tv licence enforcment

Heracles Pollux wrote:

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
"Terry" wrote in message
A 75 year old man has just been jailed for 32 days
for not paying council tax.

I can't understand why a civil remedy isn't used.

IANAL, but it seems to me that there is an important point here if
what I suspect is indeed the case. Having failed to pay his council
tax, the man was probably taken to court. If he then failed to do what
the court ordered, he is in contempt of court. It is then the contempt of
court which attracts the prison sentence, not the failure to pay council
tax per se.

What does that mean exactly?

Let's put it briefly: we are all expected to pay council tax. The
aforementioned individual did not. He has been, as they say, busted.

There may be extenuating circumstances but, whether he is 75 or 25, he
is still expected to pay. You may call it bullying. Find enough people
who agree with you, stand for elections and change the system.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

"Luke Bosman" wrote in message
news:1hot3d2.a6no1v1aooma9N%gogogo.tilson.5.lukebo ...
Heracles Pollux wrote:

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
"Terry" wrote in message
A 75 year old man has just been jailed for 32 days
for not paying council tax.

I can't understand why a civil remedy isn't used.

IANAL, but it seems to me that there is an important point here if
what I suspect is indeed the case. Having failed to pay his council
tax, the man was probably taken to court. If he then failed to do what
the court ordered, he is in contempt of court. It is then the contempt
of
court which attracts the prison sentence, not the failure to pay
council
tax per se.

What does that mean exactly?

Let's put it briefly: we are all expected to pay council tax. The
aforementioned individual did not. He has been, as they say, busted.

There may be extenuating circumstances but, whether he is 75 or 25, he
is still expected to pay. You may call it bullying. Find enough people
who agree with you, stand for elections and change the system.

Cheers,
Luke




As far as I recall, the man in question was paying his council tax but not
the difference between inflation and the council tax annual increase.

Unfortunately pensioners particularly in the South are disproportionately
suffering from the imbalances in the council tax system under New Liebour.

For pensioners who may not have predicted how badly New Liebour would be
disproportionately weighting the Central Government subsidies away from the
South East, some of them face selling their family homes and assets which is
of course is hurtful and unsettling for them since they do not have the
mobility of working age households.

You would be best taking up the politics of this with Age Concern and the
various pensions groups who are up in arms about this issue.

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
As far as I recall, the man in question was paying his council tax but not
the difference between inflation and the council tax annual increase.

Unfortunately pensioners particularly in the South are disproportionately
suffering from the imbalances in the council tax system under New Liebour.

For pensioners who may not have predicted how badly New Liebour would be
disproportionately weighting the Central Government subsidies away from
the South East, some of them face selling their family homes and assets
which is of course is hurtful and unsettling for them since they do not
have the mobility of working age households.

You would be best taking up the politics of this with Age Concern and the
various pensions groups who are up in arms about this issue.

This isn't about the morality of locking up OAPs. It's about people who want
to make a stand against what they feel is a very unfair system. The moral
issue doesn't arise because every OAP is actually a volunteer. They can all
find the money.

We should go back to the Poll Tax. That was much better. Why should OAPs pay
as much as families of five adults?

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
As far as I recall, the man in question was paying his council tax but
not the difference between inflation and the council tax annual increase.

Unfortunately pensioners particularly in the South are disproportionately
suffering from the imbalances in the council tax system under New
Liebour.

For pensioners who may not have predicted how badly New Liebour would be
disproportionately weighting the Central Government subsidies away from
the South East, some of them face selling their family homes and assets
which is of course is hurtful and unsettling for them since they do not
have the mobility of working age households.

You would be best taking up the politics of this with Age Concern and the
various pensions groups who are up in arms about this issue.

This isn't about the morality of locking up OAPs. It's about people who
want to make a stand against what they feel is a very unfair system. The
moral issue doesn't arise because every OAP is actually a volunteer. They
can all find the money.

We should go back to the Poll Tax. That was much better. Why should OAPs
pay as much as families of five adults?

Bill




Well the poll tax has the problem that a low paid worker such as a Police
Constable, Manual worker, or teacher on about £24K (£10 per hour) a year,
has to pay the same as say a Lawyer or Stocker Broker on £100K.

At least with the council tax system, poor people with over-flowing houses
can pay less by living in less grandiose accommodation and stuffing more
occupants in, and rich people like your stockbroker living in some warehouse
apartment pays more.


What's buggered up the system is that so many functions like Policing, the
Health Service, Education, roads, regional development, etc, have been
supplemented by Central Government bursaries and the way this has been done
has been political.

Candidly, the Government can reduce the number of Police in Surrey, Sussex,
and Kent to the bare minimum because they know they will get away with it.
Fewer Police means fewer "detections", fewer prisoners, and less
beaurocracy. By time the crime rate rises, the next party will be in
Government. ;-)

The Government knows that they can make a NHS Health Authority go bankrupt
in Worthing, because there is no direct consequence and no seats to be lost.
Unfortunately, when Worthing's council tax goes up by 50% over 5 years, it
will be the cash-flow poor OAPs who come off worst because most pensions do
not have a link to council tax rates.


It won't get any better when the Conservatives come back. They'll just play
the same silly buggers favouring their seats, which will be bad for them
Northerners.


Can I take it you are close to retirement, hey Bill. ;-)

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
Well the poll tax has the problem that a low paid worker such as a Police
Constable, Manual worker, or teacher on about £24K (£10 per hour) a year,
has to pay the same as say a Lawyer or Stocker Broker on £100K.

Since they are paying for the same services that's fair enough. Would you
expect people to be charged different amounts at the supermarket or garage
forecourt dependent on their income?


At least with the council tax system, poor people with over-flowing houses
can pay less by living in less grandiose accommodation and stuffing more
occupants in, and rich people like your stockbroker living in some
warehouse apartment pays more.
That's a socialist principle and I don't agree with it. Income tax should be
the only progressive tax. Any more is too much.

Can I take it you are close to retirement, hey Bill. ;-)

No I won't be able to afford to retire because of my massive rates bill. . .

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Heracles Pollux" wrote in message
...
Well the poll tax has the problem that a low paid worker such as a Police
Constable, Manual worker, or teacher on about £24K (£10 per hour) a year,
has to pay the same as say a Lawyer or Stocker Broker on £100K.

Since they are paying for the same services that's fair enough. Would you
expect people to be charged different amounts at the supermarket or garage
forecourt dependent on their income?



Rich people tend to drive 7 series BMWs and Range Rovers.

Poor peope tend to drive ****ty old Escorts and Metro-turds.

So the principle does apply at the pumps. Rich people pay much more than
poor people, via their choice of being grandioise.

Personally, I drive the most fuel efficient car and rarely, and generally
cycle!




At least with the council tax system, poor people with over-flowing
houses can pay less by living in less grandiose accommodation and
stuffing more occupants in, and rich people like your stockbroker living
in some warehouse apartment pays more.
That's a socialist principle and I don't agree with it. Income tax should
be the only progressive tax. Any more is too much.


Ouch! ;-)


The whole issue is distorted by the central subsidy.

Not all local councils or regional authorities rely just on council tax. The
bull-**** is that some of the money comes from an invisible central subsidy.
So you see "Council Tax" is both progressive and regressive, depending on
where you live.

Few people understand the central subsidy part or see how 11 Downing Street
has its hand on local affairs.



Can I take it you are close to retirement, hey Bill. ;-)

No I won't be able to afford to retire because of my massive rates bill. .
.

Bill



You have my sympathises.

The only consolation is that thinking working OAPs tend to live longer and
stay healthier than those who sit around watching Countdown all day.

In article , Heracles Pollux
wrote:



The whole issue is distorted by the central subsidy.

Not all local councils or regional authorities rely just on council tax.
The bull-**** is that some of the money comes from an invisible central
subsidy. So you see "Council Tax" is both progressive and regressive,
depending on where you live.

Few people understand the central subsidy part or see how 11 Downing
Street has its hand on local affairs.

If I understand it correctly, the proceeds of "Business Rates" go to the
Treasury and from where they are doled out as a "Grant".

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In message , Heracles Pollux
writes

Few people understand the central subsidy part or see how 11 Downing Street
has its hand on local affairs.

Treasury's grip on the entire country is extraordinary, right down to
determining how and what repeats the BBC air and the technical standards
of their broadcasts. It was the treasury media analysis team that nearly
buggered Tetra.

SIR HUMPHREY: Prime minister -- if this information were to fall
into enemy hands...

JIM HACKER: Why should the Russians care?

SIR HUMPHREY: (patiently) The treasury, prime minister. The
Russians already know about it.

Treasury has absolute and incontrovertible power of veto over the
cabinet which it largely ignores. The contempt that treasury office have
for the cabinet office is well-known. Treasury and their mates at
foreign are Trinity House and Balliol first class honours men in
philosophy etc -- an elite clique determined to ensure that the UK
remains a world power -- whereas cabinet are regarded as a bunch of
loudmouth grammar school oinks with a predilection for shagging anything
they can lay their hands on.

Recent examples of treasury use of their veto was when a new Labour
government had the spiffing wheeze of a crime prevention initiative by
empowering local authorities to impose and enforce curfews on miscreant
kiddiwinks. A great idea! Trebles all round! Bloody expensive, though.
Trouble is no one thought to square it with treasury so that when local
authorities approached them for financial cover, they were told what to
do smartish. As far as I know, the idea was stillborn, has never been
implemented by any local authority, and heralded a whole series of
Labour's spiffing wheeze notions that were dead in the water because
treasury so decided.

Best of all was when, in 1999, the Blair suddenly took it into his
muddled head that the UK should embrace the euro. In a keynote speech he
even announced a timetable for the abolition of sterling. Trouble is
that the Blair didn't appraise treasury of his mad cap scheme and they
killed it stone dead. Can't have grammar school tykes deciding that the
currency of the huns, frogs, and assorted dago countries with their
wretched olive oil economies is suitable for England!

Going back a few years, the Major government had an embarrassing
community tax shortfall. Norman Lamont sounded out his treasury PS on
the release of strategic war reserve funds to bridge the gap. About a
month later, when the PS stopped laughing, he told cabinet to **** off,
and Lamont had to recover the missing dosh by bunging 2-1/2 per cent on
the standard rate of VAT. No way were treasury going to upset foreign by
dipping into their strategic funds to bail out the feeble Major
government. According to John Major's biography, on the notorious day
when interest rates were ratcheted up to around 15 per cent, Norman
Lamont, supposedly the government's conduit with treasury, had no idea
what was going on and couldn't even be found!

Pinning down the source of treasury power, which has been remarkably
variable over the last half century, needs a far more competent
political commentator than me. C P Snow is a good start but hardly
up-to-date and even he could not have envisaged the incredible power
that treasury have today. In general when a government is strong,
treasury is weak; when government is weak, treasury is strong. I don't
mean strong or weak government in terms of backbenchers' bums on seats
sense, but in vision, drive, decisiveness and initiative. The UK has
suffered two relatively weak, indecisive governments: Major and Blair.
Treasury have gleefully expanded their influence to fill the lassitude
vacuum with the result that cabinet is now impotent and is not even
called upon to vote on anything. Cabinet had no knowledge of the merger
between Customs and Excise and Revenue until Gordon Brown stood up in
parliament about three years ago to announce it. Customs was an ancient,
efficient and largely incorruptible government department and yet it was
swept aside on the whim of treasury without any parliamentary debate or
cabinet decision-making.

It's hard to pin down the genesis of this present power seizure but
going back to an historic agreement nearly half a century ago in Bermuda
between Harold Macmillan and President Kennedy marks as good a starting
point as any. It was an extraordinary treaty because it resulted in
America selling nuclear arms delivery and maintenance systems to a
trusted ally. This was unheard of then and it still is today. But for
foreign and treasury it was a trebles all round decision because it
enabled the UK to remain in the nuclear club whilst clinging to its
prized permanent seat on the UN Security Council without having to
retain a costly R and D nuclear weapons programme.

To understand why foreign and treasury hold a permanent UN seat so dear
is because of the tremendous political clout they perceive it carries.
The five members are deemed world powers, with the UK among them. That
matters very much to the oxbridge guard.

The tacit agreement with the US has been that the UK should always side
with the US in the UN on important issues, abstain on lesser issue, and
never ever use the veto against the US.

There wasn't much of a threat to treasury's power until Harold Wilson
got thoroughly ****ed off with them for scuppering (among other wheezes)
his land commission and option mortgage schemes -- bold ideas for
acquiring building land and providing first home buyers with cheap
mortgages. No way were treasury going to let a cabinet destabilise the
property market; the ideas never got off the ground.

Harold Wilson's bright counter idea to thwart treasury was to set up his
own rival treasury -- the Department of Economic Affairs. For a while
the UK had two treasuries! Unfortunately for Harold he made the grievous
mistake of putting an ignorant, bullying, vain drunkard in charge of his
brainchild. The appointment of George-Brown was a sop to old labour but
treasury mandarins could out-think and out-smart such an incredible
dullard with little effort. A few inspired leaks to lobby correspondents
about George-Brown's boorish, drunken behaviour and he was finished.

NB: History was to repeat itself when Tony Blair appointed the
appalling John Prescott as deputy prime minister. Treasury could
hardly believe their luck in being handed on a plate such an
oafish, utterly repulsive, bullying slug for them to sideline
and out-smart without trying. As with George-Brown, a few words
in the right lobby correspondent ears on leads to follow-up and
Prescott was finished.

Things continued reasonably smoothly until Margaret Thatcher became PM.
The worrying aspect about Maggie's reign was that she was in power for
so long that civil service middle management saw her administration as
having more influence over their careers than their immediate superiors.
Particularly when she shook treasury by vetoing proposals to join the
exchange rate mechanism. Nevertheless throughout most of her time in
power Nigel Lawson was chancellor -- the longest-serving chancellor
until Gordon Brown. Prime Ministers rarely sack chancellors because it
undermines City and foreign market confidence -- much better to behave
in a manner calculated to push them into resigning such as Mrs T
retaining Sir Alan Walters as her personal economic advisor. A risky
strategy. Mrs T's authority never really recovered fro the mild-mannered
Geoffrey Howe's hard-hitting resignation speech.

Treasury power was shaken but not seriously undermined because through
most of her reign Mrs T never had an inkling that the UK was shadowing
the W. German mark. In his biography 'The View From No 11' Lawson had no
regrets, and certainly no qualms, that this vital information was
withheld from her.

By and large treasury went on consolidating their power throughout the
1980s and 90s, focusing most of their cuts on internal policing in the
belief that the English are inherently honest and that society doesn't
require much policing. All went reasonably well until President-Elect
Clinton learned about the UK's clandestine and never fully explained
role in CREP -- the campaign to re-elect President Bush. Clinton, to
coin a cliche, went ballistic. His immediate reaction was to get the UK
tossed out of it's permanent seat on the UN security council along with
France -- whom he never trusted anyway. Clinton's view was that the UK
and France represented the old guard. The future was in the hands of the
two major economic powers of Germany and Japan.

The state department panicked, as did foreign and treasury. State told
Clinton the blunt truth that neither Japan or Germany had the stomachs
or constitutions for serious wog-killing whereas the UK and France had
long traditions of not only killing stroppy wogs, but doing so with
efficient relish. State eventually persuaded Clinton that the US could
not afford to lose the support of the UK and France in the inevitable
eruptions in the long-festering conflict between democracy and
Mohammedanism. In terms of standing armies, France and the UK were the
big hitters of Europe which were certain to be needed in future. Clinton
eventually relented.

Treasury breathed again and quietly buried their plans to make massive
reductions in the British Armed forces. The old guard in treasury got
their way. They had always maintained that the only way for the UK to
finance a big hitting military force without taxation levels that could
lead to internal instability was to slash the UK's internal policing
force. Within a decade the sheer level of the cuts was astounding.

Court police -- thousands of court bailiffs and clerks to justices staff
sacked. Fine an Englishman and he'll pay-up was treasury belief,
especially if backed up by aggressively worded threats. Internal
policing of society using court staff was not required. If required,
then there was always the private sector.

NB: The incredible short-sightedness of this policy struck home
in the closing years of the Major administration when treasury,
always keen to come up with cheap methods of increasing revenue,
hit upon the bright wheeze of gearing fines to peoples income.
They sponsored a criminal justice bill with that in mind.

To work the system had to depend on the honesty of criminals
concerning their income because the courts no longer had the
staff to check the statements of felons. When this was pointed
out to treasury they took the view that most citizens were
honest in what they told the courts and that there was no need
to even consider a return to old system. Naturally the whole
cock-eyed system fell apart once people spotted the glaring
hole. In my case, by careful selection of a time-slice to
determine my income, the wonderful treasury formula meant that a
speeding fine cost me a mere GBP3! A retired teacher of my
acquaintance had to stump up GBP2! 'Surely they'll check!' she
protested. 'I'm sure they won't,' I retorted.

All over the country court revenues fell to zilt.

About 5000 roadside vehicle inspectors sacked. Most haulage operators
were trustworthy, thought treasury, therefore internal policing of this
aspect of society was hardly required.

Thousands of EU-required abattoir veterinary inspectors sacked by the
simple expedient of leaning on DEFRA and getting abattoirs shut. Farmers
were upright citizens who were unlikely to take advantage of an
unpoliced system. Ho. Ho. That policy led to DEFRA being so short
staffed that they could no longer administer a foot and mouth crisis as
happened in 2000 and, as a result, a panicking government had to call in
the army to provide the management skills that DEFRA no longer had. That
particular F&M debacle cost around a staggering GBP89 billion.

About 5000 VAT inspectors and excise officers sacked -- a figure that
was further increased when Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue were
merged. After all, most registered VAT traders and travellers were
upright, honest citizens, therefore such a high level of internal
policing was hardly required. Likewise thousands of tax inspectors were
given the heave-ho. It's all self-assessment now, innit? Another name
for self-policing.

NB: The consequences of this particular piece of vandalism rumble on:
a recent issue of Private Eye (16th August 2006) points out the
disastrous consequences of a further sacking of some 200 tax evasion
investigators. Getting rid of these specialists saved about GBP20
million per annum. Lost revenue as a result was around GBP100 million.

Offices, shops, factory inspectors sacked. Very few shops had to be
closed down as a result of inspections therefore the owners of offices,
shops and railway premises were fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens
who scrupulous observed the provisions of the OSRP Act therefore
policing them and their premises was not required.

Local authorities have been subjected to ludicrous pressures to carry
out massive cuts in their police forces. Police stations closed, cell
blocks closed. The cuts have now reached the point where many police
forces, such as Hull, have decided to virtually pull out of street
policing altogether. Treasury's plans to axe another 50,000 police
officers by merging police forces have been stalled. A temporary
set-back for them.

Hardly any police forces have been able to retain their fraud squads.
There's no need for them -- most people are honest, aren't they? And
those suspected of running major swindles can be dealt by Serious Fraud.

South West Trains and other franchise holders have had to give up
prosecuting many fare-dodgers because treasury pushed for a scale of
charges for calling in transport police -- 'incident attendance fees'.
It's cheaper for revenue protection employees to merely issue a warning
and to let the miscreants go. That crazy situation has gotten so bad
that when there's a major security alert at airports that results in
flight cancellations, BAA, BA, the transport police all end up suing
each other over increased costs or lost revenue.

Scales of charges for services have created a ludicrous system in which
one service, which is part of the infra-structure of the country, ends
up making another service pay for an essential service.

To quote one bizarrely example: the soon to be sold forensic service
were required to start operating at a profit. Treasury imposed a scale
of forensic charges on police forces: so much to examine and report on a
shoe; so much for a pair of knickers.

God knows how many immigration officers have been sacked. Home have been
so harried into getting rid of many prison admin staff that prison
calendars are no longer properly maintained and, as a result, prisons no
longer know exactly who to expect or when to release them! The system is
not merely on the brink of collapse, it has collapsed.

HM Customs and Excise Intelligence Unit BR17 (at Concorde 2000, South
Terminal Gatwick), a unit that played a vital role in stemming drugs
coming in the country, has virtually ceased to exist. There're two
blokes on duty now 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. Sadly this manning level is
fairly typical of all UK ports now.

When New Labour came to power in 1997 they immediately locked horns with
old guard treasury. Treasury simply tossed their head and sent the
grammar school oinks of New labour sprawling in the dust. One of New
Labour's early wheezes was 'Rip Off Britain' (anyone remember it?) -- a
plan to expose some of the commercial rackets. Labour planned to stamp
on the toes of many companies that were treasury's source of valuable
directorships and emoluments. The idea was sat on -- firmly.

SIR HUMPHREY: Treasury will warmly welcome the idea,
prime minister.

JIM HACKER: (Worriedly) What does that mean?

SIR HUMPF: They will say that it's a bold and courageous
initiative. That it needs careful looking at
from all angles--

JIM HACKER: (resigned) Meaning they'll kill it.

SIR HUMPF: And that a full and frank review report is
needed to consider all the ramifications.

JIM HACKER: How long will that take?

SIR HUMPF: About two years.

JIM HACKER: (despondently) They'll kill it.

SIR HUMPF: Stone dead, prime minister.


Although written many years earlier, the above is exactly what happened
when Ken Livingston appointed a high-flying American, Bob Kilney, to
become chairman of London Regional Transport. Kilney had transformed the
New York subway from a creaky, rundown service to a sleek, modern mass
transport system that offered cheap fares. He wanted to do the same for
the London underground. His plan was simple: to raise the necessary
GBP10 billion needed by an undated bond issue. Because the dosh
would never be repaid, the percentage yield for such an issue could be
fixed at an attractive ten percent. Pension funds, looking for such a
yield in perpetuity, would be certain to climb aboard as they had done
in New York.

Never mind that it was a sound idea that had worked and would've kept
ownership of the tube in public hands -- a plan that No 10 favoured --
treasury saw a bond issue hoovering up GBP10 billion as a direct threat
to their gilt market. With the connivance of Stephen Byers, treasury put
in place a hideously complicated scheme for multiple ownership of the
tube with responsibilities divided between three separate companies.

On a BBC TV programme Bob Kilney said that he couldn't understand why
his attempts to do something positive about the transport system of one
of the world's largest cities met with such implacable hostility from
treasury. Several times he had requested a meeting with Gordon Brown and
the requests had always been turned down. Bob Kilney never did
understand the fear that he had inspired in treasury. ('For God's sake,
my office is only two miles from Gordon Brown's office!'). He was tough
fighter. Thankfully for treasury, much of that fight was kicked out of
him by the death of his wife and two children in a car accident.

(To be continued if I can be bothered)

--
James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

"JF" wrote in message
...
In message , Heracles Pollux
writes

Few people understand the central subsidy part or see how 11 Downing
Street
has its hand on local affairs.
-----------------

(To be continued if I can be bothered)

--
James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com

Blimey, what a post! I've read it all and even understood some of it!
Thanks!

Bill

In article ,
JF wrote:
In message , Heracles Pollux
writes

Treasury's grip on the entire country is extraordinary,
snip

(To be continued if I can be bothered)

Is this very different from the way every company in this country seems to
be run - by the accountants?

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11