Posts

It's kind of retroactive. You can't fill in your accounts for the financial year 6th April 2009 to 5th April 2010 until after 5th April 2010. You can't give them the numbers until the numbers exist.

So after April THIS year, 2010, you will fill in a self-assessment that has all the details of your PAYE earnings (April 2009 - August 2009), and all the details of your business expenditure and earnings up to 5th April 2010, and information about interest earned on savings and so on. You should also then start a file for the 2010/2011 year.

The good news is that most of this information for your 2009/2010 year is really simple to find. The relevant PAYE figures are on your P45; and your bank or building society will usually send you a summary of your bank account(s) at some point in April. If your business accounts are a little disorganised, it's only a few months of them and you have time to get it into order.

The even better news is that HMRC run free one-day courses for "how to fill in your self-assessment" where they cover all the bases and you can ask any questions you need to. I found it really useful.

Like Kip and Steve - although on a rather different scale - I'm keeping motivated because running a business is almost like playing a computer game, it's the fun and the challenge of playing that keeps me playing. There's a lot to learn, a great feeling of accomplishment when I manage to do something a bit new, and all sorts of interesting bonus levels to discover along the way.

Also I know that my mother is loving being able to tell people that her daughter is "running her own business" and yeah, I like that bit too - it's a lot more satisfying than "I work for a call centre" even if the call centre would be less stress and more money.

I might be onto a winner here, since my business idea is centred around providing admin support for businesses who - for whatever reason - do not want actual PAYE permanent employees.

Although I will of course be stuffed if my business becomes such a success that I need to take on staff myself...

Good point this - if I'm hunting for brownie delivery companies and I've never heard of Mama C's, I'm going to type "brownie" into Google, not "mama c's".

Damn, I'm so sorry to hear that. I guess on the bright side you got confirmation that your CV is good, though? Cold comfort but better than being told "yes, we did get your CV but I'm afraid we were looking for someone with more/less/other qualifications/experience/whatever."

I love OpenOffice. As you say, it opens more or less anything up to and including old M$ Word docs that newer versions of Word can't open... and it's so nice being able to say to clients "I'm sending it as a (file type I think they are most likely to use), but if you have difficulty opening it, just let me know what office software you are using and I can change it accordingly."

I also love that if this computer goes pop, I don't have to dig out physical CDs and find the correct license key and hope that it'll still work on a new computer or OS - I can just hop on the net and download the latest version.

I found that I still had to stamp on it a few times to stop it from being too "helpful", things like automated spelling correction and layout features, but you get that sort of thing with the Microsoft experience too.

If I had one criticism, it would be the lack of built-in tutorials. The online knowledge base is good and has answered every question I've had so far, but I hate knowing that I'm not using it to anything like its full potential simply because I'm not aware of everything it can do. But I think that is largely nostalgia for the sort of word-processors we had at school where, once you'd used it for half an hour, you'd explored every option it had.

Well, at the risk of opening a whole other can of extremely wriggly worms, the false or baseless accusations issue isn't limited to anti-discrimination law. Similar principles occur in cases of fraud, abuse, sexual assault, just about any crime that isn't conducted in front of a full audience of police officers with the perpetrator wearing a big name-tag and offering videos for everyone to take home afterwards.

In any scenario, to be falsely accused of committing an offence is awful and has a huge impact on the person accused - and yes, I'll admit there is a small but vociferous minority of people with such a screwed-up sense of morality that they make false claims in the hope of "revenge", causing untold distress to those they accuse, wasting public resources, and making sure that the serious cases are afraid to come forward for fear of being tarred with the same brush. I also agree that there should be more support and protection for those falsely accused - innocent until proven guilty, and if proven not guilty, restitution made.

But in most scenarios, most cases are not frivolous or malicious (the ones that are, are newsworthy because they're the exception). It's absolutely imperative that the legislation and support is in place for the majority of serious cases.

It is also important that anyone who thinks it's okay to treat other human beings as lesser - by stealing their life savings, by knocking them about, by firing them on any basis other than their competence to do their job - has it explained to them by a voice of authority that actually, that's not acceptable.

Oh, I can't believe I forgot my all-time favourite video... how can you beat the lyric:

Yes, it's Elemental's Cup Of Brown Joy. Safe for work and small children.

Yes, and it was a purposely extreme example. However for the purposes of this discussion, my friend has two 'disabilities' - a drug allergy, and a neurological condition that makes it hard for her to move or speak. The dentist should have made a reasonable adjustment for the drug allergy by using a different drug. To refuse to make this adjustment was discriminatory. She also should have been allowed to refuse treatment like any other patient - she feels her protests would not have been ignored if it was not for her condition.

The essence of anti-discrimination law is to say that person A has exactly the same rights as person B. It might not always be life-or-death, but discrimination and the refusal to take it seriously does damage.

I totally agree that integration is key. I also agree that there's no point going around starting a court case every time someone looks at you in a funny way.

Where I think we differ is that I believe discrimination has an impact on people and that, when it is a serious impact (such as job loss, or risk to life, or limited access to basic essential public services) there has to be a mechanism for addressing that. You say it doesn't bother you when you experience discrimination, you just get on with it - and that's great, for you. But people respond differently.

You're a soldier. You know that when a unit goes home, they've all seen more or less the same things, all had more or less the same experiences, and some cope, and some don't. It doesn't make a person "bad" to not be able to cope with stuff on a mental level any more than it makes them "bad" to be more susceptible to colds. It's simply not a moral issue.

My friend isn't blind - she's visibly disabled as in, she "looks disabled". She passed the dentist a piece of paper she had prepared on which was typed that she was allergic to this particular anasthetic and to please not use it. He told her she was being ridiculous and not to worry. She attempted to argue but her verbal skills are not good. He then injected her with the very drug she had asked him not to use.

Now, I would hope that a white non-disabled middle-aged middle-class British male etc etc would make a formal complaint about any medic who had been told, in writing, of a serious drug allergy, and yet chose to ignore it.

However I also bet that it wouldn't get to that stage. As soon as that person got told he was being ridiculous (and I have my doubts as to whether that would happen because the white male etc etc commands more respect), I suspect he would be up off that chair like it was on fire - because he has the physical capacity to do so.

I also reckon that if he had any suspicions about not being taken seriously, and he was aware that his allergy was a "life threatening" one rather than a "got the squits for 24 hours" one, there is no way that he would let anyone inject him until he'd seen the label. Again, he has the physical, mental, and verbal capacity to get his point across and resist treatment. I feel that's a significant advantage.