The Political Thread

[Professor Bear]

Some legal arguments are just that - arguments.  If you have the money and an indulgent judge, you can pay your barrister to effectively filibuster with semantics until the other guy runs out of cash.

You've seen too many films.

Then so have Avril Lavigne's lawyers - and it didn't stop them sending the Rubinoos packing with a token settlement.

Although in fairness I think Lavigne probably heard the LUSH cover.

[Jim_Campbell]

you don't have to have signed something to be under effective obligation to pay.

Jim

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

Some legal arguments are just that - arguments.  If you have the money and an indulgent judge, you can pay your barrister to effectively filibuster with semantics until the other guy runs out of cash.

You've seen too many films.

Then so have Avril Lavigne's lawyers - and it didn't stop them sending the Rubinoos packing with a token settlement.

Although in fairness I think Lavigne probably heard the LUSH cover.

I'll see your YouTube and raise you Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & Others v Fattal & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 297.

This is the quickest case I could find on abuse of process where you bring successive actions in respect of the same subject matter. That, practically, is how you would filibuster. And, normally, it's not allowed. You cannot go back over old ground and re-open arguments, not without some pretty good reason to do so.

[The Legendary Shark]

The distinction between the two words is important but not as important as the distinction between legislative law and common law. Legal relates to legislative law and lawful relates to common or natural law. These two branches of law have conflated over the years, muddying the definitions.
.
No, you don't have to have signed something to be under effective obligation to pay - but you have to have agreed to it. One person cannot arbitrarily impose a charge on another, there has to be some form of agreement, either by action or written or verbal contract. Take my earlier example of doing uninvited gardening for somebody and then demanding payment. It doesn't work like that.
.
Regarding the TV License, you are quoting legislation, which is fair enough, but common law trumps legislation every time. Under common law, I can't charge someone for something I'm doing in general if they don't want to pay. Just because the BBC is broadcasting signals openly and I have a TV that doesn't give them the right to arbitrarily charge anyone. If they don't want me to receive their signals they should scramble them and charge me for a decoder. If they can't fund themselves with all the money they make from international services, DVD sales, programme sales and such then that isn't my problem. I'm willing to contribute, sure, ask me for something and I'll consider donating what I can afford (that kind of thing works for hospices and lifeboats and air ambulances) but come after me with a demand backed up by force then I'm not interested. It's the same as me saying "I put my posts on this public forum and I need money so you owe me £X per year for reading them and if you don't pay I'll force it out of you." The difference is only one of scale. Same with the Council Charge (it's not a tax) - I have no problem donating what I can afford, hell, I'll even give you a few hours of work a week sweeping the streets or scrubbing graffiti off walls in return, but the council has no lawful right to demand anything. It's the council's job to do these things, if they cannot meet their obligations with the ostensible tax money they receive from central government, that's not my fault. I don't go to work, receive my wages and then charge my employer a Me Tax because I can't make ends meet and, if my employer refuses to pay my Me Tax, send in the bailiffs. Maybe the council would like to borrow some money off me to help it out but no, it demands and threatens and is that I object to. They work for me, not the other way around.

[Professor Bear]

The Licence Fee is a terrible example, as I haven't paid it in years by simply removing the aerial (the BBC decoder, if you will) from my house and thus no longer qualify.  You don't want to pay the LF, then you can't watch terrestrial telly, that seems perfectly fair to me.
I'd pay the LF on principle, though, if the BBC stopped being such a mouthpiece for rich right wing cunts.

I'll see your YouTube and raise you Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd & Others v Fattal & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 297.

It's not that I think you're lying, it's just that either you're right or Good Wife is.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

It might be different in the States, granted, but I doubt it. No sane judge would allow it. They have targets to meet and very little time.

[The Legendary Shark]

Good point, Seagull, and there are other factors including the private company set up to collect the LF, deposit the money off-shore to avoid tax, give the BBC some of it and use the rest to make more tax-free money.

[Professor Bear]

I am not sure if that is entirely what happens.

[The Legendary Shark]

Actually, nor am I now. It's a few years since I read about Capita doing that and now I can't find any reference to it. To be on the safe side, I retract that statement.
.
There are shennanigans, though:
.
www.tvlicenceresistance.info/bbc-accused-of-tv-licence-rip-off/
.
conversation.which.co.uk/money/tv-licence-fee-payment-plan-direct-debit-charges-government/

[Dandontdare]

Legal is not the same as lawful. What was lawful 1,000 years ago remains lawful today.

Yes but legislation SUPERSEDES historical lawfulness - or would you consider child marriage, rape and a dozen types of animal cruelty to be perfectly lawful activities that the state should not be able to stop you from doing? 1000 years ago you'd be seen as a freak for even raising an objection to them.

[The Legendary Shark]

No, DDD, legislation does not automatically supercede common law. The main planks of common law remain solid. It was always unlawful to cause harm but the definition of harm does change over time and is defined by case law and common attitudes of society. Case law, evolving through the courts, does gradually extend the scope of common law and is more valid than legislative law. Just because certain legislation happens to agree with the common law, or attempt to refine definitions, that's not the same a superceding it.
.
If the government passed legislation tomorrow making murder, rape or theft legal, that legislation would not supercede common law. The first court challenge would strike down this legislation instantly.
.
I'm not saying that legislation is all useless and invalid, far from it. Legislation can be useful in defining law but, as the lowest form of law, is most useful in an advisory capacity.
.

[Steven Denton]

Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, for example, now carries a mandatory life sentence rather than the death penalty.

[The Legendary Shark]

Again, no. What you are talking about there is punishment. The common law says that murder is wrong and that's it. The punishment for transgressing that law is decided seperately by societies and their judicial systems and beliefs. Though the punishments may change, thou shalt not kill remains constant.

[IndigoPrime]

Just because the BBC is broadcasting signals openly and I have a TV that doesn't give them the right to arbitrarily charge anyone.

YOU. ARE. USING. THE. SERVICE. I assume if you're against paying council tax, which in part pays for road maintenance, you think the council should employ someone to ensure you don't leave your house and step on (and thereby use) said roads?

If they can't fund themselves with all the money they make from [...] DVD sales

The DVD sales from BBC Worldwide, you mean, which is a commercial subsidiary and that supplements the income received through the licence fee, thereby making it lower? Good grief. Still, the BBC probably won't be a problem for everyone soon. There will be cheering in the streets as the hideous £145.50 fee vanishes, along with most of the BBC. That we'll likely respond in a similar way to other countries who've lost their public broadcaster within a decade or so (essentially: "Fuck.") is neither here nor there.

Same with the Council Charge (it's not a tax)

So don't use the services. It really is that simple. Find out what the council does for you, and don't use any of it if you won't pay. Anything else is hypocrisy.

[Steven Denton]

nope. what I'm saying is 'Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament' the example was an element of a law so you latch onto and interpreted that. you then categorised it as a punishment and disregarded the whole statement based on that.