COUNCILS,TAXMEN , SOCIAL WORK, PARKING SCAMS AND BAILIFF'S

Herr Majesty's Tax Henchmen want to raid joint accounts
Typical gutter press report husband's are the tax avoiders while wives pay the cost thanks to HMRC (Herr Majesty's Tax Henchmen). No man should EVER share a bank account with anyone especially a wife or partner. The easiest way for the crooked lawyers, judges and tax men to shut them down if separation is pending. Another arm of the thieving British state while the big boys like Google and Amazon remain untouchable.

We cannot find the exact number of properties seized by these evil bastards, as like the legal mafia they keep them hidden, but there are plenty of men made homeless and penniless by these unaccountable mobsters when they made huge mistakes over tax accounts.


Taxman to raid joint accounts: Wife could lose cash even if it's husband who's in arrears under new proposals

The taxman is demanding powers to seize money from couples’ joint bank accounts – even if one partner owes nothing. HM Revenue and Customs wants to be able to take money from any account – including Isas and joint accounts – if it believes someone owes taxes. MPs will today launch a withering attack on the controversial proposal, which they say could cause ‘serious detriment’ to ordinary taxpayers.

The Treasury select committee warns: ‘This policy is highly dependent on HMRC’s ability to accurately determine which taxpayers owe money and what amounts they owe – an ability not always demonstrated in the past. Incorrectly collecting money will result in serious detriment to taxpayers.’ Under the proposal, HMRC will be able to take all the money a person owes out of their bank account, building society account or Isa ‘without the need to apply to a court’. HMRC insists it will not take the money unless the person has at least £5,000 left across all their bank accounts, including Isas, after the debt has been paid. It will not ‘create or increase overdrafts’.

Anybody who owes more than £1,000 could be affected and HMRC expects to seize £375 million over the next four years. But experts warn that many couples are secretive about their finances, do not know what each other earns, and never discuss their finances or whether or not they have paid their tax bills. Robin Williamson, of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said: ‘The problem is HMRC’s “shoot first, ask questions later” approach.’

Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, added: ‘Clearly, it needs a safeguard because otherwise it will hit people who have no idea that their husband or wife is a complete rogue.’ Innocent victims of the policy could include pensioners who put money into a joint account, managed by younger relatives. If their younger relative owes taxes, the money could be seized, even though it belongs to the elderly person. When the plans to raid accounts were published in the Budget, there was no mention of joint accounts. The proposal was first mooted in an HMRC consultation document released this week.

Anthony Thomas, of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, said the proposals – subject to a consultation which ends on July 29 – posed ‘far too great a risk’ to ordinary Britons. He said: ‘If strictly observed, the safeguards and conditions as set out should be broadly effective but if they are disregarded, vulnerable taxpayers will suffer – and that is far too great a risk.’ The consultation document said HMRC expects 17,000 people a year will be hit by the new rules, known as the ‘direct recovery of debts’.

Typically, they will owe an average of £5,800 in tax. The document acknowledges the importance of ‘striking a balance between recovering money from debtors while protecting the rights of other account holders’. But it said its new powers must include joint accounts, or it would ‘provide an obvious opportunity for debtors to circumvent paying what they owe’. It suggests a ‘pro-rata’ system, whereby HMRC could deduct 50 per cent of the credit balance of a joint account to pay a tax debt.

But Mr Williamson said it was wrong to withdraw 50 per cent of the money from a joint account because many couples did not contribute money to a joint account on an equal basis. He added: ‘For example, a woman might be putting in all the money while her husband is pursuing an unsuccessful business venture and has run up a tax debt.’ David Gauke, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, said: ‘It will help to level the playing field between those who pay what they owe when they owe it, and those who do not.’

Britain is being robbed of £35 billion a year by cheats who don’t pay their taxes and others who find ways of avoiding paying them, according to HMRC. A spokesman said: ‘We will be including joint accounts. If we didn’t, there would be an opportunity for debtors to get out of paying what they owe.’

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Activist Patrick Cullinane lost his house after he was bankrupted by HM Revenue & Customs
  • HMRC evil and sadistic (VIDEO)
  • HMRC Is Shite
  • HMRC attempt to cut out Agents
  • Don't say anything verbally to HMRC do everything in writing(VIDEO)
  • Did PayPal hand over my info to HMRC?
  • Lost HMRC discs pop up on eBay (2007)
  • HMRC – arrghhh
  • Royal parasite awards Her Majesty's tax henchmen for doing a good job of swindling for them
  • HMRC evil and sadistic VIDEO
    HMRC full of incompetent idiots (2011) VIDEO
    Will new rules curtail thug bailiffs? VIDEO
    Another way of dealing with Bailiffs VIDEO
    How to piss off traffic wardens VIDEO
    Getting rid of the Sheriff Officers VIDEO
    Police again supporting Sheriff Officers.........c'mon constables show some balls!!!!!! VIDEO
    Warning notice
    bailiff beware
    Bailiffs........how to get rid of them VIDEO
    MASONIC COUNCILS BULLYBOYS DRIVE MILLIONS TO DESPAIR AND SUICIDE VIDEO
    Freemason councils and their dirty black listing books
    masonic temple The secret council files that deem babies, 100-year-olds and a man who pulls faces a threat to officials

    Thousands of people have been unknowingly named in the warning files
    ‘Cautionary lists’ warn council staff of potentially dangerous people
    Some operate in secret and names can remain on file for decades

    Toddlers, centenarians and a man who pulls faces have been placed on secret council databases deeming them a ‘threat’ to officials, it was revealed yesterday.

    Thousands of people have been unknowingly named in the warning files, including a man who answers his front door naked and a seven-year-old girl considered ‘potentially violent’. The secret databases came to light after a barber who used a megaphone to warn motorists about traffic wardens revealed he was put on a council warning list. Andy Blackwell, of Liskeard, Cornwall, was said to have posed a threat to the wardens’ health and safety. Cornwall council said it had to protect its staff.

    The ‘cautionary contacts lists’ exist to warn council staff about potentially dangerous people, including those who have made physical or sexual threats or are deemed to pose a risk. But the scale of the databases was called into question after it emerged that babies, toddlers and pensioners in their 90s have been included on the lists. Some councils tell residents they have been flagged but others operate in secret and names can remain on file for decades.

    The London borough of Bromley has more than 1,000 names flagged on its list, including a 101-year-old for ‘financial issues’. No further details about this case were revealed. In York, more than 300 people were placed on a list, including a man in his 50s who ‘can pull faces that appear aggressive’ when he has been drinking. Portsmouth’s files advise staff not to go alone to visit one resident as he ‘regularly answers the door with no clothes on’.

    North East Lincolnshire’s list included details of three babies – one barely a month old – and children aged five, eight and ten flagged for ‘physical aggression’ or a ‘risk of violence’. The council said children could be listed as violent if a member of their family posed a risk, as social workers needed to be alerted when accessing a child’s file. Warnings could also be placed on the files of unborn babies if the parents were considered violent or aggressive, it added.

    Of 150 local authorities contacted in a Freedom of Information investigation by the Press Association, more than half said they kept a warning list. The information they contain can be viewed by staff only and cannot be accessed by the public. Essex council said it does not keep a list but records incidents, such as 93-year-olds who were ‘consistently verbally threatening’ and ‘violent to staff or other professionals’, and a 99-year-old said to have been violent. The investigation also revealed details of threats made against council workers, including bomb and kidnap threats. One official was locked in a tenant’s home while a resident threatened to burn down a town hall.

    In Kensington and Chelsea, a man threatened to set fire to himself at the council’s offices while another ‘extremely violent’ man was said to have duped workers into believing he posed no threat by using a wheelchair. Other warnings covered residents with weapons and families with dangerous dogs. But they also featured a seven-year-old girl for ‘verbal abuse’ and another seven-year-old described as ‘potentially violent’. The Local Government Association said such lists were ‘an important part of ensuring our employees can go about their daily work without fear or harassment’, adding that councils ‘recognise there needs to be a commonsense approach’.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Is your councillor a freemason?
  • DVLA nearly half the country’s councils have been suspended from looking at motorists’ information
    dvla The masonic run DVLA has been aiding and abetting the extortion of motorists by crooked freemason run councils using their parking and motoring scams, including the private clamping firms who use thugs and rapists to intimidate drivers into handing over millions.

    In the past three years, 294 public organisations have faced action over their use of the database containing details of car registrations and driving licenses.

    In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from Big Brother Watch, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) disclosed that the organisations were overwhelmingly local authorities, but included Sussex Police and Transport for London. They all had access suspended, while 38 organisations saw their access permanently revoked. Of the issues identified, 156 came about because of audits of the database use by staff. You can download the excel chart of all the organisations involved here.

    Concerns about the DVLA database have been voiced for several years, but it is remarkable that in just three years nearly half the country’s councils have been suspended from looking at motorists’ information. It is essential members of the public know why their local council, or any other body, has faced sanctions and equally the DVLA must do far more to ensure that its data is not so wide open to abuse. The same concerns exist about a range of other databases and the public are right to be worried that their privacy is at risk across a range of Government services.

    The question is whether these suspensions hinder staff trying to do their job, while the staff doing the unauthorised searches escape proper punishment. One key issue that still has not been resolved is whether someone could be sent to prison for deliberately abusing the databases they have access to and that deterrent is badly needed. If the current system cannot even protect basic information about motorists and vehicles, how can the public have faith that a host of information about who they email and what websites they look at will be kept secure and only accessed by those who are supposed to be doing so?

    The public do not have confidence that their data is being kept securely and their privacy is not being violated on a routine basis. The whole framework of how information is protected and when access is granted needs reviewing and a system that protects privacy put in place, starting with significant reform of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • ROYALS MASON TAXMEN TARGET PEASANTS WHILE IGNORING MASONIC CORPORATIONS
    Royal parasitic taxmen (masonic henchmen) names and shames small firms... while the corporate giants (RUN BY FREEMASONS) are STILL going unpunished

  • HM Revenue and Customs' list name both individuals and companies
  • List contains tax dodgers who have defaulted on more than £25,000
  • It 'names and shames' a Liverpool hairdresser, a Cheshire wine trader and a Southport club and bar


  • Revenue chiefs are naming and shaming tax dodging small firms while multinationals avoid paying billions.

    Nine ordinary business people, including a hairdresser and a coach operator, were listed by HMRC as part of a scheme to highlight deliberate defaulters. The idea is that the stigma of appearing on the list, to be updated every three months, will persuade those thinking of avoiding tax to pay up. But MPs and tax experts last night criticised the plan for targeting ordinary individuals while doing nothing to uncover tax avoidance among big companies such as Starbucks, Amazon and Google.

    Richard Murphy, of Tax Research, said the list was ‘plain, straightforward hypocrisy’ which was simply ‘identifying plumbers and hairdressers when it should be naming global corporations’. ‘The people named are easy targets. There are clearly different categories of tax crime, with small businesses who put cash in HMRC’s pockets named and shamed; but banks, wealthy lawyers and global corporations offered anonymity. 'It seems that only little people pay tax and only little people are named and shamed.’

    And Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said: ‘They have named and shamed a whole lot of small and medium sized businesses. 'That is welcome because everyone should pay their tax. But I hope that they are not letting bigger fish off of the hook.’ The tax owed by the nine on the list amounted to less than £1million – far less than the £5billion understood to be lost every year because of aggressive tax avoidance by big corporations.

    Starbucks, Amazon and Google have all come under fire in recent months for complicated tax avoidance schemes. Coffee chain Starbucks had sales of £400million in the UK last year – but paid no corporation tax. Web firm Amazon, which had sales of £3.4billion in 2011, only paid £1.8million while Google paid just £6million out of UK turnover of £395million.

    Speaking in Bombay on Monday, Mr Cameron likened ‘aggressive’ forms of tax avoidance by multinational companies to illegal tax evasion. ‘I think there is a legitimate debate to say very aggressive forms of avoidance are not appropriate,’ he said. ‘And particularly, in a country which has set a very low tax rate, it is fair to ask people to pay it.’

    Earlier this week Mrs Hodge’s committee called on HMRC to publicly list promoters of tax avoidance schemes and those who used them. The list published yesterday by HMRC includes people who have been found guilty of evading more than £25,000 of tax. They were found during investigations by the taxman after April 2010. Large firms on the other hand do not evade tax; they seek ever more complicated legal ways of avoiding paying it.

    Treasury minister David Gauke said: ‘The publication of these names sends a clear signal that cheating on tax is wrong and reassures people who pay their taxes – the vast majority – that there are consequences for those who refuse to tell HMRC about their full liability.’ When asked why no large corporations were on the list, Mr Gauke said HMRC was taking action to close legal loopholes, and those who prompted aggressive tax avoidance schemes were also being exposed. The first list features nine names, including a hairdresser, the owner of a coach firm, a wine retailer and a knitwear manufacturer.

    They received fines ranging from a few thousand pounds to £291,830 for wine company The Trade Beverage Company of Mobberley in Cheshire. Under the new plan, called the Managing Deliberate Defaulters scheme, anyone who evades tax will also have their financial affairs watched closely for up to five years to make sure they do not re-offend. The crackdown was aimed at deterring would-be tax evaders. It started with letters being sent to 900 known tax dodgers warning them they will stay in the Revenue’s sights for up to the next five years.

    Ordinarily, tax offenders can be fined up to 100 per cent of the tax they have not paid, plus the payment of the back taxes plus interest. Offenders who have been trying to evade tax in some offshore jurisdictions now face fines of up to 200 per cent of their unpaid tax. HMRC has the option of prosecuting the worst offenders, which can lead to them being sent to jail if convicted.

    In order for someone to be named on the website, they must have failed to fully disclose what they owed at the outset. The taxman can only publish defaulters’ names for a year and within 12 months of the penalty becoming final. Details are published only once all appeal routes have been exhausted.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • BAILIFF THUGS EXPOSED VIDEO

    PART 2 PART 3 PART 4
    THIEVING SCUM: THE THUGS ACTING FOR CROOKED JUDGES, LAWYERS AND BANKERS VIDEO


    THE PEOPLE v THE BANKS: Conviction beats Eviction (Main video starts around 1.20)

    Please check http://voidmortgage.com/ for more details...

    UPDATE: I thought it would be useful to update you on the story...

    The video is useful for us in that it is prima facie evidence that force cannot be used during an eviction if it is objected to by the people on the land, as proved by the Police. I will be using the video evidence in my action against the bank in the Court of Appeal for unlawful eviction against me which occurred on three separate occasions before the bird eviction in the video. I am also using it in my action in the High Court against the Police for there misconduct against me in my evictions. In future, anyone who is facing an eviction, now knows the crimes they are committing, and if you want to resist them, all you have to do is force an error by making them use force. This gives you a Tortuous remedy, and the leverage to get back in your home.

    In relation to the Bird family's struggle. The video was back in May 2012, and due to the major embarrassment we caused the court, they came back for a 2nd eviction some time later, which again we attended. Unfortunately, this time they brought the heavies; High Court Enforcement Officers, who are unabashed fascists. The Police were ordered to stand down, and Sgt Mo, had been ordered not to attend. The bailiffs used excessive violence to secure entry. But however, due to the video evidence, we have the grounds to prosecute and sue them for their tyrannical actions. The Bird family's struggle against the bank continues, as we prepare for the next round of action against the bank. The only time you truly lose your home is when you GIVE UP.

    Stay tuned...

    Every day, all over England, Wales and Scotland the international bankers are unlawfully evicting

    We the People from our homes, in what has to be one of the biggest scandals currently facing this country. In 2011 alone at least 36,000 repossessions were executed by the banks. However, as you will see, they do this based on a gigantic criminal scam.

    On the 31st May 2012 in Potters Bar, England, the Bird Family were facing an eviction based upon deception, threats intimidation, and ultimately by way of crime, because if a man or woman peacefully objects to being evicted then the bankers must use unlawful force and commit a crime if they are to take possession. Something the have been getting away with for centuries... So a small group of determined people decided to stand in solidarity with the Bird Family and resist the violence threatened against them.This film is a testament of what can be achieved when we stand together...

    The issue which has swept down the centuries and will have to be fought sooner or later is...The PEOPLE vs The BANKS - Lord Acton 1875
    CROSSING THE THRESHOLD: 266 WAYS THE STATE CAN SMASH DOWN YOUR DOOR
    bailiff evict

    FREEMASONS BEHIND THE MASSIVE THEFT OF LAND AND PROPERTY

    As another one of our group faces eviction from a tyrannical regime hell bent on abusing the power of entry, an article has come to our attention detailing the sinister creep of legislation that is giving ever more powers to the jumped up bullies to enter and steal with impunity. The primary goal of our group is to expose and bring massive pressure on the freemasons behind these schemes that provide rich pickings , recently exposed in an article that stated it is the single biggest criminal racket in history, when they can sieze land, business and property thanks to the help of corrupt judges, lawyers , cops, bailiffs, councils and myriad of state agencies all suffering from the same stench of freemasonic control.

    The untold damage being done to men and their families from state bullyboys has to be experienced when out on the street , homeless and destitute because of the evil greed of the masonic tribe.


    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. William Pitt the Elder (1708-1778)

    A man’s house is his castle. Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)

    THE SPECIAL STATUS of an individual’s home as a place where their right to privacy and non-interference is elevated above other concerns has wide historic acceptance in political and legal culture.

    A home is a place where the individual draws back from immediate participation in the formal community and assumes his natural, personal, family status. It is not just a different physical location to the street or the workplace, but an environment where the citizen can put aside their public role and in turn avoid the scrutiny and supervision which that role attracts. It is a sanctuary where we have a right to expect that we will be left alone unless there is a good reason to interfere with us.

    CROSSING THE THRESHOLD

    When we step out of our houses and voluntarily enter the public space, we implicitly accept a level of supervision which we would not tolerate at home. Thus, the average individual is filmed dozens of times by CCTV cameras while on the street or using public transport, yet the use of such technology to routinely monitor our behaviour within the home is unthinkable. The state can monitor and control our streets, roads and shopping centres because it is its function to ensure orderly, lawful and proper conduct between citizens when they participate in the shared public space. Conversely, where our home life is concerned, the duties of the state are less and so, concomitantly, should be its powers. In a democracy, almost nobody suggests that we should be overseen in our living room to the same degree that we are outside.

    At the other end of the spectrum, there are times when almost everyone would accept that the state does need to be able to enter citizens’ private dwellings without their permission. This is especially the case when the need stems from the requirement to protect other citizens from harm. It goes without saying that fire and rescue services need to be able to enter homes without stopping to ask permission in an emergency. And where a serious crime has been or is about to be committed, it can be essential for the community that the police should be able to enter in order to counteract or prevent it.

    But between these two extremes lie a multitude of situations in which the state may find it useful to enter a dwelling, but the social need for such powers is not so clear-cut. Are we happy for DEFRA inspectors to have the power to enter private land without consent? The answer may vary depending on whether they are taking steps to eradicate avian influenza, or whether they are just checking for the presence of foreign bees.

    Of similar concern is the question of how such powers are to be exercised – what kind of rights a householder has to object to entry or contest it, and what can be done against him if he refuses

  • CROSSING THE THRESHOLD: FULL EXTENSIVE ARTICLE HERE
  • Largest crime-wave in human history in terms of the number of acts of fraud is serial mortgage fraud(Crooked freemason judges, lawyers, cops, bailiffs and bankers all implicated in the largest global crime wave ever)
  • NEW LAWS TO CURTAIL BAILIFF POWERS (BUT GO NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH) VIDEO


  • UK Bailiffs'(SCUM) behaviour to be controlled by new laws(Used by FREEMASONS to steal mens estates)
  • MASONIC RUN COUNCILS HAVE DECIMATED HIGH STREETS AND CORNER SHOPS VIDEO


    parking racket


    Freemasons running local councils have been behind the ruthless attack on drivers using draconian parking scams to drive them into the 'FREE' parking that the masonic run companies operate.

    Local councils have hammered local traders with outrageous business taxes that have ensured only the multi nationals have prospered and were back handers prop up the nasty little scumbags that have destroyed solitary traders to ensure International conglomerates make vast profits without a penny being paid in tax.

  • UK Councils accused of treating drivers like cash cows after parking fee profits soar by 15% in a year
  • UK Driver who stopped for just seven seconds at bus stop to let her 84-year-old father out of the car facing £167 fine
  • A VISIT FROM THE BAILIFFS (FREEMAN) VIDEO

    THE UTTER SCUM AND DREGS OF THE EARTH GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER THANKS TO THEIR PARTNERS IN CRIME THE CROWN'S FREEMASON JUDICIAL MAFIA WHO PROVIDE THE COVER FOR THESE THIEVING BASTARDS. ALL OF THEIR LEGAL MACHINATIONS ARE UNLAWFUL INCLUDING THEIR THREATS, PERSECUTION AND BULLYBOY TACTICS.
    ADVERT TO HIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT THUGS
    HER MAJESTY'S TAX MEN OUTED FOR BULLYING AND GOLDMAN SACHS SWEETENER
    The UK taxmen operating on behalf and for the ultimate benefit of the Royal parasite have been getting away with murder hammering the peasants while bending over backwards for corporations and all part of the freemason network that undermines any of their competition.

    The information commissioner has launched an inquiry into the way tax investigators obtained and used personal information belonging to the family of a whistleblower who exposed a multimillion-pound "sweetheart" tax deal with Goldman Sachs.

    Telephone numbers and the address of Osita Mba, a revenue solicitor, and his wife, Claudia, were passed on to the criminal investigations unit of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs last year by a manager, according to documents seen by the Guardian. The day before, Mba had written to two parliamentary committees exposing a tax deal between HMRC and Goldman Sachs that let the bank off from paying £10m in tax. HMRC's criminal investigations unit can examine tax and telephone records as part of its inquiries. It can also apply to intercept post, emails and telephone calls.

    The information commissioner's office has given HMRC 28 days to explain how its criminal investigations unit obtained the numbers and why it is not in breach of the Data Protection Act. The disclosure has caused concern among MPs on the Commons public accounts committee who say an ongoing criminal inquiry into Mba and his wife is heavy-handed and wrong. Insiders at HMRC blame Mba's intervention for leading to the retirement of its permanent secretary for tax, Dave Hartnett, who steps down this summer.

    Margaret Hodge, the committee's chair, said: "It is most disappointing that HMRC is acting in a way that requires the intervention of the information commissioner. It is essential that genuine whistleblowers such as Mba are properly protected and that the new permanent secretary at HMRC should not try to undermine his vital contribution." Stephen Barclay, a committee member and the Conservative MP for north-east Cambridgeshire, said: "This is a concerning development. We have taken a very close interest in a whistleblower who we regard as having provided information of public interest to parliament. Clearly we will need to see the details but there is a sense of mistakes being compounded with further mistakes." Hartnett reached an agreement with Goldman Sachs in December 2010 whereby the bank did not have to pay about £10m interest on tax it had avoided. The bank was found to have employed London-based workers in the British Virgin Islands where they did not have to pay national insurance on bonuses.

    Mba, who trained as a barrister in Nigeria and completed his master's degree at Oxford, worked in the personal tax litigation team that dealt with the Goldman Sachs tax issue. He wrote to Amyas Morse, the auditor general of the National Audit Office, in March 2011 outlining his concerns over the deal. Hartnett discussed the allegation with the Treasury select committee in September and said the Goldman settlement had been reached properly. When asked by Jesse Norman, a Conservative member of the committee, whether he had ever received corporate hospitality from Goldman Sachs, Hartnett responded: "I have been to a supper with Goldman Sachs … I knew nothing of Goldman's tax affairs when I was at that supper. I do not deal with Goldman's tax affairs." In October, Mba sent a detailed submission to Hodge and Andrew Tyrie, the chairman of the Treasury committee, claiming that Hartnett had misled them over his role in the Goldman Sachs deal.

    The public accounts committee subsequently accused Hartnett and senior members of staff of misleading them and hiding behind "client confidentiality" to avoid revealing details of the Goldman tax deal. A judge has been appointed to investigate at least four corporate tax deals signed off by Hartnett. Mba's identity was revealed in December in evidence released by the public accounts committee. The following day, Hartnett announced his retirement. Documents sent to the information commissioner's office show that in October last year one of Mba's managers forwarded his and his wife's address and four contact telephone numbers to an officer in HMRC's criminal investigations unit.

    Under the Data Protection Act 1998, those who collect and use personal information have to follow rules of good practice. The DPA also gives rights to individuals whose information is collected and used. Claudia Mba, a charity worker, said she suspected that managers at HMRC were trying to intimidate her and her husband. "To know that my personal details including my name and phone numbers have been passed on to a criminal investigator is adding insult to injury. The only reason anyone has those details was because my husband provided them for the purposes of a medical emergency contact," she said.

    "I don't know why they are passing them round. My husband has raised the question several times, but we haven't received an explanation. I can only assume that I am being dragged in to this as a form of intimidation. "I no longer feel as though I can talk on the telephone freely; I feel like my privacy has been violated and because I don't know why it has happened, I feel totally insecure and exposed."

    Mba is still employed by HMRC but has not been able to return to work. He can enter his office in Whitehall only if he is invited for a meeting, and is still facing disciplinary procedures. HMRC declined to comment.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • UK'S THUG BAILIFFS STILL GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER VIDEO
    NEW REGULATIONS TO STOP BAILIFF THUGS ABUSING VICTIMS
    BAILIFFS BEHIND THE MASS SEIZURE OF MEN'S ASSETS FOLLOWING ILLEGAL COURT ORDERS GRANTED BY CORRUPT FREEMASON JUDGES ACTING FOR A ROGUE THIEVING CROWN AND MAKING UP THE 'LAW' AS THEY GO ALONG

    New regulation for 'intrusive' bailiffs proposed(the thugs and bullies operating on behalf of a rogue judiciary)

    The way in which bailiffs are regulated will be overhauled in a bid to clamp down on bad practices, a Justice Minister said today. Jonathan Djanogly said the move would help protect vulnerable people and ensure that bailiffs carry out their work professionally.

    Under the proposals, the Government could ban the use of force against people and set out exactly when and how force may be used to enter premises. New national standards to ensure bailiffs are fit to operate could also be brought in. "Too many people have experienced intrusive, expensive and stressful bailiff action and more often than not the public do not hold bailiffs in high regard, despite the fact most bailiffs carry out their work professionally," Mr Djanogly said. "Last month we announced the first stage of reforms with new national standards and we are now unveiling plans for legally-binding changes that will clamp down on bad practices.

    "We want to restore balance to the system, improve clarity for both debtors and creditors, strengthen protection for vulnerable people and ensure that individuals, business and Government are able to collect the debts they are owed - but in a way that is fair and regulated by law." The updated standards will include minimum levels of behaviour, including that bailiffs must not behave in a threatening manner or use unlawful force to gain access to a home or business, that they should avoid discussing the debt with anyone except the person owing money, and that they must withdraw when only a child is present. The new legally-binding regulatory regime, which includes new rules around the modes and times of entry, which goods are exempt, and what fees bailiffs can charge for the range of debts they collect for local government, courts and businesses also form part of the Government's consultation.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • UK BAILIFF THUGS BEATING UP VICTIMS OF THEIR CRIMES (VIDEO)
  • BRITAINS' BULLYING BAILIFF'S (VIDEO)
  • COUNCIL 3
  • COUNCIL 2
  • COUNCIL 1