BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[Hawkwind]

Indeed. And this thread is also used to gauge our moods and opinions. e.g. I can't see many replying to hawkind's post under an open forum like this.

Understood - although I didn't think it was that controversial or illegal (currently of course) a question

[SantaClaus]

They dont need to.. according to Brillos article they have employed peopel from the private sector to do their work so guess they have time on their hands...

Well, if they are as good as the consultancies that do IT projects for the govt, they will hopefully lose.

[MuddyFunster]

Well, if they are as good as the consultancies that do IT projects for the govt, they will hopefully lose.

The indefensible is still indefensible, even if it is being represented by overly paid lawyers from private law firms.

[poppy01]

Well, here we are on the new BN66 thread

I guess another useful lesson learnt today is that your posts on here ARE read by the Inland Revenue with great interest.

Therefore, it would be wise not to discuss correspondence from Montpelier and in particular information related to the upcoming Judicial Review that could help the Revenue's case.

Also, if you were thinking of doing a runner to Panama, this is probably the best place to broadcast it

In which case its a good place to tell 'em what you really think of them. Tell them about their lying, cheating, immoral, state-sponsored theft, and other actions unworthy of a department of state.

[BrilloPad]

In which case its a good place to tell 'em what you really think of them. Tell them about their lying, cheating, immoral, state-sponsored theft, and other actions unworthy of a department of state.

I have posted about this before - I will PM you. If we get a closed forum I will post the reply on there.

[SantaClaus]

In which case its a good place to tell 'em what you really think of them. Tell them about their lying, cheating, immoral, state-sponsored theft, and other actions unworthy of a department of state.

I commend it to the house

[mossman]

Dragonfly

Off topic a bit, but Dragonfly. The guy had worked for the AA for a few years, i.e. he was competent enough to be extended a few times.

I'm told that Hector doesn't don't bother much with short contracts. So an imcompetent IT practitioner who only gets a basic 3 months wherever he goes, is rewarded with a 20% tax rate, and the competent guy has to cough up 50% of his income to the government.

A tax system that rewards incompetence. You couldn't make it up!

[BolshieBastard]

Im not intending to be sanctimonious but I thought some of the comments were a bit near the knuckle too.

Im only surprised only 3 posters seem to be involved.

The only way to discuss certain things is to do it off forum or alternatively set up another tightly controlled member only forum specifically for the BN66 \ MP subject. But even then, HMRC can get access to that by intimating to be an affected contractor.

[Emigre]

But even then, HMRC can get access to that by intimating to be an affected contractor.

Surely HMRC aren't such lying cheating fiends as to hold themselves out to be someone that they are not? Isn't that illegal?

[BrilloPad]

Understood - although I didn't think it was that controversial or illegal (currently of course) a question

You are absolutely correct! But HMRC use these threads (and from other forums) to see what people are up to. And, who can blame them?

If some replies to you publicly the loophole might be gone before you can use it! I hope someone PMs you...