| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:59:32 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,789 |
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people
who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on
the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people
who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on
the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people
who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be
arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on
the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way. Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Are they planning 500 jury trials? Do
we think jurors would convict granny and gamps for this?
Is it lawful to
arrest people with no credible intention to prosecute?
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only
by magistrates.
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people
who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be
arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on
the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only
by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
Are they planning 500 jury trials? Do we think jurors would convict
granny and gamps for this?
These cases could get to the Crown Court on appeal, but they will be
heard there not by a jury but by a judge and possibly magistrates as
well.-a Juries with sensible ordinary people on them, who I think would agree with you, will unfortunately not be involved.
Is it lawful to arrest people with no credible intention to prosecute?
Well, they *are* being prosecuted, so that doesn't apply.-a Moreover, magistrates and judges will feel they have no alternative but to
convict.-a Unlike a jury, they won't indulge in nullification of the law.
-aThey don't have any discretion, except as regards sentencing, so the
best anyone can hope for is an absolute discharge.
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent. In fact, more of a deterrent than a jail term, at least in prospect, although perhaps less so once the reality of being banged up
has sunk in.
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing +U15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people
who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be
arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on
the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only
by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
On 06/10/2025 07:46 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing L15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
What figure do you suggest for the other-side-of-the-balance-sheet assets of such a
person?
I suggest that it needs to be somewhere between u0 and u1,000,000,000.
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people >>>> who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be >>>> arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on >>>> the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6
months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their
support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary
one triable only by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March
at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see political trials decided by an apparatchik.
Hopefully, some of the defendants will make this point and
refuse to participate any further in the trial.
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months,
which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for
Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only >> by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March
at Westminster Magistrates Court.
On 2025-10-06, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, >>> which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for
Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only >>> by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March
at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I don't think he is right. The fact that hearings are scheduled in the magistrates' court is irrelevant - all criminal trials start in a magistrates' court.
On 06/10/2025 22:37, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people >>>>> who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be >>>>> arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on >>>>> the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will >>>>> be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6
months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their
support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary
one triable only by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for
March at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see political trials decided by an
apparatchik.
Well, that raises lots of different questions, like what is a 'political trial' and what is an 'apparatchik'?
The trials will be based on infringement of the criminal law,
specifically Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.-a So, what makes it 'political' any more than any other criminal offence, all of which have
of course been created by politicians?
I think we all expect judges and magistrates to uphold the laws enacted
by Parliament scrupulously and without fear or favour.-a That's their 'apparatchik' job, and I expect they take an oath to that effect when
they are appointed.-a It is not their function to return verdicts that deliberately contradict or negate any law they may not agree with.-a The most they can do is inform the government that, in their opinion, the
law is an ass and should be reformed.
On 10/7/25 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-06, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, >>>> which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for >>>> Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only >>>> by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March >>> at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I don't think he is right. The fact that hearings are scheduled in the
magistrates' court is irrelevant - all criminal trials start in a
magistrates' court.
Trial planed to take 3 days, which sounds like a trial, not a pre-trial hearing.
Citation:
<https://news.sky.com/story/first-people-charged-with-supporting-palestine-action-due-in-court-today-13431998>
Quote
=====
The group have been released on unconditional bail by Chief Magistrate
Paul Goldspring, and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on
March 16 for a trial listed for three days.
Mr Goldspring told the defendants: "This will take place on March 16,
17, and 18 so I'm going to release each of you on bail until March 16
when you have an obligation to attend this court.
=====
On 2025-10-06, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, >>> which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for
Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only >>> by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March
at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I don't think he is right. The fact that hearings are scheduled in the magistrates' court is irrelevant - all criminal trials start in a magistrates' court.
For an offence which is not summary-only, the first hearing will
generally involve deciding whether the case should be sent to the crown court.
For an offence which is only triable on indictment, the answer will of
course always be "yes".
For an offence which is triable either way, which I think includes these "terrorism" offences,
then the magistrates may decide that their
sentencing powers are insufficient for the gravity of the offence,
and send the case to crown court.
Or, the defendant can choose for their case to be sent to crown court.
If neither of those things happens then the case will stay at the magistrates' court.
On 10/7/25 09:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/10/2025 22:37, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful
people
who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the >>>>>> law so that people who don't follow police instructions will
erme.. be
arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed >>>>>> only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting
bums on
the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will >>>>>> be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6
months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their
support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary
one triable only by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for
March at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see political trials decided by
an apparatchik.
Well, that raises lots of different questions, like what is a
'political trial' and what is an 'apparatchik'?
The trials will be based on infringement of the criminal law,
specifically Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.-a So, what makes it
'political' any more than any other criminal offence, all of which
have of course been created by politicians?
Their actions were politically motivated. Motivation is what make a
crime political, not technical guilt.
I think we all expect judges and magistrates to uphold the laws
enacted by Parliament scrupulously and without fear or favour.-a That's
their 'apparatchik' job, and I expect they take an oath to that effect
when they are appointed.-a It is not their function to return verdicts
that deliberately contradict or negate any law they may not agree
with.-a The most they can do is inform the government that, in their
opinion, the law is an ass and should be reformed.
Well, I expect judges and magistrates to act based upon self-interest
and personal bias.
Magistrates are selected from people who naturally support the establishment. They will interpret the law to suit the establishment.
They will prefer the evidence of establishment figures over evidence
from the general public.
They look like apparatchiks to me.
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people >>>> who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be >>>> arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on >>>> the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will
be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right. Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6
months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their
support for Palestine Action. So, I think the offence is a summary
one triable only by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March
at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see political trials decided by an apparatchik. Hopefully, some of the defendants will make this point and refuse to participate any further in the trial.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing L15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
What figure do you suggest for the other-side-of-the-balance-sheet assets of such a
person?
I suggest that it needs to be somewhere between u0 and u1,000,000,000.
Up to their available credit, surely ?
So that if they were under their credit card limit, couldn't they reasonably be expected to borrow the extra, to pay the fine ?
Whereas for some unknown reason, I assumed they'd be maxed out at u15,000
On 2025-10-07, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/25 11:49, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-10-06, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6 months, >>>>> which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their support for >>>>> Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary one triable only >>>>> by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March >>>> at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I don't think he is right. The fact that hearings are scheduled in the
magistrates' court is irrelevant - all criminal trials start in a
magistrates' court.
Trial planed to take 3 days, which sounds like a trial, not a pre-trial
hearing.
Citation: >><https://news.sky.com/story/first-people-charged-with-supporting-palestine-action-due-in-court-today-13431998>
Quote
=====
The group have been released on unconditional bail by Chief Magistrate
Paul Goldspring, and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on
March 16 for a trial listed for three days.
Mr Goldspring told the defendants: "This will take place on March 16,
17, and 18 so I'm going to release each of you on bail until March 16
when you have an obligation to attend this court.
=====
Yes you're right, it sounds like they are proceeding to a magistrates'
court trial. Everything I said in my previous post is still true though.
I don't know why the defendants would have not opted for a jury trial, especially given the protests they were arrested for attending were
arranged by "Defend our Juries", whose core mission is to defend the
right to jury trials!
On 06/10/2025 10:37 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 15:31, Norman Wells wrote:
On 06/10/2025 13:44, Pancho wrote:
On 10/6/25 11:15, Nick Odell wrote:
In response to the regular arrival in public spaces of peaceful people >>>>> who want to be arrested, the government is considering changing the
law so that people who don't follow police instructions will erme.. be >>>>> arrested.
Will the police be issued with Joo Janta Super-Chromatic
Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses so that they don't see the protesters
waving posters which might lead to 14 years imprisonment and the
further clogging up of the justice system? Will they be instructed
only to issue -u20 fixed penalty notices for parking protesting bums on >>>>> the wrong side of the street?
But then it is party conference season so I suppose politicians will >>>>> be saying anything to try and gain a bit of attention.
Nick
500 arrested. AIUI support of terrorism is triable either way.
Meaning, defendants can elect a jury trial.
Sadly, I don't think that's right.-a Magistrates have sufficient
sentencing powers to deal with offences with a maximum term of 6
months, which is what applies to protestors merely displaying their
support for Palestine Action.-a So, I think the offence is a summary
one triable only by magistrates.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
It appears you are right. I see the first trials are scheduled for March
at Westminster Magistrates Court.
I guess it shouldn't surprise me to see political trials decided by an
apparatchik. Hopefully, some of the defendants will make this point and
refuse to participate any further in the trial.
You may well hope that, but it isn't good advice to the defendants.
On 07/10/2025 09:25 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing L15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
What figure do you suggest for the other-side-of-the-balance-sheet assets of such a
person?
I suggest that it needs to be somewhere between u0 and u1,000,000,000.
Up to their available credit, surely ?
No. Being able to borrow does not make you any richer.
So that if they were under their credit card limit, couldn't they reasonably >> be expected to borrow the extra, to pay the fine ?
No.
Whereas for some unknown reason, I assumed they'd be maxed out at u15,000
Maybe. Who knows?
But a line of credit is not an asset for the balance sheet.
On 06/10/2025 17:25, GB wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant >>deterrent. In fact, more of a deterrent than a jail term, at least in >>prospect, although perhaps less so once the reality of being banged up
has sunk in.
Which would not solve anything.
The middle classes are attending these protests, 1% of net worth when
you live in a nice house could be u5000+.
Then you have people at the other end of the scale on benefits, who--
have no tangible assets, and income of less than u200 a week. What
would you fine them?
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message >news:10c0qh1$dg46$1@dont-email.me...
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant >>deterrent.
So somebody owing u15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 09:25 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing L15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
What figure do you suggest for the other-side-of-the-balance-sheet assets of such a
person?
I suggest that it needs to be somewhere between u0 and u1,000,000,000.
Up to their available credit, surely ?
No. Being able to borrow does not make you any richer.
What exactly has "being any richer" got to do with anything ?
As a result of committing an offence of some kind ,someone has been fined u500 to be paid within 28 days, on the pain of imprisonment.
They have no ready cash, but have u1000 available on their credit
card.
Are you seriously suggesting that they should opt to go to prison ?
So that if they were under their credit card limit, couldn't they reasonably
be expected to borrow the extra, to pay the fine ?
No.
Right. So they'd choose to go to prison instead, losing their job in the process.
Whereas for some unknown reason, I assumed they'd be maxed out at u15,000 >>Maybe. Who knows?
But a line of credit is not an asset for the balance sheet.
That's irrelevant. While the perp may have been fined on the basis of their net worth, and what they *should* be able to pay, that possibly overlooks the fact that they may be hoovering a grand's worth of charlie up their noses each month. Hence the need for a flexible friend.
In message <10c12qf$g5vu$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:37 on Mon, 6 Oct
2025, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:10c0qh1$dg46$1@dont-email.me...
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant
deterrent.
So somebody owing u15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how
much exactly ?
Current means-testing formulae don't recognise credit card bills as a negative asset.
On 07/10/2025 09:06 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 09:25 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing L15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how >>>>>> much exactly ?
What figure do you suggest for the other-side-of-the-balance-sheet assets of such a
person?
I suggest that it needs to be somewhere between u0 and u1,000,000,000.
Up to their available credit, surely ?
No. Being able to borrow does not make you any richer.
What exactly has "being any richer" got to do with anything ?
"Being richer" has the same meaning as "having more assets".
Having a nice easy line of credit, such as, for instance, an arranged overdraft
facility, could be described colloquially as an "asset", byut it is not an asset which
can be taken into account in calculating someone's worth ("worth in the sense of the
value of one's assets).
If it could be taken into account by a court as though it were either income (annual?
monthly?) or as a geuine asset (like a house or miney in a building society is), the
sutuation would be ridiculous and indefensible.
Some years ago, because of the obvious fact that savings accounts cannot be easily
accessed whilst abroad, I applied for, and got, large credit limits on credit cards
(amounts much larger than I have ever needed) and a u5,000 overdraft facility on
current account, never once used, but there if it's ever needed.
Those arrangements did not increase the value of my assets.
As a result of committing an offence of some kind ,someone has been fined
u500 to be paid within 28 days, on the pain of imprisonment.
They have no ready cash, but have u1000 available on their credit
card.
Are you seriously suggesting that they should opt to go to prison ?
The person who has been fined can raise the money for the fine in any way they wish or
can.
That is not the point you previously made. You argued that the amount of credit that
can be gained should be taken into account as an asset or as income *by the court* when
assessing the level of the fine.
The qua ntum of the fine as set and the means of paying it once imposed are two quite
separate things.
So that if they were under their credit card limit, couldn't they reasonably
be expected to borrow the extra, to pay the fine ?
Yes. No-one would stop them.
But that credit facility will not have been used by the court to assess the defendant's
income or assets when deciding the amount of the fine.
No.
Right. So they'd choose to go to prison instead, losing their job in the process.
You have attributed my one word answer to a question that you had not asked.
My "No" was a response to your assertion that the courts can or should take credit
facilities into account when deciding the amount of a fine.
Now that you (in the post to which I am responding) have introduced the quite separate
question of whether a person can use a line of credit (of whatever type) to enable
them
to pay a fine, the answer to that would be "Yes".
Whereas for some unknown reason, I assumed they'd be maxed out at u15,000 >>>Maybe. Who knows?
But a line of credit is not an asset for the balance sheet.
That's irrelevant. While the perp may have been fined on the basis of their >> net worth, and what they *should* be able to pay, that possibly overlooks the
fact that they may be hoovering a grand's worth of charlie up their noses
each month. Hence the need for a flexible friend.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 09:06 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/10/2025 09:25 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
A fine of 1% of net worth on a first offence would be a significant deterrent.
So somebody owing L15,000 on their credit cards would be fined how >>>>>>> much exactly ?
What figure do you suggest for the other-side-of-the-balance-sheet assets of such a
person?
I suggest that it needs to be somewhere between u0 and u1,000,000,000.
Up to their available credit, surely ? ***********************************************************************************
No. Being able to borrow does not make you any richer.
What exactly has "being any richer" got to do with anything ?
"Being richer" has the same meaning as "having more assets".
Having a nice easy line of credit, such as, for instance, an arranged overdraft
facility, could be described colloquially as an "asset", byut it is not an asset which
can be taken into account in calculating someone's worth ("worth in the sense of the
value of one's assets).
If it could be taken into account by a court as though it were either income (annual?
monthly?) or as a geuine asset (like a house or miney in a building society is), the
sutuation would be ridiculous and indefensible.
Indeed. It doesn't make you any richer. Which you seem at pains to stress
for some reason. But precisely because the Court won't take it into account when setting the level of the fine, if you have a line of credit than that may make the fine easier to pay.
Some years ago, because of the obvious fact that savings accounts cannot be easily
accessed whilst abroad, I applied for, and got, large credit limits on credit cards
(amounts much larger than I have ever needed) and a u5,000 overdraft facility on
current account, never once used, but there if it's ever needed.
Those arrangements did not increase the value of my assets.
Nevertheless they were of potential benefit to you.
As a result of committing an offence of some kind, someone has been fined >>> u500 to be paid within 28 days, on the pain of imprisonment.
They have no ready cash, but have u1000 available on their credit
card.
Are you seriously suggesting that they should opt to go to prison ?
The person who has been fined can raise the money for the fine in any way they wish or
can.
That is not the point you previously made. You argued that the amount of credit that
can be gained should be taken into account as an asset or as income *by the court* when
assessing the level of the fine.
I must confess I completely misunderstood what you meant by "other-side-of-the-
balance-sheet assets.
When what you actually meant, was simply "assets".
The quantum of the fine as set and the means of paying it once imposed are two quite
separate things.
So that if they were under their credit card limit, couldn't they reasonably
be expected to borrow the extra, to pay the fine ?
Yes. No-one would stop them.
But that credit facility will not have been used by the court to assess the defendant's
income or assets when deciding the amount of the fine.
No.
Right. So they'd choose to go to prison instead, losing their job in the process.
You have attributed my one word answer to a question that you had not asked. >>
My "No" was a response to your assertion that the courts can or should take credit
facilities into account when deciding the amount of a fine.
Now that you (in the post to which I am responding) have introduced the quite separate
question of whether a person can use a line of credit (of whatever type) to enable
them to pay a fine, the answer to that would be "Yes".
Whereas for some unknown reason, I assumed they'd be maxed out at u15,000
Maybe. Who knows?
But a line of credit is not an asset for the balance sheet.
That's irrelevant. While the perp may have been fined on the basis of their >>> net worth, and what they *should* be able to pay, that possibly overlooks the
fact that they may be hoovering a grand's worth of charlie up their noses >>> each month. Hence the need for a flexible friend.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
Yes.
And ?