BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

So existing legislation is already good enough and the Tory government are at fault for waiting a year to sort the problem. Clever people can find ways around legislation (and no criticism is made of this). Is the 1988 legislation he mentions related to the one often quote in relation to BN66?

No, this isn't the same legislation as that referred to in BN66. BN66 relates to the legislation introduced to deal specifically with the "Padmore" case.

However, it's funny how Timms has changed his tune now he's sitting on the opposite side of the house.

Now he seems to think it's quite acceptable for HMRC to dick around for years on end, and not apply Parliament's laws.

And apparently it's also OK to use retrospection when HMRC *uck up.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Retrospective amendments to MPs expenses

Perhaps MPs should ask the JCHR to investigate.

I could even offer my services, conduct a survey of those affected etc.

[ROBIN REDBREAST]

Ann Widdecombe Sky Interview

I watched this today on Sky News and the words below are word for word trasnscript of what she said

"something completely new has been introduced quite out of the blue which non of us knew about until we came back which is straight forwardly that Thomas Legg has not made an assessment of whether our expenses wer valid, he's actually re-written the rules and then said therefor looking back RETROSPECTIVELY suddenly things become invalid no matter how fasitidously they were put in in the first place"

Now this is the key bit for me next quote

"If any other employer turned round and said to his employees yes we did allow you to do that, yes you did comply exactly with the rules and yes you were actually very fastidious in your application but sorry I've changed the rules and here's a bill he'd be up in front of a tribunal"

So there it is, Ann Widdecome, Conservative MP (along with all the rest of them) have come out in and siad that retrospectviely changing the rule is completely unaccpetable. Great stuff!!

The question (or shoudl I say dilema) is, do we want all the MP's to get shafted and have to pay back all there over claimed expenses or do we hope that they win their cause and its a 2 fingers up to retrospective law changes?

[poppy01]

tonights evening standard

'Today's meeting of Labour MPs saw anger at the Legg letters but they were persuaded by Ms Harman to avoid being openly defiant of his requests for repayment, a move she warned would backfire with members of the public. Instead she advised them to respond to Sir Thomas with a mass letter-writing campaign.
Some backbenchers are talking about contributing £2,000 each to a fighting fund to mount a legal challenge to Sir Thomas's findings.
A spokesman for Sir Thomas said he had merely “interpreted” the old rules and had not made up new ones.'

its so like us its scary, except in our case we face financial ruin

in answer to prior post, I for one would like them to mount a legal challenge to the retrospective clarification of the rules, and that it should be heard at about the same time as the judicial review. this is surely ammunition for our case.

I find the bleating of labour mp's a disgrace, especially those who've replied to our letters with standard pat answers, but still, to retrospectively change the rules is still wrong, for them as well as us.

[d000hg]

The question (or shoudl I say dilema) is, do we want all the MP's to get shafted and have to pay back all there over claimed expenses or do we hope that they win their cause and its a 2 fingers up to retrospective law changes?

Hmm. Shall I cut off my nose to spite my face? Shall we condone further hypocrisy at the cost of many UK businesses to teach a few MPs a lesson? Hardly seems a tough choice... though it does allow all the people fighting BN66 a chance to at least see things from the other side.

[OnYourBikeGB]

Hmm. Shall I cut off my nose to spite my face? Shall we condone further hypocrisy at the cost of many UK businesses to teach a few MPs a lesson? Hardly seems a tough choice... though it does allow all the people fighting BN66 a chance to at least see things from the other side.

Its a really strange situation. We could end up going to ECHR with some of the MPs who have dropped us in it, if they were to fight to the bitter end. I'm not sure if this is becoming more like Kafka or more like Laurel And Hardy. Of course a big difference is that we weren't playing with the public purse. The monies channelled through the arrangement were earned by our efforts. They have effectively taken money from the taxpayers that they weren't entitled to, while we were minimising our exposure to tax. So, IMHO, I think there is stronger grounds that they should repay than us. That said, I think any system that can be changed retrospectively is unfair and wrong. Get the rules right to start with, then everyone knows where they stand. The hypocrisy is sickening though, but as a backdrop to our case, could we really have had it better, as if our case wasn't already strong enough? It would seem that there will be no legal cases brought against the MPs (bar fraud). It looks pretty bad when they're brought against Joe Public.

One last thing, I'd just like to say, Timms, you're an arse.

[BrilloPad]

I watched this today on Sky News and the words below are word for word trasnscript of what she said

"something completely new has been introduced quite out of the blue which non of us knew about until we came back which is straight forwardly that Thomas Legg has not made an assessment of whether our expenses wer valid, he's actually re-written the rules and then said therefor looking back RETROSPECTIVELY suddenly things become invalid no matter how fasitidously they were put in in the first place"

Now this is the key bit for me next quote

"If any other employer turned round and said to his employees yes we did allow you to do that, yes you did comply exactly with the rules and yes you were actually very fastidious in your application but sorry I've changed the rules and here's a bill he'd be up in front of a tribunal"

So there it is, Ann Widdecome, Conservative MP (along with all the rest of them) have come out in and siad that retrospectviely changing the rule is completely unaccpetable. Great stuff!!

The question (or shoudl I say dilema) is, do we want all the MP's to get shafted and have to pay back all there over claimed expenses or do we hope that they win their cause and its a 2 fingers up to retrospective law changes?

But of course the rules for them are just retrospectively changed. Whereas ours are being retrospectively clarified!

[d000hg]

Of course a big difference is that we weren't playing with the public purse. The monies channelled through the arrangement were earned by our efforts. They have effectively taken money from the taxpayers that they weren't entitled to, while we were minimising our exposure to tax. So, IMHO, I think there is stronger grounds that they should repay than us.

But that's the crux isn't it. Some MPs have clearly taken the piss, others were just taking advantage of the rules where they thought it was reasonable (wouldn't we all do the same given lax expense rules... 5* hotels and 1st-class travel for instance). And others were told 'you are allowed/expected to claim as an unofficial part of your salary due to historical precedent'.

[Cosmo]

tonights evening standard

'Today's meeting of Labour MPs saw anger at the Legg letters but they were persuaded by Ms Harman to avoid being openly defiant of his requests for repayment, a move she warned would backfire with members of the public. Instead she advised them to respond to Sir Thomas with a mass letter-writing campaign.
Some backbenchers are talking about contributing £2,000 each to a fighting fund to mount a legal challenge to Sir Thomas's findings.
A spokesman for Sir Thomas said he had merely “interpreted” the old rules and had not made up new ones.'

its so like us its scary, except in our case we face financial ruin

in answer to prior post, I for one would like them to mount a legal challenge to the retrospective clarification of the rules, and that it should be heard at about the same time as the judicial review. this is surely ammunition for our case.

I find the bleating of labour mp's a disgrace, especially those who've replied to our letters with standard pat answers, but still, to retrospectively change the rules is still wrong, for them as well as us.

Hmmnn are any of the MPs who are bitching about having to pay back, ones that have been written to? Would it be worthwhile writing again, along the lines of... "Not so nice when it happens to you, is it? Except in my case, I face financial ruin!"

[swede]

Slight difference...

But of course the rules for them are just retrospectively changed. Whereas ours are being retrospectively clarified!

and of course MPs have the option of not paying anything back at all. I'd like that option.