The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

This seems to me to be indicative of prevailing views on society, views I am increasingly finding myself at odds with. If you don't pay for a t.v. license then you don't deserve a telly.

I emphatically did not say that. I said that your insistence that contract law is applicable in the example you gave is just plain wrong and people following your advice would find themselves on the fast track to a large fine and a criminal record.

In fact, I was advancing the idea of the BBC being an example of social infrastructure, of benefit to the fabric of the nation as a whole, which we all pay for because we are part of that society and, much like the NHS, not because we anticipate extracting the precise monetary value of our contributions from that service in return.

Jim

[Theblazeuk]

I find attitudes to the t.v. license interesting. The consensus seems to be either pay up or throw away your television (and, presumably, your radio as well).
.

That's a gross misrepresentation. Where does anyone say anything of the sort?

[Theblazeuk]

What event and what group of people actually ended the First World War? The answers to those questions aren't any of the ones which just popped into your head:

http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/world-war/1240

V.interesting and just goes to show why Charlies War is so bloody special.

[The Legendary Shark]

Apologies, Jim - it was not my intent to charge you specifically with any views. The views I describe are simply the views of large sections of society as I perceive them.
.
My understanding of contract law is that it is the basis, or one of the major bases, of our entire social and legal systems. Contracts between people are fundamental to the rule of law in this country - ostensibly, at least.
.
For example, I could send Jim a demand for £150 a year for the pleasure of reading my posts - I have, after all, spent time and resources writing them and feel I need compensating for that (in this thought experiment, that is - in reality I know that my rantings and poor wordsmithery aren't worth a dull button).
.
So, I've sent Jim a demand for £150 and now he has four options: 1) He ignores it but this is dangerous as, under law, failure to object indicates acceptance, which leaves him open to my suing him for the full amount plus expenses. Now, Jim might feel confident that he could beat this, and so would I, but with a sharp enough lawyer working for me you never know. 2) Jim could negotiate with me, knocking the payment down to £1.50 a year (or even £1,500 if he thinks my witterings are worth it) by entering into a contract. 3) He could simply just pay up, which he might if my paperwork seemed official enough. 4) He could write back to me thanking me for my invitation but declining to enrol in my little scheme.
.
Now then, let's say that Jim and I both sign a contract whereby he agrees to pay me £150 a year provided that I write at least 52 posts a year. If then I send Jim my demand for payment and he refuses, I can sue him for breach of contract (assuming I've held up my end) and would have a good chance of winning. Conversely, if I fail to write my 52 posts per year, Jim could sue me for breach of contract.
.
In short, nobody can just demand money from you without a contract, no matter what they give you. There are two major factors which all contracts must possess in order to be valid and enforcible; a contract must be mutually consentual and must contain reasonable expectations.
.
Scaling my thought experiment up, replace my posts with the BBC's output and replace Jim with everyone who owns a television. Sure, the BBC could be the best broadcaster on Earth, with the best news service, the best sports coverage and the best educational and entertainment programs ever devised - but so what? If the BBC wants to limit its output to paying customers then it should go PPV, not demand funds through some Draconian, blanket license fee that it touts as obligatory.
.
Once again, Jim, I apologise for appearing to put words in your mouth. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I have neither the right nor the authority to do so, I'm simply trying to explain my world as I see it, not to change your world. The only person with any right to change your world is you (not just the 'you' of Jim - all of you) and the only person with any right to impose a contract on you, is you. You are the sovereign of your own world and nobody else's (except, maybe, for children and people in your care - and even then there are limits under common law).
.
We all have just as much right to say no as we have to say yes. The choice is yours - at least, the choice is yours in a free country.
.

[Jim_Campbell]

In short, nobody can just demand money from you without a contract, no matter what they give you. There are two major factors which all contracts must possess in order to be valid and enforcible; a contract must be mutually consentual and must contain reasonable expectations.

Again. You are wrong. I'm not immune from prosecution from murder because no one can produce a contract I've signed undertaking to never kill anyone. Criminal law does not work like that.

At present, although the Tories are seriously muttering about changing it*, non-payment of the TV license is a criminal offence. Saying "Aha! You have no contract so I will not pay!" will get you a large fine and a criminal record.

I'm not disputing the moral or philosophical dimensions of whether that's right or wrong, but I assure you that's how it is.

Jim

*Because, of course, weakening the BBC to the benefit of Rupert Murdoch is an outcome we'd all like to see...

[The Legendary Shark]

Your example is spurious, Jim, because murder is against the common law. (Euthenasia might be a different matter, though, in theory at least. If a vet puts my dog down against my wishes then I'd have a case against that vet but if I have a contract with that vet, either written or (to a lesser degree) verbal, then I have no recourse. (This is, of course, a very simplistic scenario which ignores all the complexities of the real world.) This contract would be valid as killing animals is not (in general) against the common law.)
.
But, if I sign a contract with someone to kill my grandmother then both that someone and myself would be guilty of murder as killing grandmothers is against the common law. Also in this case, if granny is unaware of the contract, the contract itself is illegal as granny did not consent and neither is it reasonable to expect that she would want to be killed.
.
If granny herself signs a contract with her killer, of course, the issues get more complex. Granny has the right under common law to die if she wants to but nobody has the right under common law to kill her. (This seems to me to be the basic legal problem at the heart of the euthanasia debate - the right to die versus the illegality of murder.)
.
And the way to do it is not to say, "I have no contract so I won't pay" - the way to do it is to say, "sure I'll pay. I'll pay anything you want so long as I'm contractually obliged to do so and you can produce said contract."
.

[Jim_Campbell]

And the way to do it is not to say, "I have no contract so I won't pay" - the way to do it is to say, "sure I'll pay. I'll pay anything you want so long as I'm contractually obliged to do so and you can produce said contract."

No. Just fucking no. At this point, I'm just going to walk away from this because you have no idea what you're talking about. Try what you advocate: just try it. I guarantee you that the outcome will be a large fine and a criminal record.

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

I have tried it, Jim. In three years, the worst that happened was an inspector turning up at my door. I said politely to him "sorry, not interested," and closed the door. The result? A letter from the TV Licensing company saying they'd contact me in two years with another invitation to purchase a license. No fine, no criminal record. As soon as they know that you know their game, they back off.
.
You need to know how to do it properly, though, which words to use and so on. There are plenty of sites on the web that explain how to do this. Some are rubbish but a few are spot on - you need to do your research first though and a good place to start that research is at www.getoutofdebtfree.org
.
The main thing is not to ignore their letters (remember, failure to object indicates acceptance) and not to be intimidated by their threats. The downside is that it's a pain in the butt to keep responding to their letters but it has to be done.
.
This is what's known as lawful rebellion.

[Jim_Campbell]

I have tried it, Jim. In three years, the worst that happened was an inspector turning up at my door. I said politely to him "sorry, not interested," and closed the door. The result? A letter from the TV Licensing company saying they'd contact me in two years with another invitation to purchase a license. No fine, no criminal record. As soon as they know that you know their game, they back off.

OK. Whatever you did magically circumvented the criminal justice system, but the 140,000 people who did get a criminal record in 2012 suggest that your example is the exception rather than the rule.

Jim

[Proudhuff]

[The Legendary Shark]

"Magically circumvented the criminal justice system"? How? What loss, harm or damage did I cause? Which lawful contract did I breach? Which lawful bill did I refuse to pay? In which way did I act dishonestly?
.
I do like the word "magically", though, as it puts me in mind of what Alan Moore says about words ("spells") having power. Legislative law is all about using the correct "spells" in the proper way.
.
I did not circumvent the law, I wielded it. Those 140,000 people were convicted because they succumbed to legislative law and ignored the basic common law of this country. The law does not belong to the courts, to the police or to the government - the law belongs to all of us (ergo, 'common law') and we must each learn how to use it properly.
.
I see myself as an explorer of the law, an explorer of freedom and an explorer of responsibility. Undoubtedly, my explorations have led me to a difficult and lonely place but that's not reason enough to make me give up.
.
And just to be absolutely clear, I neither expect nor want anyone to follow my example. In many ways I have no idea what I'm doing or where I'm going and when my knowledge fails, which happens fairly often, I rely on instinct.
.

[Professor Bear]

I have tried it, Jim. In three years, the worst that happened was an inspector turning up at my door. I said politely to him "sorry, not interested," and closed the door. The result? A letter from the TV Licensing company saying they'd contact me in two years with another invitation to purchase a license. No fine, no criminal record. As soon as they know that you know their game, they back off.

OK. Whatever you did magically circumvented the criminal justice system, but the 140,000 people who did get a criminal record in 2012 suggest that your example is the exception rather than the rule.

Jim

Sharky likely looked like more trouble than he was worth to the tv licence bod - as you yourself have opined as being the case in the discussion of contract law, Jim.  TV licencing payment is enforced by a third party and not the BBC themselves, and common practice in debt recovery on a large scale isn't to investigate and identify who has the means to repay their debt, but to keep hounding those most likely to be intimidated into paying regardless of their means.

I mentioned it before back in the sands of time of this thread how it came to light in Northern Ireland when they tried to introduce water bills as a separate charge on every household, someone in an official capacity asked the debt recovery firm employed to enforce bill payment how they would do this in the short and long term, and then someone promptly posted the polite and workmanlike response to the local media: in it, the firm explained they had a standard practice of victimising the most vulnerable members of society who owed them money as an example to everyone else - the elderly, the disabled, the poor, single parents, immigrants, and those with mental problems: in short anyone likely to react poorly to stress or authority figures - in order to force people to get in line when they see that others were being prosecuted, and this would be most important in the early days - not recovering what was owed, but deliberately seeking out the scalps of those who couldn't pay in order to legitimise the charge and create an atmosphere of fear, but if you deal in intimidation and fear, it goes both ways - Sharky likely scared the licencing bods off by appearing like he'd keep fighting his corner regardless of what the outcome may be, so they probably buggered off to find a heavily-in-debt single mum to bully instead.

It's worth noting that the water charge was not asked for by the public, overwhelmingly opposed, and already being covered by existing council and service taxes, so that people would be racking up a debt for something they'd already paid for and for which they had not entered into any contract.  What killed it* in the end wasn't shame, honesty, or concern for the will of the electorate, it was the fact that over 90 percent of the population wasn't going to pay and no-one wanted to carry the can for that.  Like many others, I for one was greatly disappointed that a government comprised of terrorists, religious fanatics, racists, and (worst of all) communists has not produced a political system that works in our interest.


* I say "killed", but it's merely been pushed back a few years while politicians find a way to introduce it by stealth.

[Frank]

Like many others, I for one was greatly disappointed that a government comprised of terrorists, religious fanatics, racists, and (worst of all) communists has not produced a political system that works in our interest.

I read every one of your glorious posts in eager anticipation of the topping sentence, dripping with sarcasm. The longer the post, the greater the building excitement inside me. You never let me down, and this - this, Professor - is a particularly fine example.

[Grugz]

why is it a criminal offence not to pay? its alright comparing it to  nhs and education but surely those are necessities rather than an entertainment service?

  sharky cant be touched now all he has to do is weigh anchor!

[Jim_Campbell]

why is it a criminal offence not to pay?

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point, is it? I specifically said I wasn't discussing the rights and wrongs of whether it was a criminal offence, only that it was.

I can see both sides to the argument, TBH. It seems like overkill to give people a criminal record for non-payment, but by the same token, the BBC argues (with some cause) that more people will fail to pay which just mean less money for the Corporation to do stuff.

And, as I say, the Tories current zeal for BBC 'reform' is more about weakening the BBC to give more power to Rupert Murdoch than it is any real concern for modernising the organisation.

Jim