Manx1Bloke Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience Hopefully people might know what the situation would be and can explain it from an individual protester's aspect if say many thousands of people refused to pay a charge implemented by the Government...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Certainly time we turfed this lot out of CoMin but I'm not sure refusing to pay this iniquitous tax is the way forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience Hopefully people might know what the situation would be and can explain it from an individual protester's aspect if say many thousands of people refused to pay a charge implemented by the Government...... It couldn't (and shouldn't) be a mass thing. People will probably individually choose whether they want to pay up or not and to be honest you don't even have to not pay - just pissing them about for a few months and then paying up as the summons arrives stifles the water boards cashflow on its much needed extra revenue, and makes it incur collection costs well in excess of the £50 charge. So there's no need to risk a fine or imprisonment. Just mess them about and make them fork out more than £50 chasing your debt. Also bear in mind that legally they can't cut your water off. Any other utility yes, but not water so what are they going to do other than send you a nasty letter threatening you with a summons? Nothing. They can't disconnect your bog, or stop supplying water to your house. I'm not advocating civil disobedience at all, and would never suggest this as a solution, but looking at it logically/legally by taking a tax in this way they have hardly any way of enforcing your compliance other than threatening you with going to court. If you pay in cash on the day before your court date you just successfully ensure that it costs them about £500 in admin and legal costs to get £50 out of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience Hopefully people might know what the situation would be and can explain it from an individual protester's aspect if say many thousands of people refused to pay a charge implemented by the Government...... It couldn't (and shouldn't) be a mass thing. People will probably individually choose whether they want to pay up or not and to be honest you don't even have to not pay - just pissing them about for a few months and then paying up as the summons arrives 1). Stifles the water boards cashflow on its much needed extra revenue and 2). Makes it incur collection costs well in excess of the £50 charge. So there's no need to risk a fine or imprisonment. Just dick them about and make them fork out more than £50 chasing your debt. Also bear in mind that legally they can't cut your water off. Any other utility yes, but not water so what are they going to do other than send you a nasty letter threatening you with a summons? Nothing. They can't disconnect your bog, or stop supplying water to your house. I'm not advocating civil disobedience at all, and would never suggest this as a solution, but looking at it logically/legally by taking a tax in this way they have hardly any way of enforcing your compliance other than threatening you with going to court. If you pay in cash on the day before your court date you just successfully ensure that it costs them about £500 in admin and legal costs to get £50 out of you. Ultimately, is it 'them' who pay? Or us, in the long run...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civil Servant Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Certainly time we turfed this lot out of CoMin but I'm not sure refusing to pay this iniquitous tax is the way forward Shit more. That'll show them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience Hopefully people might know what the situation would be and can explain it from an individual protester's aspect if say many thousands of people refused to pay a charge implemented by the Government...... It couldn't (and shouldn't) be a mass thing. People will probably individually choose whether they want to pay up or not and to be honest you don't even have to not pay - just pissing them about for a few months and then paying up as the summons arrives 1). Stifles the water boards cashflow on its much needed extra revenue and 2). Makes it incur collection costs well in excess of the £50 charge. So there's no need to risk a fine or imprisonment. Just dick them about and make them fork out more than £50 chasing your debt. Also bear in mind that legally they can't cut your water off. Any other utility yes, but not water so what are they going to do other than send you a nasty letter threatening you with a summons? Nothing. They can't disconnect your bog, or stop supplying water to your house. I'm not advocating civil disobedience at all, and would never suggest this as a solution, but looking at it logically/legally by taking a tax in this way they have hardly any way of enforcing your compliance other than threatening you with going to court. If you pay in cash on the day before your court date you just successfully ensure that it costs them about £500 in admin and legal costs to get £50 out of you. Ultimately, is 'them' who pay? Or us, in the long run...? Well of course its us who pays, but it might deter them from making fucking stupid decisions again as it will mean they'll have to find a saving elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 are we governed by consent?? put up with crap for so long and we will arrive a a tipping point untill then ghandi and rosa parks type people will step up alone. i prefer noncompliance and by the masses would soon change senarios. not worth getting violent they are trained to respond to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 not worth getting violent they are trained to respond to that. I took the terriers down to Clarkson's footpath and back past the 'hotel' at the C/town golf club a few weeks back. And the Club car park was full to bursting with cops all engaged in riot training. Truncheons, tazers, riot shields, burly looking brutes with very sharp teeth and some police dogs too...looks like they're well capable of 'dealing with any shenanigins' should the need arise. Nah, the pen is mightier than the sword; draft a missive to your MHK and let him/her know they haven't your vote if they're in agreement with the toilet tax. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Civil disobedience is a valid and democratic means of demonstrating the will of the people to the government. Democracy has its flaws and one of them is that the electorate are often a long way removed from the executive. We may elect those who make the decisions but they do not always act in ways we approve of. In our particular form of ministerial government we are even further removed from the decision making process. We elect the people who elect the person who makes the decisions. Since there are no parties to speak of here we cannot vote on the policies of a party and hope that it gains power, we can only elect individuals who must exert what influence they can in parliament, and perhaps, if they are so chosen by their own elected leader, attain a position of influence, in a department, say. The link therefore between electorate and executive is extremely tenuous. It cannot be said that a majority have voted for a particular set of policies or ideology and that the resulting government has some form of legitimacy. Our system is much more bitty, and the will of the people cannot be clearly discerned in the mix. So when the executive acts in ways we disapprove of, what are we to do? We could accept that that is how democracy works and hope that we have better luck next time. Except that in our case it is a very poor form of democracy that has resulted in this particular government. Or we can undertake to do make our disapproval known to the government. We have various means of doing this, including marches and protests, direct communication with politicians, expression of views in public fora, and disobedience. Governments tend to come down hard on dissent, but a government which claims to represent the will of the people cannot rightly ignore or suppress mass demonstration of this kind. What are we supposed to be protesting anyway? Did you have something in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience Hopefully people might know what the situation would be and can explain it from an individual protester's aspect if say many thousands of people refused to pay a charge implemented by the Government...... It couldn't (and shouldn't) be a mass thing. People will probably individually choose whether they want to pay up or not and to be honest you don't even have to not pay - just pissing them about for a few months and then paying up as the summons arrives 1). Stifles the water boards cashflow on its much needed extra revenue and 2). Makes it incur collection costs well in excess of the £50 charge. So there's no need to risk a fine or imprisonment. Just dick them about and make them fork out more than £50 chasing your debt. Also bear in mind that legally they can't cut your water off. Any other utility yes, but not water so what are they going to do other than send you a nasty letter threatening you with a summons? Nothing. They can't disconnect your bog, or stop supplying water to your house. I'm not advocating civil disobedience at all, and would never suggest this as a solution, but looking at it logically/legally by taking a tax in this way they have hardly any way of enforcing your compliance other than threatening you with going to court. If you pay in cash on the day before your court date you just successfully ensure that it costs them about £500 in admin and legal costs to get £50 out of you. Ultimately, is 'them' who pay? Or us, in the long run...? Well of course its us who pays, but it might deter them from making fucking stupid decisions again as it will mean they'll have to find a saving elsewhere. SS, I think your plan is flawed in as much as Quilp says, it's a bit of an own goal really and fails to clearly deliver the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 not worth getting violent they are trained to respond to that. I took the terriers down to Clarkson's footpath and back past the 'hotel' at the C/town golf club a few weeks back. And the Club car park was full to bursting with cops all engaged in riot training. Truncheons, tazers, riot shields, burly looking brutes with very sharp teeth and some police dogs too...looks like they're well capable of 'dealing with any shenanigins' should the need arise. Nah, the pen is mightier than the sword; draft a missive to your MHK and let him/her know they haven't your vote if they're in agreement with the toilet tax. TBT. Shame you didn't get a few photos,it's encouraging to know that someone is taking the possibility of some unrest seriously enough for riot training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war baby Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Democracy has its flaws and one of them is that the electorate are often a long way removed from the executive. We may elect those who make the decisions but they do not always act in ways we approve of. In our particular form of ministerial government we are even further removed from the decision making process. We elect the people who elect the person who makes the decisions. Since there are no parties to speak of here we cannot vote on the policies of a party and hope that it gains power, we can only elect individuals who must exert what influence they can in parliament, and perhaps, if they are so chosen by their own elected leader, attain a position of influence, in a department, say. The link therefore between electorate and executive is extremely tenuous. It cannot be said that a majority have voted for a particular set of policies or ideology and that the resulting government has some form of legitimacy. Our system is much more bitty, and the will of the people cannot be clearly discerned in the mix. Certainly this is true. To me the problem seems to be that for such a small population there are far too many layers of government. We are about the size of an English market town. Get rid of at least half. As to Civil Disobedience, what are you going to suggest? Occupy Derby Square in a tent? Not tonight, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Ultimately, is 'them' who pay? Or us, in the long run...? Well of course its us who pays, but it might deter them from making fucking stupid decisions again as it will mean they'll have to find a saving elsewhere. SS, I think your plan is flawed in as much as Quilp says, it's a bit of an own goal really and fails to clearly deliver the message. If only a few people do it the government can deal with it easily (fines, imprisonment, seizure of property, etc.) If a large enough number of people join in the problem becomes too big to deal with in the usual way and alternatives must be considered. Civil disobedience depends on mass participation. If we are talking about the scat tax, I believe there are over 5000 signatories to a petition against it. 5000 out of around 90,000 is a large proportion of the population, and many who would like to sign have not. If all these people refused to pay the tax the government would have little alternative but to reconsider it. (if it gets approval) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 V, the other,and more important, issue that has also come to the fore with this pathetic stealth tax nonsense is the question on many peoples minds as to whether a Tynwald full of members who support this sort of thing are fit to represent the public's interest . What makes that even more relevant is the point you raise about the tenuous nature of our democracy and the validity of those who serve it. We live in interesting times right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.