The 1989 Children Act starts with "The interests of the child shall be paramount" and goes on to discuss shared parenting. The family courts interpret the interests of the mother as equal to the interests of the child.
But back to BN66. What was the judge offered to throw the case? This was a slam-dunk if ever there was one. It's the job of parliament to make the law and the courts to clarify it.
So how can parliament retrospectively clarify anything? Montpelier spent years trying to get the case before the commissioners. HMRC ran away at every turn. And then in court montpelier were crirtized for not trying hard enough! So, your honour, what reward will you get? Promotion? Gong? I am suprised you manage to sleep at night.
At least he admitted that he was not senior enough to decide the case. If I admitted I was not up to my job I would be sacked. No doubt he will get promoted.
So - onwards and upwards - hopefully to somewhere where there is less corruption. But I doubt it.
And now all taxpayers face the prospect of the tax they pay being retrospectively clarified. I want my children to move away from this country when they are old enough. To the East. This country needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Story by BrilloPad: Father, blogger, and aggrieved BN66 contractor.
© 2010 All rights reserved. Reproduction in
whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Image:Two fingers by IRobbo