Re: pptp-based vpn
On Fri 14 Aug 2015 at 22:52:05 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 13 August 2015 09:38:03 Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 20:04:41 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > Quoting Brian (ad44@cityscape.co.uk):
> > > > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > > > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several
> > > > > > orders of magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV
> > > > > > licence. The trial alone, too, will have cost more than that!
> > > > > > Then there is the cost of keeping her in prison.
> > > > >
> > > > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all
> > > > > obsessed opinion.
> > > > > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is
> > > > > not my > opinion.
> > > >
> > > > It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> > > > trangressing the will of some other entity.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> > > > she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence....". This cannot
> > > > happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
> > >
> > > This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
> > > public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
> > > discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the
> >
> > Incorrect statements colouring discussion hampers fruitful discussion.
> >
> > > Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
> > > the highest level with the licence fee problem:
> > >
> > > “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
> > > you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
> > > he said.
> > >
> > > “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
> > > doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
> > > you don't pay it.”
> >
> > Both the Secretary of State and non-lawyers have access to
> >
> > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363
>
> Yes, but they also have access to common sense.
>
> You cannot be sent to prison for non-payment of the licence. But you can be
> sent prison for non-payment of the fine for non-payment of the licence. So
> in effect many are sent to prison not for non-payment, if you wish to quibble
> (and this is not a court of law, where one has to quibble), but because they
> haven't got any money and haven't paid. It is not too great a stretch of the
> imagination and language to call that going to prison for non-payment of the
> licence.
It may not stretch the imagination but the penalty for non-payment of
fines is a separate issue and also part of living in a regulated society
ruled by law.
> Here is what the Guardian said about it fairly recently:
> <quote>
> You cannot go to prison for non-payment of your licence fee, but you can be
> jailed for not paying a fine imposed as punishment for not paying for a
> licence, and in 2012, 50 people were imprisoned, up from 30 in 2009. Of
> those, 49 were given a sentence of less than three months; one person was
> given a sentence of somewhere between three and six months.
>
> If convicted, you will get a criminal record,
> </quote>
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases
Obviously. Whether it is ever disclosed is another matter. Perhaps if an
application to become Director General of the BBC was made it would be.
> Then:
> <quote>
> Culture Secretary Sajid Javid reports that 10% of magistrate court cases are
> for non-payment of the BBC licence fee. Non-payment is a criminal offence,
> punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Every week about 3,000 people are fined
> for non-payment, and *****about one person a week is jailed for non-payment
> of the fine.***** (my stars)
>
> Women make up about 70% of those prosecuted and convicted, and half of those
> jailed for not paying the fine. When people fail to pay other utilities, such
> as energy companies, they are guilty of a civil offence, not a criminal one,
> and they cannot be prosecuted and fined for falling behind with their
> payments. Civil action can be taken for recovery, but without fines and jail
> terms.
If the argument is to have non-payment of a licence a civil offence I'm
not opposed to that. The burden of proof would be lower in that case, of
course.
> Several newspapers have had reporters visit magistrate’s court to describe
> what goes on. They all tell harrowing stories of frightened, distressed
> people, mostly women, facing fines they cannot pay under threat of
> imprisonment if they do not. Many are single mothers, many on benefits. They
> have not paid the licence fee because they cannot afford to. The sum of
> £145.50 per year is huge for a young mother struggling to feed and clothe
> children. Many weep in court, unable to pay the fine for the same reason they
> couldn’t afford the licence fee; they don’t have the money.
> </quote>
> http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-culture/non-payment-of-bbc-licence-fee-accounts-for-10-of-prosecutions/
>
> Young single mothers are sent to prison because they have not got the money to
> pay their TV licences, with the consequences I have already described.
I had a compassion bypass operation a few years ago. Sorry. :)
Reply to: