Section 58 - what the victims are up against

[centurian]

They want ability to run red lights for covert surveillance.

I suspect little is really changing in reality here. They have probably been running through red lights for years, but in the past if they were caught, their boss would just put in a call to the Chief Inspector and the ticket would be cancelled.

Nowadays, the police are applying the strict law to the letter - and throwing common sense out of the window. Look at the cases of organ donor transports being issued with speeding tickets.

So HMRC want to carry on doing what they have always done anyway.

[BrilloPad]

blah blah blah

At least you did not deny being a virgin.

[KentPhilip]

At least you did not deny being a virgin.

Well it was me wot said it in the first place!

But to go back to your original point, I think the state does need an eye keeping on it. There are many people who would like to see unfair powers given to the state, and these people should be resisted. Personally I am in favour of a small state but not no state.

[VectraMan]

But to go back to your original point, I think the state does need an eye keeping on it. There are many people who would like to see unfair powers given to the state, and these people should be resisted. Personally I am in favour of a small state but not no state.

But who keeps an eye on the state? You obviously can't rely on the police, and the press only care about reporting on who has the skimpiest bikini in the jungle.

To go back to the original story (and ignoring all the irrelevant section 58 nonsense), I always thought lying to a judge was A Big Deal, and therefore the people that said there were 300 cases of this companies' lorries being found to be empty whereas there were in fact only 3, should be in prison by now.

[vetran]

To go back to the original story (and ignoring all the irrelevant section 58 nonsense), I always thought lying to a judge was A Big Deal, and therefore the people that said there were 300 cases of this companies' lorries being found to be empty whereas there were in fact only 3, should be in prison by now.

+1

I would expect all those materially involved in falsifying the case to be either imprisoned, dismissed or demoted depending on the severity of their actions.
I would expect the victim's MP and the judge who was lied to to be instrumental in this.

It is a big deal, I agree partially to BP's worry that HMRC want more powers and are abusing their current ones without redress.
I suggest if HMRC were unfailing exact & honourable then an extension of their powers would appear reasonable, they in this case obviously aren't.

[vetran]

I suspect little is really changing in reality here. They have probably been running through red lights for years, but in the past if they were caught, their boss would just put in a call to the Chief Inspector and the ticket would be cancelled.

Nowadays, the police are applying the strict law to the letter - and throwing common sense out of the window. Look at the cases of organ donor transports being issued with speeding tickets.

So HMRC want to carry on doing what they have always done anyway.

so previous criminal activity means the law should be changed to make it legal for HMRC to speed.

whereas BN58 suggests HMRC can make previously legal things illegal and charge back taxes based on this new reality.

I'm not even affected by this and I still find it offensive.