BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DownButNotOut]

Also as we have seen at the JR, HMRC are more than willing to quote excerpts from this forum in court. There's no reason why they wont do again. Hence the need for a private forum where every member is certified as bona fide.

Agreed, I’m finding this cloak and dagger stuff a little unnerving....

[srhcompcon]

open forum

Also bear in mind that a lot of lurkers have de-lurked recently and this forum has been useful to see that at least progress is being made. Just need to be very careful what you put on here!

You will never be able to guarantee that someone signing up to a seperate forum is who they say they are!

[weeboaby]

How HMRC can use extracts from a forum where people post anonymously is seriously deranged, and should have been attacked in court at the time.

[Plonker]

I suggest that legislation should be passed that permitts all HMRC staff affiliated to this case to be tarred and feathered and then put in stocks, to be pelted by rotten fruit and eggs (no solid materials to be used).

Hopefully this statement will be read in court......

[SantaClaus]

Also bear in mind that a lot of lurkers have de-lurked recently and this forum has been useful to see that at least progress is being made. Just need to be very careful what you put on here!

You will never be able to guarantee that someone signing up to a seperate forum is who they say they are!

We've been discussing this, and there are ways.

[TAF4]

Keep our forum open

Also bear in mind that a lot of lurkers have de-lurked recently .....

DR put a very lucid case for remaining open here:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/1052113-post1959.html

Those that only read the last couple of pages will have missed it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You will never be able to guarantee that someone signing up to a seperate forum is who they say they are!

Especially when you consider that HMRC has a list of all our names to masquerade under.

I think it's far better to assume that anything you say could be read by the enemy. A private forum would give a false sense of security and could be far more dangerous.

In any case, what would the chumps from HMRC do with their time if they weren't able to read this?

I wonder if it's possible for CUK to analyze the network traffic coming from HMRC?

[administrator]

I agree with you that you did your best to diffuse the situation and I thank you for that, but it does call into question the ability of the authorities (including HMRC) to force identities on this forum out into the open.

Also as we have seen at the JR, HMRC are more than willing to quote excerpts from this forum in court. There's no reason why they wont do again. Hence the need for a private forum where every member is certified as bona fide.

We abide by the same laws governing forums (re: libel/other comments made by posters that break the law). We spend a good deal of time ensuring posters stay the right side of these laws and on top of that we also deal with threats of libel on a regular basis.

We know our rights, and your rights, and we do not hand over user's details willy nilly. I will say though that if we are presented with the correct paper work that forces us to hand details over then we will have little choice.

If you post on here that you are going to do something silly then HMRC would have to go to the police, the police would have to get the relevant authority to force us to disclose information and then we would be bound to honour that request. This would of course be on a individual basis though so if there was a request for HMRC for us to give the details of X number of users then of course we would decline.

This is a busy forum and takes a lot of time and investment from us all (mods, admins, CUK) to ensure contractors are given a place to discuss issues like BN66 which we feel is important to the community.

We'd just like to reiterate that no one has been 'shopped' and bear in mind all posters are ultimately responsible for what they post.

In terms of needing a private forum, I have already stated to DR that if you need it we can provide it on here. I am not worried one jot about the traffic and if you all want to go somewhere else and host it then fine. I just think that you would potentially lose lurkers from here and you certainly would not get the exposure on other forums that you get on here.

I agree with DR though that a closed forum would be a nightmare to enforce. You would not stop prying eyes getting in no matter how secure you felt it was. The best thing for you all is to not be open about plans that you don't want others to know about anywhere near a web server, private or public, as people will gain access if they are determined.
We don't expect thanks for what we do behind the scenes but nevertheless it is not nice to be knocked either, especially wrongly as by Brillo.

Hopefully that is enough on this subject now as this is detracting from the thread topic. I suggest if you want to continue a discussion about public vs private and what protection you have on here you start a new thread or PM me if you want clarification of anything.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Internal Technical Note 63

I didn't receive a reply from Mr Timms after my MP asked him
what he was up to. Am I right in thinking he said:

'At no point did the Revenue think that the scheme worked' ?

If that's the case, this note confirms that to be untrue, and
he owes us an explanation.

No doubt HMRC would argue that just because they couldn't come up with a reason why it didn't work doesn't mean that they accepted it did work.

[TheBarCapBoyz]

it's like the second world war...

"tittle tattle lost the battle".