Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

Posts Tagged ‘legal’

[Power of the Church] Power of the Government

Posted by Lex Fear on October 25, 2009

I’ve discussed before on this blog, what the differences are between America Churchianity and British Churchianity. I can’t think of a better example of why separation of church and state is a good thing, a thing invented by Christians than this little gem by the perspicacious Martin Turner:

“Richard Dawkins’s followers will no doubt be quick to claim this is another example of the heinous effect of ‘the God delusion’. But they would be wrong. Under charity law, the Church of England has to diligently pursue all of its debtors, and, coupled with the laws on ‘chancel repair liability’ which date back to Valor Ecclesiasticus in 1535, they have no choice.

<snip>

What lunatic changed the law in that way? (You know the answer to this one, but, in case you don’t, the legislation is the Land Registration Act 2002.)

Since the Church of England is powerless to extricate itself from a situation which bankrupts ordinary people and brings the church, and thus the entire Christian faith, into disrepute, the government ought to have intervened to simply cancel chancel liability. This would free the Church of England to pursue grants and even Lottery money. This is in fact what the Law Commission and the Church of England Synod recommended in the 1980s.”

At the time when this hit the headlines I was not aware of these facts. I’m glad I reserved my judgement.

Advertisements

Posted in Apologetics, Churchianity, Fact Erosion, Morals & Ethics, Property Market, Quoteyness, Warring Memes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

[Legalities] Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

Posted by Lex Fear on February 27, 2009

Gavin Ayling thinks the law should be written in plain English. I’d like to expand on his post. I’ve always been amazed at this legal principle that underlines society.

Since there are so many laws and regulations to follows wouldn’t many of us be ignorant until pulled up on one?

And yet how many times have we come up against authorities themselves who play upon our ignorance and ignore the laws meant to keep them in check?

It seems to me laws have been crafted as to cover every tiny possibility and remove as much discretion as possible for a judge to employ. I think an efficient and humanitarian society should look to reducing laws and regulations as much as possible – wording them so that they cover a ‘multitude of sins’ rather than every single little possibility. This would then assure people of (a) their rights and (b) their responsibilities.

For example, what is the point of having a Racial and Religious Hatred Act, a Protection from Harrassment Act, a Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act, a Criminal Justice Act, an Anti-Social Behaviour Act, a Female Genital Mutilation Act (yes, there is one), a Sexual Offenses Act, a Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, a Violent Crime Reduction Act, plus hundreds of others I cannot be bothered to reference (but you get the picture).

All of the above acts deal with or touch on violence of some sort. Obviously we could say most reasonable people are not the violent type so many of these rules won’t apply, but this is just an example.

What this tells me is at least one of the following reasons,

  • The lawmakers are too lazy, or braindead, to check if something is already covered in exsisting law
  • The existing law was not good enough
  • The law was created for political expediency, not for genuine practical reasons
  • There is money to be made in lawmaking

Is not violence or harrassment against a black person as bad it is against a white person? A gay person or straight person? A child or adult? An immigrant or local? A man or woman?

Does this also mean that any minority not covered by this existing legislation is at risk from lawful violence?

“Your honour, I would like to point out that the man my client attacked is a narcoleptic and is therefore not protected by any existing legislation. My client was therefore acting in a lawful manner and I would request this case is thrown out.”

Would it not be a better society if lawmakers actually tried to include the widest possible interpretation when crafting legislation? Then, leave it for the judges to interpret and decide if a law had actually been broken or not.

What’s wrong with, for example, a law that states “You shall not inflict violence upon another person”. It would then be for a judge and jury to distinguish between a bloody beheading or a playful punch and award compensation and punishments on a scale.

“To make laws that a man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.”
– Elizabeth Candy Stanton

People do not exist for laws, laws exist for people and politicians need to get it into their head that society cannot be controlled or coerced into being happy and nice to each other, but most of us are capable of telling right from wrong. No-one needs to consult various regulations and acts each day before leaving their house to ensure that they don’t commit an offence. It’s time for better laws, not more laws.

, , , , , , , , ,

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Absolute Power, Bollotics, Doublethink, Justice & Mercy, Minitruth, Non-Compliance, Pharisees, Realpolitik, Tick-Box Culture | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

[Resistance] How To Respond To TV Licensing Threats

Posted by Lex Fear on May 29, 2007

This Post Is Rated: C for Controversial. Contains references to government enabled thuggery no less.

A while ago Neil Herron posted an excellent response he had sent to TVL Enforcement:

“Despite a call to your 0870 number, I continue to receive threatening letters from yourselves.

Therefore, as I have replied to you, and requested the attendance of one of your authorised officers at a mutually convenient time in order to be interviewed in compliance with the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I consider any further intimidatory letters or implied threats as harassment.” – Neil Herron

I do not believe in TV Licensing. There are few countries in the world today that force their citizens to pay for a telecommunications licence. The people of New Zealand are the most recent example of a nation successfully rising up to challenge and overturn their draconian licencing laws. I would encourage people here to also protest and write to their MPs.

There are also countries who have proved that public service television can be successful without licensing. Canada, for example does not require you to own a licence to view public service television. There are only two channels available for free, then you purchase cable for the rest.

Usually when it comes to licensing the BBC, the counter-argument always presented usually follows the lines of how the BBC can afford to take risks, we wouldn’t get the quality programming if it wasn’t funded by the licence and it allows the BBC to remain impartial. Bullshit. ITV, Channel 4 and even Channel 5 are now able to compete with substantial quality programming at no cost to the tax payer.

But there is a more sinister work afoot with TV Licensing, and that is the subcontracting of the work to a firm called Capita which also run things like the Criminal Records Bureau, Congestion Charging and Council Tax. If you are not concerned yet, you should be. At this rate, 20 years from now Capita will be monitoring your every move in our increasingly Orwellian society.

With regards to TV Licensing, Capita’s method of enforcement appears to be:

  1. Send warning letter to ANY household not currently registered with a licence on our database (yes that means people without TVs included).
  2. Send threatening letter to ANY household that has not yet paid up (regardless of electronics owning status).
  3. Send a different version of threatening letter from step 2. Use lots of RED BOLD FONT.
  4. Send threatening letter: AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WILL SOON VISIT TO INTERVIEW YOU UNDER POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT… BLAHCAKES…
  5. Wait 3 months.
  6. Repeat steps 1-5.

Anyone who has moved home or been a student will probably recognise one or more of the TVL letters mentioned above. We recently received all of these letters twice over when we first moved into our flat in London, before we had our TV setup. They seem to have been sending them since the last tenant left, whilst no-one was living there, until we arrived.

When we finally got the TV setup and grudgingly paid for our licence, surprise! We were still receiving these threatening letters! It got to Step 4 twice, and yet, no enforcement official (which I was looking forward to). Why?

The answer dear readers is simple. They seem to have little enforcement on the ground, though this is hard to determine, since they have not really been forthcoming with the FOI requests (read the pdfs). It is reported that even their detection equipment is not nearly as good as they make out.

So what to do with these threats and harrassments from the TVL? I would not encourage anyone to break the law, but let’s just say if they ever turn up at my doorstep, regardless of whether I have a TV and licence or not, I would tell them in polite and no uncertain terms to f*** off and get a warrant.

If you you need a little more detail than that, here’s a short guide:

  1. Ignore the threat letters, read others’ personal accounts, opinions and check the forums
  2. Read one persons experience of their rhetorical threats.
  3. You are worried, are they coming for you? BBC Resistance has all the answers. Take your time over the material there, enjoy.
  4. Fed up of their hateful, empty threats? Write a ‘cease and desist’ letter revoking their ‘implied right of access’ (also see Neil Herron link above).
  5. On the event that an enforcement clown officer shows up at your door, you have a right to refuse entry unless they have a warrant. They most definitely won’t have a warrant if it’s the first visit. Only a court can issue a search warrant on reasonable ground to suspect you have a TV. This means they have to apply individually for every innocent person they harass.
  6. In the highly unlikely event they obtain a warrant, they will most likely want to interview you under caution. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING. However, be not afraid. Know this: They only want your money. I cannot find the source but did I read a post for the job of TV Licence Enforcement Officer on a jobsite a long time ago. It was a “day in the life of” in which the officer explained he would try to sell a licence to the person he had interviewed. This is what they will probably try to do. (If I find the link I will post it).
  7. Protest and resist. It is completely immoral and possibly unlawful to send out letters randomly to anyone who does not own a licence. This is an assumption of guilt and requires the recipient to prove their innocence.

It’s time the UK caught up with the 21st Century and realise that not everything can or should be taxed.

Posted in Absolute Power, Bad Company, Bank Robbers, How I Did It, Little Hitlers, Morals & Ethics, Non-Compliance, Predatory Systems, Profiteering, Protest, Wealth Creation, WhatTheyDontWantU2C | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »