BN66 - the road to Judicial Review

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Leave a message from Frank Field

I've already sent him an email but you can leave a message on his Blog about retrospective expenses here:

http://frankfield.co.uk/blog/q/date/...heel/#comments

The justice of a roulette wheel

From honourable member to rogue. That, thanks to retrospective and unprecedented changes Sir Thomas Legg has made to the rules on MPs' expenses, is how I feel.

[sjw]

Mr Hogg did not speak so much as spit his words. MPs should hold a debate on the rule of law. “This will enable this House to repeat the basic principle that everybody is entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law, practices and rules that exist at the time,” he said, his voice nasal, his body hunched, his pomposity total. “Any departure from these principles is a denial of natural justice and the courts are probably going to regard it as unlawful!”

Let's hope so.

[MuddyFunster]

There was an interesting section on the 'The Big Questions' on BBC1 on Sunday. The question was something like 'Is it morally right to introduce retrospective law changes'. Surprisingly, out of all of the people that answered the question instead of going off into one and changing the subject, all but one guy (as far as I heard anyway, as my girlfriend was rabbitting in my ear) said that they didn't think retrospective changes were correct. The only one to say that they were correct was probably related to Timms. He seemed most upset and said that once they've finished with the MPs, they should go after the banks and cream them for all the money they haven't paid in tax for years that they should've done.

Anyway, the overall opinion was that even with the morally corrupt MPs, retrospective rules wasn't acceptable. Very interesting...

[twinkle]

2007 SA notice recieved

I have just received 2 nice letters from Hector, one telling to send them lots of money for SA 2006/07and the other telling me they are going to look into 2007/08.

Sent info off to MontP

TWink

[DonkeyRhubarb]

What makes BN66 particularly unsavoury is that it was only made retrospective because HMRC failed to act sooner.

• HMRC were aware of the possibility of the loophole from the early 90s. (It was even in their manual!)
• They knew about the MTM scheme in 2001.
• They started negotiations with Suo Motu in 2002, and let them off with tax breaks.
• They issued the first enquiry notices in June 2003.
• They issued the first closure notices to the 4 test cases in March 2006.

They could have got the Government to close it down in any Finance Bill from 2002 onwards but it was entirely their decision not to.

Why should they be rewarded with retrospective law when the entire fiasco was of their own making?

[Emigre]

Mr Hogg did not speak so much as spit his words. MPs should hold a debate on the rule of law. “This will enable this House to repeat the basic principle that everybody is entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law, practices and rules that exist at the time,” he said, his voice nasal, his body hunched, his pomposity total. “Any departure from these principles is a denial of natural justice and the courts are probably going to regard it as unlawful!”

Let's hope so.

Welcome to the thread.

There have been a number of MPs making noises about retrospection being unprincipled. Its unlikely that any of them will really take it much further. They are more likely to be told to toe the party line. We'll have to wait and see. No doubt that this has fallen into our laps.

[BrilloPad]

Mr Hogg did not speak so much as spit his words. MPs should hold a debate on the rule of law. “This will enable this House to repeat the basic principle that everybody is entitled to regulate their affairs in accordance with the law, practices and rules that exist at the time,” he said, his voice nasal, his body hunched, his pomposity total. “Any departure from these principles is a denial of natural justice and the courts are probably going to regard it as unlawful!”

Let's hope so.

Welcome to the bn66 thread

Are you personally affected by BN66?

[poppy01]

Welcome to the thread.

There have been a number of MPs making noises about retrospection being unprincipled. Its unlikely that any of them will really take it much further. They are more likely to be told to toe the party line. We'll have to wait and see. No doubt that this has fallen into our laps.

I read in the evening standard that there are 5 Labour MP's who are prepared to force a by-election.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ck-expenses.do

[DonkeyRhubarb]

JCHR - Bad News & Good News

Bad News
The Committee are not going to take the matter any further. They have concluded from Timms' (non)response to their letter, that the Treasury has no intention of cooperating, and it would be a waste of their time trying to convince them otherwise.

Good News
They will produce their final report based on the information they already have. This will include the letter from Timms, their comments and final conclusions. The report will be published before Xmas, which should be in time for the JR early next year.

Whilst this may seem disappointing now, I suspect we may look back and conclude that Timms did us a massive favour by basically telling the Committee to sod off.

The Government were given the opportunity to put their side of the case, and yet they chose to say nothing. They (and HMRC) have only got themselves to blame if the Committee now produces a highly damning report.

[smalldog]

im assuming its because Timm's position is indefensible, hence his silence. They didnt do due diligence so cant counter back to JCHR, in the words of the meerkats...Simples...

Basically, a No Comment, draw your own conclusions, but in my book a No Comment means you are pretty much guilty and dont want to say anything for fear of incriminating yourself..thats how I read it anyway..