Breaking the law by paying my council tax?

[straw man]

Originally Posted by uprising

Nice one, cheers, the only one I found said no longer available when I tried to play it.
That link seems to be fine, and is indeed the film I meant.
The argument Tony is using is shown in the text at the start of the film.

I'm not buying Tony, as are some 7/7 deniers.

More sour grapes than fine wine.

JMO.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by uprising

I believe, from what he said (in the OP) he was inspired after watching a film called 'Reasonable cause' by Tony Rooke (one that seems to have disappeared from the web?) I believe that was after he lost his job.

I see, I was under the impression that he was sacked for doing an intelligence analysis that pointed to syp being behind the 7/7 attacks. why did he lose his job?

EDIT: OK the above quote is only in reference to non payment of CT/Terrorism act.

[uprising]

Originally Posted by iq_145

uprising, could you post anything in support of, "As mentioned in my previous letter, the Home Office have confirmed in writing that there can be no exemptions," please?

TF has kindly responded. Below is a letter sent to Tony Rooke, from the Home Office in relation to his own stance-

"Dear Mr Rooke,
 
Thank you for your e-mail of 13/09/2011 5:05:12 PM about the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT). You asked whether it is still an offence to provide money to any organisation that one had reasonable suspicion or cause to believe is involved or may be involved in acts of terrorism.
 
Section 15(3) of TACT sets out that a person commits an offence if he -
 
a) provides money or other property, and
 
b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism
 
I can confirm that this and other offences relating to receiving or providing money, that one knows or suspects may be used for terrorist purposes (sections 15-18 of TACT) are still in place, and there are no plans to amend this part of the legislation. All UK legislation can be found at www.legislation.gov.uk and this site is regularly updated to reflect any changes to legislation.
 
I hope this information is helpful."

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by uprising

TF has kindly responded. Below is a letter sent to Tony Rooke, from the Home Office in relation to his own stance-

"Dear Mr Rooke,
 
Thank you for your e-mail of 13/09/2011 5:05:12 PM about the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT). You asked whether it is still an offence to provide money to any organisation that one had reasonable suspicion or cause to believe is involved or may be involved in acts of terrorism.
 
Section 15(3) of TACT sets out that a person commits an offence if he -
 
a) provides money or other property, and
 
b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism
 
I can confirm that this and other offences relating to receiving or providing money, that one knows or suspects may be used for terrorist purposes (sections 15-18 of TACT) are still in place, and there are no plans to amend this part of the legislation. All UK legislation can be found at www.legislation.gov.uk and this site is regularly updated to reflect any changes to legislation.
 
I hope this information is helpful."

Thanks for that, uprising.

When I first heard of this case, I thought that it was unique inasmuch as TF had information specifically gathered as a result of his terminated employment with, or for, South Yorkshire Police.

Now it seems to be moving away from just TF and SYP, and more into the general arena, where anyone can claim this if they have grounds for reasonable suspicion.

The question then would be, are these grounds limited to your local police force (funded via the Council Tax), or are there other components of the Council Tax which end up with central government?

I'll look into this.

[straw man]

Originally Posted by iq_145

..........or are there other components of the Council Tax which end up with central government?

I'll look into this.

Council Tax stays with the council. Only Business Rates go to central government for redistribution.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by straw man

Council Tax stays with the council. Only Business Rates go to central government for redistribution.

So I was led to believe.

My search so far:

I looked at Preston City Council

(Source: http://www.preston.gov.uk/yourservic...g-council-tax/)

The Council Tax annual bill for a Band D property for 2012/13 is £1,577.80

Fire Department precept £63.65

Police Force precept £146.27

Preston City Council £259.58

Lancashire County Council precept £1,108.30

The local residents, who might assume that most of this money is being spent on waste collection, sports and leisure centres, etc., might be surprised to know that only 17% of their Council Tax bill (which already excludes the water rate) is being spent on these areas. The County Council precept is 70%.

However, when I try and determine how the (major) County Council breaks down its 70% share, I get

· By law, Lancashire County Council has to make its accounts available to Council Tax payers for inspection for a period of 20 working days.

· We will generally do this during the summer each year.

· The dates for the financial year 2011/12 (1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012) are 2 to 27 July 2012 inclusive. Access to the accounts is between the hours of 8.45 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

· If you wish to inspect our accounts we will make arrangements for you to view them within our premises.

· To arrange a viewing please contact ...

(Source: http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corpora...ageid=5277&e=e)

Then, take a look at this (from the same web page):

Questions can be directed to the Council's external auditors from Monday 30 July 2012 from 10.00 a.m. until the completion of the audit.

Questions may be received at County Hall, Preston, by arrangement with the auditor, Karen Murray, Audit Commission, Aspinall Close, Middlebrook, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 6QQ (Tel. 0844 798 7300)

· You are only permitted to ask the auditor questions about the accounts.

· The auditor does have the right not to answer questions about the council's policies, finances & procedures. The questions must be about the accounts that they are auditing.

The auditor does not have to say whether they think something the council has done, or an item in its accounts, is lawful or reasonable.

In particular, note the last sentence.

So, if I go along during the deliberately narrow window of opportunity to ask about the old accounts (not the current ones), I cannot ask the auditor if any of my money has or may have gone towards aiding a terrorist organization or funding an act of terrorism or treason.

[jon galt]

Originally Posted by iq_145

So I was led to believe.

My search so far:

I looked at Preston City Council

(Source: http://www.preston.gov.uk/yourservic...g-council-tax/)

The Council Tax annual bill for a Band D property for 2012/13 is £1,577.80

Fire Department precept £63.65

Police Force precept £146.27

Preston City Council £259.58

Lancashire County Council precept £1,108.30

The local residents, who might assume that most of this money is being spent on waste collection, sports and leisure centres, etc., might be surprised to know that only 17% of their Council Tax bill (which already excludes the water rate) is being spent on these areas. The County Council precept is 70%.

However, when I try and determine how the (major) County Council breaks down its 70% share, I get

· By law, Lancashire County Council has to make its accounts available to Council Tax payers for inspection for a period of 20 working days.

· We will generally do this during the summer each year.

· The dates for the financial year 2011/12 (1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012) are 2 to 27 July 2012 inclusive. Access to the accounts is between the hours of 8.45 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

· If you wish to inspect our accounts we will make arrangements for you to view them within our premises.

· To arrange a viewing please contact ...

(Source: http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corpora...ageid=5277&e=e)

Then, take a look at this (from the same web page):

Questions can be directed to the Council's external auditors from Monday 30 July 2012 from 10.00 a.m. until the completion of the audit.

Questions may be received at County Hall, Preston, by arrangement with the auditor, Karen Murray, Audit Commission, Aspinall Close, Middlebrook, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 6QQ (Tel. 0844 798 7300)

· You are only permitted to ask the auditor questions about the accounts.

· The auditor does have the right not to answer questions about the council's policies, finances & procedures. The questions must be about the accounts that they are auditing.

The auditor does not have to say whether they think something the council has done, or an item in its accounts, is lawful or reasonable.

In particular, note the last sentence.

So, if I go along during the deliberately narrow window of opportunity to ask about the old accounts (not the current ones), I cannot ask the auditor if any of my money has or may have gone towards aiding a terrorist organization or funding an act of terrorism or treason.

the councils provide other services, schools , leisure/libraries ect plus maintenance of walkways

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by jon galt

the councils provide other services, schools , leisure/libraries ect plus maintenance of walkways

I'm not saying that they don't. That is not the point of the thread.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by iq_145

In particular, note the last sentence.

So what?
Surely you are not saying an auditor is or should be in a position to make a decision on law?
You are looking for a conspiracy where there is none.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

So what?
Surely you are not saying an auditor is or should be in a position to make a decision on law?
You are looking for conspiracy where there is none.

"The auditor does not have to say whether they think something the council has done, or an item in its accounts, is lawful or reasonable."

You have not read the quote accurately. I am not asking the auditor for a decision on law, but I am not allowed to solicit a reasoned opinion from a fellow human being? Why not?

I am "looking for conspiracy," as much as you are being too naive and/or gullible. There seems no rational point in the sentence highlighted, since it is stating the obvious, is it not?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by iq_145

"The auditor does not have to say whether they think something the council has done, or an item in its accounts, is lawful or reasonable."

You have not read the quote accurately. I am not asking the auditor for a decision on law, but I am not allowed to solicit a reasoned opinion from a fellow human being? Why not?

Why not? It's friggin' obvious why not. He's an auditor, he's not a member of law profession. His job is not to provide what he thinks is and what is not lawful, his job is to audit the accounts. What he thinks is irrelevant.

I am "looking for conspiracy," as much as you are being too naive and/or gullible. There seems no rational point in the sentence highlighted, since it is stating the obvious, is it not?

Maybe in the past people such as the gentleman who this thread is about have approached a council's auditors and have asked them if they believe the council's actions are lawful. As it is not the position of an auditor to make such a determination, his job is to audit the accounts, the council would include such a clause to prevent that from happening again. But that would not be because they care what the auditor thinks, it would be because it is not what the auditor is being paid to do, nor is he qualified to offer his opinion.

[iq_145]

"You may also object if you think that there is something in the accounts that the auditor should discuss with the council or tell the public about in a 'public interest report'. Again, you must give your reasons. The auditor will decide whether to take any action. The auditor will normally, but reserves the right not to give reasons for their decision and you cannot appeal to the courts."

(Source: Lancashire County Council web page already referenced, http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corpora...ageid=5277&e=e)

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by iq_145

"You may also object if you think that there is something in the accounts that the auditor should discuss with the council or tell the public about in a 'public interest report'. Again, you must give your reasons. The auditor will decide whether to take any action. The auditor will normally, but reserves the right not to give reasons for their decision and you cannot appeal to the courts."

(Source: Lancashire County Council web page already referenced, http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corpora...ageid=5277&e=e)

But that is entirely different. That is about the accounts. You are quite free to discuss the accounts with the auditor.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

But that is entirely different. That is about the accounts. You are quite free to discuss the accounts with the auditor.

Well, I didn't get very far with Lancashire County Council, so I tried Essex County Council. They are not much better, but did provide a pie chart on which there is an allocation of £39M (assuming that the labels, rather than the colours, on the pie chart were wrong!) for "other administrative costs." So I dug around a little to find out what some of these costs might be. Now, what if I found that payments were going out to central government that I thought contradicted legislation concerning Council Tax? Can I question that, or am I limited to asking only whether the two columns of figures in the accounts add up to the same total?

For example, the Climate Change Levy is collected by HM Revenue & Customs. The council will have to pay this tax. And where does the money come from to pay it? Does it come from the Council Tax, hidden under "other administrative costs"? Is this a valid question, do you think?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Well, I didn't get very far with Lancashire County Council, so I tried Essex County Council. They are not much better, but did provide a pie chart on which there is an allocation of £39M (assuming that the labels, rather than the colours, on the pie chart were wrong!) for "other administrative costs." So I dug around a little to find out what some of these costs might be. Now, what if I found that payments were going out to central government that I thought contradicted legislation concerning Council Tax? Can I question that, or am I limited to asking only whether the two columns of figures in the accounts add up to the same total?

For example, the Climate Change Levy is collected by HM Revenue & Customs. The council will have to pay this tax. And where does the money come from to pay it? Does it come from the Council Tax, hidden under "other administrative costs"? Is this a valid question, do you think?

I would say those questions are valid questions.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

Why not? It's friggin' obvious why not. He's an auditor, he's not a member of law profession. His job is not to provide what he thinks is and what is not lawful, his job is to audit the accounts. What he thinks is irrelevant. ...

Well, in that case, it's "friggin' obvious" that no one except a solicitor/lawyer/attorney/barrister can have any idea whatsoever about the law of the land. Therefore, ignorance of the law is a completely valid defence in law for absolutely everyone who is not qualified in the legal profession. Also, those that are qualified are only qualified in their particular field, and are thus completely ignorant of all other areas of law.

By your own logic, you are stating that you are qualified to post on legal matters in this sub-forum. Fair enough, though I doubt it.

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

I would say those questions are valid questions.

Excellent!

Now, if I have reason to believe that I have contributed to the Climate Change Levy, which goes directly to HM Revenue & Customs, and I can show that HMRC are directly linked to the UK government, and I have reason to believe that the UK government committed treason ("terrorism") on the London Transport System on 7th July 2005, do I have grounds for withholding my Council Tax until a court decides the issue?

[maxine]

I'm impressed, that he actually had the courage, and strength - to stand up for what he believes to be right!
I also believe, that the Government could, "take him out" at anytime!
Human beings - especially those in Government - need to think more carefully - about their wreckless acts!!

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Well, in that case, it's "friggin' obvious" that no one except a solicitor/lawyer/attorney/barrister can have any idea whatsoever about the law of the land. Therefore, ignorance of the law is a completely valid defence in law for absolutely everyone who is not qualified in the legal profession. Also, those that are qualified are only qualified in their particular field, and are thus completely ignorant of all other areas of law.

I am merely trying to point out it is not the job nor the responsibility of an auditor to make a decision whether or not the body whose accounts he is auditing is acting in a lawful manner except to ensure the accounts he is auditing are presented according to law. Obviously should he be made aware of what he considers to be illegal activity, then he should report it to the police. But he is not required to give an opinion of the council's activity.
It would be like asking the council's solicitor to comment on a complex accounting issue regarding the council's accounts. It's not his job to, nor is he qualified to do so.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Excellent!

Now, if I have reason to believe that I have contributed to the Climate Change Levy, which goes directly to HM Revenue & Customs, and I can show that HMRC are directly linked to the UK government, and I have reason to believe that the UK government committed treason ("terrorism") on the London Transport System on 7th July 2005, do I have grounds for withholding my Council Tax until a court decides the issue?

Of course you could run that argument. But if the decision of the court is that paying council tax does not contravene the Terrorism Act, then I would say you would be liable for council tax. I do hope Mr. Farrel is prepared for this.