homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.95.201
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

    
Ex googler says he has 100k emails proving Google cheats on UK taxes
Claims to have proof that Google operates a tax scam
Leosghost




msg:4575745
 1:22 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

My 100,000 emails that prove Google has lied
A former salesman for the firm says its claims to have traded only in Ireland are false and costing hundreds of millions in lost taxes


NB..full article behind paywall..

[thesundaytimes.co.uk...]

[thesundaytimes.co.uk...]

non paywall details..
[crave.cnet.co.uk...]

[theverge.com...]

 

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4575767
 2:19 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

This is a shocking situation. We need to know if they lied to parliament.

bhonda




msg:4575772
 2:44 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

Interesting timing.

Wonder why these didn't appear before Google went to parliament. Twice.

Leosghost




msg:4575774
 2:46 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

Couple of interesting comments in theverge report I linked to above.. by "Boghog"
at 10.59am and again at 5.44pm on May 19th..

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4575783
 3:24 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

I can think of no reason for Boghog to make this up but if this practice was widespread then surely we would have heard about it before now? So many businesses have been forced into Adwords by the ranking situation in the last couple of years. Many of those must have been be search savvy and realised what they were being told was malpractice. Why is this not public knowledge?

johnhh




msg:4575929
 11:54 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

See my post [webmasterworld.com...]

I think the Sunday Times is on a campaign, three articles in the paper on Sunday.

One problem is the data from the 'whistleblower' is ..um.. rather old.

In my experience, if you get involved in artifical tax avoidance it normally comes backs and bites you. See press reports today on Apple.

Prime Minister of UK just met Page, and somehow forgot to mention tax ! But hey they are closly linked anyhow.

I would not dismiss Margaret Hodge, I even got an email back when I gave her a tip off.

johnhh




msg:4575936
 11:57 pm on May 20, 2013 (gmt 0)

We need to know if they lied to parliament
This was hinted at by the Select Committee, I would expect Google to be back again in front of them soon.
brotherhood of LAN




msg:4575957
 2:04 am on May 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

We need to know if they lied to parliament.


I believe the "select committee" isn't legally binding, you can lie through your teeth and not be charged with perjury or the like. That said, it certainly wouldn't help their cause longer term.

diberry




msg:4576218
 3:24 pm on May 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

Wow, the Boghog comments might merit a whole new thread?

I can think of no reason for Boghog to make this up but if this practice was widespread then surely we would have heard about it before now? So many businesses have been forced into Adwords by the ranking situation in the last couple of years. Many of those must have been be search savvy and realised what they were being told was malpractice. Why is this not public knowledge?


Several possibilities come to mind:

(1) Google's good at choosing which companies they offer this to. Any company who takes them up on it has a good reason to keep silent.

(2) The few companies who don't take them up on it are not prepared to prove in a court of law that Google made these highly inappropriate offers to them. Without being prepared to prove it in litigation - or being prepared to withstand the years of expensive litigation a company like Google could bury you under - I'd be very careful what I said publicly, too.

(3) Disinformation, a tactic that works for the CIA and the Hollywood press machine equally well. Put out enough UNtrue rumors about Google's nefarious doings, and any TRUE rumors of nefarious doings get lost in the noise, and it's all dismissed as "conspiracy theory." Ahem.

johnhh




msg:4576324
 9:16 pm on May 21, 2013 (gmt 0)

you can lie through your teeth and not be charged with perjury or the like


I don't think that is correct, the TV footage I saw had Hodge quoting from the rules, and she clearly said it was an offence. I am not sure what would happen if you later said you 'mis-spoke' ( how I hate that phrase ) , or were 'economical with the truth' ( ah thats better )

piatkow




msg:4576468
 11:30 am on May 22, 2013 (gmt 0)

A committee is entitled to take evidence on oath. Only then can you be charged with perjury.

To knowingly mislead a committee is a "Contempt of Parliament". An MP can be suspended but I don't know what sanctions are available against other witnesses.

bhonda




msg:4576488
 12:01 pm on May 22, 2013 (gmt 0)

I can think of no reason for Boghog to make this up

Troll?

Unless someone here knows them (or is them), Boghog could be a 10 year old kid.

diberry




msg:4576561
 3:31 pm on May 22, 2013 (gmt 0)

Boghog could be a 10 year old kid.


He certainly doesn't sound like a kid or a troll. I'm not saying he couldn't be lying, but what he describes fits with a couple of known things:

(1) That Google has been known to extend SEO recommendations to JC Penney, BBC and Sprint that, AFAIK, they do not extend to peons like us.

(2) That most brands rank well organically and in Adsense.

To me, #1 - an established public fact - should cause small webmasters concern all by itself, regardless of Boghog's observations. I'm not at all sure it would be illegal or anti-trust for Google to extend SEO help to some and not others. The law might well decide it's their engine and they can do that. But it does indicate that not only does Google not care about our appearance in the SERPs, which we knew from Day 1, but that it has other people whose appearance in the SERPs it DOES care about. Which is not good news for those of us who don't rate.

johnhh




msg:4576718
 10:34 pm on May 22, 2013 (gmt 0)

I don't know what sanctions are available against other witnesses.
Not sure, I will ask my daughter as she used to attend hearings as 'Parliamentary Liasion Officer' for a quango.
<added> However I don't think I would be happy to be the subject of a Sunday Times campaign.</added>

johnhh




msg:4576721
 10:41 pm on May 22, 2013 (gmt 0)

opps solved it - very rare
[guardian.co.uk...]
in a state of intoxication love it !

johnhh




msg:4578363
 10:15 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

More articles in the Sunday Times this week

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved