Another Stalinist move from Liarbour

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by FARMBOY, Jan 27, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. :roll:
     
  2. Just like bailing out the banks for a second time?
     
  3. It seems the government want to have total power over the people with no judicial oversight.
     
  4. The real questions are 'When do we (the people) start revolting and at what level of civil disobedience do we start at'
     
  5. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Like the terrorist laws being used to spy on people by councils. Last resort my arrse.
     
  6. Good line in the report

    If she believes that then I have a bridge for sale.

    Normally called bank robbery.

    If they really really meant it then why not just arrest the debtors, stick them in the nick until they pay what they owe?

    Could reopen the debtors prisons where the inmates work and earn money to pay their keep and debts.
     
  7. Just one of thousands of new laws brought in over the last decade that will be very hard to overturn once this 'well intentioned' bunch of incompetent busybodies has been ousted. effing about with other peoples lives because they know better.
     
  8. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    You have to understand the mindset of the socialist elite. Driving and car ownership is privilege that that the state allows you to have and cab therefore deny you if it feels like it. They see driving licenses and traffic regulations as a form of control.

    In fact the reason we have licenses and tests and regulation is to facilitate us so that we don't crash into each other.

    It may be argued that removing some ones passport in these circumstances is valid if you are trying to stop them fleeing the jurisdiction and thereby avoiding their legit responsibilities, but no such argument can be made with respect to driving.
     
  9. Why not? If you have the arogence to bring children into the world, have the maturity to pay for them at the very least. Why should everyone else pay becuase you shagged a bird that you dont fancy anymore and didn't have the forsight to at least cum on her tits and save the rest of the country the expense?
     
  10. It is a real problem that exists in the real world. Many children and their mothers need this money bitterly. Who does see their tears? Too few I suppose.

    On the other hand there is a simple and very effective method to help those in need. A government that helps in need is a friend indeed.
     
  11. Because of the very basic principle of 'Innocent until proven guilty'

    They want to cut out the inconvinence (for them) of having to get a court order. More power for a dumb civil servant to mess with peoples lives, and inevitably make mistakes.
     
  12. The problem I have with this is the fact that passports and driving licences can be removed without any ref to a court - where are the safeguards?

    We know the total balls ups that the CSA has made over the years. We also know the total balls ups that the Govenment has made too - I see more lives being quitely ruined.

    The very fact they are even suggesting this is clear evidence that Liarbour have moved from just being out of touch to completely against all that we stand for as a nation. We are gently descending into becoming a dictatorship.

    What a sad bit of news on a day when we are supposed to remember just how terrible dictatorships can be.
     
  13. So if a parent needs a driving licence for their job they will take away that parent's ability to earn money?

    If any Police are reading this, does a person need to be in physical posession of a licence in order to drive and, if so, are they actually preventing someone from legally driving by removing the licence?

    A friend of mine was assessed as having to pay 250 a week for his two children, he appealed this decision and was told by the CSA that they would do all sorts of dire measures against him if he didn't pay up (He was still paying the original agreed sum). He pointed out that his wife got 75k in the divorce settlement and he looked after the kids every weekend, they said tough that's your wife not the kids. He eventually got a lawyer involved, it seems that the 250 a week was what they would have been paying out in benefits to his children and his wife if his wife didn't work. It is supposed to be child support not ex-wife support, as it is his ex-wife has a very good job so she wouldn't be on benefit anyway. Eventually after a lot of expensive work from the solicitor the amount has now been reduced to 49 a week.

    I should imagine that, if they had had the power to take away passports and driving licences when my mate was first challenging them they would have done, they certainly gave every indication that they got off on the power at their fingertips and would use it sooner rather than later. At least going through the courts woiuld give parents the chance to come to their senses and would ensure that such measures were evenly and justly applied.
     
  14. Deadbeat Parent Pays for Child. Deadbeat Parent Pays for Child. Deadbeat Parent Pays for Child. Deadbeat Parent stops paying for Child. Everyone starts Paying for Child. If you don't like it, you have two options. 1. Pay for your kids or 2. Try aiming your spraff in her mouth in future. But don't wail that your civil liberties are infringed when your actions infringe those of everyone else.