or b) job cuts

now with housing market as high priced as it is, especially in the south, alot of people can hardly afford houses as it is, if their wages are lowered it will fuck up the country even more (and its pretty fucked up tbh )

oh and about supporting bush i do agree he has had a lot of undeserved critisicm, but then, as i believe Teh Seel mentioned.... americans are a completely different type of people now, theres a huge difference in thinking between most of europe and the US, no wonder we cant agree on anything

Just by leaving the EU, doesnt automatically mean we will lose the trade of other EU contries (and even if it did, it would open up the door for other countries). If the GDP was to drop this would cause interest rates to drop too, meaning the majority of the country would benefit from cheaper mortgages (although would the loss of income be comparable to the drop in mortgage rates, probably not) and overall, lower borrowings. The only real losers in terms of lower interest rates would be those well off, with huge savings. The housing market already is on the decline but its too early to say wether this will be long term.

The EU has a long history of being corrupt, and only yesterday, le worm, Jaques Chirac visited the bed side of Arrafat, but lets not go there, we will probably be drawn into the debate about peace in the middle east and whos in the wrong, the pallastines (sp) or the isrealies (which came first, the chicken or the egg)

 

[Naetha]

Out of curiosity Marc (and this is a genuine question, not an attempt to bait or flame you) what EU directives do you disagree with? There's some issues controlled by the EU that I don't like, but there's very few that I don't think are good for the overall wellbeing of this country.

 

[old.Tohtori]

(which came first, the chicken or the egg)

Religious: God made chickens, not eggs.

Science: All life came from the primal goo, the cells of the goo could be described as eggs.

 

[Marc]

Since when was "Doing something about Saddam" the mandate of the US president? Iraq hadn't invaded anyone (well not recently anyway^^), Saddam said he had no WMDs, he allowed the inspectors in (reluctantly, as I'd imagine virtually any country would) and no WMDs were found. The links between 9/11, Al-Qaeda and Iraq were tenuous at best. People say that Iraq was invaded on human rights grounds - for suppression of religious, ethnic and women's rights, but why not invade China, or Morocco, or the Philippines, or even look to redress the same issues in the US? The reason Bush organised the US invasion of Iraq was due to money and power, and his need for both.

And saddam also said that he never gassed thousands of his own people. As for letting weapon inspectors in, he pissed them about time after time. But the question is, why? If he had nothing to hide, why not let them in? As for the links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, they were proven. It is a war on terror, spearheaded by Dubya. If these next 4 years prove to be futile, and places like Korea, iran etc, are still doing what they are doing, and dubya has done sweet FA about it then I will change the way I feel about bush.

 

[Dillinja]

Since when was "Doing something about Saddam" the mandate of the US president? Iraq hadn't invaded anyone (well not recently anyway^^), Saddam said he had no WMDs, he allowed the inspectors in (reluctantly, as I'd imagine virtually any country would) and no WMDs were found. The links between 9/11, Al-Qaeda and Iraq were tenuous at best. People say that Iraq was invaded on human rights grounds - for suppression of religious, ethnic and women's rights, but why not invade China, or Morocco, or the Philippines, or even look to redress the same issues in the US? The reason Bush organised the US invasion of Iraq was due to money and power, and his need for both.

I agree completely with this. Of all the countries that have virtually the same problems as what Iraq had under Saddam, Bush conveniently chose to invade the one that is the weakest and is full of oil.

 

[Naetha]

NEW YORK - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein. Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: “To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.”

Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Marc]

Out of curiosity Marc (and this is a genuine question, not an attempt to bait or flame you) what EU directives do you disagree with? There's some issues controlled by the EU that I don't like, but there's very few that I don't think are good for the overall wellbeing of this country.

Being an accountant, my main grievances are with the IAS Regulation (EC)1606/2002 which is concerned with the application of international accounting standards. In a nutshell, its a complete overhaul of the reporting system, although its saving grace is, it will only apply to PLC's which I have no dealings with. The same also applies for the international auditing standards. Its typical of the EU. They want to set the rules and control everyone cliaming its in everyones best interests.

There is also the EU directive concerning money laundering. Basically, during the course of my work, i have to report any suspicions that I have that a client may be "laundering" the proceeds of crime or terrorism (wtf). If I dont report any suspicions that I have (or even If I simply dont have any) and it turns out the client was money laundering, then I am liable for a jail sentence. The EU, (in its wisdom) set no minimal limit for suspicious transactions so if i felt someone had paid 1p too little to customs and excise, i have to first of all, sustain why, and if my suspicions turn towards the evasions of paying VAT I have to file a report. FOR A FUCKING PENNY. WHen this new EU directive came into place, there werent enough people to handle the amount of reports, due to this silly no limit ruling. Current estimates are that they are upto 8 months behind with this reports. The EU is just creating more and more work.

 

[Vireb]

The EU is just creating more and more work.

not a bad thing more and more jobs ........

 

[Naetha]

I can see your frustration, but laws and directives like this are still a development in progress. If its like the EU Landfill directive, with feedback and "sensible" suggestions, the law will be changed (e.g. all liquid wastes were forbidden to be disposed of to landfill, which included liquid leachate generated from the landfill which was recycled to aid decomposition - consultants, contractors and everyone else complained and suggested that only certain liquid wastes would be restricted and bingo, the directive was changed).

Other than that I can't see any real problems - the first directive is a pain to bring through, but systems need to be standardised for them to be more efficient, and the second again is a pain to implement but if it prevents money laundering then this is a good thing surely? The fact that you would be liable if you failed to report or notice significant laundering is part of your job surely (and therefore covered by your comany's indemnity insurance) and as with everyone in positions of responsibility if you fail to do your job properly you must face the consequences.

Any legislation, whether its from Brussels or Westminster is a pain - I have far more problems with UK IPPC legislation than I do with any EU legislation.

 

[Marc]

not a bad thing more and more jobs ........

Sorry, i should of elaborated a little. The excess work that the EU is creating has to billed. We dont do work for nothing. How do you explain to a client that their bill is going to be an extra £300 pound this year, especially to one who hasnt got a lot of money. Its a knock on effect, they go somewhere cheaper. Usually a small "One man band" who gives crap service and charges peanuts. So then this new accountant doesnt do the work we would do and the client finds themselves smack bang in the middle of a tax enquiry. Just what an 80 year old lady needs whos only source of income is a uk state pension along with a little bit of rental income. Of course, this is an extreme example, but one that is possible.

 

[Vireb]

Sorry, i should of elaborated a little. The excess work that the EU is creating has to billed. We dont do work for nothing. How do you explain to a client that their bill is going to be an extra £300 pound this year, especially to one who hasnt got a lot of money. Its a knock on effect, they go somewhere cheaper. Usually a small "One man band" who gives crap service and charges peanuts. So then this new accountant doesnt do the work we would do and the client finds themselves smack bang in the middle of a tax enquiry. Just what an 80 year old lady needs whos only source of income is a uk state pension along with a little bit of rental income. Of course, this is an extreme example, but one that is possible.

But then is not the bad accountant liable?
and tbh a directive that is enforced all across europe ,will increase prices across all acountants?
wont be that many cheaper as you said except for the small one man bands, but then if there that bothered , why are they not going there already ?

 

[Marc]

I can see your frustration, but laws and directives like this are still a development in progress. If its like the EU Landfill directive, with feedback and "sensible" suggestions, the law will be changed (e.g. all liquid wastes were forbidden to be disposed of to landfill, which included liquid leachate generated from the landfill which was recycled to aid decomposition - consultants, contractors and everyone else complained and suggested that only certain liquid wastes would be restricted and bingo, the directive was changed).

Other than that I can't see any real problems - the first directive is a pain to bring through, but systems need to be standardised for them to be more efficient, and the second again is a pain to implement but if it prevents money laundering then this is a good thing surely? The fact that you would be liable if you failed to report or notice significant laundering is part of your job surely (and therefore covered by your comany's indemnity insurance) and as with everyone in positions of responsibility if you fail to do your job properly you must face the consequences.

Any legislation, whether its from Brussels or Westminster is a pain - I have far more problems with UK IPPC legislation than I do with any EU legislation.

The difference is though, the EU directive on money laundering was just shoved straight into our faces. No planning, no trial period. Nothing. The sytems involved are shocking. Only an absolute numpty would have set a minimal limit of 1p. I mean, the costs involved to investigate this potential lundering of a penny must be obscene, and no doubt, paid by the uk tax payer. It has now been in place for just short of a year and nothing has changed because brussels want to be seen as hitting back at the terrorists. Yeah GG Brussels. America kicks some ass. Brussels antagonise the honest employer in the search for terrorist activities.

 

[Marc]

But then is not the bad accountant liable?
and tbh a directive that is enforced all across europe ,will increase prices across all acountants?
wont be that many cheaper as you said except for the small one man bands, but then if there that bothered , why are they not going there already ?

Its not about him being bad, its the fact that he has to cut corners in order to make money on such a small fee. He isnt going to admit to someone he was wrong and harm his image.

Yes, i dare say it will increase prices across the board. However, lets take an example. A client pays £500 for their accountancy and tax matters. A price they think its a little dear , but they pay it because they know they get the best service and peace of mind. Then one year, we have a discrepency, the client cant explain it, we have to do extra work and thus, raising the accountancy bill to £900. Now, here is the catch. We are NOT allowed, by law, to tell the client about this extra work we have done. WTF!!! SO how are we supposed to justify an extra £400? All you are doing is pushing good, honest clients into the arms of other firms, who are willing to cut corners.

Anyway, its getting slightly off topic now

Americans arent dumb m'kay!

 

[Binky the Bomb]

But then is not the bad accountant liable?
and tbh a directive that is enforced all across europe ,will increase prices across all acountants?
wont be that many cheaper as you said except for the small one man bands, but then if there that bothered , why are they not going there already ?

Actually, i knw what he's on about here, and the answer is no, the bad accountant isn't liable, at first. Unless you can prove reasonable doubt about the service given bny the bad accountant, your screwed. My last boss had exactly this trouble after moving the accounts to another "smaller" firm. All seemed well for 4 years, then we got lumbered with about £38,000 bill for back-taxes and an enquiry to why the forms weren't handed in.

Turned out the new guy hadn't bhecked everything properly and let the accounts slide for 4 years, trying to put the tax man on hold, Turns out he took on too many clients and over-extended himself. We still had to pay the bill and were handed notices that we may have to pay more until the matter was resolved, whilst the tax officer investigated our accounts with our accountant. We got off, only because the tax officer made the time to investigate, we got lucky.

The reason people aren't charging to these "one man bands" is because they have a bad reputation, most are deemed "risks" by businesses, but a few will be desperate enough to use there cheep services. The flood may start soon, and then every con-man with a calculator will be opening up shop for quick business and quick money, Fraud on a mass scale.