BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[weeboaby]

it's like the second world war...

"tittle tattle lost the battle".

"Loose lips sink ships"

[TAF4]

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.

Of course it was always obvious that the tax efficiencies of the MP business model would 'disappoint' Hector.
However it is incumbent on them to prove it is outside the law - which they never did.

[BrilloPad]

What? You are way past the mark there Brillo.

You know exactly what happened with that situation. We were contacted by some fairly heavy weight police due to threats being made to members of HMRC on this thread. I take user's privacy as my main concern on here and did not release any details despite the police requesting I do so. I asked if they had the correct paper work to make me hand over details and they did not. I assured them that the comments were tongue in cheek and offered to contact the users they wanted to hear from and ask that they call the investigating officer to explain themselves. They did this and the problem was resolved. I also knocked down the list of people they wanted to talk to from 15 or so to 5 as the other 10 had not made any comments of a threatening nature. You even thanked me at the time for the way this was handled. At no point did we, or would we, hand over users details.

I suggest you apologise and retract your comments above.

Personally I would like you to publish the original PM you sent me, SantaClaus and the other person(KiwiGuy?). I have lost my copy - I always did struggle to keep my PMs under 50 but I know it was late Aug/Early Sep 2008. I personally felt that we were given no choice. You made no mention of the negotiations withe the police in that PM. The impression was "the police asked us and we complied".

It was tongue-in-cheek. Hence there was no issue handing over details.

I think its well known HMRC have far more powers than the police. HMRC have already used "Jeopardy" arrangements over at least 1 member of montpelier(where HMRC think assets maybe moved). I dont want anyone to have their plans disrupted.

Add in your treatment of cuk regarding light relief post count(why didn't you tell us first there was an issue) and your lack of sorting out tpd(techie members have offered to help and not taken up) and I think your treatment is heavy handed and lacking in negotiation. No to mention banning **** and not bagpuss because bagpuss was a member of the forum for longer(both should have been banned).

So I dont trust you to withstand a HMRC effort to get personal details. If other people want to then great.

Just so you know its very very busy at clientco so apologies in delay in my reply. I wont be around until later on now - busy afternoon, packing up desk for desk move then playing with my son. But I will be back - but please feel free to ban me and prove my point.

Alternatively you could guarantee the privacy of user anonymity and how far you would go to protect that? Will you go to court to defend it?

[Bagpuss]

Add in your treatment of cuk regarding light relief post count(why didn't you tell us first there was an issue) and your lack of sorting out tpd(techie members have offered to help and not taken up) and I think your treatment is heavy handed and lacking in negotiation. No to mention banning **** and not bagpuss because bagpuss was a member of the forum for longer(both should have been banned).

Nothing to do with it, don't play so innocent. Admins know more than you will ever know about that one. But if anything you should have been banned as the police came back with what your work IP address got up to in that whole affair, was shocked to be honest. Wasn't going to mention it but you pushed it!

[PurpleTurtle]

Folks, over the last couple of days I've noticed a distinct personal line occurring on here, largely fuelled by a certain interloper with his own agenda, and probably not helped by the stress of this case reaching a long-awaited gateway, if you will forgive me some PM speak.

Can we please, as DR suggests, get discussions back on track and focus on defeating a common goal - HMRC. United we stand, divided we fall.

[srhcompcon]

Folks, over the last couple of days I've noticed a distinct personal line occurring on here, largely fuelled by a certain interloper with his own agenda, and probably not helped by the stress of this case reaching a long-awaited gateway, if you will forgive me some PM speak.

Can we please, as DR suggests, get discussions back on track and focus on defeating a common goal - HMRC. United we stand, divided we fall.

Hear Hear

[StellaFan]

Amen

[KiwiGuy]

Personally I would like you to publish the original PM you sent me, SantaClaus and the other person(KiwiGuy?). I have lost my copy - I always did struggle to keep my PMs under 50 but I know it was late Aug/Early Sep 2008. I personally felt that we were given no choice. You made no mention of the negotiations withe the police in that PM. The impression was "the police asked us and we complied".

It was tongue-in-cheek. Hence there was no issue handing over details.

I think its well known HMRC have far more powers than the police. HMRC have already used "Jeopardy" arrangements over at least 1 member of montpelier(where HMRC think assets maybe moved). I dont want anyone to have their plans disrupted.

Add in your treatment of cuk regarding light relief post count(why didn't you tell us first there was an issue) and your lack of sorting out tpd(techie members have offered to help and not taken up) and I think your treatment is heavy handed and lacking in negotiation. No to mention banning **** and not bagpuss because bagpuss was a member of the forum for longer(both should have been banned).

So I dont trust you to withstand a HMRC effort to get personal details. If other people want to then great.

Just so you know its very very busy at clientco so apologies in delay in my reply. I wont be around until later on now - busy afternoon, packing up desk for desk move then playing with my son. But I will be back - but please feel free to ban me and prove my point.

Alternatively you could guarantee the privacy of user anonymity and how far you would go to protect that? Will you go to court to defend it?

The HMRC can have all me details if they wanted them, i would give it with pictures of my family they are putting on the streets.

[KiwiGuy]

Personally I would like you to publish the original PM you sent me, SantaClaus and the other person(KiwiGuy?). I have lost my copy - I always did struggle to keep my PMs under 50 but I know it was late Aug/Early Sep 2008. I personally felt that we were given no choice. You made no mention of the negotiations withe the police in that PM. The impression was "the police asked us and we complied".

It was tongue-in-cheek. Hence there was no issue handing over details.

I think its well known HMRC have far more powers than the police. HMRC have already used "Jeopardy" arrangements over at least 1 member of montpelier(where HMRC think assets maybe moved). I dont want anyone to have their plans disrupted.

Add in your treatment of cuk regarding light relief post count(why didn't you tell us first there was an issue) and your lack of sorting out tpd(techie members have offered to help and not taken up) and I think your treatment is heavy handed and lacking in negotiation. No to mention banning **** and not bagpuss because bagpuss was a member of the forum for longer(both should have been banned).

So I dont trust you to withstand a HMRC effort to get personal details. If other people want to then great.

Just so you know its very very busy at clientco so apologies in delay in my reply. I wont be around until later on now - busy afternoon, packing up desk for desk move then playing with my son. But I will be back - but please feel free to ban me and prove my point.

Alternatively you could guarantee the privacy of user anonymity and how far you would go to protect that? Will you go to court to defend it?

p.s. cant remember sending any PM's only to DR i think....

but im probably losing the plot

[BolshieBastard]

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.

Hi Admin.

I think you've done a brilliant job on this whole topic. Cheers.

EDIT, by topic I mean the BN66 thread. Just wanted to clarify Im not talking about the issues raised regarding disputes and info to police \ hmrc.