• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Labour MP's who voted for BN66 but DIDN'T even attend Committee meeting

    1. Frank Cook (Stockton North - Lab)
    In January 2008, he was de-selected by his local constituency Labour Party when choosing its candidate for the next general election.

    In May 2009, the Daily Telegraph revealed he had tried to reclaim, as an expense, the £5 he had donated during a service at Stockton Parish Church to commemorate the Battle of Britain. The parliamentary fees office rejected his claim
    .

    2. Ben Chapman (Wirral South - Lab)
    “SCANDAL-hit Mersey MP Ben Chapman announced today that he will quit Westminster at the next election, saying: "The pressure on my family is too great."

    The Wirral South MP - who was paid £15,000 for a "phantom mortgage" - becomes the first Labour MP to be forced out because of the expenses revelations that have engulfed parliament.” Liverpool Echo

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-23684942/

    3. Stephen Pound (Ealing North - Lab)
    “In May 2009 it was discovered Pound had claimed a mileage allowance of £4,251, equating to 11,004 miles of travel between his home and Parliament just 11 miles away. He explained this by saying he made the trip 'two or three times a day', but provided no evidence of this.

    Pound is one of the 98 MPs who voted to keep their expense details secret.”

    Also he voted against
    • Transparent Parliament
    • Investigation into Iraq War
    • Introducing Smoking Ban

    He voted for:-
    • Foundation Hospitals
    • Introducing student top-up fees
    • Introducing ID cards
    • Iraq War

    He has held the position of PPS to Minister Stephen Timms (Oct 08  Apr 09)

    4. Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury - Lab)
    Married to Christopher Nugee QC
    • A recent case was Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503 (Court of Appeal decision on treatment of offshore discretionary trusts for ancillary relief purposes);

    Controversies
    1. Social housing campaign
    During the course of a campaign run by Thornberry on the subject of social housing, the Islington Tribune, a local newspaper, discovered her husband had bought ex-social housing stock for over half a million pounds and receives rental income from the properties. Councillor Terry Stacy was highly critical, stating “Thornberry has tried to make a name for herself by opposing Islington’s policies on affordable housing. This is nothing less than hypocrisy.”

    2. Electoral Commission complaint
    “In 2006, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer, received a complaint from Steve Hitchens, then-leader of Islington Council, that Ms Thornberry had "altered an electronic copy of an Electoral Commission news release by inserting a quotation from herself". . The complaint centred on a quote from Ms Thornberry which said "Its extremely worrying that only 67% have registered for Islington’s May Council elections", which Mr Hitchens saw as confusing the electoral registration response rate with the registration rate itself.

    During the investigation, the Committee on Standards and Privileges heard that "the Electoral Commission does not think it acceptable that Ms Thornberry changed its press release without its permission. It believes that the quote inserted by Ms Thornberry was both politically contentious and misleading.”.. However, the Commissioner accepted that Ms Thornberry's primary motive was to act in the public interest by supporting the Electoral Commission’s campaign to improve response rates, and consequently levels of voter registration. He found her actions to have been "unwise and unfortunate" but that "there was no intention on her part to deceive or manipulate the public, nor had that been the effect of her actions"], and the Committee agreed with his findings.”

    Others were:-
    • Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire Moorlands),
    • Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, (City of Durham)
    • Stephen Hesford (Wirral West)
    • Mr.
    Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall)
    All Labour.
    However, I couldn't find any 'dirt' on them

    I think you'll agree, a right rogues gallery. Who are they to tell us?
    Ninja

    'Salad is a dish best served cold'

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by Ninja View Post
      I think you'll agree, a right rogues gallery. Who are they to tell us?


      Ninja, a quality piece of research. Who upset you today? I'm glad you're on my team!

      Is that right...they were able to vote without even attending? I know that in Parliament absences on key votes can be contra'ed against opposition votes. Were there Tories/LibDems absent from this Committee to run the same principle?

      This issue may be significant. A minority of attendees, who would have heard the real arguments may have, by use of proxies been able to carry the vote. If true, it is morally reprehensible.
      Join the No To Retro Tax Campaign Now
      "Tax evasion is easy: it involves breaking the law. By tax avoidance OECD means unacceptable avoidance ... This can be contrasted with acceptable tax planning. What is critical is transparency" - Donald Johnston, Secretary-General, OECD

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by Emigre View Post
        Is that right...they were able to vote without even attending?
        As far as I know, this is common practice. The backbench MPs just tow the party line on some legislation and are told to vote in favour / not in favour.

        I doubt they'd have seen ruining the lives of families as something that they should've taken any interest in

        Comment


          #64
          Labour MP's who voted for BN66 but DIDN'T even attend Committee meeting

          I know that it is common practice that backbenchers are whipped to vote in a certain way, but that doesn't condone the fact that this piece of clearly very controversial & landmark legislation didn't warrant even their attendance.
          Who do they think elected them? Arrogant b*stards. Their job is to represent.

          The hypocrasy of their actions is what really galls me. We abided by the laws, and DIDN'T fiddle the taxpayer. Whilst my examples show that they clealy were defrauding the taxpayer. Come on! Stephen Pound would have had to have made 1,000 journeys (in Inner London) to clock up 11,000 miles. At an average 11 mph, that's 3 hrs / day, every single day.
          Ninja

          'Salad is a dish best served cold'

          Comment


            #65
            ha ha ha funny part 2

            looks like its been updated, still makes my laugh

            http://www.flickr.com/photos/benscott/3680575513/
            and
            http://www.flickr.com/photos/benscott/3681404218/
            When is comes to the HMRC and Gordy. Im a fighter not a lover

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by MuddyFunster View Post
              As far as I know, this is common practice. The backbench MPs just tow the party line on some legislation and are told to vote in favour / not in favour.

              I doubt they'd have seen ruining the lives of families as something that they should've taken any interest in
              To be fair on the MPs, there was nothing in the debate which suggested it was being targeted at people who might have difficulty paying. Even the Tories and Libdems only opposed the retrospective nature of the legislation on principle.

              The Government prepared the way by suggesting it was aimed at property developers ie. companies not individuals. Also, many MPs would naturally associate tax avoidance with rich people, so ability to pay may not even have crossed their minds.

              The Government also glossed over the fact that hundreds of people had been using the scheme since the early years. Had MPs known at the time that several hundred ordinary families were going to be slapped with a 7-year retrospective tax bill with nearly 50% interest on top, then even many of the diehard lefties might have given it pause for thought.

              The whole thing was carefully stage managed to look as inoccuous as possible. They knew they would get heat from the opposition parties and professional bodies but through slight of hand they shifted the focus away from the actual people affected and just made it an argument over the principles of retrospection.

              There was one glaringly obvious question that no-one thought to ask:

              Who are these 2000 people who used this scheme?

              Comment


                #67
                Appeal without hard copies?

                I checked my HMRC online account yesterday and there it was - BANG! My lovely new liability figures. They were pretty much bang on what MontP had estimated apart from the interest which was about £3k more in HMRC's favour.
                I've still not received anythng in the post from them.
                I presume I need to wait for the hard copy CNs to drop on the door mat before appealing through MontP?

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by NO TO RETRO View Post
                  I checked my HMRC online account yesterday and there it was - BANG! My lovely new liability figures. They were pretty much bang on what MontP had estimated apart from the interest which was about £3k more in HMRC's favour.
                  I've still not received anythng in the post from them.
                  I presume I need to wait for the hard copy CNs to drop on the door mat before appealing through MontP?
                  Just spoke to someone at Montp. The computer gets updated before they send them out.

                  Assuming your address is correct on their system, I would give it a week or so and then contact HMRC if they still haven't turned up.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Have they given up?

                    I really weird thing - after seeing huge numbers post CNs my online thing suddenly says that I owe about 300 quid - what has happened? Is it just a total HMRC muck up or have they changed their minds? Any advice as to how I can make it stick?
                    The Cat

                    Comment


                      #70
                      ah actually...

                      Originally posted by bombaycat View Post
                      I really weird thing - after seeing huge numbers post CNs my online thing suddenly says that I owe about 300 quid - what has happened? Is it just a total HMRC muck up or have they changed their minds? Any advice as to how I can make it stick?
                      Ah no such luck only that the amounts have been adjusted out due to the appeals. Oh well, nevermind at least it looks better than before. Eventually it will be for real!!
                      The Cat

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X