• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

DTA said:
Just picked your comment at random.not saying you have those views

Just making the point that when the country is in financial trouble immigration gets the blame to deflect attention

Then those on benefits and single mums.
Click to expand...

Ok then adding the "This time as well" made it sound like it was a clear jibe at me

I have not been posting on political post on here for a reason, I only raised my head to say its going to be a tough winter

Im not being defensive just honestly sounded like a clear dig
 
Grays_1890 said:
Ok then adding the "This time as well" made it sound like it was a clear jibe at me

I have not been posting on political post on here for a reason, I only raised my head to say its going to be a tough winter

Im not being defensive just honestly sounded like a clear dig
Click to expand...
Wasn’t a dig at you. Can’t remember your political views to be honest.
 
So Rishi has finally found his way to the correct fiscal approach.

Unfortunately, I think it's too little too late. Both in terms of the campaign and the tax cuts themselves. He's not talking about moving the rate boundaries, so by the time IT has fallen we'll all be paying more anyway.

The first candidate that promises a flat rate (aka fair) Income Tax system wins.
 
scaramanga said:
Civil contempt is still a thing isn't it? Or have the bedwetters had that stopped?

If so, refusing to pay what a court has ordered would lead to civil contempt. That could (and should) result in a prison sentence.
Click to expand...
What happened to businesses taking the risk?!
scaramanga said:
So the court doesn't hold them in contempt if they don't pay? Seems strange.
Click to expand...

There is no criminal offence. It's a civil matter.
Contempt would be called as part of the court process - so if you ignored the court summons you could end up in prison (extreme circumstance).

If you refuse to pay the order, the court can remove possessions towards the value or instruct wage deductions.

And rightly so, people shouldn't be criminalised for the actions of private companies - that is not the purpose of having laws for public protection.
 
monkeybarry said:
What happened to businesses taking the risk?!


There is no criminal offence. It's a civil matter.
Contempt would be called as part of the court process - so if you ignored the court summons you could end up in prison (extreme circumstance).

If you refuse to pay the order, the court can remove possessions towards the value or instruct wage deductions.

And rightly so, people shouldn't be criminalised for the actions of private companies - that is not the purpose of having laws for public protection.
Click to expand...
That seems a strange departure from standard procedures.

Usually when a court tells a person to do something, not doing so is considered contempt. Is the difference that the court doesn't tell a person to pay and merely rules that the money is owed?
 
djp82 said:
I would think it’s a certainty it would affect your credit rating. I saw the movement online a few days back and it’s been gathering pace.

Personally not something I’d do as want to keep my finances in the black. The thing is I can totally understand why people are leaning towards it.

As an act of civil disobedience I’m not sure how effective it is but I suppose the threat of it seems appealing. Can’t see it being another poll tax moment.

With all the strikes and cost of living stuff at the moment I fear a bleak winter in this country.
Click to expand...

Not paying the Direct Debit is a flawed act of civil disobedience; basically the only person that suffers is you, at least initially. The robot at the supplier will take action to eventually have them pursue a warrant of entry to install a prepayment meter.
But assuming that doesn't happen, and a load of customers for a major supplier decided to stop paying. That company goes out of business, costing thousands of people their jobs. You enter the Supplier of Last Resort process, and are handed off to another company, probably at a higher tariff.
Because of the way Supplier of Last Resort works, energy customers end up paying the costs of administration to move all those failed supplier's customers to a new one.
Well done: you're now on a PPM (which costs more than direct debit), with a new supplier (probably even higher tariff), and since another supplier has gone bust, everyone has to pay more on their bills.
 
scaramanga said:
So Rishi has finally found his way to the correct fiscal approach.

Unfortunately, I think it's too little too late. Both in terms of the campaign and the tax cuts themselves. He's not talking about moving the rate boundaries, so by the time IT has fallen we'll all be paying more anyway.

The first candidate that promises a flat rate (aka fair) Income Tax system wins.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, an economic flat earther.
 
JerusalemMan said:
Not paying the Direct Debit is a flawed act of civil disobedience; basically the only person that suffers is you, at least initially. The robot at the supplier will take action to eventually have them pursue a warrant of entry to install a prepayment meter.
But assuming that doesn't happen, and a load of customers for a major supplier decided to stop paying. That company goes out of business, costing thousands of people their jobs. You enter the Supplier of Last Resort process, and are handed off to another company, probably at a higher tariff.
Because of the way Supplier of Last Resort works, energy customers end up paying the costs of administration to move all those failed supplier's customers to a new one.
Well done: you're now on a PPM (which costs more than direct debit), with a new supplier (probably even higher tariff), and since another supplier has gone bust, everyone has to pay more on their bills.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info . In the post I do say I don’t think it would work and not something I would do. It was a comment as part of a wider reply about the Dontpayuk movement trying to channel the energy of what happened with poll tax.They would need to install a lot of PPM meters if it does happen.

Think it’s primary aim is to gather attention with the threat and highlight the fact that people are in a bad place with what is going on and action needs taking .
 
JerusalemMan said:
Not paying the Direct Debit is a flawed act of civil disobedience; basically the only person that suffers is you, at least initially. The robot at the supplier will take action to eventually have them pursue a warrant of entry to install a prepayment meter.
But assuming that doesn't happen, and a load of customers for a major supplier decided to stop paying. That company goes out of business, costing thousands of people their jobs. You enter the Supplier of Last Resort process, and are handed off to another company, probably at a higher tariff.
Because of the way Supplier of Last Resort works, energy customers end up paying the costs of administration to move all those failed supplier's customers to a new one.
Well done: you're now on a PPM (which costs more than direct debit), with a new supplier (probably even higher tariff), and since another supplier has gone bust, everyone has to pay more on their bills.
Click to expand...
It's strange how there is a 'big cost' to absorbing customers from failed suppliers yet in normal times and the ongoing churn of energy customers, they'll incentivise new customers with favourable tariffs and even cashback to jump ship from one supplier to another.

In the modern age I just don't think there's much work involved. They have stated this 'work' as justification of the massive rise in the standing charge. It will be interesting to see if standing charges fall in the future when all 'extra' work tails off as the market stabilises.
 
Last edited:
ricky2tricky4city said:
It's strange how there is a 'big cost' to absorbing customers from failed suppliers yet in normal times and the ongoing churn of energy customers, they'll incentivise new customers with favourable tariffs and even cashback to jump ship from one supplier to another.

In the modern age I just don't think there's much work involved. They have stated this 'work' as justification of the massive rise in the standing charge. It will be interesting if standing charges fall in the future when all 'extra' work tails off as the market stabilises.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
scaramanga said:
That seems a strange departure from standard procedures.

Usually when a court tells a person to do something, not doing so is considered contempt. Is the difference that the court doesn't tell a person to pay and merely rules that the money is owed?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is along those lines, yes. I couldn't say for absolute certain, but certainly in effect. The court is hearing the case from the company against customer, so is ruling on the dispute and in terms of breach of contract.

The only situation where anything criminal would occur would be contempt of court in an action that attempted to disrupt the activities of the court. (IE, ignoring a summons).

In effect (technically I stand to be corrected) the case is a civil one.
It differs of course with things like council tax as that is then against the crown. I think TV licence still falls under that. They are both legal requirements to pay and are a crime not to pay, whereas not paying a bill to a private company is not illegal, it's unlawful. (A breach of contract law, but not criminal law).
 
monkeybarry said:
My understanding is that it is along those lines, yes. I couldn't say for absolute certain, but certainly in effect. The court is hearing the case from the company against customer, so is ruling on the dispute and in terms of breach of contract.

The only situation where anything criminal would occur would be contempt of court in an action that attempted to disrupt the activities of the court. (IE, ignoring a summons).

In effect (technically I stand to be corrected) the case is a civil one.
It differs of course with things like council tax as that is then against the crown. I think TV licence still falls under that. They are both legal requirements to pay and are a crime not to pay, whereas not paying a bill to a private company is not illegal, it's unlawful. (A breach of contract law, but not criminal law).
Click to expand...

the courts wouldn’t be able to handle the amount of cases. They would need to think of a work around.

not that I support people not paying for something that they have used, but you can’t keep backing people into a corner.
 
Lost Mango said:
Part of the strike is because they want to make significant redundancies in the name of modernisation then make the remaining staff work more weekends and longer hours... despite the 'modernisation'. Hmmm

Also as said above the majority of the Union striking is not drivers it is other staff on much lower salaries looking at real term pay cuts.
Click to expand...

I dont get this modernisation talk. has anyone from the Rail companies or Govt stepped in and described it? seems to be a catch all term used, means nothing though?
 
Diamond Lights said:
I dont get this modernisation talk. has anyone from the Rail companies or Govt stepped in and described it? seems to be a catch all term used, means nothing though?
Click to expand...

More technology, I guess, less staff on stations and trains, that sort of thing. Think it has been publicised vaguely somewhere.
 
Diamond Lights said:
I dont get this modernisation talk. has anyone from the Rail companies or Govt stepped in and described it? seems to be a catch all term used, means nothing though?
Click to expand...
There's a couple of pointers further down in this article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...r-hendy-rail-will-go-way-coal-unions-get-way/

Ticket offices are the obvious start. The Underground runs mostly without them and there are no ticket offices for buses in London.

Getting paid 12 minutes of time to walk a one minute journey is one he mentions, along with needing up to nine people to change a plug socket as they refuse to use multi-skilled staff.
 
DTA said:
the courts wouldn’t be able to handle the amount of cases. They would need to think of a work around.

not that I support people not paying for something that they have used, but you can’t keep backing people into a corner.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? The courts do handle the cases, at County Court level. Volume is irrelevant - the higher the volume, the longer it takes to be heard. Volume doesn't reduce anyone's right to a case being heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back