The cost of civil disobedience?

Diyloser said:
Now there's a statement you couldn't possibly know to be true.
Click to expand...
He does that all the time - he's just a simple wind up merchant with too much time on his hands. Don't bother replying to him and he'll pack it in eventually.
 
Bollerks said:
He does that all the time - he's just a simple wind up merchant with too much time on his hands. Don't bother replying to him and he'll pack it in eventually.
Click to expand...
Is that why you're not replying about who owns the Daily Mail and if you are actually Irish?
 
joinerjohn1 said:
The axis of both x and y seem to be evenly spaced out both in years and ppm of CO2, so I'd rethink the illusory bit. The approximate years I refer to both show a steep change, comparable with today's changes. I'd just like some sort of explanation for the comparable rises ( which could not be man made)
Click to expand...
What? It’s not the spacing. If each x axis tick is 100,000 years and roughly 100 pixels then each pixel is about a thousand years. You need to go to the raw data to see that there is no comparable rise in the last 800 kiloyears.
 
WillyEckerslike said:
Should people convicted of public order offences arising out of protests like the one taking place in London at present, lose all state support until they have met the policing and court costs they have racked up?
There are numerous accepted channels available to them to make their point - including peaceful protest - but this goes beyond.
Stands back. Waits for a 'LOL' or two (even in the same sentence).
Click to expand...
We have a thing in English law, about being innocent until proven guilty.
Of course, many are innocent but are found guilty.

Then of course we have supposedly punishment to fit the crime.
So if you punish someone, is right to effectively continue punishing them afterwards?

A lot of benefits are means tested.
People only qualify for them because they don’t have enough to live on.
Would it be right to say someone needs x amount to live on, then take some of that away?
 
spinlondon said:
We have a thing in English law, about being innocent until proven guilty.
Of course, many are innocent but are found guilty.

Then of course we have supposedly punishment to fit the crime.
So if you punish someone, is right to effectively continue punishing them afterwards?

A lot of benefits are means tested.
People only qualify for them because they don’t have enough to live on.
Would it be right to say someone needs x amount to live on, then take some of that away?
Click to expand...

I guess one solution for punishment of someone who is on benefits is to give them some other way to pay back the costs they have caused.
Say a part time job suitable to their physical, mental and general abilities .
If they can protest, they can also manage to do some sort of work.
 
Heat said:
I guess one solution for punishment of someone who is on benefits is to give them some other way to pay back the costs they have caused.
Say a part time job suitable to their physical, mental and general abilities .
If they can protest, they can also manage to do some sort of work.
Click to expand...
Cool.
Protest about the lack of work and get punished by being made to go to work.
That’s a bit like that idea to make people work for benefits.
Sack a nurse who’s on £14 grand a year, then get them to work as a nurse to get £6 grand a year in Job Seekers Allowance.
 
spinlondon said:
Cool.
Protest about the lack of work and get punished by being made to go to work.
Click to expand...

True! :) It will be a win win situation.

And the work does not have to be too difficult. No breaking of rocks with picks while legs chained together. :)
Councils claim they have no money to clean litter etc, so there is something to do, if intellect is low.
 
Heat said:
True! :) It will be a win win situation.

And the work does not have to be too difficult. No breaking of rocks with picks while legs chained together. :)
Councils claim they have no money to clean litter etc, so there is something to do, if intellect is low.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling it would be illegal.
If someone was forced to work to obtain benefit, then that benefit would have to be equal to the minimum wage.
In other words, the person would be employed.
 
spinlondon said:
I have a feeling it would be illegal.
If someone was forced to work to obtain benefit, then that benefit would have to be equal to the minimum wage.
In other words, the person would be employed.
Click to expand...

I meant that a person on benefits could pay off what a court fines them by given a job punishment.
That way their benefits will not be diminished.

On the different subject of being given work instead of, or in addition to, or to top up benefits, - yes, it would have to be minimum wage or above to be fair and legal.
I see nothing wrong with this idea and have wondered for years why this is not done, but could be EU rules.
 
spinlondon said:
We have a thing in English law, about being innocent until proven guilty.
Of course, many are innocent but are found guilty.

Then of course we have supposedly punishment to fit the crime.
So if you punish someone, is right to effectively continue punishing them afterwards?

A lot of benefits are means tested.
People only qualify for them because they don’t have enough to live on.
Would it be right to say someone needs x amount to live on, then take some of that away?
Click to expand...
Surely criminals leaving the prison system are continued to be punished because employers don't usually offer criminals jobs then? ( unless they're MP's )
 
Heat said:
I guess one solution for punishment of someone who is on benefits is to give them some other way to pay back the costs they have caused.
Say a part time job suitable to their physical, mental and general abilities .
If they can protest, they can also manage to do some sort of work.
Click to expand...
We already have that Heat, it's called community service ( or as the crims call it, a joke)
 
Heat said:
I meant that a person on benefits could pay off what a court fines them by given a job punishment.
That way their benefits will not be diminished.

On the different subject of being given work instead of, or in addition to, or to top up benefits, - yes, it would have to be minimum wage or above to be fair and legal.
I see nothing wrong with this idea and have wondered for years why this is not done, but could be EU rules.
Click to expand...
Grow up.
 
Heat said:
I meant that a person on benefits could pay off what a court fines them by given a job punishment.
That way their benefits will not be diminished.

On the different subject of being given work instead of, or in addition to, or to top up benefits, - yes, it would have to be minimum wage or above to be fair and legal.
I see nothing wrong with this idea and have wondered for years why this is not done, but could be EU rules.
Click to expand...
It’s not done because it wouldn’t be right.
You don’t want to pay someone a decent wage to do a job, why should they then be forced to do the job?
 
chippie244 said:
Grow up.
Click to expand...

Seriously ?? Was it my EU comment?
Is that all you can say to what is a serious grown up debate?
We all know that crime that involves costs to the government, or third parties, rarely pays any money towards the crime.

And people on benefits should be given jobs for benefit money (providing it is to at least minimum wage level).
What human right would be broken to do this?
EU or U.K. laws, I don’t care. It is wrong, and unfair to those who are not on benefits but barely able to live on earnings, to be discriminated against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top