BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[BrilloPad]

Apologies, I didnt mean to disrespect the volunteer. I too am extremely grateful, especially if he/she's one of the 'four', they've probably already been thru the mill for a the last few years,

Sorry if this sounds disrespectful - but what does one have to do apart from forward on copies of letters to montp? AFAIK montp have backed everyone all the way so far - and indeed all they really do is instruct QCs!

Apologies if I have got it wrong and I look forward to being corrected!

<puts on tin hat>

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Sorry if this sounds disrespectful - but what does one have to do apart from forward on copies of letters to montp? AFAIK montp have backed everyone all the way so far - and indeed all they really do is instruct QCs!

Apologies if I have got it wrong and I look forward to being corrected!

<puts on tin hat>

They may have to appear in person at the JR, perhaps even be cross-examined by HMRC's counsel? Once HMRC know who this person is, you can be sure they will be picking over their financial affairs with a fine tooth comb. I would not underestimate the burden this could involve, even with MontP backing them up. To a small extent, our fate is riding on this individual, so this is a big responsibility.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in their position but I'm grateful to whoever it is who has stepped up to the plate on our behalf. I take my hat off to you sir!

[poppy01]

emigre, you seem to be well informed, will the person in question need to take time off work to pursue the court case?

just an idea but if he is going to be out of pocket could we collectively help financially? I would be happy to chip in

[ContractIn]

They may have to appear in person at the JR, perhaps even be cross-examined by HMRC's counsel? Once HMRC know who this person is, you can be sure they will be picking over their financial affairs with a fine tooth comb. I would not underestimate the burden this could involve, even with MontP backing them up. To a small extent, our fate is riding on this individual, so this is a big responsibility.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in their position but I'm grateful to whoever it is who has stepped up to the plate on our behalf. I take my hat off to you sir!

I don't get why individuals have to be represented in this case when it is MTM requesting the JR and it was their scheme that has been impacted by BN66? I don't like the sound of the case resting on a scheme member. And if the search was so thorough and time consuming to find suitable candidate why have I or you (meaning all of us) not been notified or sounded out? Doesn't sound very thorough to me, sounds like a scapegoat for MTM.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I don't get why individuals have to be represented in this case when it is MTM requesting the JR and it was their scheme that has been impacted by BN66? I don't like the sound of the case resting on a scheme member. And if the search was so thorough and time consuming to find suitable candidate why have I or you (meaning all of us) not been notified or sounded out? Doesn't sound very thorough to me, sounds like a scapegoat for MTM.

We are both way off the mark.

I just spoke to MontP, and apparently there is nothing significant about the choice of candidate, other than that they were one of the first to receive a closure notice.

Closure notices are starting to trickle in but they've still only had about 20. Obviously HMRC are working as hard as ever!

[ContractIn]

We are both way off the mark.

I just spoke to MontP, and apparently there is nothing significant about the choice of candidate, other than that they were one of the first to receive a closure notice.

Closure notices are starting to trickle in but they've still only had about 20. Obviously HMRC are working as hard as ever!

OK thanks. So they were waiting for the first formal closure notice served before proceeding with the JR. That makes sense, not finding a candidate who would stand in court, that is suicidal!

[poppy01]

Oh I see. So if no closure notice had been received within 3 months of Royal assent, they couldnt have proceeded with the Judicial Review?

Still not sure it makes sense, but then what do I know

[kiwinlondon]

Oh I see. So if no closure notice had been received within 3 months of Royal assent, they couldnt have proceeded with the Judicial Review?

Still not sure it makes sense, but then what do I know

3months from receiving the closure notice im guessing as thats when the legislation has been acted upon im guessing......

[SantaClaus]

Was talking to someone who got me thinking...

If BN66 is against Human Rights legislation and we are being persecuted, can we claim political asylum in another european country and thus avoid being extradited?

Just a thought, maybe a stupid one, but interesting nonetheless.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Oh I see. So if no closure notice had been received within 3 months of Royal assent, they couldnt have proceeded with the Judicial Review?

Still not sure it makes sense, but then what do I know

I think we are all speculating. Probably best to wait as all will become clear in just a few weeks time.

Incidentally, is anyone going to be able to attend the JR and give us a running commentary? I would but I live 400 miles from London and probably won't be able to get away.