BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Morlock]

Sent!

Mr. Timms. You have stated that the planned NI rise will cost jobs and Mr. Darling says it won't. You cannot both be right. Given both of your proximity to the Nations purse, can you give a definitive answer without politicial diatribe as "I'm right" or "The Chancellor is right"? Please restrict your answer to these so the public don't need your position 'clarifying' later.

Well, whichever of them's wrong, they'll no doubt change their answer retrospectively to correct it...

[DaveB]

I took the liberty...

Since I had my Law Student head on this afternoon I thought I;d go take a look at the actual case report for Padmore and follow things through from there, as a result I got a bit carried away with adding notes to the Wiki entry and ended up rewriting it almost entirely.

Apologies to portseven, no offence intended, I just found that I could add a lot more details to how BN66 came about as I had access to the original case reports, and it sort of snowballed from there

Feel free to roll back my edits if you are not happy with them.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Since I had my Law Student head on this afternoon I thought I;d go take a look at the actual case report for Padmore and follow things through from there, as a result I got a bit carried away with adding notes to the Wiki entry and ended up rewriting it almost entirely.

Apologies to portseven, no offence intended, I just found that I could add a lot more details to how BN66 came about as I had access to the original case reports, and it sort of snowballed from there

Feel free to roll back my edits if you are not happy with them.

This is not quite correct.

BN66 retrospectively amended legislation from 1987, which was a response to Padmore.

Have a read of this:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...%20release.pdf

Obviously this contains HMRC's spin on our case, but the facts surrounding the Padmore case and the subsequent legislation in 1987 are essentially correct.

The legislation in 1987 was:

Section 62 Finance (No.2) Act 1987

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Does anything else think it's a bit rich of Labour to be harping on about the Tories not being able to explain how they will fund their manifesto pledges to the tune of £6m or so, when these comedians have overspent to the tune of £165bn?

ie the £6bn NI non-rise is equivalent to 12 days borrowing by the current Government.

And the fact that the entire election campaign seems to be resting on this one irrelevance is extremely tiresome to say the least.

We also never understand when the Tories get in to a pickle about how they will pay for things why they just don't hold up a copy of the Guardian jobs pages.

[DaveB]

This is not quite correct.

BN66 retrospectively amended legislation from 1987, which was a response to Padmore.

Have a read of this:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...%20release.pdf

Obviously this contains HMRC's spin on our case, but the facts surrounding the Padmore case and the subsequent legislation in 1987 are essentially correct.

The legislation in 1987 was:

Section 62 Finance (No.2) Act 1987

Gotcha, thats the missing link. the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 was referenced in S58 but I didnt get the significance without reading that last bit.

Ammened the Wiki entry to reflect this.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Does anything else think it's a bit rich of Labour to be harping on about the Tories not being able to explain how they will fund their manifesto pledges to the tune of £6m or so, when these comedians have overspent to the tune of £165bn?

ie the £6bn NI non-rise is equivalent to 12 days borrowing by the current Government.

And the fact that the entire election campaign seems to be resting on this one irrelevance is extremely tiresome to say the least.

We also never understand when the Tories get in to a pickle about how they will pay for things why they just don't hold up a copy of the Guardian jobs pages.

It just goes to show what bugger all difference there is between them these days.

I remember the 70s and 80s when Labour and Conservative actually meant something.

I was listening to a discussion in an office where I was working a few years back as to which was best, McDonalds or Burger King. I couldn't help chipping in that surely this was a bit like comparing cat s**t and dog s**t.

I think the same analogy could be applied to the 2 main political parties today.

[portseven]

Apologies to portseven, no offence intended

None taken, I just wanted to get something up there and fully expected (hoped) more knowlegeable people would ammend.

[Ninja]

Wikipedia

So added it as a 'real page' though I think it goes through some sort of review process so see how it goes.

Nice one. Good job!


Sorry to be a pedant, but I'll let you correct the spelling & grammar

".....earnings recieved from the partnership"
...new schemes were concieved whereby offshore trusts...
...the ability for benficiaries of foreign trusts to exploit...
...set up with foreign trustee's, who...

[Toocan]

The doubtable Mr Brown

The election campaign is in full swing, and we're seeing it all. Gordon Brown wonders why people dislike him – well there are so many reasons Gordon. Personally I have nothing against you, but your policies – that is a different matter.

We all know that the country is in a financial mess – but why? Ask the man in the street and he may tell you it is because of “the banks”. Curiously, the shares that the government took in RBS and Bank of Scotland/Lloyds are now worth approximately what was paid for them. So the massive deficit didn’t come from there.

No, it came from overspending pure and simple. Perhaps Gordon should familiarise himself with Dickens words: Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

If he’s not fit to balance the books, then he’s not fit to run the country.

So when Gordon says he doesn’t get hurt by people’s comments anymore (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7093824.ece), I can tell you why: It’s because the man has no heart.

It's not just s.58 - it's the way he and his party have taken the heart out of our country.

Roll on 6th May – time for a change Gordon. Time for you to shuffle off.

Very important information has just been made public that I think is
something you should all be aware of: Gonorrhoea Lectim.

The Centre for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new
virulent strain of this old disease. The disease is called Gonorrhoea
Lectim. It’s pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'im." The disease is
contracted through dangerous and high-risk behaviour involving putting
your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 1997....

But now many people, after having been infected for the past 13 years,
are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is. It’s sad
because it is so easily cured with a new procedure just coming on the
market called Vot-emout!

You take the first dose/step in May 6th 2010, and simply don't engage in
such behaviour again; otherwise it could become permanent and eventually
wipe out all life, as we know it.

Several towns are already on top of this like Basildon, Birmingham
Central, and others elsewhere, with many more seeing the writing on
the wall.

Please pass this important message on to all those people who need this
antidote.

[PlaneSailing]

An Aside

Lurch with his finger on the pulse once more...


The Right Honourable Stephen Timms is the UK's "Minister for Digital Britain." He's the guy behind the Digital Economy Bill, which makes the US DMCA look good by comparison. Seriously, this is some terrible, terrible lawmaking.



They can then seek to download a copy of that material and in so doing capture information about the source including the Intellectual Property (IP) address..."

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/08...r-digital.html