At what point in this dash to privatise and profit-ize every public service was it decided that our court system should pay for itself ? I have actually read comments from "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice", in other words a politician who doesn't want to make his/her name known, that "Its right for criminals to pay for the courts time".
So a woman who steals a 75p Mars Bar because she says that she had no money and needed to eat something is fined £73 plus £0.75 compensation to the shop, which then increases to £328 after civil service fees are levied, and yet no-one stops to ask the blindingly obvious question "If she can't pay 75p for a Mars Bar then..." (complete the sentence yourself if you have more brains than whoever decided that court fees were equitable).
At what point do we close down the whole of government and tax collection because every civil service department now pays for itself by charging fees instead of being paid for by taxation as it has been for centuries.
PS - the introduction of the court charge has seen an ever increasing number of magistrates resigning their voluntary roles in protest as they see the issues stood ten feet in front of them rather than looking at numbers on a balance sheet in a hidden office in Whitehall and being able to hide behind "a government spokesperson" statement.
Speaking of an over-burdened public service can I throw this into the mix before this thread goes stale ?
At what point in this dash to privatise and profit-ize every public service was it decided that our court system should pay for itself ? I have actually read comments from "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice", in other words a politician who doesn't want to make his/her name known, that "Its right for criminals to pay for the courts time".
So a woman who steals a 75p Mars Bar because she says that she had no money and needed to eat something is fined £73 plus £0.75 compensation to the shop, which then increases to £328 after civil service fees are levied, and yet no-one stops to ask the blindingly obvious question "If she can't pay 75p for a Mars Bar then..." (complete the sentence yourself if you have more brains than whoever decided that court fees were equitable).
At what point do we close down the whole of government and tax collection because every civil service department now pays for itself by charging fees instead of being paid for by taxation as it has been for centuries.
PS - the introduction of the court charge has seen an ever increasing number of magistrates resigning their voluntary roles in protest as they see the issues stood ten feet in front of them rather than looking at numbers on a balance sheet in a hidden office in Whitehall and being able to hide behind "a government spokesperson" statement.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
At what point in this dash to privatise and profit-ize every public service was it decided that our court system should pay for itself ? I have actually read comments from "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice", in other words a politician who doesn't want to make his/her name known, that "Its right for criminals to pay for the courts time".
So a woman who steals a 75p Mars Bar because she says that she had no money and needed to eat something is fined £73 plus £0.75 compensation to the shop, which then increases to £328 after civil service fees are levied, and yet no-one stops to ask the blindingly obvious question "If she can't pay 75p for a Mars Bar then..." (complete the sentence yourself if you have more brains than whoever decided that court fees were equitable).
At what point do we close down the whole of government and tax collection because every civil service department now pays for itself by charging fees instead of being paid for by taxation as it has been for centuries.
PS - the introduction of the court charge has seen an ever increasing number of magistrates resigning their voluntary roles in protest as they see the issues stood ten feet in front of them rather than looking at numbers on a balance sheet in a hidden office in Whitehall and being able to hide behind "a government spokesperson" statement.
The subject of Court fines and costs has always been a joke. Magistrates are told that someone paying fines/costs should be able to clear them in two years. That means for someone on benefits paying fines at £5 pw they should be capped at £520. Hence defendants are continually picking up fines (usually fixed penalty charges), not paying them and then going to court to have them remitted
JerryChicken wrote:Speaking of an over-burdened public service can I throw this into the mix before this thread goes stale ?
At what point in this dash to privatise and profit-ize every public service was it decided that our court system should pay for itself ? I have actually read comments from "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice", in other words a politician who doesn't want to make his/her name known, that "Its right for criminals to pay for the courts time".
So a woman who steals a 75p Mars Bar because she says that she had no money and needed to eat something is fined £73 plus £0.75 compensation to the shop, which then increases to £328 after civil service fees are levied, and yet no-one stops to ask the blindingly obvious question "If she can't pay 75p for a Mars Bar then..." (complete the sentence yourself if you have more brains than whoever decided that court fees were equitable).
At what point do we close down the whole of government and tax collection because every civil service department now pays for itself by charging fees instead of being paid for by taxation as it has been for centuries.
PS - the introduction of the court charge has seen an ever increasing number of magistrates resigning their voluntary roles in protest as they see the issues stood ten feet in front of them rather than looking at numbers on a balance sheet in a hidden office in Whitehall and being able to hide behind "a government spokesperson" statement.
The subject of Court fines and costs has always been a joke. Magistrates are told that someone paying fines/costs should be able to clear them in two years. That means for someone on benefits paying fines at £5 pw they should be capped at £520. Hence defendants are continually picking up fines (usually fixed penalty charges), not paying them and then going to court to have them remitted
Post subject: Re: The Labour party leadership thread
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 5:11 pm
McClennan
International Chairman
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 27757 Location: In rocket surgery
Whilst you mentioning that. A mate dropped some orange peel in town and was given an on-the-spot fine of £80. He picked up the peel and refused to pay the fine. The council or whoever took him to court at an overall cost to taxpayers of £20,000. Judge ends up ruling in his favour. It'd be great if our government gave customs and excise that kind of money and tenacity to chase tax-dodging multinationals. That's how Corbyn can fund his social initiatives. Employ more tax chasers and stop having corporate tax lawyers, who work for these companies, from making our tax laws, as actually happens.
At what point in this dash to privatise and profit-ize every public service was it decided that our court system should pay for itself ? I have actually read comments from "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice", in other words a politician who doesn't want to make his/her name known, that "Its right for criminals to pay for the courts time".
So a woman who steals a 75p Mars Bar because she says that she had no money and needed to eat something is fined £73 plus £0.75 compensation to the shop, which then increases to £328 after civil service fees are levied, and yet no-one stops to ask the blindingly obvious question "If she can't pay 75p for a Mars Bar then..." (complete the sentence yourself if you have more brains than whoever decided that court fees were equitable).
At what point do we close down the whole of government and tax collection because every civil service department now pays for itself by charging fees instead of being paid for by taxation as it has been for centuries.
PS - the introduction of the court charge has seen an ever increasing number of magistrates resigning their voluntary roles in protest as they see the issues stood ten feet in front of them rather than looking at numbers on a balance sheet in a hidden office in Whitehall and being able to hide behind "a government spokesperson" statement.
There's one of those hated foodbanks in Kidderminster that would happily have given her 3 days food. For no cost whatsoever. Still let's all feel sorry for the petty thief, after all once you need financial assistance then other people's property is fair game.
JerryChicken wrote:Speaking of an over-burdened public service can I throw this into the mix before this thread goes stale ?
At what point in this dash to privatise and profit-ize every public service was it decided that our court system should pay for itself ? I have actually read comments from "a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice", in other words a politician who doesn't want to make his/her name known, that "Its right for criminals to pay for the courts time".
So a woman who steals a 75p Mars Bar because she says that she had no money and needed to eat something is fined £73 plus £0.75 compensation to the shop, which then increases to £328 after civil service fees are levied, and yet no-one stops to ask the blindingly obvious question "If she can't pay 75p for a Mars Bar then..." (complete the sentence yourself if you have more brains than whoever decided that court fees were equitable).
At what point do we close down the whole of government and tax collection because every civil service department now pays for itself by charging fees instead of being paid for by taxation as it has been for centuries.
PS - the introduction of the court charge has seen an ever increasing number of magistrates resigning their voluntary roles in protest as they see the issues stood ten feet in front of them rather than looking at numbers on a balance sheet in a hidden office in Whitehall and being able to hide behind "a government spokesperson" statement.
There's one of those hated foodbanks in Kidderminster that would happily have given her 3 days food. For no cost whatsoever. Still let's all feel sorry for the petty thief, after all once you need financial assistance then other people's property is fair game.
Post subject: Re: The Labour party leadership thread
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 1:47 pm
Mugwump
Administrator
Joined: Dec 05 2001 Posts: 25122 Location: Aleph Green
I really can't understand why people continue with this pointless charade. Britain is fully committed not only to a globalist, corporate-friendly future - but increasingly so.
Jeremy Corbyn (or any other socialist politician, for that matter) will NOT be allowed to interfere with this process.
It's not that I don't like the guy - or even (some of) his politics. He's just hopelessly over-matched by opponents who can and will crush him under their heels like an insect.
Right now he might just be the most favourable candidate to the majority of the nation. But this doesn't mean I'd bet on him even to win the leadership of the Labour Party - much less the nation.
My guess is he will either lose a "tight" election battle, withdraw due to "pressure" or "ill health" (also known as being nobbled by GCHQ) or find himself the victim of some lurid sex-expose.
Should he actually win the Labour leadership repeat the above for the general election - or become the victim of a plane/car crash, heart attack (no autopsy - of course) etc.
And should he achieve the impossible - expect him to renege on all his promises (see Obama) after he spends ten minutes in the company of the mob bosses who "set him straight" about where Britain's future really lies.
Post subject: Re: The Labour party leadership thread
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 2:14 pm
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
BobbyD wrote:There's one of those hated foodbanks in Kidderminster that would happily have given her 3 days food. For no cost whatsoever. Still let's all feel sorry for the petty thief, after all once you need financial assistance then other people's property is fair game.
I don't understand what someone stealing some chocolate has to do with the Labour leadership thread?
Post subject: Re: The Labour party leadership thread
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:17 pm
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
Leaguefan wrote:You don't understand a lot about any of the subjects you post on and go cry when people drop to your standard of understanding to help you.
Ah well, even ignorance has a place somewhere, it's a pity you post it on here.
Sill bitter about the general election are you?
Nevermind one day a Government might be in office with an extremist left wing agenda and you will like that....one day.
Post subject: Re: The Labour party leadership thread
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:30 pm
Ajw71
Player Coach
Joined: Feb 23 2006 Posts: 1978
Mugwump wrote:I really can't understand why people continue with this pointless charade. Britain is fully committed not only to a globalist, corporate-friendly future - but increasingly so.
Jeremy Corbyn (or any other socialist politician, for that matter) will NOT be allowed to interfere with this process.
It's not that I don't like the guy - or even (some of) his politics. He's just hopelessly over-matched by opponents who can and will crush him under their heels like an insect.
Right now he might just be the most favourable candidate to the majority of the nation. But this doesn't mean I'd bet on him even to win the leadership of the Labour Party - much less the nation.
My guess is he will either lose a "tight" election battle, withdraw due to "pressure" or "ill health" (also known as being nobbled by GCHQ) or find himself the victim of some lurid sex-expose.
Should he actually win the Labour leadership repeat the above for the general election - or become the victim of a plane/car crash, heart attack (no autopsy - of course) etc.
And should he achieve the impossible - expect him to renege on all his promises (see Obama) after he spends ten minutes in the company of the mob bosses who "set him straight" about where Britain's future really lies.
Whilst I don't think he will be the subject of some kind of illimunati sytle conspiracy he will be 70+ at the time of the next general election - too old?
He was also come under scrutiny for his previous actions / views with regards to terrorist organisations.
His greatest legacy will be to make Labour unelectable for another general election.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 105 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
