• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Would you sign this Petition?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Would you sign this Petition?

    We have been having a debate on the BN66 thread about whether to start a petition on the No 10 website. We don't expect it to achieve anything in itself but it would give a focus for our campaign when contacting MPs etc.

    Now, I know many of you are unsympathetic to our cause but retrospective legislation is something we should all be fearful of. I am trying to guage whether we would get any support from people who didn't use the scheme.

    The suggested wording might be something like this:

    We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to..
    Hold an independent inquiry into Section 58 Finance Act 2008

    Details
    It is hereby alleged that the Government misled Parliament when Clause 55 Finance Bill 2008 was debated by the Treasury Committee on 22 May 2008. A number of statements made by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury Jane Kennedy were either factually incorrect or highly misleading, and crucial details about the case were not disclosed at the time.

    Hundreds of families are now facing financial ruin due to the retrospective nature of the legislation. The Government at least owes it to these families to carry out an independent inquiry to investigate these allegations.
    39
    Yes - I was in the scheme
    30.77%
    12
    Yes - I was NOT in the scheme
    43.59%
    17
    andyw
    25.64%
    10

    #2
    I strongly object to retrospective legislation so I'm happy to support your efforts to fight BN66 despite not being personally affected.

    Comment


      #3
      great andyw option!

      Comment


        #4
        Call me thick, but shouldn't there be a 'no' option?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by deckster View Post
          Call me thick, but shouldn't there be a 'no' option?
          Geez you are taps!

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by deckster View Post
            Call me thick, but shouldn't there be a 'no' option?
            That is the andyw option!

            HTH

            Comment


              #7
              We are running this along the lines of a govt. consultation.

              The only options that are presented are the ones that will give us the answer we require
              'Orwell's 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual'. -
              Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.

              Comment


                #8
                Yes. No idea what it's about but retrospective application is wrong. It doesn't matter what the strict interpretation of the law was if it was allowed to continue, appeared to be an accepted practice and was advocated by accountants on that basis.
                Last edited by xoggoth; 18 March 2009, 00:32.
                bloggoth

                If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
                John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yes; the retrospection is plain wrong:

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Agree with previous posters - I wasn't in the scheme but retrospective legislation is just plain wrong.
                    Beer
                    is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
                    Benjamin Franklin

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X