BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[SantaClaus]

But now they've dropped the word clarify and are referring to is for what it is - retrospective legislation.


Maybe we should but together an "charge sheet" against HMRC - there is a lot we can complain about.

Looking forward to some more "news"-letters from HMRC.

Every time they send information out, they incriminate themselves even more!

[BrilloPad]

Looking forward to some more "news"-letters from HMRC.

Every time they send information out, they incriminate themselves even more!

And it gives you something to feed your rotweiller on?

You really should not refer to your better half like that

[SantaClaus]

And it gives you something to feed your rotweiller on?

You really should not refer to your better half like that

Ho ho

[caliban]

Forgive me if I am blunt but the position is clear

The state is entitled to make law and the citizen is entitled to know that law. In this manner an individual is able to organize his or her affairs in such a way as to satisfy statute.

While it is to be hoped that legislation is clear and unambiguous the reality is that there are occasions when it is not. On these occasions and where there is division it is the remit of the courts to provide direction.

It is of course legitimate for legislation to be amended from time to time. However the business of retrospection is to deny all or part of what was and to determine it never to have been. There is no label that can be attached to a retrospective initiative that makes it more palatable. Quite simply, if it has an effect then it is a change, and if it has no effect one may wonder why it is introduced.

Where a statute has been relied upon to determine the manner in which an individual has organized his or her affairs then it is a very serious matter indeed for that statute to be undone. Not least because it may put beyond reach the courts to which the citizen may otherwise have reasonably expected to have been able to petition in defence of a challenge.

[SantaClaus]

The state is entitled to make law and the citizen is entitled to know that law. In this manner an individual is able to organize his or her affairs in such a way as to satisfy statute.

While it is to be hoped that legislation is clear and unambiguous the reality is that there are occasions when it is not. On these occasions and where there is division it is the remit of the courts to provide direction.

It is of course legitimate for legislation to be amended from time to time. However the business of retrospection is to deny all or part of what was and to determine it never to have been. There is no label that can be attached to a retrospective initiative that makes it more palatable. Quite simply, if it has an effect then it is a change, and if it has no effect one may wonder why it is introduced.

Where a statute has been relied upon to determine the manner in which an individual has organized his or her affairs then it is a very serious matter indeed for that statute to be undone. Not least because it may put beyond reach the courts to which the citizen may otherwise have reasonably expected to have been able to petition in defence of a challenge.

and your point is?

[poppy01]

and your point is?

Its a very concise argument against the very idea of retrospective changes to the law.
His point is we are the victims of an unlawful attack by government. It is the kind of argument I would expect MP to employ in the JR

[SantaClaus]

Its a very concise argument against the very idea of retrospective changes to the law.
His point is we are the victims of an unlawful attack by government. It is the kind of argument I would expect MP to employ in the JR

ok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.

[poppy01]

ok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.

No probs took me a couple too. Caliban seems to know his legaleese.
I particularly like his simple contention that to clarify or change are one and the same thing in our case.

i.e. has the action had an effect, yes = change, no = why bother
QED

In my case the effect is very clear, without bn66 I am solvent, with it I am bankrupt.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

ok thanks and apologies to Caliban. It took me quite a few reads of the wording to work out what was being said.

Impressive first post by Caliban. Interesting choice of username, like Malvolio, another comic villain from Shakespeare.

He certainly doesn't sound like an IT contractor!!!

[TheGadgetMan]

Impressive first post by Caliban.

Agreed.

Caliban, welcome to the forum.

Perhaps you'd like to introduce yourself and tell us of your interest in BN66. Are you effected by the potential effects of BN66?