QED

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well yes Simon the anti state right always did have some point however you quite miss the point about cui bono with austerity .... the rich and the bankers benefit far more from austerity ... i would rather have a billion buggins turn bureaucrats doing their jobsworths all over the place than the plutocratic kleptocracy of Europe that we currently enjoy ....

[Serial_Apologist]

well yes Simon the anti state right always did have some point however you quite miss the point about cui bono with austerity .... the rich and the bankers benefit far more from austerity ... i would rather have a billion buggins turn bureaucrats doing their jobsworths all over the place than the plutocratic kleptocracy of Europe that we currently enjoy ....

[jean]

The powers of local government are also awesome, and in my view need watching - do you know that a local council can have you jailed for non-payment of a debt that you don't owe?

I don't think this can be legal - can it?

[ahinton]

Oh for heavens sake. When will some of you lot get real?

And when might you?

The majority of all government is operated on behalf of special interest groups. Democracy is an illusion, a lollipop for the gullible.

Operation of policies of all kinds on behalf of - and for the purpose of benefitting - special interest groups or individuals is far more widespread than merely something to be found in the annals of national and local government, but that fact does not make the concept of democracy the illusion that you claim - indeed, it perhaps could be argued to created a kind of metre-stock (yardstick if you really must) against which such activities might be judged. One has only to look at charitable organisations - by which I mean those who have been set up and broadly speaking operate in the interest that they advertise - RNIB, the National Trust, MacMillan, RSPB, the Soil Association and thousands of others; in whose interests and for whose benefit do they - or indeed should they be expected to - operate other than those who support them financially because they reckon to share their aims? That said, there organisations have to operate within a democratic framework within laws set up to function within such a framework, however flawed such a framework my rutn out to be in practice at any given time.

Your advocacy of the abolition of special interest groups sounds to be as though you believe that such groups are undemocratic and an affront to the very democracy that you claim to be no more than a mere illusion and your statement about democracy is far more fundamental and far-reaching than the above kinds of example could possibly illustrate, let alone challenge. If you genuinely believe that democracy is no more than an illusion, what do you think that we actually have in reality in its place? - and do you think that, whatever this may be, it happens to be perfect or near-perfect or at the very least superior to democracy? Or do you intstead mean that you see democracy as a good thing but that the illusion that you perceive is in the widely-held belief that this is what we actually have?

Once the most pressing interests have been satisfied, or somehow bought off

Er - by whom, how and with whose money? - and if all such interests were indeed to be "bought off", are you convinced that there'd be very much left?

At an individual level, the few politicians whom I have known well have said that it's a relief to work for a single individual case and show a good result - it makes them feel that they can achieve something real, as opposed to rubber-stamping policies whose rationale they don't necessarily grasp.

In other words "special interest" cases"!

But beyond corruption of politicians, a threat that (in my view) is also dangerous is the corruption of the bureaucracy. My previous employers put together a figure for the increase in lawyers, legal workers and their assistants throughout the UK and employed as solicitors or by government offices in 2006. The increase, from 1986, had been fivefold. And I think that increases will continue, as all that lawyers have to do to necessitate more of them is to make more laws and introduce more complexity. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. The EU and its HR legislation was a major bonus, of course - for which lawyers and their lawyer friends in the government had been pushing for some time.

But what is the alternative - lawlessness? oir at the very least less law to protect the invididuals in society? I am not suggesting that British or EU laws are all OK and, if they were, there would be less need to change them but, like all else in life, laws must at least try to address the changes in society that take place everywhere every second - even in the Peak District! Would you seek to abandon EU and UK HR legislation or to improve it?

The powers of local government are also awesome, and in my view need watching - do you know that a local council can have you jailed for non-payment of a debt that you don't owe? Have you tried to reason with, say, a local authority highways department, staffed by people who may not even have a decent degree? A pal of mine once got a world-renowned traffic expert to assess a local road situation in his village. He also got the local MP as well as the chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Transport to attend a meeting, at which the whole situation was aired and the report presented. All agreed, with no dissenters from the community either. It was a cut and dried case - I know, because I also attended the meeting. Guess what the two individuals from county highways did. That's right - completely ignored it.

I did not know that local councils could do this kind of thing, because they cannot; they do not have the powers of the police or the courts, to both of which theye would have always to have recourse before any citizen could be jailed. Local authorities have the power to prosecute, of course, as do most of the rest of us; however, were any individual, company or local authority to seek to persuade a court to deliver a custodial sentence on an individual for a debt, a good case would first have to be made and it would have to be successful, as would any subsequent appeal; provided that anyone being so prosecuted could prove that he/she/they did not owe the said debt, the prosecution would lose its case and might then be subject not only to costs but also to the risk of prosecution for libel by the accused and, in the case of a local authority in such a poisition, it would have to fund those costs and the costs of any successful subsequent libel action either out of insurance (provided that it has such insurace) or by levying those costs onto the innocent taxpayers from whom they collect taxes. As to your highways case, again, this would be for the courts to decide, provided that the disaffected party/ies brought such a case to court in the first place. It's what's called democary in action, Simon; sure, it may not always work as it should and courts, police and other authorities are as subject to corruption and incompetence as anyone, but the principle and structure is nevertheless present for the purpose of and with the view to enabling justice to be done and to be seen to be done.

[ahinton]

I don't think this can be legal - can it?

No. See above.

[Simon]

I'm not in the habit of posting inaccuracies, AH, so please don't answer for me. Especially when you don't know what I'm talking about! It has to do with laws of strict liability, and the wording of certain Acts. I'll explain further if anybody wants.

But the very fact that you think it not possible illustrates how unbelievably far down the undemocratic road we have come. I could also have mentioned that LA bods seem also to be virtually unsackable, however incompetent they are.

[Simon]

well yes Simon the anti state right always did have some point

A rather big point, I think!

however you quite miss the point about cui bono with austerity .... the rich and the bankers benefit far more from austerity ... i would rather have a billion buggins turn bureaucrats doing their jobsworths all over the place than the plutocratic kleptocracy of Europe that we currently enjoy ....

If you'll explain which part of your point about cui bono and austerity you mean, I'll tell you if I've missed it or not, eh?

I don't disagree that in general the wealthy suffer less in such times. But unfortunately, such times are now needed in Greece (and close elsewhere) because of the sheer, gross, incompetent, stupid profligacy of "spend spend spend and rack up debt so that they keep voting for us" of the socialist government. Which no doubt many of your political colour would have supported...

Spending money you haven't got is, generally, not advisable, whatever the left may believe.

[ahinton]

I'm not in the habit of posting inaccuracies, AH, so please don't answer for me. Especially when you don't know what I'm talking about! It has to do with laws of strict liability, and the wording of certain Acts. I'll explain further if anybody wants.

]
Well, I do, for starters!

Are you genuinely seeking to tell us that a local authority has powers vested in it that entitled it to override the police and the courts to the point that it can autonomously prosecute, judge and jail a real or perceived debtor and that the said debtor has no right of challenge or appeal of any kind in such circumstances? If so, please provide examples where this has actually occurred and explain why they were allowed to occur and how information about them was covered up - and, while you're about it, could you also please enlighten us as to any other organisation/s besides local authorities that you believe to have similar powers vested in them? I have no desire to answer "for" you or indeed even "against" you nor, for that matter and for the record, have I actually done either but, since you have yet to provide any evidence that the powers vested within the police, courts and justice system can be so systematically and fundamentally overruled by local authorities in the pursuit of debtors, genuine or otherwise, my questions to you are surely not unreasonable?

But the very fact that you think it not possible illustrates how unbelievably far down the undemocratic road we have come

Not at all; all that it "illustrates" instead is that I have yet to receive from you any evidence in support of what you claim LAs are entitled by law to do in circumstances such as you describe, without let or hindrance, fear or favour or the risk of being upbraided for riding roughshod over any relevant UK laws, not least the Human Rights Act.

I could also have mentioned that LA bods seem also to be virtually unsackable, however incompetent they are.

Well, you have mentioned it now but, while I do not have any obvious reason to doubt you here, this is a quite different issue, namely one of unwelcome official protectionism which, whilst reprehensible, is by no means as grave as having powers to act above and in utter disregard of the law of the land and accordingly being able to deny real or perceived debtors access to all justice and charge, try, judge and sentence them outside the judicial system without their having any right of challenge or appeal - so, over to you!

I can only add at this stage that, if you are indeed correct about this and can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, it would be a matter of unprecedented and incalculable astonishment to most of us that such events are allowed to transipre and yet somehow contrive to go unreported anywhere.

[ahinton]

I don't disagree that in general the wealthy suffer less in such times. But unfortunately, such times are now needed in Greece (and close elsewhere) because of the sheer, gross, incompetent, stupid profligacy of "spend spend spend and rack up debt so that they keep voting for us" of the socialist government.

But Simon, surely even you recognise that the kind of profligacy to which you draw attention is by no means the exclusive province of socialist governments - or indeed of governments at all! Almost everyone does it, from private individuals to SMEs to large corporations to local authorities (remember them?!) to national governments - and those who complacently believe that they don't do it nevertheless help others to do so. I had this argument with such an individual some while ago when he rather smugly sought to claim that he had no borrowing of any kind, having paid off his mortage and all other personal loans; I reminded him that he was receiving a salary from an employer who would not be capable of paying it in full other than out of borrowings and that said employer was also being forced by law to fund "contributions" to government on his alleged behalf that were supposedly for his future state pension but which in fact are being paid out by said government immediately to others in state benefits, including the state pensions of those already entitled to receive them - and I added that nowadays said government cannnot even pay those out of taxpayers' funding alone so it is forced to borrow towards being able to pay them. So tell me who is neither in debt nor complicit in and/or contributing to debt?

Spending money you haven't got is, generally, not advisable, whatever the left may believe.

This is nothing to do with right, left or centre (whatever if anything they mean thses days). Few of those wishing to start up small businesss, purchase their cars or homes, fund their or their children's education and the rest can do so without recourse to borrowing; would you call all such borrowing "inadvisable" and, if so, what on earth might you suppose the effect to be if hardly anyone tried to do any of these things? Likewise, were government to confine the funding of its benefit payments to income from taxpayers ather than supplementing this by borrowings, the effect of these reduced benefit payments - including to those entitled to state retirement benefits - would be plainly obvious. Do you or would you advocate any of this, just in order to reduce personal, corporate or government borrowing? And what about deposit savings? - where would these be without interest being paid to the depositors? - clearly, nowhere! Banks, building socities, the government (in the guise of National Savings and Investments) etc. attract depositors by agreeing to borrow their money; would you regard this as ill-advised as well?

[teamsaint]

AH is right on this. The economies of the world are built on borrowed money..........and if the debts were all called in..........

Confidence is pretty much all that lies between us and economic collapse .........

[ahinton]

The economies of the world are built on borrowed money..........and if the debts were all called in..........

Confidence is pretty much all that lies between us and economic collapse .........

Exactly - but not only the economies of the world's nations but those of their corporations, SME's and individual citizens; were all such debts to be called in at once, it would almost certainly result in so grave a plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose situation as a consequence of almost everyone being borrowed up to the hilt and beyond from almost everyone else as to preclude almost all "writing off" of debt!

[Simon]

I don't think this can be legal - can it?

To answer Jean and AH, I'm afraid it can.

I'm not about to answer all AH's meanderings about what he thinks I said, but this is my statement from my earlier post:

"a local council can have you jailed for non-payment of a debt that you don't owe".

(Now, of course in order to do this they have to go through the courts, they can't just turn up and haul you off the ther Scrubs or wherever, and nobody would expect otherwise.)

I happen to know because I was involved in the case as an advocate. (I once took a part-time distance LLB for fun and have on occasions used some of the knowledge obtained therefrom).

The unfortunate was a council tax payer who had been unemployed and was receiving benefits. Then he went on to a college course and thought that the CT benefit would still apply. It didn't, so after a while he got a big bill for CT. On querying, he was told that he was entitled to benefit as a student with hardly any income, but that he must apply for it. He filled in the form and sent it off. After some hassle, he got the benefit, but nobody told him about backdating. Eventually, someone did, and he duly applied for his benefit to be backdated to the time he came off JSA. This was refused, on the grounds that he had no good reason not to have applied at the time.

Now, CT liability is strict: that is, it exists irrespective of your earnings, situation or income. The moment you move into a house, you are liable to pay CT. Nobody has to prove that you are able to pay it, or have any money or income at all. If you don't, you must apply for benefit, and if you don't that's tough - you still have to pay the CT out of your non-existent funds. A bit like the old debt laws, in fact: if you thought we had made progress, think again!

So, the situation when I got involved was that he was in court for the debt that should never have arisen, and which the Council admitted in principle that he shouldn't owe. I made the point that it was wrong to expect someone to pay a tax when they had no income. The fact that he had no income should, I said, negate the strict liability in the Act, as this was manifestly not the situation that the Act had intended to compass. I even referred to Justice Coke. But the Council's chap stated, quite rightly, that you cannot negate strict liability and that they were unable to do anything about it and that, even if he had no money at all, they were still obliged to pursue him for the debt, with jail as the end result if he "failed" to pay. He, in fact, blamed the Act that he was obliged slavishly to follow. Legal arguments were not going to work: the debtor was liable and that was that.

His situation, in fact, was caused by one individual jobsworth in the benefits office. I was able to show how, in another similar case, the backdated benefit had been granted, and the magistrates had the sense to throw it out. A result, then. Eventually, the benefit WAS backdated. There are other aspects, but that's the bare bones.

(There was also another possible way around it, by appeal to the full Council, which I understand is anyone's right as a last resort).

[ahinton]

To answer Jean and AH, I'm afraid it can.

I'm not about to answer all AH's meanderings about what he thinks I said

I wrote about what you did write, not what I thought you wrote (anent which see also below)

but this is my statement from my earlier post:

"a local council can have you jailed for non-payment of a debt that you don't owe".

(Now, of course in order to do this they have to go through the courts, they can't just turn up and haul you off the ther Scrubs or wherever, and nobody would expect otherwise.)

Ah, well here's the first point at which your stament falls, because you had earlier implied that local authorities could do this kind of thing without recourse to any other authorities and I challenged you on this; now you admit that such local authorities would be obliged to have recourse to due legal process.

I happen to know because I was involved in the case as an advocate. (I once took a part-time distance LLB for fun and have on occasions used some of the kowledge obtained therefrom).

The unfortunate was a council tax payer who had been unemployed and was receiving benefits. Then he went on to a college course and thought that the CT benefit would still apply. It didn't, so after a while he got a big bill for CT. On querying, he was told that he was entitled to benefit as a student with hardly any income, but that he must apply for it. He filled in the form and sent it off. After some hassle, he got the benefit, but nobody told him about backdating. Eventually, someone did, and he duly applied for his benefit to be backdated to the time he came off JSA. This was refused, on the grounds that he had no good reason not to have applied at the time.

Now, CT liability is strict: that is, it exists irrespective of your earnings, situation or income. The moment you move into a house, you are liable to pay CT. Nobody has to prove that you are able to pay it, or have any money or income at all. If you don't, you must apply for benefit, and if you don't that's tough - you still have to pay the CT out of your non-existent funds. A bit like the old debt laws, in fact: if you thought we had made progress, think again!

So, the situation when I got involved was that he was in court for the debt that should never have arisen, and which the Council admitted in principle that he shouldn't owe. I made the point that it was wrong to expect someone to pay a tax when they had no income. The fact that he had no income should, I said, negate the strict liability in the Act, as this was manifestly not the situation that the Act had intended to compass. I even referred to Justice Coke. But the Council's chap stated, quite rightly, that you cannot negate strict liability and that they were unable to do anything about it and that, even if he had no money at all, they were still obliged to pursue him for the debt, with jail as the end result if he "failed" to pay. He, in fact, blamed the Act that he was obliged slavishly to follow. Legal arguments were not going to work: the debtor was liable and that was that.

His situation, in fact, was caused by one individual jobsworth in the benefits office. I was able to show how, in another similar case, the backdated benefit had been granted, and the magistrates had the sense to throw it out. A result, then. Eventually, the benefit WAS backdated. There are other aspects, but that's the bare bones.

(There was also another possible way around it, by appeal to the full Council, which I understand is anyone's right as a last resort).

Well, why on earth didn't you tell us all this at the outset instead of making a misleading statement which you now demonstrate was patently untrue in the specific way in which you framed it? Had this poor unfortunate fellow secured the services of a good barrister, he could have had that council in pieces in court and likely obtained damages as a consequence of their actions.

Anyway, so now we know, through your own admission (and good for you for doing what you did in this particular case), that local authorities can do no such thing in law; oh, yes, they can try, just as anyone else can, to pervert the course of justice and twist both the law itself and due legal process to suit what they may perceive to be their own interets, but none of that actually undermines that law or that due legal process. An appeal to the full local authority would indeed be anyone's right in such strained circumstances but it would not necessarily constitute a last resort, as you claim, since, ultimately, the courts and the due process of law are above local authorities' attempts to pursue what they might perceive to be their own interests in any particular case. In this case, you yourself wrote of the said tax "and which the Council admitted in principle that he shouldn't owe" and you had the courtesy and good sense to italicise it for emphasis; your later wrote that "he, in fact, blamed the Act that he was obliged slavishly to follow" (which you did not, but had no need to, italicise). Whatever kind of case did this local authority think it had a right to waste taxpayers' expense and court time in? The point that I make in argument with your statements that "legal arguments were not going to work" and that "the debtor was liable and that was that" is that there is a legal appeals procedure and, with that in place and used - and with the right barrister representing the accused - mincemeat could and almost certainly should have been made of that council and an example also made of its gross misconduct in the media in order to put it and its like in its/their place/s.

[MrGongGong]

I'm more than a little worried that our resident "academic" seems to be spending his spare time defending benefit claimants !!!
I sense a swing to the left (whatever that means ?)

could this be the start of a transformation of Wittgensteinian proportion ?
or is it the first stirrings of empathy ?

good on yer Prof

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

If you'll explain which part of your point about cui bono and austerity you mean,

well you can start with Krugman's book but after that you are on your own dime buddy ...