The Political Thread

[Fungus]

A furious and scandalised - but obviously bewildered - nation respond by mistakenly increasing donations to the Just Giving page of the charity which administers the volunteer-staffed food banks by a factor of six.

No such thing as bad publicity.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Tell me you are even remotely surprised that the current government has declared war on the concept of charity.  Tell me you believe they even know what charity is.

The Tories do believe in a sort of Victorian philanthropy - eg. The Big Society - which they rather transparently would like to see replace the welfare state.

The specific issue Tories have with food banks is that they just don't understand why such things exist. IDS clearly believes a food bank is a sort of Marxist ploy to discredit his department's policies, and he has many supporters who pretty much feel the same. Obviously we're talking about rich people who have an almost total lack of empathy, so it's no wonder they can't imagine being poor enough not to be able to afford food, let alone that this might be the fault of their policies.

[TordelBack]

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kitten-block/

YOUR WELCOME1

Arsom.  Now if only my interactions with my own family could be mediated by Firefox...

[The Legendary Shark]

DadBlock Plus?

[Frank]

DadBlock Plus?

Norton Auntievirus.

[Recrewt]

Awful piece from the DM there.  I do hate the way they constantly vilify poor people and charities. 

[TordelBack]

DadBlock Plus?

Norton Auntievirus.

Sauchie wins!

[The Legendary Shark]

Update...

Nothing much has happened since the "benefits meeting" (where I agreed to claim housing benefit on provision that the Council do all the paperwork - which they agreed to). I have had a couple of letters from them, which (for reasons arising from the eighteen months or so of correspondence which basically state that I'm simply not going to read anything the Council sends me until it pays its bill for my services (dealing with their paperwork) and various fines (the Legal Notice on my front door explains that anyone turning up without an appointment is liable to a fine of £5,000, for example), which now stands at just north of £41,000) I've been returning these to sender unread. I have provided the Council with specific reply-paid envelopes which they can use for specific purposes such as paying up, negotiating the rent I pay (which I diligently knock off what they owe me every month) or requesting assistance in their dealings with the DWP but these envelopes have not been used. It's been business as usual for the last couple of months. All quiet.

Today - a hand-delivered "Notice of Eviction" appeared in my letterbox. It's unsigned and contains the addresses of both the Council and the Court but fails to mention which of those august bodies issued this document. It goes on to explain what is going to be done to me by bailiffs and how I can go on my knees to the Court at any time. Yeah, sure.

I check my records and this is exactly the same as the last one I got back in January - only the time and date of the eviction have changed. But this one was not preceeded by a letter from the Court informing me of a hearing - so they must be basing this new Notice on the original, discredited hearing.

So I get my red Sharpie and write on the Notice: CONSENT WITHHELD. I DO NOT RECOGNIZE YOU. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR INTENT. I DO NOT HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY WITH YOU. NO VALUE ASSURED. NO LIABILITY. RETURNED TO SENDER. THANK YOU. Then I write out their latest bill; previous balance, minus my rent payments at the rate I promised, plus £100 for dealing with today's 'threatening letter' and various late payment fees (£25 per week per unpaid bill - it's a pain in the arse to keep track of but this week there were ten bills another two weeks overdue and one bill one week overdue - another £525 on the total!) and staple the bill to it.

Into an A4 envelope and straight back to the Council. The same guy in the Council gets everything I return - from form-letters to letters I've had to hold up to the light or half open to check for the Council's logo to free calendars and magazines - it all gets sent back to him. Poor guy. Still, he is the one trying to evict me. This time, though, I decide to be magnanimous and use a stamp.

What I'm trying to do is avoid playing the game. I've likened this whole commercial law system to Monopoly before and this latest "Notice" is an invitation to play their game and to submit to the rules of their game. What I've just done (I think) is decline their invitation. As I do not stand accused of a crime and am therefore not subject to a mandatory trial then I am perfectly free to decline the court's assistance in the dispute between the Council and I - which dispute I am perfectly open to negotiate with the Council about.

Of course, this probably won't stop the bailiffs turning up again next month - it didn't last time - but it is on record now that I refused to yield my jurisdiction to the Council. I will not renounce my sovereignty to a body put in place to serve me. All I can do now is hold steady and hope that this time will be like last time. So long as they stick to their rules (and here a good file full of downloaded legislation and a couple of law dictionaries helps you to make sure that they know that you know what they're permitted to do) I think (hope) I'll be able to hold them off again.

Let me know if this js annoying or boring. I thought that this time around I'd go into a little more detail for anyone who's interested, try to explain my perspective a bit and let you be the judge.


And finally, damn you, Sauchie, for your superior punnery!

[Frank]

Let me know if this is annoying or boring. I thought that this time around I'd go into a little more detail for anyone who's interested, try to explain my perspective a bit and let you be the judge

Not in any way annoying or boring, but I hope you appreciate that a few of us were really concerned for your welfare during the last tussle. The neat inversion contained in your idea of billing your adversaries for dealing with their unwanted correspondence and unscheduled visits made me pish myself laughing.

[The Legendary Shark]

Ach, don't worry, Sauchie. I know the risks and if it all goes breasts aloft then I've got nobody to blame but myself.

Just been watching a really useful documentary called The Four Horsemen over on YouTube. Here's the blurb:

FOUR HORSEMEN is an award winning independent feature documentary which lifts the lid on how the world really works.

As we will never return to 'business as usual' 23 international thinkers, government advisors and Wall Street money-men break their silence and explain how to establish a moral and just society.

FOUR HORSEMEN is free from mainstream media propaganda -- the film doesn't bash bankers, criticise politicians or get involved in conspiracy theories. It ignites the debate about how to usher a new economic paradigm into the world which would dramatically improve the quality of life for billions.

Well worth a watch.

[Professor Bear]

The neat inversion contained in your idea of billing your adversaries for dealing with their unwanted correspondence and unscheduled visits made me pish myself laughing.

I wanted to charge my credit card company for my time but ended up just cancelling the card instead - though I did some online research and found that a great many people have successfully charged companies for the time taken to deal with payment demands.  Basically, the impression we have of such corporate entities as faceless apathetic machines that expect to be obeyed is entirely accurate, as the vast majority of successful billings occur when the companies don't show up in small claims court to dignify the claims and this automatically causes the claimant to win by default (the precedent for this was set by a large number of people fed up with the badgering and arrogance of the TV licencing bods).  There's often a counter-claim that these bills are invalid because no business agreement for your services is entered into by the company (an agreement requiring consent from both parties), but by sending letters to a private residence companies are actively soliciting your services if you've already established that you will be charging for your counsel.
Basically, it's perfectly legit to bill people badgering you for money so they will attempt to ignore you, but you will have a case so long as you stay the course, keep a straight face, and don't try to be a smartarse.

[The Legendary Shark]

Very true, Prof. It's a tactic that's very effective against debt collectors and usually gets rid of them after just 3 letters.
.

Letter 1 (sent by the debt collection company) arrives and I basically reply with just 3 points: First, I have no contract with the agency; second, I don't want a contract with the agency and, thirdly, any further letters from the agency will be charged at £100 per letter.
.

Letter 2 comes, usually another form letter that ignores everything I said in reply to Letter 1. Once again, I largely ignore the contents of Letter 2 and stick to my "no contract existing or desired" position and bill the agency for £100 - as I promised I would.
.

Letter 3 is usually the last and I treat it exactly the same as Letter 2. Letter 3 generally explains that the "debt" is being handed back to their "client" and that the debt collection agency is not going to pay its bill. I send them another bill anyway (with built-in late payment charges that increase at £25 per week per unpaid bill) and then the letters just stop.
.

Dealing with it this way is so easy - they don't even turn up on my doorstep - which they would if I simply ignored them.
.

The key is to understand that private debt collection agencies can only take your money if you agree to it - which is why they bully people with (empty) threats about court trials (a Big Lie, as debt is not a crime) and legal fees.
.

So yeah, bill the buggers back. They'll never pay you but they do know that if it all goes to court, and provided you've done it correctly, then you have a cast-iron counterclaim against them so they have no option, either legally or lawfully, but to give up.
.

[Frank]

FERGIE: You're gonna get me killed.

DREDD: There's a maniac loose in this city !

FERGIE: What a coincidence, there's one out here too!

The weighty themes explored by the 1995 film which gave Rob Schneider his most famous role obviously left a deep impression on the actor of his generation. In an interview for US radio, Deuce Bigalow (male gigolo) documents The Land Of The Free's sad slide into totalitarian fascism:

Schneider struck on ominous tone when discussing the path he sees the country on.

"Democracies don't end well. We are sliding very fast towards fascism. It's an ugly kind of thing. There's this kind of mob mentality that we have to be careful of," he said. He believes comedians are pressured toward one side of the political spectrum.

"There's a polarization that's happening...I do think you look can look at government and go, 'Wow, it is out of control now,' and if you do criticize or tend to be not directly along a liberal stand, you can get murdered," Schneider commented.

Schneider was very critical of the President's handling of the economy and he feels certain policies are impacting businesses. "There's not one segment of business under the Obama administration that hasn't been hurt...he attacks for-profit schools, which is totally an elitist thing from a guy that went to Harvard. I think for free, by the way," Schneider said.

He was also critical of the media for being overly influenced by the government and not standing up for the American people. "We don't really have freedom of the press. It's owned by about eight different companies, and it doesn't really express or help the average American," Schneider stated.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/05/02/rob-schneider-tells-chris-stigall-we-are-sliding-very-fast-towards-fascism/

[The Legendary Shark]

It's not just the U.S. - it's everywhere.

[Professor Bear]

Sad to see him succumbing to the usual Republican lies about Obama's economic impact (PO has actually extended tax cuts for businesses started by Dubya and yet still massively reduced the national debt) because now Schneider's many fans will oh wait never mind.