Another Stalinist move from Liarbour

#5
The real questions are 'When do we (the people) start revolting and at what level of civil disobedience do we start at'
 
#6
FARMBOY said:
EX_STAB said:
the proposals contained in the Welfare Reform Bill would be a "last resort"
:roll:
Just like bailing out the banks for a second time?
Like the terrorist laws being used to spy on people by councils. Last resort my arrse.
 
#7
Good line in the report

Over half of all children in single-parent households are poor. And we know, because Parliament has told us, that if all non-resident parents who are required to pay money each week by the Child Support Agency did so it would lift an extra 100,000 children out of poverty."
If she believes that then I have a bridge for sale.

Other powers open to the CMEC include taking money from a bank account without going through the courts; applying for a curfew, or recovering money from a dead person's estate.
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.
 
#8
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.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#9
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.
 
#10
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?
 
#11
FARMBOY said:
Although I can see where they are coming from I think this has disaster writ large - and as for the precedent that this would set?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852640.stm
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.
 
#12
ubuntu said:
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?
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.
 
#13
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.
 
#14
BuggerAll said:
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.
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.
 
#15
jockass said:
ubuntu said:
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?
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.
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.
 
#16
ubuntu said:
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?
On the other hand why doesn't the said shagged bird get a fcuking job and stop scounging off the state?
 
#17
The key point in this is that the CSA already has (d) the power to remove a license or passport, but through the courts. This just removes the "inconvenience" of court action. Slippery slope
 
#18
ubuntu said:
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?
Example - the system makes a mistake. Mr Ubuntus passport is removed through no fault of your own, then your driving licence. You cannot get to work, you lose your job. System two months later says sorry Mr Ubuntu here is your licence back.....no job, recession, loose house...how long till you are compensated if ever.

When the CSA began they made so many mistakes they even took people with no kids to court for non payment! At least they could go to court, this new move would haved no court protection.
 
#19
KGB_resident said:
FARMBOY said:
Although I can see where they are coming from I think this has disaster writ large - and as for the precedent that this would set?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852640.stm
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.
Now theres a nice communist line for you.

So what shall I do?

I'm currently paying my ex nothing, will I have my passport and driving licence taken off me?

irrespective of the fact that she got a 5 bedroom house off me, and my pension fund, the car and basically cost me my business.

She has three incomes coming into her household and has in the lst few years bought a horse lorry, a horse for £2500, another for £5000 and recently one that is worth £10,000. Oh and the icing on the cake the has had the double glazing re-placed this month.

The reason she hasnt pursued the maintenance issue is that she knows if we went to court and a judge looked at this then she'd probably get told to FO and if she needs more money maybe she should look at cutting back.
 
#20
No Crown Subject has a legal right to a passport, neither does the Subject have a legal right to a driving licence.

The grant or the refusal to grant a passport is governed by the prerogative powers of the state. The courts have no jurisdiction to intervene and order the Crown to issue a passport or to restore a passport to a Crown subject that has been withdrawn. The courts do have the power to judicially review a decision that has been taken by the Crown under the heads of illegality, irrationality and procedural ultra vires but that relates to the quality of the decision-making process and not whether the Crown has the right to take it.

In other words, the Crown may exercise the legal powers it has under the prerogagtive to withdraw a passport from any Crown subject and their right to do so is non-justiciable.

The courts, in recent years have been developing along European lines, the concept of 'legitimate expectation' but the commonl law is not yet fully developed in this are and it is generally thought that such a conccept has no application to the use by the government of the prerogative.
 

Latest Threads

Top