BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Disgusted of Coventry]

List of Countries where Retrospective Law is not permitted

Selling the Rule of Law for £500m | Adam Smith Institute

Now check this out - you'll be amazed.

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indonesia,Iran(!),Japan,Pakistan,Philippines,Russi a(!!!)...

[portseven]

To create a professional press pack (which can aslo be used to send to our MPs, etc) needs money amongst other things. Let's put a fund together and present our case in the best consistent way possible. I'm in.

Anyone know what a press pack consists off? Anyone here had any experience of this? Is it simply a one or 2 pager summary (pdf?) of relevant facts put together in a way we want the press to read it as?

[SantaClaus]

Now check this out - you'll be amazed.

Ex post facto law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indonesia,Iran(!),Japan,Pakistan,Philippines,Russi a(!!!)...

Maybe we should update Wikipedia whilst we're at it to show the UK is closed for business.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Are you sure a Press Pack's a good idea?

Agreed, we need an Information/Press pack NOW!

I'm not saying there isn't a 'story' to be told, but that it matters a lot how that story finds its way into the media.

If there is a newsworthy aspect to this, then it would be of the David & Goliath variety that is occasionally taken up by a crusading journalist. Sorry to be cynical, but the 'David' would need to be the person with the smallest house, the lowest income, the most to lose. And then you'd have to hope that the story would grow in some way.

If you produce a collective Press Pack then you're just going to look like a smaller Goliath.

Smaller Goliath vs. Goliath!

(doesn't really have the same impact, does it?).

[winstontizzer]

Selling the Rule of Law for £500m | Adam Smith Institute

Absolutely agree. I think this must be one of the main focus points of an appeal to the ECHR. All EU Members pledge upon taking Membership to uphold and guard the Rules of Law. The Barclays situation could be very simply dispensed with by means other than changing the law retrospectively. If it signed up to an agreement not to engage in schemes it has clearly broken that agreement so the matter is a contractual one. Still I expect that the Govt dimwits didnt bother to make sure it was legally binding, in the same way that they didnt think about how they could control the Banks after having acquired control of them.

[bve534]

PR campaign

[QUOTE=not-a-penny;1493416]Agreed, we need an Information/Press pack NOW!

[OnYourBikeGB]

I agree what have we got to lose?

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we demanded that the same rules used against us were used against these big companies. We demand the banks are investigated and retrospectively taxed back to 1987. We demand the 'oversight' with Vodafone and all the others are recovered via retrospection. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's a good idea, but I'd like to see what happens when Hector starts treating everyone 'fairly'. There'd be a revolution. Then we can ask, why just us? This is a tool they will only ever use fully against little people, they'd be too chickentulip to use it against their mates in big business. I'd like to know what happens when Joe Public starts demanding it. Bet they'd wish it never happened. If our political representatives are questioned everytime tax avoidance comes up in big business why they are not applying the same firm of legislation as they did to bankrupt 2000 small businesses, what do you think might happen? I think maybe a few emails to the likes of the BBC etc, suggested questions to put to ministers we hear are appearing, might be interesting.

[bve534]

PR campaign

[QUOTE=bve534;1493735]

Agreed, we need an Information/Press pack NOW!

I raised the poll question at the top of the page on a PR campaign some time ago. I am disappointed so many dont support it because it may be good money after bad but the satisfaction would be the reward. Meantime I have written to dozens of people and bodies including my MP (several times). I have written to people who I thought would see the thin end of the wedge, its potential ramifications and who might think it important (including Ros Altmann, CBI, numerous newspaper business editors, Taxpayers Alliance, PCG, and the list goes on and on). Unfortunately despite expressing their surprise and dislike of retrospective tax all I ever receive is a placatory reply, that is apart from Gauke whose underlings write the same sort of nonsense I used to receive whenever I wrote to Dim Prawn about IR35.

I still think we need a full page advert in the Sunday Times or similar (about £30-40k)explaining what has happened from the start with IR35, in particular the anachronism the time machine creates for those who have divorced between 2001-2008. They split their assets not knowing they had a hidden retrospective bill that should have been deducted from those assets but wasnt. The time machine now leaves them in an even worse position than the rest of us and could that be more undemocratic? In addition we also need a top class lobbyist group who will know exactly who needs to hear about our case and the lies and chicanery that led to S.58 and our defeat in the "kangaroo" courts. I am in it to the bitter end - we may go down but let's not go down without a bloody good fight.

[SantaClaus]

[QUOTE=bve534;1493755]

I raised the poll question at the top of the page on a PR campaign some time ago. I am disappointed so many dont support it because it may be good money after bad but the satisfaction would be the reward. Meantime I have written to dozens of people and bodies including my MP (several times). I have written to people who I thought would see the thin end of the wedge, its potential ramifications and who might think it important (including Ros Altmann, CBI, numerous newspaper business editors, Taxpayers Alliance, PCG, and the list goes on and on). Unfortunately despite expressing their surprise and dislike of retrospective tax all I ever receive is a placatory reply, that is apart from Gauke whose underlings write the same sort of nonsense I used to receive whenever I wrote to Dim Prawn about IR35.

I still think we need a full page advert in the Sunday Times or similar (about £30-40k)explaining what has happened from the start with IR35, in particular the anachronism the time machine creates for those who have divorced between 2001-2008. They split their assets not knowing they had a hidden retrospective bill that should have been deducted from those assets but wasnt. The time machine now leaves them in an even worse position than the rest of us and could that be more undemocratic? In addition we also need a top class lobbyist group who will know exactly who needs to hear about our case and the lies and chicanery that led to S.58 and our defeat in the "kangaroo" courts. I am in it to the bitter end - we may go down but let's not go down without a bloody good fight.

I've always thought a newspaper advert is a good idea. £10 from every one of us would pay for it.

[FUD]

MP's expenses

"Maybe we should point out to our MP's that the situation we find ourselves in is not unlike the expenses scandal. The rules were as they were at the time and a lot of politicians pointed out that they followed the guidelines and that they shouldn't have to pay anything back. We followed the law as it was at the time except that we are being forced to pay back tax which at the time we legally were not required to pay. Ask them if they thought it would be fair to ask every MP to pay back for a period of 7 years all those expenses that are not covered under the current rules. I bet I know their answer.

Point out it is hypocritical to apply this unfair retrospection when they don't apply the same standards to themselves.

Regards

Slobbo"

Great point Slobbo. I have been wondering about this too. If we want to get the attention of MP's and the public then I think we need to really focus on this. If we have to pay retrospectively, why don't the MP's? Maybe it's worth asking them on air or something or putting that in the campaign. Surely this is a reason MP's SHOULD be backing us. The whole expenses saga has died out and is probably worth resurrecting to highlight the "fairness".