StarGateWars Forums

How can people not know how the country they live in works?

A prime example of this relating to the UK is the DVLA (DVLA = Driver/Vehicle Licencing Agency)

Recently the DVLA has come under fire for its procedures & fines regarding SORN (SORN = Statutory Off-Road Notice)

The whole premise is that your car needs to display a valid tax disc to use the roads. Many dont, in an attempt to curb this & to help the police SORN was created. The idea was that if you took your car off the road you declared it SORN & you didnt need to display a tax disc. This way any car the police saw on the road without a tax disc was therefore illegal and should be stopped.

All good your thinking so far & the idea isnt bad, however to declare your car as SORN you have to send a form off to the DVLA. The DVLA are supposed to send you a reciept of your notification, but they seem to lose a lot of these SORN forms.

Once lost they then start sending you threats when your current tax disc comes to its end demanding you pay them £80 to declare you car as SORN or they will take you to court. Many pay up rather than go to court or fight the problem. Just recently however one person did fight it & took it all the way to court, the DVLA were promptly told by the judge to (and i'm heavily paraphrasing here) 'jog on' (kudos to anyone who catches the reference btw ) and that they had broken several laws in regards to the case & this person in particular.

This has set automotive forums in the UK aflame with many coming out in favour of the DVLA and saying its a persons own fault if they dont make the effort to communicate with a government office.

Right there is the crux of the issue, the DVLA is not a government office. Yet when you tell people this they look at you like your crazy and refuse to see that the DVLA is a 100% private business operating entirely for private profit. A good analogy would be to compare the DVLA to the East India Trading Company or Privateers, in that they have a licence from the gov to run XYZ from private profit. That doesnt make them government however, why do not more know this??

It amazes me that a fair % of the population do not know how their country & government works. Its really quite depressing!

ps - sorry for the essay.

i agree with you 100% but, its not just the DVLA which is a private for profit corporation mate.
its truly maddening when i look at people because most i talk to dont even know that the bank of England is also a private for profit corporation...

let me ask you a few questions, do you know that every single politician is registered as a corporation?
did you know the houses of parliament is also registered as incorporated?
even you are registered as a corporation.

when your name is printed in all caps on a letter that's not you, that's a fiction, a corporation.

not trying to go off-topic, merely expand that people are clueless.

I think people intuitively know that something bad is going on just most cba with knowing exactly what, let alone actually think about changing something...

[KMA]Avenger wrote:i agree with you 100% but, its not just the DVLA which is a private for profit corporation mate.
its truly maddening when i look at people because most i talk to dont even know that the bank of England is also a private for profit corporation...

The Bank of England isnt really a private company or a part of the government, its a legal oddity that exists in its own little universe due to the way it was initially created & the changes that have been made over the centuries to it that has led it to its current incarnation.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:let me ask you a few questions, do you know that every single politician is registered as a corporation?

No they arent, for the purposes of that they would have to be registered at companies house, which they arent at least in the manner I tihnk your implying.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:did you know the houses of parliament is also registered as incorporated?
even you are registered as a corporation.

Again no I'm not registered as a company at companies house. Neither do I have any entries in the stock exchange etc etc. What you are referring to is the process of issuing bonds based on an average amount of tax a gov can get for each 'soul' in its borders which is not the same thing.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:when your name is printed in all caps on a letter that's not you, that's a fiction, a corporation.

No that a legal entity. That however is not a corporation or a private company that would require much more.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:not trying to go off-topic, merely expand that people are clueless.

go look on Dunn and Bradstreet mate, they have listed every single corporation on the planet...even the Vatican, CIA,FBI, every court house on the planet and so on and so forth are listed as a corporations...and so are you

[KMA]Avenger wrote:go look on Dunn and Bradstreet mate, they have listed every single corporation on the planet...even the Vatican, CIA,FBI, every court house on the planet and so on and so forth are listed as a corporations...and so are you

I Bet you couldnt find my full name in that list even if i provided it to you, to be registered asa corporation takes more than just a brith certificate (wage indenture)

Ok so not a lot more work in the grand scheme of things but it also requires you to actually do it yourself, it cannot be done for you, UK law does not allow that (and as its the uk you & i are going on about thats all that counts)

Likewise you wont find Crown courts registered as corporations either, but i'm willing to concede that you will find whatwe call magistrate courts registered in such a fashion.

I really don't know how english politics works outside of parliamentary, judicial processes. This was pretty funny and i hope they sort those tossers(i used this right?) out.

Wakko wrote:Let's take a look at the 'new' Arizona 'Immigration' law shall we.

Here's a link to it http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I'm sure many, if not all of you (even those out of country) have heard about the **Filtered** storm that this has created, for no reason what so ever.

basically, The law states that the failure to carry immigration documents a crime would give the police the ability to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

Now, I can almost see what the problem is, BUT what about the Stop and Identify statutes/laws that the States have?

For those that don't know what the Stop and Identify statutes are:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 - Example from Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes - a broader example.

Now, it seems that Arizona's 'new' law is nothing of the sort, Most police ask for identification anyways, in search of warrants, liens, or parole violations. All if is doing, is making sure that the person (in this instance a person of his panic descent) is not in the country illegally, WHICH is against the law anyways.

All of this is true. However, how do you decide whose ID to check to see if they are illegal? Hispanics (despite the fact that there are many other illegals from different countries, including Eastern European ones). Which is when you get the Racial Profiling problem and the Racism debate.

Wakko wrote:

Psyko wrote:

Wakko wrote:Let's take a look at the 'new' Arizona 'Immigration' law shall we.

Here's a link to it http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I'm sure many, if not all of you (even those out of country) have heard about the **Filtered** storm that this has created, for no reason what so ever.

basically, The law states that the failure to carry immigration documents a crime would give the police the ability to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

Now, I can almost see what the problem is, BUT what about the Stop and Identify statutes/laws that the States have?

For those that don't know what the Stop and Identify statutes are:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2921.29 - Example from Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes - a broader example.

Now, it seems that Arizona's 'new' law is nothing of the sort, Most police ask for identification anyways, in search of warrants, liens, or parole violations. All if is doing, is making sure that the person (in this instance a person of his panic descent) is not in the country illegally, WHICH is against the law anyways.

All of this is true. However, how do you decide whose ID to check to see if they are illegal? Hispanics (despite the fact that there are many other illegals from different countries, including Eastern European ones). Which is when you get the Racial Profiling problem and the Racism debate.

Yes, I understand that, BUT a peace officer should (and should be taught to as well) ask for identification from any person that they stop/talk to who may be in a violation of a law.

It may lead to racial profiling, and it probably will, but it's nothing new tbh, Arizona is just reminding everyone, via a 'new' law, that you need to carry some form of identification on you at all time.

[spoiler=]I may be biased, because we only have illegal Canadians where I'm from...[/spoiler]

Not producing identification is not a crime. You need a liscense to drive; not walk down the street. That law was instituted to justify racial profilling. The surpreme court will throw it out after the first challenge.

IT represents a bigotry, intollerance, and spitefullness. The people in Arizona should be ashamed it was ever passed.

Your attempt to legitimize it is also very disengenous and i would be embarrsed if i were you.

Wakko wrote:You don't need to carry an ID, correct.

But if the peace officer suspects you of committing a crime and if you fail/refuse to answer them, then we call that obstructing.

Not producing identification is not obstructing justice. Lying to a police officer is, but there is this little thing called evidence and due process before you start throwing those charges around.

Wakko wrote:Probably cause?
Reasonable suspicion?

You can obstruct by not providing information

That is very contextual wakko

Thriller wrote:I really don't know how english politics works outside of parliamentary, judicial processes. This was pretty funny and i hope they sort those tossers(i used this right?) out.

you know, when the new parliement is opened theres this traditional pompous ceremony, and in the height of it, just before the queen's speech some MP throws some witty comment (and he does it since 1992, too), and they all burst out laughing.

Hitchkok wrote:

Thriller wrote:I really don't know how english politics works outside of parliamentary, judicial processes. This was pretty funny and i hope they sort those tossers(i used this right?) out.

you know, when the new parliement is opened theres this traditional pompous ceremony, and in the height of it, just before the queen's speech some MP throws some witty comment (and he does it since 1992, too), and they all burst out laughing.

?? See i don't get it, but i think your alluding to something.

Yes Thriller you used the term correctly.

Also wakko failure to provide identification is not a crime either in the UK or the US. You are under no obligation to provide the police with anything. It is entirely up to them to identify you via their own means. It is not a crime of obstruction unless you go out of your way to either hide information or provide false information.

I shall repeat a phrase i've had to say many a time in the last few years...

'Privacy is not a crime'

& for the record that phrase counts irrespective of who you are interacting with be it your nextdoor neighbour or the police or even a court. Wanting to keep things private and have people do their own leg work instead of you providing it on a silver platter is not a crime!

Yes you can be detained while they attempt to verify who you are, but as i recall they cant actually arrest you or take you down to the station. They have to attempt to do it at the roadside/on the street (wherever you happen to be) & if they cant they have to allow you on your way.

It is entirely on the police in both the US & UK to prove that you are who they say you are. You do not have to provide anything whatsoever & not doing so cannot be used as a reason to search or arrest you as i recall.