BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[poppy01]

at first glance it looks like japanese porn, not that I know much about that of course,

it actually is japanese porn, dirty boy Mr B

[BrilloPad]

it actually is japanese porn, dirty boy Mr B

He is hardly likely to be getting any with his wife is he? That is presuming he ever got married which is highly unlikely......

[Toocan]

Having nothing better to do I came up with the following anagram
for MISTER A*** B*******

ALAS, GRIN 'N BEAR IT MAN!

It is possible to name "him who's name will not be spoken" on the forum - he is a public servant and it is him dealing with this from HMRC's point of view. Why should he not be named?

I know there were previous police involvement but wasn't that because some people had posted threatening posts related to "him who's name will not be spoken"?

It is NOT okay to threaten him – or anyone else – but genuine use with truthful facts – there is no crime there.

Somebody, tell me if i've wrong - which Act or common law prevents this?

This is our country.

Alternatively we could give him a pseudo name, you know, like Rumplestilksin or Alan.

[SantaClaus]

HMRC interest rate charged on late tax cut to 3.5%.

That's got to be good for us.

Yep, cheaper than my mortgage rate.

Nice one Mr YouKnowWho (TM)

[SantaClaus]

It is possible to name "him who's name will not be spoken" on the forum - he is a public servant and it is him dealing with this from HMRC's point of view. Why should he not be named?

I know there were previous police involvement but wasn't that because some people had posted threatening posts related to "him who's name will not be spoken"?

It is NOT okay to threaten him – or anyone else – but genuine use with truthful facts – there is no crime there.

Somebody, tell me if i've wrong - which Act or common law prevents this?

This is our country.

Alternatively we could give him a pseudo name, you know, like Rumplestilksin or Alan.

If we dont name him, we can say what we like about him without any problem
Also what can be viewed as threatening/harrasement in Big Brother land is a very grey area. We may even be viewed as terrorists in the eyes of this paranoid government and yes I have to laugh at the situation in this country

He does have a pseudoname btw and its trademarked:

MrYouknoWho (TM)

[Toocan]

If we dont name him, we can say what we like about him without any problem
Also what can be viewed as threatening/harrasement in Big Brother land is a very grey area. We may even be viewed as terrorists and yes I have to laugh at the situation in this country

He does have a pseudoname btw and its trademarked:

MrYouknoWho (TM)

Fair Point.

[Toocan]

Has anyone else noticed that the closure notices do not actually say Why the income should be taxable. Is this HMRC hedging their bets?

[Toocan]

The UK will conform

You might recall that YouKnowWho said in his letter that a decision that BN66 was not compatible with UK Human Rights Act would not stop him collecting the tax (or words to the effect). Oh really. Well, ahem, have a look at this quote:

Cross-Border Losses
We have a new instalment in the long-running saga of the Marks & Spencer (M&S) European losses. It may be remembered that M&S were denied group loss relief in respect of their European subsidiaries on the basis that they were not UK resident. They would have been entitled to relief had the subsidiaries been UK resident, and this was held by the European Court of Justice to be discriminatory and a breach of the EC Treaty; loss relief should have been allowed. After a few more court hearings, it was concluded that loss relief could be given only if the subsidiary had exhausted all possibilities for relief in its home state. Of course, that was impossible, because you could never rule out the possibility of profits arising at some time in the future. You could if you wound the company up, but if you did that, HMRC said that this would be regarded as a disqualifying event, and the loss would no longer be available for relief anyway.

Many people expressed the view that this approach meant that despite the ECJ ruling, relief for the losses was being denied unfairly, having regard to the clarity of the ECJ judgement that to deprive M&S of relief was contrary to the EC Treaty. However, that’s life – or so we thought.

I cannot, therefore, resist a smile at the European Commission press release of 18 September, which reveals that the EC has sent the UK a formal request to implement the ECJ judgement in Marks & Spencer.

They say that in the legislation that was supposed to implement the M&S ruling, the UK imposes conditions on cross-border group relief that make it virtually impossible for taxpayers to benefit from the relief.

The Commission considered that this is contrary to the EC Treaty as well.

The EC say that if the UK does not reply satisfactorily to this request within two months, the Commission may refer the matter to the ECJ. It may be that nothing much will happen, but this looks promising. Stay tuned.

( from http://www.ssd.com/files/Publication...ember_2008.pdf )

Seems like Europe will force the UK government, if they have to.

You have no room left Mr YouKnowWho . Resistance is futile…

[TheGadgetMan]

He does have a pseudoname btw and its trademarked:

MrYouknoWho (TM)

<tongue firmly in cheek mode><on>

OK I've kept quiet long enough...I'd like to contest your trade mark claim on the pseudonym given to our friend 'Alan'...

please see here...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...t=MrYouKnowWho

I suppose my problem was that I didn't patent it at the time!

can you please make a cheque out to 'TheGadgetMan' for any royalties that you have collected on my behalf on the use of the pseudonym 'MrYouKnowWho'...

if payment isn't made within 7 days, I might just ask MrYouKnowWho to send some of his heavies round to collect payment...mind you, they've been quite busy this week, haven't they?...

<tongue firmly in cheek mode><off>

[SantaClaus]

<tongue firmly in cheek mode><on>

OK I've kept quiet long enough...I'd like to contest your trade mark claim on the pseudonym given to our friend 'Alan'...

please see here...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...t=MrYouKnowWho

I suppose my problem was that I didn't patent it at the time!

can you please make a cheque out to 'TheGadgetMan' for any royalties that you have collected on my behalf on the use of the pseudonym 'MrYouKnowWho'...

if payment isn't made within 7 days, I might just ask MrYouKnowWho to send some of his heavies round to collect payment...mind you, they've been quite busy this week, haven't they?...

<tongue firmly in cheek mode><off>

Ok Gadgetman, the cheques in the post!
In fact, I'm sure thats what I said to Mr YouKnowWho (TM) when he sent me my closure notice