BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Lazylobster]

The clerk can't let me have a copy of the letter yet, as it hasn't been circulated to all the committee members. However, he said that Timms had not addressed any of their points or provided the information requested. All the letter talked about was the JR.

Unfortunately for Timms, this won't cut it. If he is not careful, he will get hauled up before the committee in person.

I have submitted Jane Kennedy's email, as evidence, to the Committee.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/899318-post237.html

I am also arranging for them to get a copy of the latest letter some of us have received.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/899910-post250.html

What a surprise. Still, he's running out of options. Sooner or later he'll have to respond and it will be there in all it's glory for the public to digest. . .

Thanks for your efforts DR, good weekend y'all. . . .

[silver_lining]

I have done this partly as a thankyou to the many people, who were not in the scheme, who have supported us over the past year.

My goal (a very ambitious one) is to topple the "resign" petition (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/) from the top spot, and show that IR35 is a real vote winner.

If we can get the ball rolling then I'll start spreading the word around all the other contractor sites and forums.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/repealofIR35/

===========================
PS. if you think the wording looks familiar, it is because I ended up copying the "resign" petition due to the fact that they rejected my previous attempt. The muppets said this was impossible to understand!!!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/repealIR35/

Top idea DR.

[silver_lining]

But you never know. We might get lucky. And plenty of time while the JR going on. Its better to be doing something than nothing.

Your spot on, keep on going indeed....

and hats off DR for actually managing to get something back from the ugly one.

I had thought long about the fact of hiding behind the oncoming JR and had assumed JCHR must surely know they cannot legally take this position.

But on the other hand, from a novice legal perspective, if it directly compromises and is directly related to JR, then surely they have some claim. However maybe mixing up crimnal process with statue etc.... who knows...

[KiwiGuy]

That's a great idea, and I'd be there again, but I suspect it's not open to the public..

EDIT: I take it back, they often ARE in public:

http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news3.cfm

are public stoneings still allowed?

[silver_lining]

are public stoneings still allowed?

Is it possible to get those 'Bugsy Malone' splurge guns....

For thoses wanting PR, I have the solution....a bunch of us get in to Bugsy style character outfits with the guns and spray Timms liberally... that would surely make at least tabloid SKY News...

PS:- for the purposes of avoiding an early morning raid, and any naive, non-movie watching intelligence monitoring types... these guns shoot ping-pong balls.... (originally cream-filled wax balls)

[nuffsaid]

On the IR35 front http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?...ws&Itemid=1053

I liked the lines...
"PCG suspect that Miss Ussher gave the answer she did because the full truth would expose IR35 to further ridicule"

and...
"[IR35] is frequently misapplied and if you are paying, we could well surmise from this Parliamentary answer, that you could be in a minority."

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I had thought long about the fact of hiding behind the oncoming JR and had assumed JCHR must surely know they cannot legally take this position.

But on the other hand, from a novice legal perspective, if it directly compromises and is directly related to JR, then surely they have some claim. However maybe mixing up crimnal process with statue etc.... who knows...

Like you, I assumed that the pending JR would let them off the hook. When I first spoke to the clerk, I raised this very issue, and he assured me that the Treasury couldn't use this as an excuse not to respond.

Apparently, the JCHR had an almost identical situation with the retrospective migrant worker legislation a year or so ago. A JR had been granted but it didn't restrict the Committee's scrutiny in any way.

As an aside, in that case, the Home Office subsequently lost the JR.

[swede]

Petition signed.

:-)

[BrilloPad]

The clerk can't let me have a copy of the letter yet, as it hasn't been circulated to all the committee members. However, he said that Timms had not addressed any of their points or provided the information requested. All the letter talked about was the JR.

Unfortunately for Timms, this won't cut it. If he is not careful, he will get hauled up before the committee in person.

I have submitted Jane Kennedy's email, as evidence, to the Committee.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/899318-post237.html

I am also arranging for them to get a copy of the latest letter some of us have received.
http://forums.contractoruk.com/899910-post250.html

Extremely interesting. I said the other day we would have a long wait for anything to happen. I was wrong!

[BrilloPad]

As an aside, in that case, the Home Office subsequently lost the JR.

Oh dear. That is sooooo sad....