BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[Ninja]

MP's hypocrisy & Retrospectivity

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.

Would it be worthwhile compiling a list of those MP's (esp. Labour) who go on record (just like Ann Widdecombe last night) denouncing retrospective changes to rules? The more the better. It could come in useful later. Everyone keep your eyes & ears open over the next week or so.....

[PlaneSailing]

Would it be worthwhile compiling a list of those MP's (esp. Labour) who go on record (just like Ann Widdecombe last night) denouncing retrospective changes to rules? The more the better. It could come in useful later. Everyone keep your eyes & ears open over the next week or so.....

Bill Etherington, Labour, Sunderland North was claiming it was unfair
on BBC and Channel 4 yesterday.

[helen7]

The big difference is that the MPs are being 'asked' to pay the expenses. They do not have to pay, it is optional. If they do not pay back, the will most lilkely loose their seat.

[Jeebo72]

In the papers today Ann Widdecombe said "we don't apply retropective rules to others so why should it apply to us" ... ha ha ...

[seadog]

Civil service attitudes

An interesting observation on the MP's expenses debate is that Sir Thomas, an experienced Civil Servant, has a mindset which enables him to introduce retrospective rules if he thinks there has been some abuse.

Is this the same mindset being applied by Civil Servants in the Treasury/HMRC in our own case.

[seadog]

In the papers today Ann Widdecombe said "we don't apply retropective rules to others so why should it apply to us" ... ha ha ...

I dont think most MP's are aware that they have introduced retrospective legislation. Even the ones on the committee were misled by Jane Kennedy when she erronsoulsy tried to argue that it was "fair proportionate and in the public interest".

The question is how can we use this to our advantage

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Anne Widdecombe

Everyone should send her an email.

[email protected]

Draw her attention to the JCHR letter to Timms:

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

and the survey of people affected:

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

Use her quotes from these posts:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/972329-post734.html
http://forums.contractoruk.com/972001-post723.html

No-one has written to her before about this, but she could make some serious noise on our behalf.

[smalldog]

does anyone know when we will hear back about the JCHR and Timms?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

does anyone know when we will hear back about the JCHR and Timms?

I'm waiting for a reply to an email, and will post as soon as I hear anything.

[poppy01]

my letter to Miss W

'We dont do it to them??

May I you refer you to the attached letter from the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Stephen Timms with regard to Section 58 of the Finance Act 2008.
In addition there is a judicial review underway which is challenging the retrospective elements of the legislation.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...3/13308.htm#a6


This was passed without fanfare last year and it contains retrospective changes going back to 1987.
How strange MP's are now so upset about a few thousand pounds, when there some 2000 individuals who now face financial ruin
as a result of this unprecedented violation of natural justice.'