BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[ASB]

It has been pointed out to me that, even if we could obtain incriminating evidence from HMRC (even if it pointed to corruption/conspiracy), it wouldn't help us in the Court of Appeal.

This may be of interest:-

Civil procedure | The Law Gazette

Under the CPR new evidence is not an absolute no no. It can be a big hurdle to jump through. If you did obtain evidence of material non disclosure then the possibility of getting that evidence heard does exist (or more likely the original trial reheard).

[neilson9]

This may be of interest:-

Civil procedure | The Law Gazette

Under the CPR new evidence is not an absolute no no. It can be a big hurdle to jump through. If you did obtain evidence of material non disclosure then the possibility of getting that evidence heard does exist (or more likely the original trial reheard).

Just spoke to someone 'in the know' - they do have grounds to refuse providing information when costs are greater than > 10hours work; i think we all know this. So the option is to narrow the request, (be more specific) in order for it to take less time (and possibly make multiple requests) etc - they also have a duty to advise and assist you when a FOI request is made (uh-huh).

[StellaFan]

Just spoke to someone 'in the know' - they do have grounds to refuse providing information when costs are greater than > 10hours work; .

would be good if the option to pay the cost was there

[smalldog]

Just spoke to someone 'in the know' - they do have grounds to refuse providing information when costs are greater than > 10hours work; i think we all know this. So the option is to narrow the request, (be more specific) in order for it to take less time (and possibly make multiple requests) etc - they also have a duty to advise and assist you when a FOI request is made (uh-huh).

which is of course B0llocks as they dont provide an ability to pay past the 10 FREE hours, purely lip service to public rights as ever! Otherwise when they replied stating it exceeded the free limit there would be a link to pay the excess, guess what there isnt. Are they missing a revenue generating trick or is it maybe a justification to cover up stuff...hmmmmmmmm i wonde, draw your own conclusions...in my view they are a bunch of deceitful lying corrupt cnuts...

my god George Orwell was soooooo right!!!!!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Weekend reading

If you haven't done so recently, it's well worth reading this.

Why not print it off and read at your leisure.

See Pages 3-9 and pages 14 & 15

http://www.publications.parliament.u...ts/133/133.pdf

This didn't come into play in the Judicial Review but it may well do in the Court of Appeal.

As I mentioned previously, the Court of Appeal will only be considering BN66 from the very narrow angle of whether this Act of Parliament is compatible with European Law.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

New letter to send to your MP

I think it's OK to send this one to Labour MPs too.

See what you think.

[Taffia]

I think it's OK to send this one to Labour MPs too.

See what you think.

Mine has gone to Steve Pound (Lab) and a colleague has sent his to Bob Neill (Con).

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Mine has gone to Steve Pound (Lab) and a colleague has sent his to Bob Neill (Con).

Great stuff.

I did initially think of sending the letters directly to Gauke but I think it's better if this goes through MPs. I am fully expecting that we'll get knocked back but at least this way Gauke will have to justify to Parliament why he won't open the files up to public scrutiny.

[moira under the stairs]

Great stuff.

I did initially think of sending the letters directly to Gauke but I think it's better if this goes through MPs. I am fully expecting that we'll get knocked back but at least this way Gauke will have to justify to Parliament why he won't open the files up to public scrutiny.

Letter Sent....... I'm in for the hundred

[toaster]

Dominic Raab (Esher & Walton)

Ditto here - letter sent and up for the £100 contrib...

T