jimmywx11

[YiamCross]

Whilst sympathising whole heartedly with those who genuinely struggle to pay their CT and whilst cheerfully admitting I would rather not pay CT myself (who wouldn't after all?) I would love to see councils taking the attitude with these clowns that "OK... You say there's no contract... Therefore there's no obligation on us to supply any services".

Goofer: "Help! Help! My house is burning down!"

Emergency operator: "What's your address please?"

Goofer: "123 A Street, A Town."

Emergency operator: "Sorry sir. We don't have a contract with you to put out fires at that address... Good luck." <click>

Goofer: "Oh shit!"

But that can't be allowed to happen. Imagine if Jimmy's house was left to burn, what would happen to his neighbour's property? His CT paying neighbour would also be homeless, and maybe a few others too. That's why the fire brigade became a service for all paid for by all.

Same for waste disposal. If Jimmy didn't get his rubbish taken away, what's he going to do with it? Leave it to rot in his garden? Dump in in someone else's or on a roadside verge somewhere? Again, that's why the cost is spread across everyone so the idiots don't go and cause harm to others by dumping their rubbish on someone else's doorstep which is the only option they would have.

Not paying their CT is causing harm to others, without question, so they must be liable under common law. That's why they have no opt-out just because they think they can look after themselves, they can't live without consequences for others unless they remove themselves from our society altogether. Emigrate to some deserted bit of land somewhere, except there aren't many left and certainly none the Jimmy would last more than a few weeks on.

[The Observer]

But that can't be allowed to happen. Imagine if Jimmy's house was left to burn, what would happen to his neighbour's property? His CT paying neighbour would also be homeless, and maybe a few others too. That's why the fire brigade became a service for all paid for by all.

In some places of the US, especially in rural areas, fire services are provided by volunteer fire brigades for the local citizens. They are expected to subscribe to the service and pay an annual fee. If a citizen fails to subscribe, then the fire brigade will not show up to put out the fire. In some instances, I have seen new stories reporting that a brigade would come to prevent the fire from spreading to nearby structures or property that was covered by the subscription.

[YiamCross]

But that can't be allowed to happen. Imagine if Jimmy's house was left to burn, what would happen to his neighbour's property? His CT paying neighbour would also be homeless, and maybe a few others too. That's why the fire brigade became a service for all paid for by all.

In some places of the US, especially in rural areas, fire services are provided by volunteer fire brigades for the local citizens. They are expected to subscribe to the service and pay an annual fee. If a citizen fails to subscribe, then the fire brigade will not show up to put out the fire. In some instances, I have seen new stories reporting that a brigade would come to prevent the fire from spreading to nearby structures or property that was covered by the subscription.

That's pretty much how it used to be when there were various private fire services in this country but it's not a good model in densely developed areas. As you say, though, it works fine where there's distance between properties.

I wonder how often some poor sap tries to join up before everything they have goes up in smoke.

It's the same as insurance. Everyone pays a little so there will be enough to cover damage or loss for the few who suffer it. It all breaks down when a significant number try to scam the system with false claims, though I can't say as I've seen any hint of Jimmy going down that route. His lack of vehicle insurance, however, is just as bad. Imagine if he hurt a child who was left disabled for life. Where is Jimmy going to find the means to compensate them so as to ensure they're properly looked after for the rest of their life? 6 or 7 figure settlements in such cases are not fast cars, loose women and trips to American Disney Land, it's a realistic amount of money to ensure someone who will never be able to work or even attend to their own physical needs will have a roof over their head and someone to provide care for them.

This is the danger imbeciles like Jimmy pose to society. When they do screw up big time, and let's face it they are highly qualified candidates for getting things badly wrong, they're never in a position to do anything to rectify the mess they create so we have to. That's what society is, that's what we sacrifice some of our freedom for and we're not under any obligation to allow idiots like Jimmy to add unnecessarily to a burden which is already quite heavy enough.

[guilty]

The MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) pays out compensation to those who suffer personal injury or damage to their property as a result of accidents involving uninsured motor vehicles. In effect, this agreement between the government and the MIB ensures that innocent victims of uninsured drivers don't lose out financially.

These offenders place a huge financial burden on other motorists, estimated to be £380 million each year. As a result, they add £30 to the typical yearly premium for car insurance.

https://www.lovemoney.com/guides/15872/ ... red-driver

[longdog]

The MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) pays out compensation to those who suffer personal injury or damage to their property as a result of accidents involving uninsured motor vehicles. In effect, this agreement between the government and the MIB ensures that innocent victims of uninsured drivers don't lose out financially.

These offenders place a huge financial burden on other motorists, estimated to be £380 million each year. As a result, they add £30 to the typical yearly premium for car insurance.

https://www.lovemoney.com/guides/15872/ ... red-driver

Ah... Yes... But... That's a financial burden on other people and if they are stupid enough to obey the law statutes that's their problem

[Burnaby49]

Goofer: "Help! Help! My house is burning down!"

Emergency operator: "What's your address please?"

Goofer: "123 A Street, A Town."

Emergency operator: "Sorry sir. We don't have a contract with you to put out fires at that address... Good luck." <click>

Goofer: "Oh shit!"

Which is exactly what happened long ago when fire services were provided by private insurance companies.

Happens in the US quite frequently. Small towns without the budget to have a full time fire department covered by municipal taxes but instead rely on volunteers. Each property is assessed a levy to cover fire protection and if you don't pay you don't get fire services. I've read a number of news articles where the fire truck has shown up to protect nearby properties that have paid the tax but let the unpaid house burn. The homeowners frantically say that they will pay but, like all insurance, it's too late when the insured event happens. Along the limes of "My grandfather died yesterday so I'd like to apply for a life insurance policy for him. What? Why not? I'll pay this year's premiums."

[Skeleton]

The MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) pays out compensation to those who suffer personal injury or damage to their property as a result of accidents involving uninsured motor vehicles. In effect, this agreement between the government and the MIB ensures that innocent victims of uninsured drivers don't lose out financially.

These offenders place a huge financial burden on other motorists, estimated to be £380 million each year. As a result, they add £30 to the typical yearly premium for car insurance.

https://www.lovemoney.com/guides/15872/ ... red-driver

Jimmy and his mates driving around in their private conveyances would no doubt use this as another reason for not having insurance, IE any injury or loss caused by them is covered.

They say they want to be left alone and it is none of anyone business what they do. When Jimmy and the like are adding £30 to other peoples car insurance premium's one hopes that won't be happening.

[YiamCross]

..

Jimmy and his mates driving around in their private conveyances would no doubt use this as another reason for not having insurance, IE any injury or loss caused by them is covered.

They say they want to be left alone and it is none of anyone business what they do. When Jimmy and the like are adding £30 to other peoples car insurance premium's one hopes that won't be happening.

And yet somehow that doesn't fall into the bracket of loss and/or harm caused by them to the rest of us? Oh, of course. When it's them causing loss and harm it doesn't count because they're outside the system but when the system tries to make them pay their way it's an assault on their freedom. I remember. Someone remind me why we're not allowed to shoot them?

[Dr. Caligari]

Someone remind me why we're not allowed to shoot them?

Well, they didn't contract for any services of the Council, and that must also include police protection, no? So maybe it is legal.

These folks are big fans of common law. If I remember my legal history course from law school (that was a LONG time ago, so maybe I don't), English common law used to have a penalty called "outlawry," in which the punished person was literally outside the protection of the laws, so anyone could rob or kill him at will.

Fortunately for these idiots, common law has been extensively modified by statutes, so it's no longer legal to kill outlaws.

[notorial dissent]

I really don't think these idiots would be real happy with historical common law, not at all the animal they think it is, aside from the fact they would have next to no legal rights anyway, but I digress into wishful thinking, and fanciful dreaming.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Someone remind me why we're not allowed to shoot them?

Have you consented to the Offences against the Person Act? Well, there you go then.

[Losleones]

Been waiting for Quantam3xdense to come up with some bullshit in Jimmy's defence and he has not let me down.

Jimmy's BFF Rob-shitforbrains-swift has been surprisingly silent on Jimmy's massive win.

I think Robbo is still working on his magic as to how to clear "Hello there everybody's" dud notes. Quantum & actinglikeabankerwanker are serious contenders for a Darwin Award.

[YiamCross]

These folks are big fans of common law. If I remember my legal history course from law school (that was a LONG time ago, so maybe I don't), English common law used to have a penalty called "outlawry," in which the punished person was literally outside the protection of the laws, so anyone could rob or kill him at will.

Fortunately Unfortunately for these idiots us, common law has been extensively modified by statutes, so it's no longer legal to kill outlaws.

Fixed it.

I've mentioned this before. I think it's a rough approximation of how English law worked before the French brought their system over. It was also far more biased towards restitution than punishment which strikes me as sensible.

Rather than locking offenders up its more useful in every way to make them put right what they have harmed as far as they're able instead of spending a fortune keeping them in prisons or trying to make them pay fines which just disappear into the void.

[grixit]

There's also the swear band, which goes by various names. Populations were divided up into groups that were required to be responsible for the behavior of their members. So if one member commits a felony, their comrades are the posse to find them, the jury to try them, the workforce to repair damage, etc.

[Hercule Parrot]

I would love to see councils taking the attitude with these clowns that "OK... You say there's no contract... Therefore there's no obligation on us to supply any services".

Goofer: "Help! Help! My house is burning down!"

Emergency operator: "What's your address please?"

Goofer: "123 A Street, A Town."

Emergency operator: "We conditionally accept your offer to have your fire extinguished, at the address named in the hereinabove-referenced presentment, dependent upon performance by Householder of Conditions Precedent concerning which Respondent/Fire Service is entitled by the fundamental principles of UCC 12:56-#56H. To proceed with this Common Law contract, please provide the following by sworn affidavit under full commercial liability, yoko sprinti.... <continues for some hours>....

Goofer: "Oh shit!"

[morrand]

These folks are big fans of common law. If I remember my legal history course from law school (that was a LONG time ago, so maybe I don't), English common law used to have a penalty called "outlawry," in which the punished person was literally outside the protection of the laws, so anyone could rob or kill him at will.

I was once a habitual buyer at library discard sales, so I happen to have a text that discusses the point briefly:

A man attainted of praemunire was not under the King's peace; and, therefore, until 5 Eliz. c. 1, it was not murder to kill him (Brooke's Abridgment, Corone, 196). On the other hand, to kill an outlaw was murder (1 Hale P. C. 433); and even a savage [] or a condemned criminal [] or an alien enemy [] is under the King's peace.

Kenny, Courtney. Outlines of Criminal Law, New Ed., Cambridge (1934), pp. 133-4 (emphasis mine, and some citations deleted).

'Praemunire,' for those of you interested, is a weird sort of offence. 'Akin in nature to treason, though far less heinous in degree,' says Kenny, 'are the miscellaneous offences which have become grouped together under the name of Praemunire' (p. 285). He lists the ones existing at his time as:

• The refusal of a dean and chapter to elect to a bishopric the clergyman nominated to them by the King (25 Henry VIII. c. 20)
• The unlawful sending of a prisoner outside the realm, in order to put them beyond reach of a writ of habeas corpus (Habeas Corpus Act (1679), 31 Car. II. c. 2)
• The transaction, when met for the purpose of election of their respective peers to the House of Lords, of any other business by the Scotch peers (6 Anne, c. 23, s. 9)

Kenny ties all these acts together as tending to introduce some foreign power into the realm to the diminution of the King's authority. He fails, however, to discuss whether sovereign citizen antics would fall into that category, most likely because he lived in a slightly more sensible time and did not have that to deal with; I leave the topic open for discussion here.

In addition to having been (until Elizabeth I's time) a free target for murder, the person convicted of praemunire was also subject to life imprisonment, forfeited all property absolutely to the Crown, and barred from the courts (out of the King's protection, remember?). It's not, however, like outlawry was a picnic:

[A] sentence of death for treason or felony involved, as a necessary consequence, an "attainder" (4 Bl. Comm. 374). A person attainted (attinctus, "blackened") became dead to civil rights; his lands were forfeited, and his blood was "corrupted," so that descent could not be traced through him. These consequences were abolished by the Forfeiture Act. But an attainder may still be produced by a judgment of outlawry; though such judgments are, in practice, obsolete. The last was in 1859.

(Kenny, p. 508, n. 2.)

[Dr. Caligari]

I stand corrected, Morrand (and impressed!).

[mufc1959]

One Cell sold his Bitcoins on 30 October for $309 each (an illegal act, as he was already bankrupt by then, no doubt someone will let the Trustee know ...)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 34#p425734

They hit nearly $500 today.

[Pox]

One Cell sold his Bitcoins on 30 October for $309 each (an illegal act, as he was already bankrupt by then, no doubt someone will let the Trustee know ...)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 34#p425734

They hit nearly $500 today.

Just something else he got wrong then.

I have no clue about bitcoins but if he (or the receiver) has lost out by so much and by not hanging on for a few days, it just illustrates how financially astute he is - and we have seen plenty of evidence that he is not.

Time to open the war chest me thinks.

[NYGman]

£4,000 is not a very big war chest.Maybe last him 3 months on the run, maybe 6 if he is frugal.

Here is my big problem, if you are going to have a war chest it better be substantial. Like in the Millions substantial. Any less, then it is just a savings account. Also if you are going to participate in financial crimes, and hide funds from your bankruptcy trustee, it should be for a lot of money, not £4,000 and some bit coin. I don't think it is worth losing everything for a few thousand quid. I mean if he is avoiding millions in tax, that is one thing, and perhaps worth the risk, but if his war chest equals his unpaid tax, it seems pathetic that he would even bother.

If you are going to do something illegal for monetary gain it should be 1) for an amount you would consider F**k You money, as in, you have so much, you can basically tell anyone to go f-Off. 2) you only do it one time, for a large score, if not guaranteed FU money, don't bother, 3) never brag about your exploits, the less others know the better