Discussion
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
As for CSA und its proposed replacement. I am totally against for following reasons:
1. Removing the privileged or rather earned right to drive a car by passing test und keeping relatively safe und compliant would really limit job prospects. He may be required to drive on company business from time to time. He may be suited to delivery drives for internet shopper vans or whatever, He cannot get freelance taxi work (if qualified for this) How can someone pay out if lack of driving licence prevent securing of well paid job out of town,, in business park miles out of town or if job require odd bit of driving.
2. Tagging - that implies "criminal" und what if job has shifts? Shiftss which are not in bus time tabled hours? Und he has this "curfew"?
3. Taking passport? What if job has element of business travel? Not everyone has passport just for jollies....
Ist ridiculous to do this und you that too lieber von if you are honest with yourself
One ist not saying man should not be responsible for what he sires und reaps the sows he seeds (und I am sure the pay on word will not be lost on lieber cymtriks
with whom I had argument on this subject as man ist just as responsible). But... there are - und we all know this - some out there who have the one night stands .. several one night stands und does not know which of these men ist Papa. She pick the one she think ist the "richest" - und he get lumbered as he cannot disprove without paternity test - which she refuses to allow child to have of course.
Ja - cymtriks - I know darned well that there are some nasty little pieces of work around - my argument with you was tarring us all the same und suggesting we should get sack for having kittens (Ist off topic - sort of... we are on about losing licence for something not related to skill of driving to COAST - so not too far a drifter ) So - these persons get hit with whammy of tags, driving ban - because they cannot afford to hand over something which they have not negotiated nor even in line with their financial commitments.
That ist wrong. Wrong to point of "anarchic" or simple rebellious behaviour for some.
They already have the means to pay, it is because they simply choose not to that they get disqualified. How does affecting their job/ability to pay suddenly stop them paying when they already have the means to but choose not to ?
They've made their choice on that score already.
If you remove their means of earning that money - defeat objective of getting the cash from them. There are other means. Normally it go via payroll und they deduct at source und pay over end of month to the agency concerned. They do not have to write out cheque themselves. Payroll clerks deal with this.
Man can give up job und go on benefit himself .. but even then up to this CSA to then liaise with the benefit office und take what could be afforded out of handouts. There are all kind of means open to secure that paternal responsibility.
But removing driving licence und potential job prospects ist not the way to collect monies due to ex-wife or girlfriend left holding the baby. Und the one night stand lad - he never 100% certain ist his - und she will not agree to test the child to establish for sure.
Of course - there are ways und means not to pro-create in first place
(Not that they worked for me.. had Lukas und Rachael unexpectedly - but I see them as a miracle bonus given what happened. I could never imagine life without them -- love all my kittens anyway.) Und am happily married to Mad Doc too.
vonhosen said:
It's not designed that people who can't afford pay get disqualified, it's people who can afford to pay but simply refuse to.
Unless self-employed - this go through a payroll department und they deduct at source. Some may change jobs or go on dole to get out of it - but that ist when they get stung with the arrears on top. Und when they demand half the earnings at that point.. that ist when it get very difficult for these men. Especially if no access rights either. So - whilst I say man should be responsible und pay for nights of hot passion und woman should not be left holding a baby with zero help from him - there still has to be modicum of reason applied.
Restricting job prospects und travel ist not this modicum of reason.
Other means are of course used first, the disqualification & imprisonment are last ditch efforts, not the first port of call.
smeggy said:
Taking a step back, what about a situation of a kerb crawler (or someone warning of speed traps ahead
or whatever) who is already paying CSA whose income depends on being able to drive - what then? (just now noticed SSS’s post) Removal of a persons means (or tool) to make income is a really daft thing to do.
The court doesn't have to impose a disqualification, it is an option NOT mandatory.
Just as all motoring cases that carry & discretionary disqualification don't result in a disqualification now (infact the vast majority don't), then so it would be in these cases. each case dealt with on it's merits, but it is an option open to the court where appropriate.
vonhosen said:
jasandjules said:
The problem with removing a driving license for non-payment of CSA money is that the CSA is full of I can only assume on drugs halfwits, who no doubt will randomly submit the wrong info. People who lose their cars can often lose their jobs, so they not only don't pay the CSA money, but they then claim benefits as well. The amount the CSA decides is "reasonable" can be utterly preposterous, and has led to suicides.
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
The CSA can't impose a disqualification, the court does.
If you drive whilst disqualified then you'll receive the same fate awaits you as anyone else who does that.
But it still not a correct way of dealing with a problem. A driving ban should only be imposed if a traffic rule has been infringed to extent that it place others in danger.
To disqualify or prevent man learning to drive because he fail to pay CSA by being made redundant or changing job und not informing of where he move to und CSA being so thick as they cannot find him depsite a trail of exchanged P45s und tax office records ist not on. This unfairly penalise one section of community who drive car und not the one who ride bike. Also how do they know the person who does not drive want to drive. People who ride bicycles are not some squeaky clean breed. They play systematic game to get out of paying too.
Using a driving licence in this way ist not sensible justice nor does it mean person will pay up to CSA either.
This payment has to be means tested for both parents too. exactly according to need und what can be afforded out of modest wages without compromising a new relationship und family resultant from this.
Of course Papa should be repsonsible for his part in bringing a life into world - but he should also not be treated in such an unfair fashion either.
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
As for CSA und its proposed replacement. I am totally against for following reasons:
1. Removing the privileged or rather earned right to drive a car by passing test und keeping relatively safe und compliant would really limit job prospects. He may be required to drive on company business from time to time. He may be suited to delivery drives for internet shopper vans or whatever, He cannot get freelance taxi work (if qualified for this) How can someone pay out if lack of driving licence prevent securing of well paid job out of town,, in business park miles out of town or if job require odd bit of driving.
2. Tagging - that implies "criminal" und what if job has shifts? Shiftss which are not in bus time tabled hours? Und he has this "curfew"?
3. Taking passport? What if job has element of business travel? Not everyone has passport just for jollies....
Ist ridiculous to do this und you that too lieber von if you are honest with yourself
One ist not saying man should not be responsible for what he sires und reaps the sows he seeds (und I am sure the pay on word will not be lost on lieber cymtriks
with whom I had argument on this subject as man ist just as responsible). But... there are - und we all know this - some out there who have the one night stands .. several one night stands und does not know which of these men ist Papa. She pick the one she think ist the "richest" - und he get lumbered as he cannot disprove without paternity test - which she refuses to allow child to have of course.
Ja - cymtriks - I know darned well that there are some nasty little pieces of work around - my argument with you was tarring us all the same und suggesting we should get sack for having kittens (Ist off topic - sort of... we are on about losing licence for something not related to skill of driving to COAST - so not too far a drifter ) So - these persons get hit with whammy of tags, driving ban - because they cannot afford to hand over something which they have not negotiated nor even in line with their financial commitments.
That ist wrong. Wrong to point of "anarchic" or simple rebellious behaviour for some.
They already have the means to pay, it is because they simply choose not to that they get disqualified. How does affecting their job/ability to pay suddenly stop them paying when they already have the means to but choose not to ?
They've made their choice on that score already.
If you remove their means of earning that money - defeat objective of getting the cash from them. There are other means. Normally it go via payroll und they deduct at source und pay over end of month to the agency concerned. They do not have to write out cheque themselves. Payroll clerks deal with this.
Man can give up job und go on benefit himself .. but even then up to this CSA to then liaise with the benefit office und take what could be afforded out of handouts. There are all kind of means open to secure that paternal responsibility.
But removing driving licence und potential job prospects ist not the way to collect monies due to ex-wife or girlfriend left holding the baby. Und the one night stand lad - he never 100% certain ist his - und she will not agree to test the child to establish for sure.
Of course - there are ways und means not to pro-create in first place
(Not that they worked for me.. had Lukas und Rachael unexpectedly - but I see them as a miracle bonus given what happened. I could never imagine life without them -- love all my kittens anyway.) Und am happily married to Mad Doc too.
vonhosen said:
It's not designed that people who can't afford pay get disqualified, it's people who can afford to pay but simply refuse to.
Unless self-employed - this go through a payroll department und they deduct at source. Some may change jobs or go on dole to get out of it - but that ist when they get stung with the arrears on top. Und when they demand half the earnings at that point.. that ist when it get very difficult for these men. Especially if no access rights either. So - whilst I say man should be responsible und pay for nights of hot passion und woman should not be left holding a baby with zero help from him - there still has to be modicum of reason applied.
Restricting job prospects und travel ist not this modicum of reason.
Other means are of course used first, the disqualification & imprisonment are last ditch efforts, not the first port of call.
It still defeats object. Conviction und loss of licence prevent his earning anything to pay up.
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
jasandjules said:
The problem with removing a driving license for non-payment of CSA money is that the CSA is full of I can only assume on drugs halfwits, who no doubt will randomly submit the wrong info. People who lose their cars can often lose their jobs, so they not only don't pay the CSA money, but they then claim benefits as well. The amount the CSA decides is "reasonable" can be utterly preposterous, and has led to suicides.
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
The CSA can't impose a disqualification, the court does.
If you drive whilst disqualified then you'll receive the same fate awaits you as anyone else who does that.
But it still not a correct way of dealing with a problem. A driving ban should only be imposed if a traffic rule has been infringed to extent that it place others in danger.
To disqualify or prevent man learning to drive because he fail to pay CSA by being made redundant or changing job und not informing of where he move to und CSA being so thick as they cannot find him depsite a trail of exchanged P45s und tax office records ist not on. This unfairly penalise one section of community who drive car und not the one who ride bike. Also how do they know the person who does not drive want to drive. People who ride bicycles are not some squeaky clean breed. They play systematic game to get out of paying too.
Using a driving licence in this way ist not sensible justice nor does it mean person will pay up to CSA either.
This payment has to be means tested for both parents too. exactly according to need und what can be afforded out of modest wages without compromising a new relationship und family resultant from this.
Of course Papa should be repsonsible for his part in bringing a life into world - but he should also not be treated in such an unfair fashion either.
If the disqualification option is not open to the court, then they may use the last sanction for those cases instead.
WildCat said:
It still defeats object. Conviction und loss of licence prevent his earning anything to pay up.
But if he is not paying anyway, the disqualification is not affecting his ability to pay because he is already not doing it, so his earnings aren't going to change that. If his intent is to pay they won't disqualify.
Sending him to prison is costlier still (he can't earn there & it costs us more) but if he wilfully refuses that's what could happen.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th August 17:22
vonhosen said:
Signs warn you that you are in a camera enforcement area. The sign is not a specific warning of the individual site placement. It is a generic, not a specific warning, that is merely designed for you to obey the limit through the entire area. It is not designed or displayed just to change the behaviour on approach to the actual enforcement site (as it was adjudged the man in this cases' warning was intended to do).
We know there must be a sign to warn of specific camera sites; the signs ARE warning of specific camera sites - as well as non-enforcement sites so they still have the overall effect at the specific speed camera sites.
Anyway, so all it would take is for just one civvie to deliberately warn of enforcement where there is no specific enforcement at that time and the whole argument would come crashing down?
vonhosen said:
The court doesn't have to impose a disqualification, it is an option NOT mandatory.
Just as all motoring cases that carry & discretionary disqualification don't result in a disqualification now (infact the vast majority don't), then so it would be in these cases. each case dealt with on it's merits, but it is an option open to the court where appropriate.
Just as all motoring cases that carry & discretionary disqualification don't result in a disqualification now (infact the vast majority don't), then so it would be in these cases. each case dealt with on it's merits, but it is an option open to the court where appropriate.
Valid point, but do you trust the courts to hand out common sense judgements and sentences?
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
jasandjules said:
The problem with removing a driving license for non-payment of CSA money is that the CSA is full of I can only assume on drugs halfwits, who no doubt will randomly submit the wrong info. People who lose their cars can often lose their jobs, so they not only don't pay the CSA money, but they then claim benefits as well. The amount the CSA decides is "reasonable" can be utterly preposterous, and has led to suicides.
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
Plus, I utterly object to a punishment being levied which has nothing to do with the crime. I suppose once the CSA have revoked your license then you just drive without a license, and of course you also can't get insured. Still....
The CSA can't impose a disqualification, the court does.
If you drive whilst disqualified then you'll receive the same fate awaits you as anyone else who does that.
But it still not a correct way of dealing with a problem. A driving ban should only be imposed if a traffic rule has been infringed to extent that it place others in danger.
To disqualify or prevent man learning to drive because he fail to pay CSA by being made redundant or changing job und not informing of where he move to und CSA being so thick as they cannot find him depsite a trail of exchanged P45s und tax office records ist not on. This unfairly penalise one section of community who drive car und not the one who ride bike. Also how do they know the person who does not drive want to drive. People who ride bicycles are not some squeaky clean breed. They play systematic game to get out of paying too.
Using a driving licence in this way ist not sensible justice nor does it mean person will pay up to CSA either.
This payment has to be means tested for both parents too. exactly according to need und what can be afforded out of modest wages without compromising a new relationship und family resultant from this.
Of course Papa should be repsonsible for his part in bringing a life into world - but he should also not be treated in such an unfair fashion either.
If the disqualification option is not open to the court, then they may use the last sanction for those cases instead.
Still not right. What if he ist a car hating lycra lout or tree hugger. Ist myth about lycra und fertility
So because they declare that they dislike cars - they end up in jail? That cannot be right either. vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
It still defeats object. Conviction und loss of licence prevent his earning anything to pay up.
But if he is not paying anyway, the disqualification is not affecting his ability to pay because he is already not doing it, so his earnings aren't going to change that. If his intent is to pay they won't disqualify.
But CSA normally notify employer who has to deduct at source after tax. They have legal obligation to do so - else they get fined.
If bloke ist self employed - then he ist responsible for his own cheque to these people. Und he may have the odd cash flow problem from time to time. But he would still need to be able to drive to get A to B to see customers - whatever he does.
vonhosen said:
Sending him to prison is costlier still (he can't earn there & it costs us more) but if he wilfully refuses that's what could happen.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th August 17:22
Und in meantime - burglar run free because ist traumatic for him to get copped und up before beak
Perhaps better to send bailiffs then. After all might as well be burgled "legally" on proviso no more cash after assets of telly und hi-fi sold
See - there are other ways - not necessarily pleasanter - but at least they keep person without a criminal record around his neck.
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
Signs warn you that you are in a camera enforcement area. The sign is not a specific warning of the individual site placement. It is a generic, not a specific warning, that is merely designed for you to obey the limit through the entire area. It is not designed or displayed just to change the behaviour on approach to the actual enforcement site (as it was adjudged the man in this cases' warning was intended to do).
We know there must be a sign to warn of specific camera sites; the signs ARE warning of specific camera sites - as well as non-enforcement sites so they still have the overall effect at the specific speed camera sites.
Anyway, so all it would take is for just one civvie to deliberately warn of enforcement where there is no specific enforcement at that time and the whole argument would come crashing down?
If you warn where there isn't any specific enforcement taking place you are not obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty (because there is no constable there on speed enforcement duty). That is the offence he was convicted of, so I don't understand how someone waves a card at a non enforcement site it will make no difference at all.
In the case of this man, the prosecution proved to the satisfaction of the court that the man wilfully (with intent) obstructed the officers doing speed enforcement.
WildCat said:
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
It still defeats object. Conviction und loss of licence prevent his earning anything to pay up.
But if he is not paying anyway, the disqualification is not affecting his ability to pay because he is already not doing it, so his earnings aren't going to change that. If his intent is to pay they won't disqualify.
But CSA normally notify employer who has to deduct at source after tax. They have legal obligation to do so - else they get fined.
If bloke ist self employed - then he ist responsible for his own cheque to these people. Und he may have the odd cash flow problem from time to time. But he would still need to be able to drive to get A to B to see customers - whatever he does.
vonhosen said:
Sending him to prison is costlier still (he can't earn there & it costs us more) but if he wilfully refuses that's what could happen.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th August 17:22
Und in meantime - burglar run free because ist traumatic for him to get copped und up before beak
Perhaps better to send bailiffs then. After all might as well be burgled "legally" on proviso no more cash after assets of telly und hi-fi sold
See - there are other ways - not necessarily pleasanter - but at least they keep person without a criminal record around his neck.
As I've already said, the disqualification & imprisonment is for where other methods have been tried & failed. They are the last chance saloon.
Glassman said:
So, Mr. Sex-seeking-pervy-bloke gets a driving ban for loooking up a bit of brass and gets banned from driving... what will it say on his license...??
There are 2 possible offence codes, VD69 & HIV1. The former is a minor irritant and can be overturned, the latter is somewhat more long-term
Law ist then such an ass. How can disqualifying a man from driving or jail benefit anyone?
Most work for someone anyway und all payroll clerks up und down country - whether public or private sector - big or small business - will be processing this at source from employee's pay packet after tax/NI, union und other deductions made.
If self-employed - he pay himself - but then he may be paying alimony und may have already made a whopping settlement when he divorce. He then hounded for yet more money.
If one night stand lad - we agree he must face up to his responsibility - but how many times do they pester the wrong lad?
Und what if she bye-pass ses altogether und use a donor. Should she then get into straits as kittens are expensive - conceivably they could introduce law whereby he landed with bother. Ist why we had that heart breaking story in press about the woman who had cancer. She had frozen test tube foetus - the pair agreed to do this. She ist infertile after the treatment. Couple break up. She wants to use the test tube embryos und have the children she aches for. He refuse to allow - he get hounded by CSA und sadly for her - court sided with the father und these frozen embryos are destroyed. I am sure that if he could have guaranteed immunity from this as her decision only und not his.... then he may have been more sympathetic to his ex as she wanted these with her new partner... she ached for family. But my advice to her would be to assuage that ache by fostering und adopting. You get a lot of reward from this.
Ist off topic - but ist perhaps another slant as to why CSA or itss replacement must seek to only target those Papas who renege on their responsibility. But that does not mean using a driving licence withdrawal as a weapon against them either. Nor should it mean tagging or seizing a passport either on basis that this compromises ability to pay up.
Perhaps bailiffs to seize assets within reason for default of paying - still very harsh und lieber cymtriks already think I want men to pay for my fertility und that all wimmin are "leeching bitches" (und no - cymtriks did not say or post that either - those are my words und I do not deny that some let womanhood down badly - very badly und that ist perhaps apt description for those who really try to take a bloke to proverbial cleaners und want a meal ticket - child ist just an appendage or fashion item for these - means to an end.) . But I know cymtriks und a lot of the chaps on here will think "bailiffs seizing assets" ist OTT harsh - but ist still less so than a driving ban, tagging, seizing passport und a jail term.
You do not post in P&P - von Liebchen. You should get out more often to the PH "virtual pub"
But we had most interesting thread on the career Mama.. und like all good conversations - we veered off topic und ended up talking about maternity leave und rights und impact on an employer. Basically I think poor cymtriks had truly awful experience in past - how it came across... und being merciless over comment that he - as a boss - should not pay for my fertility und jobs should not be kept open - I naturally argued from point of view of successful toppest scientist career woman.. und hammered him 
I think he know me well enough - und it was civil und polite all the time - which ist how it should be - und you also civil und polite too und I think we agree on many issue but disagree on some. Ist again how it should be as life would be far too dull if we all agreed like robots anyway
I do not think I veer off topic too much. Ist about a driving licence being used as a weapon for all sorts of "perceived wrongs" und disqualifcation to drive or capability und privileged right to possess a licence should only be used if person ist clearly unfit or too dangerous to have one. Whatever else he do in life ist not a part of this privileged right - won by passing an exam in shape of a written und practical driving test, insurance certificate und a well -maintained vehicle. Like the right to be in a professionally acclaimed body - be it legal, police, medicine, nursing, optical, dentistry, vetinary, accountancy, banking, whatever. Und all of these bodies have system of disciplinaries should a member of the profession infringe the professional rules too. You cannot then jeopardise with something not to do with these skills or earned privileges with something unrelated to them.
If a payment ist defaulted - then ist a case of bailiffs und filing for bankruptcy to scare to pay. Spiteful punishment achieve nothing in reality und it just make the truly wide boys out there more artful in dodging too
Most work for someone anyway und all payroll clerks up und down country - whether public or private sector - big or small business - will be processing this at source from employee's pay packet after tax/NI, union und other deductions made.
If self-employed - he pay himself - but then he may be paying alimony und may have already made a whopping settlement when he divorce. He then hounded for yet more money.
If one night stand lad - we agree he must face up to his responsibility - but how many times do they pester the wrong lad?
Und what if she bye-pass ses altogether und use a donor. Should she then get into straits as kittens are expensive - conceivably they could introduce law whereby he landed with bother. Ist why we had that heart breaking story in press about the woman who had cancer. She had frozen test tube foetus - the pair agreed to do this. She ist infertile after the treatment. Couple break up. She wants to use the test tube embryos und have the children she aches for. He refuse to allow - he get hounded by CSA und sadly for her - court sided with the father und these frozen embryos are destroyed. I am sure that if he could have guaranteed immunity from this as her decision only und not his.... then he may have been more sympathetic to his ex as she wanted these with her new partner... she ached for family. But my advice to her would be to assuage that ache by fostering und adopting. You get a lot of reward from this.
Ist off topic - but ist perhaps another slant as to why CSA or itss replacement must seek to only target those Papas who renege on their responsibility. But that does not mean using a driving licence withdrawal as a weapon against them either. Nor should it mean tagging or seizing a passport either on basis that this compromises ability to pay up.
Perhaps bailiffs to seize assets within reason for default of paying - still very harsh und lieber cymtriks already think I want men to pay for my fertility
und that all wimmin are "leeching bitches" (und no - cymtriks did not say or post that either - those are my words und I do not deny that some let womanhood down badly - very badly und that ist perhaps apt description for those who really try to take a bloke to proverbial cleaners und want a meal ticket - child ist just an appendage or fashion item for these - means to an end.) . But I know cymtriks und a lot of the chaps on here will think "bailiffs seizing assets" ist OTT harsh - but ist still less so than a driving ban, tagging, seizing passport und a jail term. You do not post in P&P - von Liebchen. You should get out more often to the PH "virtual pub"
But we had most interesting thread on the career Mama.. und like all good conversations - we veered off topic und ended up talking about maternity leave und rights und impact on an employer. Basically I think poor cymtriks had truly awful experience in past - how it came across... und being merciless over comment that he - as a boss - should not pay for my fertility und jobs should not be kept open - I naturally argued from point of view of successful toppest scientist career woman.. und hammered him I think he know me well enough - und it was civil und polite all the time - which ist how it should be - und you also civil und polite too und I think we agree on many issue but disagree on some. Ist again how it should be as life would be far too dull if we all agreed like robots anyway I do not think I veer off topic too much. Ist about a driving licence being used as a weapon for all sorts of "perceived wrongs" und disqualifcation to drive or capability und privileged right to possess a licence should only be used if person ist clearly unfit or too dangerous to have one. Whatever else he do in life ist not a part of this privileged right - won by passing an exam in shape of a written und practical driving test, insurance certificate und a well -maintained vehicle. Like the right to be in a professionally acclaimed body - be it legal, police, medicine, nursing, optical, dentistry, vetinary, accountancy, banking, whatever. Und all of these bodies have system of disciplinaries should a member of the profession infringe the professional rules too. You cannot then jeopardise with something not to do with these skills or earned privileges with something unrelated to them.
If a payment ist defaulted - then ist a case of bailiffs und filing for bankruptcy to scare to pay. Spiteful punishment achieve nothing in reality und it just make the truly wide boys out there more artful in dodging too
WildCat said:
Law ist then such an ass. How can disqualifying a man from driving or jail benefit anyone?
It isn't cost effective sending practically anyone to prison. If cost effectiveness is the only criteria we are going to do it on, you may as well give a lot of the people you send to prison £30k a year to stay at home & promise to be good boys & girls.
Your post seems to go on about those who can't afford to pay again. Those aren't the ones who will be disqualified or sent to prison. It's wilfull non payers who can afford to but refuse.
As I've said many times other options would be tried first. These options are where the court is left with no choice because of the contemptual disregard displayed.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th August 19:05
Quinny said:
vonhosen said:
Quinny said:
Ok so someone who dosen't pay up to the CSA can have his licence taken away, and this could be a real punishment, although I think it's totally out of order for a non motoring offence
But what about the guy who dosen't drive, and also refuses to pay up to the CSA?
He obviously receives a different punishment,
Where's the fairness in that?
But what about the guy who dosen't drive, and also refuses to pay up to the CSA?
He obviously receives a different punishment,
Where's the fairness in that?
It's not just taking it away, if you don't have one you are disqualified from applying for one, so even those who don't have one yet can be punished.
Looks like I'll have to spell it out for the full understanding to come across,
Ok what about the guy who dosen't drive, dosen't have a license and has no intention of ever getting one.
Remember not everyone wants a license in the first place.
Also the guy that was banned for obstructing the police with his sign.
What if he had been a none motorist? He'd have probably just got a fine right?
So in my view this type of punishment for non motoring offences, ie not being behind the wheel, is punative and unfair.
Why should someone who has a license be treated differently?
How Tony B Liar and his cronies got this one through un challenged I'll never know.
Probably some other form of anti terrorist law that the authorities can abuse at will
Then custodial sentences are an option. The disqualification is an option to avoid that eventuality where it could be used.
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
You do appear to be working on the basis that the government can make whatever rules it likes, whether or not they are a reasonable response to a problem. Might is right, eh? Well no it isn't always right.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
As we've already discussed it doesn't have to be in relation to *his* driving. This case nevertheless related to vehicle offences being commited & the mans part in the obstruction of justice being administered for those offences being commited. The court was of the opinion that the man wasn't warning of a collision hot spot, he was instead warning drivers so that they could change there behaviour short term in order to evade capture for an offence they were already commiting.
They can make such laws where they hold a sufficient majority & sway to get them through parliament. We can show our displeasure at the ballot box, which didn't happen in sufficient numbers at the last 3 elections did it ?
Yes, quite clearly governments can do this kind of thing and they do, but I still feel it is a misuse of their powers.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
WildCat said:
Law ist then such an ass. How can disqualifying a man from driving or jail benefit anyone?
It isn't cost effective sending practically anyone to prison. If cost effectiveness is the only criteria we are going to do it on, you may as well give a lot of the people you send to prison £30k a year to stay at home & promise to be good boys & girls.
Your post seems to go on about those who can't afford to pay again. Those aren't the ones who will be disqualified or sent to prison. It's wilfull non payers who can afford to but refuse.
As I've said many times other options would be tried first. These options are where the court is left with no choice because of the contemptual disregard displayed.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 6th August 19:05
Nein - most payrolls are given a notice to deduct by CSA. They required to do so - by law.
Of those defaulting - possibly self employed und we really do have to consider cash flows.
We also need to look at why these people are refusing to pay too. Are they really the Papa? One night stand und a lot of sex... und she will not subject the child to any test. Accused papa has his doubts. Another contend a career Mama.. out for screwing as much as she can get without having to work for her living.
You think I do not know? Liebchen .... when Papa does not pay und woman herself ist a scrounger und authorities try to get her into work und send on skills course.. we foster the kittens. We even try to help the Mama cope too. Some still in contact with us. We help out... we assist with her child care in emergency as we know the little child too. Ist not "noble or altruistic" - but we try to help a fellow human as this ist a civilised und Christian thing to do. We do attend Church in our family. We are not religious nutters - but we think our having a "faith of basic human church based decency" does help balance us. We never say Papa ist not responsible. He ist und should contribute. But I still do not think prison or taking a licence ist correct when a bailiff can remove assets to required value instead. He cannot stop this. Court order und under police/magistrate warrant of empowerment to seize.
I know to some - seem very harsh - but I say less so und less cost to me as a taxpayer than jail, driving ban und further drain on public purses.
TripleS said:
vonhosen said:
TripleS said:
You do appear to be working on the basis that the government can make whatever rules it likes, whether or not they are a reasonable response to a problem. Might is right, eh? Well no it isn't always right.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
As we've already discussed it doesn't have to be in relation to *his* driving. This case nevertheless related to vehicle offences being commited & the mans part in the obstruction of justice being administered for those offences being commited. The court was of the opinion that the man wasn't warning of a collision hot spot, he was instead warning drivers so that they could change there behaviour short term in order to evade capture for an offence they were already commiting.
They can make such laws where they hold a sufficient majority & sway to get them through parliament. We can show our displeasure at the ballot box, which didn't happen in sufficient numbers at the last 3 elections did it ?
Yes, quite clearly governments can do this kind of thing and they do, but I still feel it is a misuse of their powers.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Liebchen - so right.
Law ist a right ass. Look - I do not want woman left holding the baby. Take two to make one und man should also be held to account und pay whatever he can realistically afford.
One night stand man not 100% certain he ist Papa. Law should override woman to determine paternity in this case.
Ex -Partner - settled a divorce requirement - generously. As far as he concerned - he paid in advance. He has no right of access either. He ist very bitter about all this. He default in protest. I think he has right to be heard und a negotiated und fairer amount decided.
Spiteful punishment should never be handed down to anyone in any case. Nor should an "easy" target be made. On this I would be pro-cymtriks argument down the P&P last week
vonhosen said:
If you warn where there isn't any specific enforcement taking place you are not obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty (because there is no constable there on speed enforcement duty). That is the offence he was convicted of, so I don't understand how someone waves a card at a non enforcement site it will make no difference at all.
You said (my paraphrasing) warning signs are present at enforcement sites where cameras may or may not be present (‘generic not specific’ ); I replied with the parallel example of civvies holding/placing signs where cameras may or may not be present – both resulting with drivers evading prosecution at actual camera sites, this resulting with the previous question of the difference between civvies warnings and real signs. [wildly off topic but there you go]
vonhosen said:
In the case of this man, the prosecution proved to the satisfaction of the court that the man wilfully (with intent) obstructed the officers doing speed enforcement.
On balance yes, but I reckon it might have been possible to get him off on appeal using arguments of current signage and fake civvie signage.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff