BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Cosmo]

From Today's Daily Mail (sorry...I read all the papers!)

"Labour MPs are openly defying a call by Gordon Brown to repay expenses by demanding requests from an auditor be tested in court. As the backlash grew against Sir Thomas Legg's review, Alan Simpson indicated he had no intention of returning £500 that he has been accused of over-claiming in cleaning bills.
Rejecting the Prime Minister's calls for MPs to settle their repayment demands to draw a line under the scandal, the Nottingham South MP said Sir Thomas had got it 'profoundly wrong'. If he thinks that the principle of him coming in and retrospectively re-writing the rules would stand up before the courts, then I think he should test it before the courts', Mr Simpson said today."

Touche old son, touche!!

Please... let Timms say something equally profund...

The hipocracy is startling!

[Emigre]

Dear Miss Widdecombe,

Retrospective Changes and Natural Justice

Firstly, I would like to state my support for your stance on the Legg review of Members' expenses, as you stated in your interview for Radio 4 on the 12th October 2009. I also applaud you for your common sense approach, before this furore, in claiming appropriate expenses.

I would like to draw a comparison between the situation that MPs find themselves in and some tax legislation introduced in the last budget. The legislation was first introduced as Budget Note 66 (BN66) in March 2008 and the legislation was included in the 2008 Finance Bill as Clause 55, and subsequently enacted as Section 58.

The comparison I am drawing is that the tax treatment was changed retrospectively by this legislation, resulting in a large number of individuals (whilst following the then current tax law) facing significant tax liabilities. I refer you to the following Parliament references to highlight the retrospective nature of the legislation and the human impact involved.

"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/133/13308.htm#a6"
"http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/133/13308.htm#a7"

My hope is that, now MPs have experienced the unfair effect of retrospective changes, they will fight for the natural justice for a larger group of people who are not just being asked to re-pay a few thousand pounds, but are having financial ruin forced upon without choice. If you are in agreement, I would ask that you put pressure on the Treasury to a) instruct HMRC to stop enforcing BN66 and b) reverse the legislation at the earliest opportunity.

I thank your for your time in reading this letter.

Yours sincerely,

A great first two cents. Thank you for your contribution and welcome to the thread.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

28000 enquiries currently open under COP8

For info.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...r-enquiry.html

[poppy01]

Nice one, and good to have you back with us. I missed the fat cat.

I've been checking the forum everyday, but we havent really had much to talk about have we. Personally I view this as a VERY positive story, and think we should milk it to the max.

Heres what Anne said amongst other things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304463.stm

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Personally I view this as a VERY positive story, and think we should milk it to the max.

100% agree. Just not sure how we do that.

[Ninja]

Milking it

100% agree. Just not sure how we do that.

Keep your eyes peeled for Ben Chapman (Wirral S, Lab) making any views about Retrospection. He voted FOR BN66, and has been found to have overclaimed £15,000 for a phantom mortgage.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Milking the cash cow

100% agree. Just not sure how we do that.

How about a simple email to every MP asking the following:

Do you think that retrospective laws or rules should be applied to anyone:
1) Who has played by the rules they understood them to be at the time.
2) Declared to the authorities they are obliged to report to, claims for monies.
3) Declare retrospection as immoral and against the laws governing open disclosure of monies.
4) Support a Commons / public debate to abolish retrospection for any activities covered by 1,2 and 3.

And will you support the position that based on the above, you object to retrospective action or legislation?

[Toocan]

"...If he thinks that the principle of him coming in and retrospectively re-writing the rules would stand up before the courts, then I think he should test it before the courts'"

Alan Simpson MP (Labour)

Take note HMRC, take note....

[orientalist]

How about a simple email to every MP asking the following:

Do you think that retrospective laws or rules should be applied to anyone:
1) Who has played by the rules they understood them to be at the time.
2) Declared to the authorities they are obliged to report to, claims for monies.
3) Declare retrospection as immoral and against the laws governing open disclosure of monies.
4) Support a Commons / public debate to abolish retrospection for any activities covered by 1,2 and 3.

And will you support the position that based on the above, you object to retrospective action or legislation?

Just a note of caution, lining ourselves up with Ministers who refuse to pay back expenses is not going to win us any friends if they stick to the principle that retrospection is unfair (which it is) and could damage us if it turns out they cave in and deem it the responsible thing to do (which its not)....

[Emigre]

Just a note of caution, lining ourselves up with Ministers who refuse to pay back expenses is not going to win us any friends if they stick to the principle that retrospection is unfair (which it is) and could damage us if it turns out they cave in and deem it the responsible thing to do (which its not)....

A worthy note of caution. However, there is no doubt that some of the MPs made what are starting to look like fraudulent claims for which they should be appropriately punished (not suitable for public office would be a start point), while others did only what most would probably do in a poorly controlled expenses environment. What is not obvious in this case is why they simply didn't just draw a line under the whole thing and declare that it is now tight and above all transparent.

The expenses fiasco was not transparent and when enquiry was made they tried to hide it. Our situation has always been different in that we told all that needed to know what we did, when we did and even how we did. we have the moral high ground. As Orientalist said we should not allow ourselves to be grouped with the MPs who with few exceptions have acted dishonourably and brought both Parliament and the UK into disrepute.

The fact that they are claiming infringements of Human Rights for reclaims of £500 beggars belief when you look at what they are trying to stiff us with.

The British public will have their voice next year and may they cast their votes appropriately.