BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The fatal flaw

HMRC made a grave miscalculation with this legislation.

Had we been a bunch of high net-worth individuals, then it might have passed the Human Rights test Jane Kennedy referred to.

"I am satisfied that in these unusual circumstances, retrospective clarification of the law is fair, proportionate and in the public interest. That is the human rights test that we must apply."

However, the effect s58 will have on many people's lives is neither fair nor proportionate. The punishment does not in any way, shape or form fit the "wrongdoing".

Then there are all the innocent victims caught up in this. The families, the children. How is this fair or proportionate on them?

If you haven't emailed me your testimony, please do it now. The more evidence we collect the greater chance we have got of undermining HMRC's position.

If you don't want to reveal your identity, then send it anonymously:

https://www.awxcnx.de/mm-anon-email.htm

(This is about as secure as it gets. German technology!!!)

I have collected 103 testimonies so far but I want get to at least 200.

DR
[email protected]

[silver_lining]

DR,

Given the numbers, involved is is not possible to get contact details, even emails for the individuals from MP?

Send an email detailing the situation wrt to JCHR etc. I know there are quite a few on here, but I am sure there are tons missed no to mention frequency at which they visit...

I don't want to suggest we compromise on peoples identify or privacy, as such maybe ask MP to contact them using your suggestion?

I have no doubt all individuals concerned would be happy to coop.

SL

[PlaneSailing]

Thats a pretty decisisive response from Mr Timms. I'd be interested to hear how and under what consetions they settled other cases.

"Retrospective legislation does not in itself contravene the European Convention on Human Rights."

So, you can have a law and change it ruining peopels lives and thats acceptable..

Supposedly they 'considered very carefully the issues relating to fairness and
certainty, and the public interest'.

Curiously, when I made a Freedom of Information request to see the
notes of the 'consideration', the Treasury withheld the information,
claiming that releasing the notes would not be in the public interest.

So the legilsation is in the public interest, but the public aren't
allowed to see the thinking behind it because it's not in the public interest!

You couldn't make this up.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR,

Given the numbers, involved is is not possible to get contact details, even emails for the individuals from MP?

Send an email detailing the situation wrt to JCHR etc. I know there are quite a few on here, but I am sure there are tons missed no to mention frequency at which they visit...

I don't want to suggest we compromise on peoples identify or privacy, as such maybe ask MP to contact them using your suggestion?

I have no doubt all individuals concerned would be happy to coop.

SL

I have supplied the report to Montp and they are interested. It may even get mentioned on Tuesday. I guess a lot will depend on how useful the QC thinks this evidence would be.

If the JR gets the go-ahead, then we have plenty of time to collect more testimonies and I would hope that Montp would support this initiative.

[nuffsaid]

Curiously, when I made a Freedom of Information request to see the
notes of the 'consideration', the Treasury withheld the information,
claiming that releasing the notes would not be in the public interest.

So how many questions from the public does it take to prove the public are interested?
Or are they really saying "if we admit the Treasury didn't use any consideration it would cause so much fuss that the public won't like it"?

We know the real answer (confirmed by JCHR) but I'd love to see them admit it.

[BrilloPad]

DR,

Given the numbers, involved is is not possible to get contact details, even emails for the individuals from MP?

Send an email detailing the situation wrt to JCHR etc. I know there are quite a few on here, but I am sure there are tons missed no to mention frequency at which they visit...

I don't want to suggest we compromise on peoples identify or privacy, as such maybe ask MP to contact them using your suggestion?

I have no doubt all individuals concerned would be happy to coop.

SL

montp are not even happy about this forum! they would rather we disbanded. Its a great pity as I think we could do alot of good for each other.

[helen7]

montp are not even happy about this forum! they would rather we disbanded. Its a great pity as I think we could do alot of good for each other.

Do you know why?

Do they feel we could somehow affect the defense? I would hate to think that we could inadvertently give HMRC an advantage.

I would guess it more likely that they see this forum as 'bad publicity' for the other schemes they are running.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Do you know why?

Do they feel we could somehow affect the defense? I would hate to think that we could inadvertently give HMRC an advantage.

I would guess it more likely that they see this forum as 'bad publicity' for the other schemes they are running.

I think it's a control thing, similar to why most companies don't like unions. They would rather deal with people in isolation.

Mobs are unpredictable and difficult to control.

[BrilloPad]

Do you know why?

Do they feel we could somehow affect the defense? I would hate to think that we could inadvertently give HMRC an advantage.

I would guess it more likely that they see this forum as 'bad publicity' for the other schemes they are running.

I have no idea : but in the true spirit of cuk I will speculate!

Its partly that they are worried we might give information away. Partly they want to be in control. Partly they think we might get together and sue them if it goes wrong.

IMO they would be better off hosting a closed, moderated forum where they could diseminate information and get us actively involved writing letters to MPs, floating ideas etc.

In the further spirit of cuk I will say ************************** (on second thoughts I had better say nothing).

[BrilloPad]

I think it's a control thing, similar to why most companies don't like unions. They would rather deal with people in isolation.

Mobs are unpredictable and difficult to control.

I am not a mob! You speak for yourself!