BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

There's no doubt you need to know precisely what you're doing before you lodge such a complaint.

It would be all too easy some considerable way down the road for HMRC/Adjudicator/Ombudsman to deem a complaint inadmissible due to sub judice or some other technicality.

I know from my own experience with FOI that HMRC are masters of evasion and obfuscation. Nailing jelly to a wall is a walk in the park compared to pinning these buggers down.

A masterly summation Mr Rhubarb

[DonkeyRhubarb]

No decision from the Supreme Court yet. Notices are posted here once a month:

Permission to appeal - The Supreme Court

I am hopeful we will get a decision either this month or February.

As an aside, I notice Julian Assange was granted permission in December to appeal his extradition.

[ContractIn]

No decision from the Supreme Court yet. Notices are posted here once a month:

Permission to appeal - The Supreme Court

I am hopeful we will get a decision either this month or February.

As an aside, I notice Julian Assange was granted permission in December to appeal his extradition.

Looking at the last 6 months submissions it would appear that the majority get rejected. Probably been mentioned previously but if we get a rejection, is that it or can we appeal the rejection?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Looking at the last 6 months submissions it would appear that the majority get rejected. Probably been mentioned previously but if we get a rejection, is that it or can we appeal the rejection?

As far as I'm aware, if the Supreme Court refuse an application, that is the end of the matter.

In that event, the only course open to Montpelier would be to apply to Strasbourg.

For what it's worth, I am totally confident that they will grant us permission.

The biggy for me is how many judges we get on the panel.

Minimum 5 -

7 -

Maximum 9 -

[BrilloPad]

As far as I'm aware, if the Supreme Court refuse an application, that is the end of the matter.

In that event, the only course open to Montpelier would be to apply to Strasbourg.

For what it's worth, I am totally confident that they will grant us permission.

The biggy for me is how many judges we get on the panel.

Minimum 5 -

7 -

Maximum 9 -

Why do you prefer more judges?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why do you prefer more judges?

Have read of this:
Practice directions - The Supreme Court

If they don't think the case is important enough to warrant more than 5 judges then that would concern me.

[BrilloPad]

Have read of this:
Practice directions - The Supreme Court

If they don't think the case is important enough to warrant more than 5 judges then that would concern me.

Many thanks. I thought you were going to reply with something about the more judges, the harder it is to bribe them.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Many thanks. I thought you were going to reply with something about the more judges, the harder it is to bribe them.

Well there is that too.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

For what it's worth, I am totally confident that they will grant us permission.

Would you mind if I were to ask why?

It's just that, over here, we're running out of footholds. We've lost the principle of cause & effect. Semantic precision has been thrown out with the garbage. We're rapidly forming the impression that HMRC are able to say and do whatever they damn well want. With impunity!

[ready_to_leave]

Lets be realistic that this is not going to get overturned

The expectation of this appeal being different gives further credence to Samuel Johnson's "triumph of hope over experience" remark.
How many frankly laughable judgements will it take until one admits that the courts are part of the overall governmental protection racket and that justice is something people keep wanting to believe is true, but for which there is scant evidence (like honest politicians).

Politicians protect their own and government departments protect their own. You are either part of the state/corporate machine or you are one of the little people. We are not the in-group, we are the out group and we can be treated anyway they d**n well please. Look at the Parliamentary committee hearing for HMRC. It was obviously an incompetent and deceitful cover up and what really happened to anyone involved. NOTHING. A bit of a pantomime telling off from the grumpy headmistress. Accountability? Lets get real here.

Hartnett gets a massive payoff, a big pension and all the other civil servants get back to screwing the rest of the country, with nary a second thought.

You are a cash cow to be milked by the state and that is all that you need to know. Fines for mistakes, fines for not complying with rules that are never clear, ever growing regulations that even full time tax lawyers and accountants are unsure of (but you can be fined or prosecuted over), failure to see legislation as anything other than the will of the state, the state intermediating all your social interactions, time travel legislative powers. That is our present situation and the future holds a whole lot more of the same.

The court is not on your side. You do not appoint judges, nor enoble them, nor control inquiry appointments. Forget that avenue; it is going nowhere, as will appealing to any oversight committees or standards bodies. Its all a sham to make you think there is some restraint on their behaviour. A letter to Santa Claus would be more effective.

There is only one option and that is to write it off and be glad you got away with your liberty intact this time. I for one am off as soon as I can manage it, and HMRC and the govt will have no one to blame but themselves when there are no more productive individuals left to leech off.

Would you mind if I were to ask why?

It's just that, over here, we're running out of footholds. We've lost the principle of cause & effect. Semantic precision has been thrown out with the garbage. We're rapidly forming the impression that HMRC are able to say and do whatever they damn well want. With impunity!