BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why I am against a closed forum

Some people have suggested that we move to a closed forum, partly to avoid the likes of Jones but also to stop HMRC snooping.

Personally, I am against this for the following reasons:

1) Can we really guarantee a forum is totally private, with several hundred members? Apart from it being hacked, it wouldn't be that difficult for an imposter to infiltrate.

2) A private forum creates a false sense of security. People are more likely to be indiscrete if they think it's secure.

3) We would have to vet people. Montpelier may be happy to confirm people's identity but it's unlikely deGraaf, Steed would reveal the identities of their clients to the likes of me for example.

4) Even if someone was confirmed as being in the scheme doesn't mean they are friendly. A few people settled through Jones' ir35amnesty website. Some others have spoken to him about bn66.co.uk. Besides, HMRC has a list of all the scheme users, so they could easily masquerade as a genuine user.

5) We would lose the many lurkers who for whatever reason don't want to sign up. These people may be even more reluctant to join a private forum where they'd have to reveal their real identity in order to participate. When it comes to letter writing campaigns etc. shear numbers are what count.

6) The vast majority of what is posted on the forum is hearsay, personal opinion and speculation. One of the criticisms often levelled at Montpelier is that they don't tell us anything, and probably this is with good reason because they don't know if all 1500 or so of us can be trusted. Although I've had some contact with our legal team it is at a very superficial level eg. confirming court dates etc. They aren't going to tell me or anyone else something which could materially affect the case. In other words, it is not possible for us to reveal anything important because we don't know anything important.

Does anyone disagree with this?

[johnnyguitar]

No, except they must have been from at least 18 months ago because I've had the Donkey avatar that long.

They were trying to counter the hardship angle by making the point that some of us acknowledged that the scheme was risky and therefore it's our own fault if we disposed of the income before the matter was closed.

So the effect & hardship topic was raised/discussed then?
It seemed to me that the judge was the sort of chap who would take this into consideration.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Brilliant.

Any chance you remember which forum posts they quoted?

No, except they must have been from at least 18 months ago because I've had the Donkey avatar that long.

They were trying to counter the hardship angle by making the point that some of us acknowledged that the scheme was risky and therefore it's our own fault if we disposed of the income before the matter was closed.

[KiwiGuy]

They didn't alter it. It's just the posts appeared to have been from quite a long time ago before I added the Donkey avatar. The only reason I know this is that Junior Counsel, who was sat in front of me, had the file open while Singh was reading them out.

I have to say the Judge didn't seem particularly impressed. Singh even had to explain to the Judge that he believed the initials "MP" referred to Montpelier.

It was farcical, and it must be a sign of desparation on the part of HMRC that they thought this would support their case.

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

I think alot of the comments on the Forum the HMRC has no argument against, i bet they keep on reading this and go "Oh Sh!t, Oh Sh!t"

would have been nice to find out the results quicker than weeks

[ContractIn]

They didn't alter it. It's just the posts appeared to have been from quite a long time ago before I added the Donkey avatar. The only reason I know this is that Junior Counsel, who was sat in front of me, had the file open while Singh was reading them out.

I have to say the Judge didn't seem particularly impressed. Singh even had to explain to the Judge that he believed the initials "MP" referred to Montpelier.

It was farcical, and it must be a sign of desparation on the part of HMRC that they thought this would support their case.

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

It was just in jest, but does show the desperation of hmrc by using this forum as evidence to support their case as could have easily been shot down on technicalities if it were deemed as damaging in anyway.

[KiwiGuy]

'No I'm Sparticus...'

i laughed out loud for that

[Slobbo]

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

Brilliant.

Any chance you remember which forum posts they quoted?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

They used posts from the forum as evidence and then altered it (from its original format). Surely this would make it inadmissable! How do we know they didn't alter other submissions!!

They didn't alter it. It's just the posts appeared to have been from quite a long time ago before I added the Donkey avatar. The only reason I know this is that Junior Counsel, who was sat in front of me, had the file open while Singh was reading them out.

I have to say the Judge didn't seem particularly impressed. Singh even had to explain to the Judge that he believed the initials "MP" referred to Montpelier.

It was farcical, and it must be a sign of desparation on the part of HMRC that they thought this would support their case.

In future, perhaps we should begin all our posts with:

HMRC are lying to you m'lud

[silver_lining]

Not as I recall. Some of my posts were read out but I was well pissed that they pre-dated the Donkey avatar. I'd love to have seen the expression on the Judge's face if he read what was scrawled on the purple coat.

I was also disappointed that Singh didn't read out our usernames. He just said "someone said this" and "someone else said that".

I was prepared, in the style of Jones, to stand up like a nutter and proclaim "I'm DonkeyRhubarb".

I would have paid to see that......

'No I'm Sparticus...'

[robinhood]

would have been even better if your name was Spartacus. 'I am Spartacus'...'No, I am Spartacus'

Or... I'm Brian and so's my wife !!