Here I go again - e-petition HMRC

[Uncle Fester 186]

100% It was rising up at a ridiculously rapid speed then just halted. Fucking stinks.

I got a few of my mates and Family to do it on the same evening and I swear they didn't show on the total! I'm not sure if there is a verification delay but if not it's well bent.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Ok forgive me here - I'm not making any accusations whatsoever - Its more to do with my ignorance how these online petitions work. The following questions are purely for elimination purposes.

1. Does anyone know whether the person starting the petition can alter the totals of signatures or is that secured in the process ?

2. Does anyone know the person who started the petition ?

As far as i am aware the petition is locked as it's done through a government web site. The name of the originator is on the petition but i don't know who they are as a person.

[Jamie0202 12,561]

39,465 signatures before I signed it with my 6 year old daughter's email address.

Confirmed the email and now 39,466 signatures so it appears to be working.

I'll sign my 3 year old daughter up later and my wife but it's important that people remember that they MUST confirm the email or it won't register.

I wonder how many signatures have been lost purely down to people not confirming their email address?

[Sweetheart 8,458]

...39,463.....and we have exactly 9 months from today to reach the 100,000 figure required...something needs to be done....get those thinking caps on guys..

Could it be a case that people have signed the petition but not confirmed it in their e-mail?

You beat me to it Jamie - great minds think alike:)

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

As far as i am aware the petition is locked as it's done through a government web site. The name of the originator is on the petition but i don't know who they are as a person.

Ok Bouncy thanks for that - we can eliminate skullduggery then.

[Muirheadbear 1,483]

Is it difficult for 2000 bears to gain 50 signatures in hard copy?

[shankillblue1 349]

seriously still on 39k? It reached 39k in about a week!

Are you suggesting the site has been nobbled?

[laudrupno1 3,932]

If only we could get all the glory hunters who turned up in Manchester and never to be seen again to sign it we'd be laughing,I signed it at the time it came out and got all my family done too even my wee granny who didn't have a clue so I filled it out for her.

[72barca 1,788]

As a reminder to the people who have not signed the petition, her is a copy of a blog posted by Admin of VanguardBears about three months ago. It contains good information as to just why HMRC should be investigated ...

VB Exclusive - The HMRC Agenda Written by Admin Monday, 26 November 2012 14:17 As you should be aware, following the FTT Tribunal judgement, Rangers fans have been seeking answers over the conduct of HMRC, more specifically on the leaks from HMRC to the Rangers Tax Case blog, and other outlets.

The petition is here

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

We at VB have already questioned the conduct of one HMRC Agent in relation to Rangers.

http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=292:the-hmrc-employee-a-the-rangers-tax-case

It is our understanding that Bill McCreath was in a senior enough position to be privy to Rangers’ sensitive financial information, and should be one of the individuals scrutinised.

Our concern at VB about HMRC has always been twofold; the leaks to the tax case bloggers, and the refusal to “deal” with David Murray, then Craig Whyte.

It is our information that HMRC have already addressed Rangers’ concerns over leaks in a specific instance with regards to information being discussed with former Rangers Director Paul Murray, in an email from the HMRC Inspector most regularly involved in the Rangers account, Keith McCurrach

In their defence of discussing Rangers business with a former Director, HMRC explained that the ruling within Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA05) that restricts the disclosure of information “does not apply to a disclosure which is made for the purposes of a function of HMRC”.

They defended discussing Rangers business with Paul Murray and Dave King as, in their view, they were technically still Directors of Rangers at the time of the discussions.

We believe that at this time, that both had been “sacked” by Whyte, meaning this defence may have been inaccurate.

What the statement makes clear, is that confidential information should not be discussed with any parties outside of HMRC, or the “defendant” concerned, unless for the “function of HMRC”

We'd suggest that it would be stretching it to the extreme for them to suggest that leaking to a blogger could fall in to this category.

Rangers’ queries were sent to HMRC Head of Recovery, Des Dolan, who in turn delegated the question back to McCurrach.

We understand that Edinburgh based McCurrach, along with inspectors Paul Gilhooley and Alastair Mitchell were responsible for the daily management of the Rangers account, until it was transferred to London, under the auspices of Dolan.

We are not suggesting that any of the above were leaking sensitive data, but we believe they, along with McCreath, should be eliminated from enquiries as a matter of urgency, should they have nothing to hide.

With regards to the refusal to deal with Rangers, the refusals to “deal” with Rangers may have been communicated to Rangers from McCurrach, but the decision was made by “Senior Management”.

We understand that senior management consisted of the Permanent Secretary on behalf of HMRC Dave Hartnett, under the auspices of the former Head of the Civil Service Sir Gus O’Donnell.

Hartnett, of course, sanctioned the HRMC deal with Vodafone, but strangely refused to deal with Rangers

While the buck would appear to ultimately stop with former Glasgow University lecturer O’Donnell during his tenure, it would appear that the policy to pursue Rangers has continued as HMRC has undergone change with several high level executives leaving and retiring. Oddly, Hartnett, despite announcing his retirement in 2011 to be replaced by Lin Homer, remained in place until just a few months ago, but other executives have moved on.

One constant is the Government Treasury Sub Committee, which demands that the Executive management of HMRC, which is currently Lin Homer, Jim Harra, and Ruth Owen report in to it.

The Current Chair of this Sub Committee is Dundee born Labour MP George Mudie, who three weeks ago, when questioning Homer, stated “Do you have a contingency plan in place? Assumption, as a good Catholic, I would say is a sin against the Holy Ghost. Assume nothing and you will not be disappointed and you will go to heaven.”

Quite why he felt the need to say that one can only know, but I’d suggest he himself be asked to explain HMRC policy while he has been Chair of this sub committee

Vanguard Bears believe that no stone should be unturned in a public quest for the truth in HMRC's shambolic treatment of Rangers FC - if that means that independent Judges are employed to carry out an enquiry, rather than Parliament, then so be it.

Vanguard Bears

[laudrupno1 3,932]

People need to remember and go into your emails after signing the petition and click the link in the email they send you to verify your signature otherwise it will not be counted

[bouncybear 43]

I have been active in promoting the petition on another site. The simple fact is the club refuse to endorse the effort and the supporters groups have fallen in line.

I'm bemused to the point of suspicion. Sadly we int going to hot 100,000. The RST, RSA and RSC's should explain their indifference.

[Muirheadbear 1,483]

Ok guys, I started this thread earlier today. Now is not the time for disputes. Now is the time for unity!

The task is this. We must organise a united effort involving EVERY rangers supporter group/club, every Masonic/ orange lodge, every individual fan and their friends and families.

Get 100,000 signatures in hard copy. That is not a difficult task with our numbers.

This though HAS to come from RST/RST etc and organised top down.

Let's get this done!

[jack1690 793]

39,000 odds. It was 35,000 in one wk. Im in the conspiracy camp here.

Ive had all my extended family sign this and more than half of them have never been to a game in their life.

39,000 is pitiful if the sites not been nobbled.

[Hamie 4,855]

I think one of the problems is people's lack of faith in government.

Also what actually happens when we reach 100,000

How long is it discussed?

What politicians would take part in the discussion?

I've signed it 12 times and to be honest Im not really 100% sure, other than 'it will be discussed in parliament'.

What happens if 100,000 sign up and only a handfull of politicians turn up, including our well known Rangers haters and turn it into a circus?

[redwhiteandgreen 43]

I've signed it 12 times ....

Interesting math here; if the petition has 40,000 signatures (just to keep the math easy) and each bear has signed an average of 4 times then only 10,000 bears have signed. If each bear has signed 10 times then only 4,000 have signed, even if the average is 2 times then its 20,000. Seems very low; anybody else wondering about this ?

[Chef 436]

Uterine and thr dig I.know has signed this and summit ain't quite right.

[bigj9659 4]

Come on lads lets all do our part.

[Blumhoilann 6,712]

After weeks and weeks of trying,my Missus finally had her app accepted ....somethings going on here.

[laudrupno1 3,932]

Bump

[IanCurtis 155]

Would it be worthwhile having aother look at this?

[themoodybloo 77]

You do know that GCHQ have software or whatever to alter online petitions and the like ? was on telly about a couple of months ago.

[Rfc#1. 1,877]

Uterine and thr dig I.know has signed this and summit ain't quite right.

Who is this 'uterine and thr dig?'

Anyway I think that epetition has been tampered with. Everycunt I know has signed it.

[The Educator 1,572]

There certainly seems to be something wrong as we now have numerous people claiming to have signed this over a period of months while the total is not changing.

[Brian Fantana 28,894]

EBT's only became illegal recently, previously they were a loophole. Why HMRC are allowed to retrospectively bring charges against EBT'S prior to closing the loophole is beyond me.

[Sore Heid Bear 85]

EBT's only became illegal recently, previously they were a loophole. Why HMRC are allowed to retrospectively bring charges against EBT'S prior to closing the loophole is beyond me.

I'd wondered about this, but it turns out EBTs were only legal previously if used for non-contractual monies. HMRC's whole argument against us is that the money we paid in for players/etc. was part of their wages.