BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Morlock]

Just as a reminder to everyone else, it's worth sending a copy to the above people in addition to your MP.

... Lets make sure they get sackfulls of mail

Not sure that's a good idea.
1) MPs are not obliged to deal with letters from people who aren't their own constituents.
2) A letter to an MP in their capacity as a Minister will probably be read and answered by a Ministerial civil servant.
3) Spam annoys people.

[RingStinger]

John Redwood MP for Wokingham had a letter, in my own words accompanied by some of DR's articulated paragraphs, hit his doormat yesterday morning.

Along with a reminder of how I helped him increase his already sizeable majority

Osborne had the same, although I sense he was more concerned about his CBI speach than our letters yesterday.

[TAF4]

Frustration.

Over the past few months I have refrained from discussing their antics on here for fear of being gagged. However, I can feel this coming anyway so it's time to break the silence.
<Snip>
HMRC have no respect for the law, period. They break it without a moment's hesitation and not by accident or mistake but intentionally and deliberately.

Hey DR.
Illegitimis non carborundum
I completely understand the sense of helplessness and frustration you must be feeling as you pound away at the unyielding state organisation. However I do hope that your decision to go public isn't the pre-cursor to you throwing in the towel. Your tenacity, commitment and calm appraisals are a core that holds this forum together. Without the support of this forum I, and possibly many others, would revert to the position of persecuted isolation.
If there is anything I can do to carry some of the burden please let me know.

What makes you think a gagging is on the way?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Hey DR.
Illegitimis non carborundum
I completely understand the sense of helplessness and frustration you must be feeling as you pound away at the unyielding state organisation. However I do hope that your decision to go public isn't the pre-cursor to you throwing in the towel. Your tenacity, commitment and calm appraisals are a core that holds this forum together. Without the support of this forum I, and possibly many others, would revert to the position of persecuted isolation.
If there is anything I can do to carry some of the burden please let me know.

What makes you think a gagging is on the way?

Throwing in the towel? In HMRC's dream!

A gagging (or in FOI parlance a "vexatious" notice) is the only way I can see for them to dig themselves out of the hole they're in, and prevent any disclosures. They have gone very quiet in the past couple of weeks which makes me suspect something is afoot.

However, if they do try to gag me then I'll be off to the Information Commissioner and there's enough evidence now to totally undermine their position.

[theoctopus]

DR's letter (slightly tweaked) going to Stephen Hammond (Con) today

[TAF4]

Vexatious - Nice!

Throwing in the towel? In HMRC's dream!

Phew!

Way to go!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Nothing to hide?

In the early days I did seriously wonder whether HMRC were hiding something or if I was just imagining conspiracies.

However, if you look at their handling of all the FOI requests it's hard not to draw any other conclusion.

Why go to such extraordinary lengths, including lying and flouting the law, to prevent disclosure if there is nothing to hide?

OK, so you could argue that they don't want to prejudice their case in court. But how could this information do that unless it contradicts what they're saying in court?

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the Court of Appeal has just overturned the decision of the High Court to prevent the BA strikes.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Deceipt

Just in case this wasn't obvious to anyone, here is the mischief.

Can you spot the paradox?

The only thing which has changed is the start and end date but the search windows are identical in length.

FOI (1)
Request: information HMRC holds on XYZ, dating the 8-week period A to B
Response: no information held (ie. a search was carried out and nothing was found)

FOI (2)
Request: information HMRC holds on XYZ, dating the 8-week period C to D
Response: it would cost too much to perform a search

[Morlock]

In the early days I did seriously wonder whether HMRC were hiding something or if I was just imagining conspiracies.

However, if you look at their handling of all the FOI requests it's hard not to draw any other conclusion.

Why go to such extraordinary lengths, including lying and flouting the law, to prevent disclosure if there is nothing to hide?

Just in case this wasn't obvious to anyone, here is the mischief.

The only thing which has changed is the start and end date but the search windows are identical in length.

FOI (1)
Request: information HMRC holds on XYZ, dating the 8-week period A to B
Response: no information held (ie. a search was carried out and nothing was found)

FOI (2)
Request: information HMRC holds on XYZ, dating the 8-week period C to D
Response: it would cost too much to perform a search

It's also entirely possible that they are bunch of incompetent/lazy dolts who can't tell their arse from their elbow...

[WhiteCat]

Better late than never

My letter now on its way to Stephen Dorrell (Cons. - Charnwood). Thanks DR.