BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If it is anything like as clear cut as that then you should make a formal complaint to the Board of the Inland revenue and persue it as far as possible. Actively lying is completely unacceptable. There are absolutely no circumstances in which this is justified.

An acceptable response would have been that the infromation was confidentail and they were not prepared to release it.

It's not worth it. They would just worm their way out of it. As long as I get the information I want one way or another, I don't care what evasion tactics they use. I haven't got time to complain about individual lies because there are too may of them.

As you may gather, I have become really cynical over the past 12 months. It seems that everywhere you turn there are pathological liars.

If you really want to see deception and misdirection in it's worst form, I can email you a line by line disection of Jane Kennedy's testimony to the Treasury Committee. It is absolutely shocking what she got away with.

[ASB]

It's not worth it. They would just worm their way out of it. As long as I get the information I want one way or another, I don't care what evasion tactics they use. I haven't got time to complain about individual lies because there are too may of them.

As you may gather, I have become really cynical over the past 12 months. It seems that everywhere you turn there are pathological liars.

If you really want to see deception and misdirection in it's worst form, I can email you a line by line disection of Jane Kennedy's testimony to the Treasury Committee. It is absolutely shocking what she got away with.

Sadly you are probably right. A complaint would probably be entirely fruitless, but I suppose there the remote chance it might make Mr H as head honcho squirm a bit in front of a parliamentry committee.

I looked at what Jane Kennedy said, and it seemed to me that it was entirely incositant in itself - even without any outside evidence it couldn't possibly all be correct. Yes nobody seemed to raise the slightest murmer.

[phileds]

Private Eye recently published an article about how secretive the government is, and how difficult it is to drag the truth out of them (I think it was to do with getting the figures behind MPs expenses - you know, the 180k a year or so which each one of them can claim. Oh, and the fact that a third of them "employ" their relatives...etc etc)

And to think, it was this so-called Labour government which introduced the Freedom of Information Act, and which won to some degree on its anti-sleaze stance. Lucky for them they still have the Press on their side to bamboozle the British public with their endless spin.

[poppy01]

It's not worth it. They would just worm their way out of it. As long as I get the information I want one way or another, I don't care what evasion tactics they use. I haven't got time to complain about individual lies because there are too may of them.

As you may gather, I have become really cynical over the past 12 months. It seems that everywhere you turn there are pathological liars.

If you really want to see deception and misdirection in it's worst form, I can email you a line by line disection of Jane Kennedy's testimony to the Treasury Committee. It is absolutely shocking what she got away with.

Not to worry, in 14 months she'll lose her seat, along with Alistair Darling, Jaqui Smith, Ed Balls, Ruth Kelly, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon.... the list goes on, its a thing of beauty....

[twinkle]

Yes, I received the letter too. It says exactly what the OP has stated, along with stating that their bank is now using the "faster payment" system to make payments under 10k to people quicker. The letter was dated 9th March so everyone should receive it soon I would think.

Yes, I received the letter too.

[poppy01]

Yes, I received the letter too.

I am an ex-member and I received the same letter but without mention of payment arrangements.

[WhatEver]

Response from Bob Neill (Con)

I received my response from Bob Neill (con) after 5 wks! I ended up sending a second DR letter (BIG Thanks) which must have passed in the post so Bob will be getting another more detailed account. Anyway, it was the standard response disagreeing with the retrospective element but due to public finances cant make promises yada yada, then an interesting closing para which I haven't seen so far on the forum.. "In light of your letter, I have raised your concerns on this matter with Stephen Timms MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have asked the Minister to clarify the enforcement of Section 58 and whether any limitations or discretion will be applied"

[NickNick]

Private Eye recently published an article about how secretive the government is, and how difficult it is to drag the truth out of them (I think it was to do with getting the figures behind MPs expenses - you know, the 180k a year or so which each one of them can claim. Oh, and the fact that a third of them "employ" their relatives...etc etc)

Something a contractor would never do...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have asked the Minister to clarify the enforcement of Section 58 and whether any limitations or discretion will be applied"

One thing I have noticed, and I'm not sure what it means, is that the Treasury have not responded to any MPs' letters recently. They have not even been sending out the standard "bog off" reply.

They must have received several dozen representations by now. I wonder what's going on?

Anyway, let's keep up the momentum. I have fired off letters to the following people in the last week, accusing the Govt of misleading Parliament and calling for an inquiry.

George Osborne
Vince Cable
John McFall (current Chairman of the Treasury Committee)

[poppy01]

dont know why, maybe spring is in the air, cleared the air with the missus, and I'm feeling quite optimistic at the moment. beginning to feel things might just be drifting our way.

not like me at all.

of course it may be the prospect of kicking nu-labour out of office in a year or so