If they're going to start tightening the law and investigating tax avoidance I'd like them to start with Premiership Footballers who avoid the majority of UK tax, then work downwards, they won't get to 98% of the population anytime soon.

Really? I'd like them to start with Tesco, Vodafone etc, and work down from there. That'll just be my 'politics of envy' at work again, what?

We must start linking tax payments to passports, protection by the State and ability to reside here. That way if the rich media / sportstars / entrepreneurs wish to go offshore when tax rates are high they should lose their right to resettle here. Going offshore when realising capital gains should also be considered "anti-British" and intolerable.

Ditto company's threatening to relocate their HQs overseas when they earn decent revenues here (eg Prudential). In the US they would get slated. Here we are soft.

Tesco/Vodafone and the likes employ thousands of people, Wayne Rooney puts a ball in a net a couple of times a week.

What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying your taxes and then have a special deal thrown at your feet years later rather than a summons?

Do larger employers that did pay their taxes now qualify for a rebate?

Why do you accuse others of envy when anything that involves a famous person means you either don't care about their civil liberties and human rights or are looking for ways to treat them differently than ordinary people under the law?

What else can you make them read and why would you want to?

It's not unique. We can all avoid tax, even those of us on PAYE.
"Special deals" is just a tax office being pragmatic.

I'm sure you can point me to other cases of companies avoiding six billion in tax and then having by far the greater majority of it written off, what with it not being unique and everything.

Ah, ok, so when you said

"What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying your taxes and then have a special deal thrown at your feet years later rather than a summons?"

What you actually meant was a far more specific:
"What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying specifically $6b in tax and then have a special deal offered that writes the greater majority off, rather than a summons?"

In which case, that was quite unique, unlike general avoidance of tax.

I think given the context it would take an expert in avoiding the charitable interpretation to have avoided understanding what I meant. But then this is the sin bin, so such things are to be expected.