Fight the Power

Kennyboy66

chewmylegoff wrote: »

why is that companies being given "power"?

people are told to attend court, don't turn up, and then the court issues a warrant for their arrest and imprisonment for contempt of court.

i.e. it is the court that is doing it, not the company. the company is simply using the legal system that applies, whereas the court, which is the apparatus of the state, not the company, makes the decision to imprison on the basis that the person did not attend court - not because they did not pay their debts.

it's not like someone says "i can't pay" and then is thrown (by the lender) into a debtors' prison as punishment with no application of due legal process. that would be the company being given the power, wouldn't it?

The lending of money is a civil matter - not a criminal matter.
There are plenty of existing remedies for recovery.

The companies are quite clearly 'gaming' the system.

In certain states (Illinois) they have passed laws to limit body attachment for civil debt.

It's gaming the system at the taxpayers expense. People supporting this must be soft in the head.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The lending of money is a civil matter - not a criminal matter.
There are plenty of existing remedies for recovery.

The companies are quite clearly 'gaming' the system.

In certain states (Illinois) they have passed laws to limit body attachment for civil debt.

It's gaming the system at the taxpayers expense. People supporting this must be soft in the head.

I really don't understand why people support this as it's wrong on so many levels: costs of settling civil matters are being passed on to the taxpayer, people are losing their liberty (and the right to vote) over a few hundred bucks, due process is being abused.

It seems that freedom isn't as popular as it used to be.

Loughton_Monkey

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

The lending of money is a civil matter - not a criminal matter.....

That may be true. But they are simply different 'branches' of the law.

Civil law is just as important as criminal law, and must be respected. Just because a judge in a civil case awards 'against' you doesn't mean you can simply ignore it. Ignoring it tends to involve "contempt of court" which becomes a criminal matter. Quite rightly.

Nobody could go to jail in this country simply for debt legally taken, but unpaid. However, they must respond to, and comply with, any civil judgements made. All quite reasonable.

Putting two fingers up to the law of the land is criminal whether your original act was to borrow money, trespass, or lie about them in the press....

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

That may be true. But they are simply different 'branches' of the law.

Civil law is just as important as criminal law, and must be respected. Just because a judge in a civil case awards 'against' you doesn't mean you can simply ignore it. Ignoring it tends to involve "contempt of court" which becomes a criminal matter. Quite rightly.

Nobody could go to jail in this country simply for debt legally taken, but unpaid. However, they must respond to, and comply with, any civil judgements made. All quite reasonable.

Putting two fingers up to the law of the land is criminal whether your original act was to borrow money, trespass, or lie about them in the press....

I'm not sure if you read the article or not but this is why people are being put in gaol:

Here’s how it works: The creditor goes to court and gets a judgement against the debtor. In many cases, this action is successful only because the debtor never shows up to defend him or herself, sometimes because they’ve been the victim of “sewer service” and never received the paperwork telling them when to show up to court.

Once the creditor has obtained this judgment, they ask the judge for an “examination.” In theory, this process is intended to assess whether or not the indebted person has bank accounts or other assets that can be seized to pay their debts. The Post-Dispatch says creditors are exploiting this process, filing multiple requests for examinations that force people to return to court over and over. And if they don’t appear in court, then the creditor asks for a “body attachment,” which forces the imprisonment of the debtor until the next hearing — or until they cough up bail money that’s often the same amount as the debt, and often is turned over directly to the creditors.

So someone is never served with court papers, is found to have a debt in absentia and is then deliberately forced to appear before a court repeatedly until they fail to turn up once at which point they are imprisoned and 'bail' money to release them is turned over to the supposed creditor.

I find it astonishing that anyone thinks that's a reasonable way to run a legal system.

grizzly1911

We used to have debtor prisons in this country.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

We used to have debtor prisons in this country.

We used to have slavery and serfdom too.

tonkinator

An article in the mail today was revealing that Wonga had paid thousands to meet with Government Ministers at the Cons Party Conference.

Literally, straight up cash to get 20 mins speed dating-style meetings with various ministers.

Obviously politicians meet with industry heads and influencers at events, conferences, parties etc etc. but actually giving a party £X to be thrust in front of this country's most senior decision makers is surely just 100% wrong.

Am I wrong to see this as completely indecent behaviour?

The directors of one of the most contraversial companies in the country, paying a party (that is currently in government) money to be able to meet decision makers whilst their industry is facing potential increased regulation?

Loughton_Monkey

tonkinator wrote: »

An article in the mail today was revealing that Wonga had paid thousands to meet with Government Ministers at the Cons Party Conference....

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this in principle provided full details of the transaction are made 100% transparent.

At least that way we would know who is meeting who, and what value they attach to that meeting. It would soon be obvious if legislative 'favours' are following on.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

We used to have slavery and serfdom too.

We still do as it happens

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19993193

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We still do as it happens

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19993193

At least it's illegal these days.