BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Fog]

I have decided to withdraw my CTD for the full amount due to better interest rates elsewhere as has been discussed here previously.
Not that I'm paranoid but can anyone confirm that they have done likewise and HMRC coughed up?

Have done exactly the same and yes - they coughed up - with interest!

I would have loved to have had the luxury to leave it there but the family needs are greater.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"I should add that the Government took full account of the Convention rights before introducing the legislation in question, and considers that the legislation is fully compliant with those rights."

Timms would have received the letter from the JCHR some time after 8th July.

Can you check the date on your letter from Timms, as it will be interesting to know whether or not this pre-dates the JCHR letter.

At some point we may want to pass a copy of this letter to the Committee, as I suspect it will anger them even more about not being consulted.

[seadog]

Of course HMRC **might** just admit defeat before they get sacked. But they seem to be totally stupid.

Do you have a draft letter for us to send to our MPs?

My MP (Clive Efford, Labour, on the finance committe that was involved in this legislation) has been worse than useless. I might have to pay him a visit.

Brillo, If you do try to see your MP I hope you get a better rersponse than I did from mine , Helen Southworh , lab.

She is just peddaling the party line and showing no interet at all in looking again at our aruments.

[Emigre]

Oh dear. Ever the weasel. Its my guess that Timms will have to make a full response to JCHR but will try and supress publication of it on the grounds of sub judice.

Unless I am mistaken Timms will not be appearing at the JR. On what basis is he therefore entitled to make claims about ongoing litigation. Can Timms offer a categoric guarantee that ALL of the questions will be addressed there? Of course not and he knows it, so once again he is lying. May the good Lord (not his) smite him down and caste him out.

[seadog]

Anyone had a look at his expenses?

He is clean. Mind you with his money in the bank no need to screw the system.

[Emigre]

He is clean. Mind you with his money in the bank no need to screw the system.

He made an estimated £10 million from Ovum going public half the shares of which were then gifted to his wife before £8m of them were put into a charitable trust and the remaining £2m into a "family trust" for his kids, specifically excluding him amd his wife as beneficiaries. Thus he then held no outside interest and according to the verbage has no financial interest in any of the money!!! Guess if his kids get returns from the trust then Timms wouldn't need to pay for them personally any more. Not sure that the words and the reality are exactly the same

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"I should add that the Government took full account of the Convention rights before introducing the legislation in question, and considers that the legislation is fully compliant with those rights."

I have just confirmed that Timms letter to MajorGowen was dated 14th July ie. 7 days prior to the date of the JCHR letter to Timms.

Therefore, I would assume Timms must have had sight of the JCHR letter before he signed his name to the above statement, unless there are huge time lags in the system.

Is this a deliberate attempt on his part to dismiss the role of the JCHR in our minds?

[PlaneSailing]

I have just confirmed that Timms letter to MajorGowen was dated 14th July ie. 7 days prior to the date of the JCHR letter to Timms.

Therefore, I would assume Timms must have had sight of the JCHR letter before he signed his name to the above statement, unless there are huge time lags in the system.

Is this a deliberate attempt on his part to dismiss the role of the JCHR in our minds?

I'm sure the JCHR would like to know how little regard Mr Timms has for
their opinions.

I doubt he'll even bother replying to their letter.

[MajorGowen]

Whitewash...

Timms would have received the letter from the JCHR some time after 8th July.

Can you check the date on your letter from Timms, as it will be interesting to know whether or not this pre-dates the JCHR letter.

At some point we may want to pass a copy of this letter to the Committee, as I suspect it will anger them even more about not being consulted.

I am happy for the JCHR to have a copy of this letter and also my original letter. A lot of the questions I asked were quite specific to my own case, and therefore will not be covered by the Judicial Review (unless the JCHR rule that HMRC are in breach on HR issues).

I also asked a lot of questions that we all have been asking for some time, but Mr Timms has just whitewashed my entire letter to him.

Really not happy today,

MajorGowen...

[BrilloPad]

Brillo, If you do try to see your MP I hope you get a better rersponse than I did from mine , Helen Southworh , lab.

She is just peddaling the party line and showing no interet at all in looking again at our aruments.

If thats the case things will turn interesting.