Fight the Power

tonkinator

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

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.

Really?

So you think that government ministers should be able to sell their time in return to donations to a particular party?

Surely nobody thinks that it's a sensible idea to have a portion of an elected official's time that is available to be spent meeting people, but only if they're lucky enough to be able to afford to sit opposite them at £1,500 per meeting.

You genuinely think that it's ok to have a barrier between officials and the electorate that only people of a certain wealth can cross?

Surely it should be the elected officials seeking the advice of industry as and when they need it, not:

"here's £1,500 for your party, can you give me 20mins to convince you to vote in favour of our business practices if a vote ever comes through parliament please."

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

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.

It seems citizens are actually living in a real life version of Avatar now, the difference being is that our Avatar is the information view of our physical selves.

In this case it seems that the financial Avatar didn't tell it's physical owner to turn up for court.

I'm all for people complying with societies laws, but I find this pervasive use of data defining us worrying.

(..and I have watched GATTACA)

FTBFun

kabayiri wrote: »

It seems citizens are actually living in a real life version of Avatar now

Pretty to look at but no real substance?

grizzly1911

tonkinator wrote: »

Really?

So you think that government ministers should be able to sell their time in return to donations to a particular party?

Surely nobody thinks that it's a sensible idea to have a portion of an elected official's time that is available to be spent meeting people, but only if they're lucky enough to be able to afford to sit opposite them at £1,500 per meeting.

You genuinely think that it's ok to have a barrier between officials and the electorate that only people of a certain wealth can cross?

Surely it should be the elected officials seeking the advice of industry as and when they need it, not:

"here's £1,500 for your party, can you give me 20mins to convince you to vote in favour of our business practices if a vote ever comes through parliament please."

Come on Wonga can't be that bad at least they have given St James Park Back to the toons.

I wonder why they are currying favour there:think:

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

We used to have slavery and serfdom too.

Could be chop hands off or taking apound of flesh.

Toe rags who willfully won't pay should be hard done to within the letter of the law.

I am totally against credit entrapment and penal charges heaped on charges, both for toe rags and the genuine debtor falling on unforeseen hard times BTW.

chewmylegoff

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.

people are not being sent to prison for not repaying debts, they are being sent to prison for contempt of court.

if the system is being gamed systematically then it is the court that is to blame for not identifying that there is a suspicious pattern of defendants never turning up in cases involving the same debt collectors.

sewer service could be easily remedied by the court sending out a summons instead of the debt collectors serving it (which is what happens here, i think).

zagubov

grizzly1911 wrote: »

We used to have debtor prisons in this country.

And then we grew up;)

Generali wrote: »

We used to have slavery and serfdom too.

I think we got rid of slavery at least a half-century before the US. Even after the Civil war ended some slave states on the union side (like e.g Kentucky) still had slaves.

The US despite its massive numbers of lawyers, has little to teach us.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

And then we grew up;)


I think we got rid of slavery at least a half-century before the US. Even after the Civil war ended some slave states on the union side (like e.g Kentucky) still had slaves.

The US despite its massive numbers of lawyers, has little to teach us.

And I believe that the courts effectively outlawed slavery in the UK about 40 years before Parliament got its Act (geddit?) together.

We have plenty to learn from the USA as they have plenty to learn from us. Their absolutist approach to freedom of speech is to be admired for a start: they remember that freedom of speech includes the right to say things that other people find hurtful or offensive.

That whole PC thing of not being able to hold certain views on race and sex is very dangerous IMHO. That's despite me holdin views that the 'PC brigade' would find admirable in many regards.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

And I believe that the courts effectively outlawed slavery in the UK about 40 years before Parliament got its Act (geddit?) together.

We have plenty to learn from the USA as they have plenty to learn from us. Their absolutist approach to freedom of speech is to be admired for a start: they remember that freedom of speech includes the right to say things that other people find hurtful or offensive.

That whole PC thing of not being able to hold certain views on race and sex is very dangerous IMHO. That's despite me holdin views that the 'PC brigade' would find admirable in many regards.

I'm wary of their "absolute" ideals as i'm not into "isms" IYKWIM. Maybe because in biology there are optimal levels for everyting and too much water, food, light can all be harmful but for "made-up" things like money, freedom of speech,right to own weapons etc. more is always better, which always sounds suspicious to me.

Oh yes and the way they reserve the right for public servants to drag certain taxpayers into rooms where they can poison them to death/break their necks, giving these individuals a remarkably poor return for their taxes sounds hypocritical. Still makes them feel smug , so that's all right then. Something about hearing them rant and rave makes me sometimes feel like I woke up in an Old Testament era.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

Oh yes and the way they reserve the right for public servants to drag certain taxpayers into rooms where they can poison them to death/break their necks, giving these individuals a remarkably poor return for their taxes sounds hypocritical. Still makes them feel smug , so that's all right then.

Well that is unconstitutional IMHO but that's the problem with any law like the Constitutional amendments: it only works to the extent that people are prepared to enforce it.

I'm with Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.