Re: pptp-based vpn
On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 20:04:41 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting Brian (ad44@cityscape.co.uk):
> > On Wed 12 Aug 2015 at 16:57:33 +0100, Martin Smith wrote:
> > > On 12/08/2015 14:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > > >The care alone, even were there no societal cost, costs several orders of
> > > >magnitude more money than the £145.50 cost of a TV licence. The trial alone,
> > > >too, will have cost more than that! Then there is the cost of keeping her in
> > > >prison.
> > >
> > > that is the problem, we have to punish sinners, we are after all obsessed
> > > opinion.
> > > I am led to believe it demonstrates our righteousness, but that is not my > opinion.
> >
> > It's called upholding and enforcing the law of the country, not
> > trangressing the will of some other entity.
> >
> > Incidentally. The tale you quoted and replied to is based on "When
> > she goes to prison for non-payment of her licence....". This cannot
> > happen. The maximum penalty is a fine.
>
> This may well be true. I'm not a lawyer: I don't know. However, the
> public perception is that you *can* be imprisoned and so it colours
> discussion of the licence fee. For example, here is a quotation by the
Incorrect statements colouring discussion hampers fruitful discussion.
> Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, someone involved at
> the highest level with the licence fee problem:
>
> “It's actually worse than a poll tax because under the poll tax, if
> you were on a very low income you would get a considerable subsidy,”
> he said.
>
> “The BBC licence fee, there is no means-tested element whatsoever; it
> doesn't matter how poor you are, you pay £145.50 and go to prison if
> you don't pay it.”
Both the Secretary of State and non-lawyers have access to
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363
Reply to: