Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@pete wrote:
Personal disagreements with a law dont make it ok to break it, and obviously being bankrupt doesn’t mean you dont have to pay a fine. I’m pretty sure some kind of means test would have been employed. He ignored the law probably even encouraged the breaking of it, thats just plain silly even if you disagree with the law (personally i think they should have left it to individual pubs/brewerys)
How could he encourage it when he wasn’t there when it happened?
Nick Hogan was convicted of a political crime and imprisoned for being unable to pay the fines, which were imposed by a court that was perfectly aware he would not be able to pay them. They knew, when they imposed the fines, that they were going to jail him for non-payment and that was always the intention. To make an example. He did not refuse to pay. He was unable to pay.
A political prisoner in a debtor’s prison. In the UK. The antismokers, made this happen. Their drooling spite has made this country less free than Cuba. And you really believe this technique will only be used against smokers, don’t you?
That is what we must fight. Injustice. Soviet-style show trials based on oppressive and unfair laws. It must stop now because it is already an offence to ‘not agree with the law’ on smoking, and it is a trivial matter to extend that to ‘not agreeing with the government’ on anything.
@pete wrote:
Bankrupts have money, they can still work, they still have bills to pay and food to buy. Being bankrupt doesn’t mean you never pay anything else ever in your life.
No but it does mean all your spare income goes into paying your debts until you are discharged after 3 years. The guy has no spare income (Technically) because he’s a bankrupt.
As it is, there’s been an online fund to pay off the guys debt and the targets been reached.
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2010/03/target-reached.html
@pete wrote:
@quiet_man wrote:
The owner of the premises may face the higher fine for allowing you to smoke, but you don’t get off unpunished…£30 minimum to smoke a cigarette? Are you really that desperate? And selfish enough to put someone else’s livelihood at risk?
A joyrider has walked free from court after killing a police dog and injuring two officers in a road smash while three times over the drink-drive limit.
If he had allowed someone to smoke in a public place, he’d be behind bars now.
That’s British justice. That’s why the police don’t bother with real criminals. Catching them is a waste of time. The courts are only interested in politically correct offences.
Now what was that about putting livelyhoods at risk?
Like PB said he was jailed for non payment of fines, i’m sure the motorist must have been fined, if he doesn’t pay it then he’ll be imprisoned
Care to tell me how a bankrupt can pay a fine? We don’t throw bankrupts into prison either.
The owner of the premises may face the higher fine for allowing you to smoke, but you don’t get off unpunished…£30 minimum to smoke a cigarette? Are you really that desperate? And selfish enough to put someone else’s livelihood at risk?
A joyrider has walked free from court after killing a police dog and injuring two officers in a road smash while three times over the drink-drive limit.
If he had allowed someone to smoke in a public place, he’d be behind bars now.
That’s British justice. That’s why the police don’t bother with real criminals. Catching them is a waste of time. The courts are only interested in politically correct offences.
Now what was that about putting livelyhoods at risk?
The guy is bankrupt, and had gone to court intending to argue that he could not afford the £500 a month payments demanded by the council towards their £11,600 bill for prosecuting him. He has already paid off £1,600.
As he’s bankrupt, he couldn’t pay the fine and got chucked in prison instead, unlike most bankruptee’s who have them written off by the state.Under the health act of 2006, it is the responsibility of the owner or the controller of “smoke free” space to uphold the law. It is not illegal to smoke in a shop, pub or on a train. It is illegal for the owner or controller of the space to allow you to smoke.
So smoke everywhere you like and the most that can happen is the owner can ask you to stop. He is not a policeman, he has no legal powers to physically stop you smoking and no one can be prosecuted for smoking a cigarette in a smoke free area*For example, it is not permitted for BT to allow smoking in their phoneboxes, but it is THEIR responsibility to stop you from smoking in one.
@gazlan wrote:
Actually the solutions very simple, no dole for immigrants until they’ve contributed tax for four years. No child support, no nothing. Four years of actual tax paying over whatever elapsed period, will sort out those who come here to work and those that come here to sponge.
I don’t mind people coming here to work, then again if we put the same rules into place for our unemployed so that no one in this country, at all, can get any kind of benefits—no dole, no child support, (most importantly) no housing benefit, no nothing—until they have contributed tax for four years. And then, of course, limit the amount of time that anyone can claim benefits for.
You will then find that job vacancies fill up reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaal quick.
Sounds like one of nick griffins fantasies…….Illegal immigrants or just plain old immigrants ? Many of these immigrants have children, are you saying support for these children should be withdrawn? what about refugees..do they figure in this? Its sad to say that many under 25`s in this country struggle with their own language….while your at it….lets do away with all the over 60`s…the disabled….blardy blahhhhhhhhhhh
No sounds like you live in a little fantasy world of lets be nice to people and give them stuff they haven’t earned.
My solutions simple, you don’t pay in, you don’t get out. I’ve no problem with anyone coming here to work, I do have a problem with them taking out of the system when they haven’t contributed to the system.
And I mean any immigrants, and I don’t have a problem with refugees working either so long as they work. However there are international laws about refugees staying in the first safe country they arrive in, so unless there are French refugees out there…….
As for killing off the old, well that was quite a leap in understanding wasn’t it? Did I say kill them off or was it just a pathetic jibe to try and justify your freebies for all argument?
Now tell me why we should pay anything to anyone who doesn’t or hasn’t contributed, save only the disabled, sick and the elderly (indigenous)
Otherwise don’t waste my time with your pathetic socialist diatribes.
@pete wrote:
Which is fine if 100% employment could be achieved but it cant
Why not?
Lots of things need doing.
Actually the solutions very simple, no dole for immigrants until they’ve contributed tax for four years. No child support, no nothing. Four years of actual tax paying over whatever elapsed period, will sort out those who come here to work and those that come here to sponge.
I don’t mind people coming here to work, then again if we put the same rules into place for our unemployed so that no one in this country, at all, can get any kind of benefits—no dole, no child support, (most importantly) no housing benefit, no nothing—until they have contributed tax for four years. And then, of course, limit the amount of time that anyone can claim benefits for.
You will then find that job vacancies fill up reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaal quick.
Sorry to hear you’ve had problems bonny lass. Some people in JC seem to feed off others problems causing no end of issues that aren’t relevant or fun for the “victim” but the good thing is that you usually discover who your real friends are.
Btw I’m one of them xxx
