BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Emigre]

I agree, however a suitable rewording could be addressed to our own MP's.

Emigre would you mind me doing this and sending to my MP?

Regards
Fred

Fred. Go ahead. My feeling is that the nation might like to understand how someone can have two completely different sets of priniples, with the only natural divideing line being a General Election.

[BarneyCool]

"Your Freedom" webiste made the Evening Standard last night.

A click on the wilder side of democracy “PORNOGRAPHY is very much a personal view. An old friend of mine used to say that the erotic ends where pubic hairs begin ...” So begins one ricksavage, personally appealing to the Government of this country to repeal the laws banning explicit and graphic depictions of consensual sex. He submits this at the invitation of Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, at yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk, an exercise in participatory democracy for the digital age. It’s worth a few clicks.
“I propose we decriminalize sex between two members of a different species,” posits asdasd. “Why should two beings involved in a loving bi-species relationship be punished? I am a zoophile and I feel that I am unfairly criminalize[d] for my sexual persuasion.”

Thank goodness the Government will completely ignore all of this.



============================================

Perhaps we should let the Evening Standard know about the real issues S.58 being censored whilst this sort of tripe is ok. We may get a bit more publicity.

Anyone got any friends in the media?

[MajorGowen]

[QUOTE=screwthis;1166370]

The thing that concerns me is that before the election it was obvious that the then Labour govt. had it in for us (starting from the IR35 days).
At that time, we had the opposition supporting us at least in principle.
Now that they are looking like abandoning us we should still be careful not to overly alienate them. We started off by writing to them as the 'good guys' giving them the opportunity to overturn Labour's mistakes but we are rapidly tarring them with the same brush. Whilst that may be true, all this aggression, threats and bad publicity (e.g. "SHAME ON YOU David Guake" all over their site) is going to piss them off to such an extent that they will start to sympathise with Labour).
We have often asked the question why they are enforcing this given we expect that it may result in either a net loss to the Exchequer or at best (for them) monies will only be realised in the next administration. Many of you have suggested it is so that they appear tough against tax evaders.
I think sometimes people fight petty wars because of jealousy, insecurity, self-pity, anger etc.. I'm sure parking wardens and bailiffs derive a sense of pleasure and power from f**king people. The more we war with them the more they will look to f**k us because people get a buzz from winning. simple as that... "we win you lose". It may not be about money, or politics but just about winning and the more we oppose them and attack them the more it becomes a war (one which we had between Labour not the new govt.) Once you start a war people want to win even if they lose sight of why they are fighting it in the first place.

I think make them aware big time and NEVER let up but maybe calling them and their site a joke, spamming it etc. doesn't make us look noble.

Whilst a agree with you that we don't want to start a war, it is simply not acceptable that someone so opposed to this legislation whilst in opposition should now roll over and have his tummy tickled by HMRC now that he is in power.

MP's are used to people sounding off at them, so I don't believe that us writing our feelings would "start a war". I have also written to my MP along the same lines as Emigre, requesting that he ask David Gauke why there is such a difference between his pre-election and post-election views on this subject.

I think that as they are supposed to serve us, then the least he can do is offer an explanation.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

MP's are used to people sounding off at them, so I don't believe that us writing our feelings would "start a war".

You have to be bloody thick skinned to survive in politics so any criticism we heap in their direction will be like water off a duck's back.

[BarneyCool]

I've added a comment to the online edition of the Evening Standard

Not sure if they read the comments but it might get noticed.

Whilst this is obviously a joke! There are actualy real issues trying to be raised on the "Your Freedom" website such as the Section 58 Finance act 2008. Section 58 Finance Act 2008 — HMG - Your Freedom

Which involves The then Labour government back dating law over 20 years and effectively criminalising people retospectively. For some reason unknown to me this particular issue has been censored and people are no longer able to add comments to this thread. How on earth is that "Restoring Civil Liberties" and "Your Freedom"



Absolute proof if any were needed that this Government will be like all the other Governments in history... ie pretending to listen to the "little people" but not really giving a damn. ( nicked this bit from AlanBranniganHMRC post )



Perhaps the Evening standard would like to write a follow up piece on a real issue that could potencially affect huge numbers of the british public at some point in the future although they will not know it until the law is retrospectively changed at some point in the future.

[screwthis]

Perhaps we should let the Evening Standard know about the real issues S.58 being censored whilst this sort of tripe is ok. We may get a bit more publicity.

Anyone got any friends in the media?

One of my ex's writes for the Daily Express

[OnYourBikeGB]

Hmm. On the subject of duplicate posts, I tried to post a comment a few nights ago, clicked the button, nothing happened, no spinning icons, nothing. I thought maybe I had gone over a character limit or something and chopped a bit out, and clucked again. In all I did it 5 times, but all totally innocently. Eventually the page refreshed, and my comment appeared, but only once. A couple of hours later I checked back, and all had appeared. Obviously some kind of queuing or caching issue, but pretty poor design. I'm sure I can't have been the only person that this happened to. The irony of censoring a website on civil liberties says something about our country. Say what they like about the multiple postings, but surely it's the issue and principle that count. Instead they've made it into a political Top Of The Pops. Not that they give a sh#t.

[Ninja]

Cleggy's website

I'm on the site now, and can't add a comment. No button.

I was going to add this.......

Partington v. Attorney-General (1869)

This case in 1869 set the framework for how tax law is ruled upon by the Courts.

Partington v. Attorney-General (1869), L.R. 4 E. & I. App. 100, per Lord Cairns at p. 122 where his Lordship said:

"If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute."

[swede]

I'm on the site now, and can't add a comment. No button.

I was going to add this.......

Partington v. Attorney-General (1869)

This case in 1869 set the framework for how tax law is ruled upon by the Courts.

Partington v. Attorney-General (1869), L.R. 4 E. & I. App. 100, per Lord Cairns at p. 122 where his Lordship said:

"If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible, in any statute what is called an equitable construction, certainly such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute."

So regardless of the 'spirit' of the law, if it is outside the 'letter' of then law, then happy days?

[smalldog]

So regardless of the 'spirit' of the law, if it is outside the 'letter' of then law, then happy days?

Spirit of the law, laughable isnt it, that is basically a get out of jail free card for them to rewind what they did under the guise of, "oh yes of course we meant that really". what a load of tosh!