The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Moose, cow, hen, shrew - yeah, I've been on dates like that too.

[Skullmo]

Skullmo, I have read numerous stories of people not paying parking tickets (for example) with impunity. It's not about not paying, it's about being willing to pay.
.
The secret is to never refuse to pay. Instead, question the validity of the demand and impose your own charges (they never pay, but debt collection agencies give up after the third bill for £100 - one debt collection agency actually wrote Me a final letter telling me to stop writing to them and sending them bills because they weren't going to pay up! I wrote back saying that failure to pay might result in legal action being taken, which could cost them dearly in the long run, enclosed another bill for over £500 (I build in "late payment charges" of £25 per unpaid bill per week) and never heard from them again).

Based on my knowledge of debt collection companies they receive a lot of letters like that. Their legal team advise them that there is no validity in the bills, however what it usually does is wind the collection agents up and they lose their temper, which triggers a complaint.

Eventually the debt collection company decides to write off the debt because it is just too much trouble to recover unless: a) it is a particularly large amount, or b) they have a contract in place that they can enforce.

[The Legendary Shark]

Another interesting fact about debt collection agencies is that many of them *purchase* debts from suchlike as the utilities companies and so on for pennies in the pound. The agency then goes after people for the full amount or more, thus making a profit.
.
However, even in legislation (Bills of Exchange Act 188?), as soon as the debt collection agency buys your debt from whomever, they have technically discharged that debt for you. As you owed the utilities company money, for instance, as soon as they sell that debt to a third party (with whom you have no contract or agreement) then you're in the clear. The utilities company has been paid for the debt, technically clearing it. The debt collection agency takes a punt, just like buying shares, and if you know a little law and take the initiative from the start, they cut their losses and leave you alone.
.
The best part, though, is writing them amusing letters using the same robust and demanding style they do. They demand, I demand, each ignores the other's demands and the one with the most ink wins. It can be quite fun.

[Skullmo]

Another interesting fact about debt collection agencies is that many of them *purchase* debts from suchlike as the utilities companies and so on for pennies in the pound. The agency then goes after people for the full amount or more, thus making a profit.
.
However, even in legislation (Bills of Exchange Act 188?), as soon as the debt collection agency buys your debt from whomever, they have technically discharged that debt for you. As you owed the utilities company money, for instance, as soon as they sell that debt to a third party (with whom you have no contract or agreement) then you're in the clear. The utilities company has been paid for the debt, technically clearing it. The debt collection agency takes a punt, just like buying shares, and if you know a little law and take the initiative from the start, they cut their losses and leave you alone.
.
The best part, though, is writing them amusing letters using the same robust and demanding style they do. They demand, I demand, each ignores the other's demands and the one with the most ink wins. It can be quite fun.

What they generally purchase is a portfolio of debt for a percentage of the debt based on its perceived recovery. I have never heard of that being a discharge of the debt, it doesn't sound likely though.

I had a look online and there are loads of sites about it written in a sort of cod legalese which seem to fundamentally misunderstand how courts work so I gave up.

I guess it must remain a mystery. I'll have a chat to my debt collection friends if I remember to and let you know.

[Grugz]

be nice if it was true ,I could ve saved myself 3 years of stress and gained a refund.

[Professor Bear]

It's worth pointing out that billed parties have to answer bills like the one Sharky sends whether they like it or not, as anyone can take their claims to court regardless of their chances of successfully seeing any money, and by default the court will rule on their behalf if the billed party don't present themselves.  Even if the judge is the biggest pro-capitalist Tory in creation, he can't actually rule in favor of someone who hasn't turned up, and until very recently the common practice was for billing companies to simply refuse to acknowledge people billing them, so you can likely guess what eventually happened there.


I am curious if anyone else on the board has had their student loan debt with Student Loan Company sold on to Erudio?  I got correspondence from the new owners of my debt asking for information I decided I shan't be providing to a shell company with a reputation for dishonesty and theft, but I was wondering what others' experiences might have been.

[The Legendary Shark]

You have to answer every letter they send you - that is very important. This is because, legally, if you do not object to something then you must accept it.
.
www.getoutofdebtfree.org used to be a good site for this kind of thing - I haven't looked at it for ages but I did find it a useful for sparking research and ideas.

[Dandontdare]

curious as to what you make of this Sharky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30334812

[The Legendary Shark]

Well, DDD - you might be sorry you asked!
.
On the face of it, this is just a story about an ongoing process that happens all the time - clearing out the clutter from the statute books. (When I say 'all the time' I don't mean daily, weekly or even annually - but often.) New legislation, being couched in more modern terms, addressing more modern sensibilities and taking into account the contemporary state of custom, case law, previous legislation, modern attitudes and tradition, is often "better" than old, outmoded legislation. Modern legislation, having the benefit of history behind it, can say the same thing but say it better. It's a story about how efficient our legal system is.
.
Now, just pop your tinfoil hat on for me - we're going for a little ride...
.
Firstly, the title of the piece uses the word "Law" instead of the word "Legislation" (even though this is corrected in the sub-heading), perpetuating the myth that law and legislation are the same thing - which they are not. THOU SHALT NOT KILL is law, NO GUNS is legislation. Law is the most basic foundation of right and wrong - so simple that even children intuitively understand it - that sense of justice residing in us all. It can be called God's Law, Natural Law* or Common Law. Legislation began as man's attempt to codify Common Law - after all, even though everyone knows you shouldn't kill anyone sometimes it's unavoidable and even necessary, so legislation was needed to sort out the details of what is and isn't murder. This is why legislation can be so complex and tangled and self-contradictory and an ass. Thou Shalt Not Kill is easy to understand but when you start adding things to it (thou shalt not kill unless you're defending yourself, or a soldier, or an official executioner) it soon gets very, very complicated indeed.
.
So, that's the first and most obvious thing I saw, which ties in with the second - the myth that new legislation always trumps old law (if it didn't, how could they repeal anything, right?) which is not the case at all. New legislation may trump old legislation but Common Law trumps the lot - because Common Law is what legislation is trying to codify and the very foundation upon which all legislation is built. Legislation legalising murder could be passed tomorrow but it would have absolutely no effect on the Common Law forbidding murder that we all know instinctively.
.
I'd love to write more but I'm on the nightshift and have to go to bed. Maybe I'll write some more in the morning so - keep that tinfoil hat handy!
.
*Natural Law is not to be confused with the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest" but rather that Law which comes naturally to human beings. Whether that Law is instilled in us by a deity or as the result of millions of years of instinct, behaviour and learning is immaterial because, whether we believe in God or not, we all know what is fundamentally Right and Wrong. This is the law which is part of our nature, what I call 'Common Law.'

[M.I.K.]

Every dictionary ever written disagrees with you.

[Skullmo]

Actually Shark speaks a form of truth . . . However I would say.


"On the face of it, this is just a story about an ongoing process that happens all the time - clearing out the clutter from the statute books. (When I say 'all the time' I don't mean daily, weekly or even annually - but often.) New legislation, being couched in more modern terms, addressing more modern sensibilities and taking into account the contemporary state of custom, case law, previous legislation, modern attitudes and tradition, is often "better" than old, outmoded legislation. Modern legislation, having the benefit of history behind it, can say the same thing but say it better. It's a story about how efficient our legal system is."


I'd say it's a slow news day.




"Firstly, the title of the piece uses the word "Law" instead of the word "Legislation" (even though this is corrected in the sub-heading), perpetuating the myth that law and legislation are the same thing - which they are not."

Probably just a lazy journalist.


"THOU SHALT NOT KILL is law"

It is religion not law.

In fact killing is allowed under many circumstances in the UK murder definition which only outlaws unlawful killing: abortion, switching off life support, war. If all of those were precluded by law then many people would be criminals.

", NO GUNS is legislation. Law is the most basic foundation of right and wrong - so simple that even children intuitively understand it - that sense of justice residing in us all. It can be called God's Law, Natural Law* or Common Law."

However this moral law is different depending on the society. Hans Kelsen calls this Grundnorm in his pure theory of law.

"Legislation began as man's attempt to codify Common Law - after all, even though everyone knows you shouldn't kill anyone sometimes it's unavoidable and even necessary, so legislation was needed to sort out the details of what is and isn't murder. "

Common law is the law made by judges. It is superseded by legislation.

"This is why legislation can be so complex and tangled and self-contradictory and an ass."

Legislation is like that because we have historically approached law with a literal approach to statutory interpretation. Whereas a purposive approach would look at the spirit of what the underlying purpose of the legislation was trying to achieve, english judges have twisted the words of the legislation to mean what they thought it should do to achieve their form of justice. This is often the case due to historical and political reasons and is part a result of the separation of powers in the UK. It is a long and interesting topic.


"Thou Shalt Not Kill is easy to understand but when you start adding things to it (thou shalt not kill unless you're defending yourself, or a soldier, or an official executioner) it soon gets very, very complicated indeed."

I could deal with those 3 exceptions
.
"So, that's the first and most obvious thing I saw, which ties in with the second - the myth that new legislation always trumps old law (if it didn't, how could they repeal anything, right?) which is not the case at all. New legislation may trump old legislation but Common Law trumps the lot - because Common Law is what legislation is trying to codify and the very foundation upon which all legislation is built. Legislation legalising murder could be passed tomorrow but it would have absolutely no effect on the Common Law forbidding murder that we all know instinctively."

We have legislation that provides defences for forms of killing, and that allows for abortion. Legislation supersedes common law.
.
I'd love to write more but I'm on the nightshift and have to go to bed. Maybe I'll write some more in the morning so - keep that tinfoil hat handy!
.
"*Natural Law is not to be confused with the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest" but rather that Law which comes naturally to human beings. Whether that Law is instilled in us by a deity or as the result of millions of years of instinct, behaviour and learning is immaterial because, whether we believe in God or not, we all know what is fundamentally Right and Wrong. This is the law which is part of our nature, what I call 'Common Law.'"

Natural law is a jurisprudential concept.

If you try to apply moral absolutes to human behaviour you will get nowhere as they change over time.

[The Legendary Shark]

That might be so, M.I.K., but my conclusions come from reading law and philosophy books and watching law lectures - not dictionaries.
.

[M.I.K.]

Well, dictionaries are certainly capable of containing incorrect information. Like that time the OED decided to include the word 'phwoar' but spell it differently to how everybody else on the planet had been writing it down for numerous decades beforehand.

[The Legendary Shark]

Skullmo, Thou Shalt Not Kill is law and religion - both of which come from people. Quite simply, not killing one another is a basic and rather good species survival tactic, as both law (and legislation) and religion recognise.
.
Without attempting to define abortion (is it murder or the equivalent of having a parasite removed, manslaughter or the excision of a malfunctioning kidney, etc., etc.) I don't disagree that Common Law, legislation and religion have made exceptions to the fundamental rule over the years but not one word of it overrides the basic tenet Thou Shalt Not Kill.
.
There are three main ways that statute law is made. Firstly there is custom and tradition, things that have been working in a certain well established, well understood and widely accepted way. This is the purest expression of law as it springs from general society and is observed often without question.  Second there is case law, wherein facts are presented for juries to decide upon and judges to rule upon. All this is recorded and used to inform upon future cases. This is the second most valid expression of statute law as it comes from a public process involving a ley jury and expert actors. Thirdly comes legislation, wherein those people in charge of a society make up their own laws, for whatever reason. This is the process where the vast majority of problems lie as, if you've read my rantings for long enough you'll already know, those people are often more interested in helping themselves and their friends than society as a whole. Some of these people, unbelievably, use their self-given right to draft legislation in order to make it seem as if Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Pay Thy Bedroom Charge are laws carved on the same tablet, which clearly they are not.
.
Anyhoo, back to work for me! Ttfn.

[The Legendary Shark]

M.I.K. - sorry if my dictionary quip was a little harsh. I'd only just got up and I'm always grumpy in a morning!