HMRC used CUK posts in the Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

This may be of general interest.

HMRC submitted posts from the BN66 thread as evidence to the Judicial Review.

On the morning of the 2nd day in Court, their barrister read out a series of posts, including some of mine.

Sadly, he didn't refer to our usernames because that would have sounded ridiculous ("DonkeyRhubarb", "bollox", "maddog"). He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

Also, I was disappointed that the screenshots were taken from before I installed the Donkey avatar. I would loved to have seen the look on the Judge's face when he read what was scrawled on the coat.

HMRC's intention was to show that people who used the scheme were aware that it was risky, and therefore it was their own fault if they disposed of the income rather than setting the monies on one side. Basically their argument was that if people were now facing bankruptcy or their health/marriages had suffered, then they had brought this on themselves.

We have it on good authority that HMRC continue to monitor the forum.

[smalldog]

This may be of general interest.

HMRC submitted posts from the BN66 thread as evidence to the Judicial Review.

On the morning of the 2nd day in Court, their barrister read out a series of posts, including some of mine.

Sadly, he didn't refer to our usernames because that would have sounded ridiculous ("DonkeyRhubarb", "bollox", "maddog"). He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

Also, I was disappointed that the screenshots were taken from before I installed the Donkey avatar. I would loved to have seen the look on the Judge's face when he read what was scrawled on the coat.

HMRC's intention was to show that people who used the scheme were aware that it was risky, and therefore it was their own fault if they disposed of the income rather than setting the monies on one side. Basically their argument was that if people were now facing bankruptcy or their health/marriages had suffered, then they had brought this on themselves.

We have it on good authority that HMRC continue to monitor the forum.

Sorry so HMRC are honestly saying we put our lives on hold for 8 years while we wait for them to get their act together???!!!!! How absolutely ridiculous, I can understand possibly 8 months, but 8 YEARS!!!!!

[SantaClaus]

...Also, I was disappointed that the screenshots were taken from before I installed the Donkey avatar. I would loved to have seen the look on the Judge's face when he read what was scrawled on the coat...

classic

[mudskipper]

Sorry so HMRC are honestly saying we put our lives on hold for 8 years while we wait for them to get their act together???!!!!! How absolutely ridiculous, I can understand possibly 8 months, but 8 YEARS!!!!!

I think the point DonkeyRhubarb was making here was that HMRC feel that the ramblings on this forum can be used in court as evidence - so when you've had that glass or two of wine, be careful what you post!

[cojak]

I think the point DonkeyRhubarb was making here was that HMRC feel that the ramblings on this forum can be used in court as evidence - so when you've had that glass or two of wine, be careful what you post!

They probably read the newspapers and posters that have been pasted onto walls and windows (though admittedly the discovery software for that is a bit more difficult to create).

The web generally (and this forum particularly) IS PUBLIC!

Why are people surprised by this revelation???

[HairyArsedBloke]

We have it on good authority that HMRC continue to monitor the forum.

Special message for Hector:

You can't get me.

[threaded]

One would imagine the Judge took this 'evidence' in same way he would take evidence recorded from a bunch of guys talking in a smoky pub after a good few pints.

I don't think you should worry he would give it any credence.

He'll probably mention it in his summing up though, just to have a good laugh, to see your reactions, and hopefully create lots of trivial points to base further cases on.

One should always remember the legal system is designed to enrich lawyers, anything else that happens is a side effect.

[mudskipper]

They probably read the newspapers and posters that have been pasted onto walls and windows (though admittedly the discovery software for that is a bit more difficult to create).

The web generally (and this forum particularly) IS PUBLIC!

Why are people surprised by this revelation???

I think the surprise is that anonymous postings by oddly named individuals would be admissible as court evidence. Anyone could pretend to be a contractor and post stuff to undermine the case.

[cojak]

With any luck* they'll notice that a lot of us are not working in contracts at the moment (that's what benched means, guys...)



*I'm not holding my breath, of course...

[cojak]

I think the surprise is that anonymous postings by oddly named individuals would be admissible as court evidence. Anyone could pretend to be a contractor and post stuff to undermine the case.

True...