Thanks. Not many signatures it's true, but the point of the petition was to get a debate in Parliament and that was acheived. Primarily it turns out to be an education problem: most people believe 1) that banks lend out Granny's savings 2) that either only the Govt creates money, or that the Govt is in control of how much is created We haven't seen sufficent change so far because based upon a recent poll of MPs, 2/3rds fit into the above category. So the most useful thing anyone can do today is get their MP to the discussion this Thursday 20th. It's about time that the Govt gets advice on banking from someone who isnt a banker!

Well, in-spite of opposing vested interests, it seems there is a ground-swell of opinion that thinks the banking industry should put in its place. Steve Baker MP has tabled a debate 'Money Creation an Society' so that Parliament can discuss whether money should be created by private banks for the purposes of their profit, or whether, as I think, it should be under Parliamentary control for the benefit of the people. Money is a man-made concept and Parliament can - as it did last time - change the rules. You can help: just ask your MP to attend the debate; that's all! It doesn't matter which party he is from or what his view are or even whether you agree with them, we (financially aware citizens) need the ruling elite to be educated on money. But you need to act now: the debate is this Thursday 20th. It might be the most important thing you do for your future this weekend, and it's easy. Contact your MP and ask him to attend the debate. You can find his details and email via this link: http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/contact-your-mp/contacting-your-mp/ or even tweet: http://tweetminster.co.uk/mps Or if you want a pre-written email, the organisation Positive Money has arranged this too: http://www.positivemoney.org/get-involved/email-your-mp/ Thanks from me, and good job exercising your democratic rights

Pros and cons. The very people who won't give an address to the Gov't, who state in the epetition process that adresses are not published but used to confirm UK residency and prevent multiple votes, also have an account with Yahoo, Google, Facebook or a Tesco Clubcard. I'm more concerned about the latter: at least HMG can be changed democratically. Banks can't though, which is why we need to get an organisation who outranks them (in some areas) to reign them in before they create the next crash, which is inevitable as so far the legislation just made them step one pace further from the cliff, nothing fundamental was changed. The London property bubble is evidence: rather than pumping up all property including sub-prime, they are pumping false cash into property where people are deemed 'good for it'. To quote Mervyn King: “House prices are a matter of opinion whereas debt is real.” Until we strip private companies of the power to create money, this will continue to happen in whatever asset is most profitable for them. That's what the petition is about http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050 And I notice I posted highlights but didn't actually post a link above to the FT where they echoed my PoV here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f000b18-ca44-11e3-bb92-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz30PY2Lbn2

So here's my experience: back in 1988 and about 19 minutes before the property crash, I paid a licenced acredited professional more than a month's worth of discretionary salary to carry out a full structural survey and valuation of a flat. He said 'in the current market conditions ... valuation £70k' and on that basis I bought my first property. At the time I had one engineering degree, but had not spent time analyzing the ratio of prices to average salaries, the past 20 years history of house prices or the creation of money. Interest rates hit 15% the next year and one person I worked with was paying his entire take home to the bank and surviving on overtime. It was another 14 years before the flat was worth £70k again: there were many others in negaitve equity by 1989, and I'm sure also in 2007. You can call me naive if you like: it's obvious that the buyer wants maximum price, as does the estate agent. Gazumped was the word at the time. I figured there were two balancing forces: the independent surveyor on a fee not a commission, who did not mention we were at the peakiest peak in his career; and the bank who surely would not lend over the asset price? How wrong I was! The surveyor had a get-out clause, and it took another 20 years for the banking industry to see any downside to pumping money into asset bubbles. Now the banks have observed the problem: but it does not matter, because YOU will bail them out. They get the upside, and if everything goes wrong £85k of each deposit account is guaranteed by YOU. So all you frequent CAG expert posters: you advised people on their debt; you railed against payday lenders; you pointed to great deals on mortgages, and where to compare energy prices. Here's the opportunity to get behind a structural change in money that might just prevent the next crash, and all the misery that accompanies it. But it's no good just reading this post, or just reading the petition. You have to actually click on "sign" to make a difference. Thanks from the many you just helped.

By the end of next year your mortgage payments may be double. But that's OK, because the value of your house has gone up, right? 10% over the last year. From Nationwide: But did your standard of living go up, or did you return to the same house as yesterday? If you think about it, what's actually going to happen is your standard of living will drop. So why is this happening? Well, imagine you're a bank manager and the political pressure is on you to lend. You could loan to a business that makes things and employs people, the productive economy; but that's risky. Far safer to lend a mortgage: it's a win-win. Either you get 25 years of interest, more than the cost of the house: or the borrower defaults and you get the house. A good return for typing numbers into a computer, and so this is where the majority of bank created money has gone. Here's what that did to the money supply: Has your salary gone up like that? How about your pension or savings? And you also have a huge debt/mortgage, twice as big as it would have been if private companies had not pumped up property prices in order to maximise their profits. If you are content with the erosion of you standard of living in order that banks can make bigger profits, then do nothing. If you think that new money should be under control of the state and benefit society, then please sign the petition. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050

Yes, actually it is correct when it comes to banks. I thought it was actually a great description of the flaws in the system. Here's my version: Joe the High Street Banker lends £10 to Mike; then another £10 to Fred; then another £10 to George, again and again, ten, twenty, thirty times. In the pub he’d need a magic wallet that refilled every time he took £10 out, but instead he's a Banker with a computer and puts ‘10’ into each of their accounts. They think it’s money because they go to the cashpoint, draw it out, and spend it at places that use Bank of Joe. Then Joe gets to lend it out again, even though when he typed it, it was just a magic ‘10’ in their account on the back of his previous IOU, which itself was on the back of the previous IOU, which itself.... you get the picture. Joe thinks he ‘attracted’ the deposit when really it had no-where to go but a mattress or back into the banking system. Both Mike and George spent their money at the corner shop. The owner goes to Joe’s cashpoint to withdraw £20: now Joe’s in trouble! But don’t worry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bail him out using a little bit of money from Mike, and Fred, and George .... in fact all of Joe’s customers get a little bit poorer so that Joe doesn’t go bust. Joe feels so happy with his ability to generate interest on £300 using just £10 that he pays himself around seven times his annual salary in shares, bonus payments and incentive schemes. Society sighs with the inequality of it all thinking nothing can be done against the powerful banks, even though Parliament already stopped this once before. With no direction from the Populous, not even a signed petition, MPs tut-tut at the bankers' bonuses but take no action. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050

This from a debate I am having with someone in financial services. Does he have the description right? If so, what are the implications?

It seems you are right. It's unfortunate, because the issue is serious. An example: if houses were subject to normal inflation and not bank created money inflation, the average house today would cost £85k (referenced to Nationwide index start of 1983). I think this would make a big difference to the number of people struggling to pay the mortgage, the number of reposessions, and the ability to get on the property ladder. For information to those who haven’t signed an e-petition before, then you have to provide your name, address, and an email. That information does not get published: this is part of the epetitions process: it is used to verify you as a UK resident and prevent double counting. This is what elevates e-petitions above blogs and forums and potentially into the democratic process.

Thanks. 1200 views and virtually no signitories. Do you folks not believe this is how money works, or maybe think it's unchangeable? I would really like to know! As an example, of £375bn QE, only 8% found it's way out of the financial system and into the productive economy. If the benefits of creating money went to the public not to private companies, that could have been a massive infrastrucure injection, flood defences, schools, hospitals, not needing to cash in the Royal Mail plus HS2 thrown in for good measure. Isn't this worth a signiture?

Cudos to Martin Wolf, leading UK economics commentator for FT: the warning is of the repeat crash that will happen unless we do something. Indeed, specifically something like this: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050 Title: "Strip private banks of their power to create money" "The giant hole at the heart of our market economies needs to be plugged. Printing counterfeit banknotes is illegal, but creating private money is not. ... It could – and should – be terminated." ... "Banks create deposits as a byproduct of their lending. In the UK, such deposits make up about 97 per cent of the money supply. Some people object that deposits are not money but only transferable private debts. Yet the public views the banks’ imitation money as electronic cash ..." ... "[irving] Fisher [famous economist] argued that this would greatly reduce business cycles, end bank runs and drastically reduce public debt. A 2012 study by International Monetary Fund staff suggests this plan could work well." ... "The state, not banks, would create all transactions money, just as it creates cash today." ... "Banks could offer investment accounts, which would provide loans. But they could only loan money actually invested by customers. They would be stopped from creating such accounts out of thin air and so would become the intermediaries that many wrongly believe they now are." "The transition to a system in which money creation is separated from financial intermediation ... would bring huge advantages. It would be possible to increase the money supply without encouraging people to borrow to the hilt. It would end “too big to fail” in banking. It would also transfer seignorage – the benefits from creating money – to the public." ... "It [loophole] could be closed by separating the provision of money, rightly a function of the state, from the provision of finance, a function of the private sector." "This will not happen now. But remember the possibility. When the next crisis comes – and it surely will – we need to be ready."

Cheers Filrobbo, don't forget to tell your friends Nice to see the Financial Times getting behind the campaign. Or at least identifyiing the issue, the problems it causes, and slightly 'warning' their customers of the solution. Thanks! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f000b18-ca44-11e3-bb92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30PY2Lbn2 I will put up highlights when I have more time, for those who don't want to register with FT; but the clue is in the title: "Strip private banks of their power to create money"

Well, about 35M people bought an overpriced house because the banks inflated the property market. Then there's anyone with a loan, and anyone with debt. No, I don't think a petition will stop it, but it will raise the level of understanding and start the conversation. Most people just don't beleive that banks "print" electronic money from nothing, and I'm not surprised because it's not their everyday experience of working for money. If people have thought about it at all, they believe that the Bank of England is in control of the money supply, whereas the graph clearly shows they are not: £375bn of QE and these private companies still managed to contract the money supply and worsen the recession. We have to start somewhere and a petition is a start. If you also want to lobby your MP then please do. Parliament already removed this power from the banks once, they can do it again, and will when enough people ask for it.

Good point, I also find it disgusting that they had to be bailed out by the taxpayer because they acted recklessly, then feel they deserve billions in bonuses just a short while later. However, the banks paying themselves huge bonuses is just one symptom of the way money works, which is why the petition addresses the cause. Easily the most profitable activity in the world today is just playing with numbers in a computer. This is not an industry that adds value, they just make the numbers in their accounts worth more and the numbers in your accounts worth less. The graph shows just how effective they have been: did you put money into a pension in the 1970’s or 1980s? Do you have a pension now and want the situation to change? [ATTACH=CONFIG]50647[/ATTACH] The specific point on playing with money we don't have is worth explaining. Let's say a friend wants to borrow money, so you print some out for them in your garage: you go to jail. What if you hacked into their bank account and increased the numbers? You go to jail. Not so the bank: because they have a logon ID, they simply add numbers to the account and create the new money. When the bank plays with money it doesn't have, magically it becomes money they do have just by hitting 'Enter'. Even though they didn't work to create that money, they still get to reclaim eg: your house if you stop the repayments. Type numbers into a computer... get a house. That's fair, right? We are heading towards the next crash until we change something fundamental about the *way* money works, not just the size of buffer separating ourselves from said crash. Honestly I'm quite surprised at the apparent ambivalence of CAG. Last figures I saw estimate nearly 100M people worldwide pushed into poverty by the financial crash, making this one of the most important campaigns around. If it’s a lack of understanding or belief, then please ask questions! If you do understand then please sign the petition.

The two biggest forums on CAG are Banks and Debt, with over a million posts each. Clearly money is a big issue in the UK. What is the root cause? The answer is that money is created by private companies (banks) simply by typing figures into a computer. It’s a great business model, isn’t it? You apply for a mortgage, the bank types numbers into your account and then charges you interest on them, many thousands of pounds over many years. This was not some pensioner's savings: it was new money created out of nothing by the bank. But don't take my word for it: here it is explained by the Bank of England: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/051.aspx "​Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." The effects are huge and widespread: · * If you are wondering why you are in debt, the answer is that these companies are incentivised to create as much debt as possible so they can charge interest on it. Moreover, we can never get out of debt, because then 97% of the money in the economy would disappear. · * Why are houses so expensive? New money could be put into productive use - for example a business that employs people and makes widgets: but that's risky, so the biggest destination of new money is housing, and that's why houses are so expensive. · * Pensioners on the breadline. £1 saved in the 1950s has been deflated down to 4p today by the creation of masses of new money. · * The most profitable activity on the planet is now playing with numbers in computers. The brightest minds go not into industries that benefit society but into finance. This is not the first time such a situation existed. In the 1800s the promissory notes issued by private banks had become money, the banks figured out they could just print more, and a property bubble was caused. So Parliament stepped in with the Bank Charter Act of 1844 and said that only the Bank of England could print money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Charter_Act_1844 Unfortunately there was a get-out clause, which was Demand Deposits, i.e. your bank balance. With the advent of computers it became possible to multiply BoE currency massively, 48x at the time of the crash. Money is not a natural phenomenon, it is manmade and we make the rules. Yet a few years after they needed to be saved, banks are in the position to pay £billions in bonuses. I think that the rules should have money serve society, not private, unaccountable, profit seeking enterprises. If you agree, please post your support so I can organise the campaign. I have also set up an e-petition here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64050 If you don’t agree, please say why, cite your evidence, and we can have a sensible debate about it. Thank you. Mike Garrard

No confusion here, I'm discussing this on a practical basis because I think that's most helpful. Lack of actual evidence of driver does not stop the summons for speeding: it's part of the intimidation. Generally, when dual charges are laid, they are improperly treated as alternative charges. Whilst in theory they are independent, one exists because of the other and treatment is interelated, as is the evidence trail. In this case the OP is in the situation where he could actually manage to get convicted of both, by admitting to the speeding. The best path would be to get the CPS to conditionally agree to drop the s172 charge should he agree to plead guilty to the speeding. This used to be their policy with dual charging - just pursue one. Note that this needs to be done prior to Court, which in theory can't drop either. However, if speeding was laid out of time then that's off the table. If both were out of time then no case to answer.

... except they were on the same piece of paper. That's the reality here. Do you think the Mags will consider them independently, two separate summons, two separate hearings? @grantshel: what does the summons say?

They are separate charges and under different legislation but clearly there is a connection between them. Without s172 no-one would self incriminate, an argument that went to the ECHR. The other connection is that if the NIP was not served then there would be no reason NOT to identify in a speeding prosecution that would fail. Also, because they are on the same piece of paper, the NIP was not received so there was no actual s172 received, that is if what the Police brought round was a summons. Seperate offences, connected evidence. The speeding offence has a timeout: the papers have to be laid infront of the JoP within 6 months of the alleged offence. If the Police spent time tracking you down before the CPS laid info then the window to prosecute might just have expired. The Court will have a date of laying. Most likely the NIP/s172 was sent in time leading to the rebuttable presumption that it was served, i.e.: it was sent to the registered address so it is presumed served unless proven otherwise. It's then your responsibility to comply with s172, which you did not due to the house move. You're going to be in Court anyway so you get the opportunity to argue that 6 points is disproportionate for this admin error and that had it been presented to you within time limit you would happily have complied. If the Police could visit within the 6months + 28 days available to lay information for s172 (6 months after you didn't respond to the NIP) then they could have not prosecuted and just supplied a copy of the original NIP/s172, which would have saved everyone time money and effort.

Is not the one consequent of the other? The NIP is sent and requires disclosure of the driver, and failure to nominate is the S172 consequence of not responding. If the NIP isn't served properly then the identity is moot. They will probably then dual charge - speeding and failure to nominate. I doubt they will drop it because it's still a numbers game but not knowing and pleading guilty should minimise the fine. Did you not have post forwarding? I'd update your documents at this point.

I'm not sure independence would cure the problem. HMG promised debates for >100k and reneged on the promise. They stated they would respond to >10k signitures and can't always be bothered with that, even for petitions as high as 85,000 signitures. The (party line) responses are required to come from HMG anyway. e-petitions appear to vie with backbench motions for Parliamentary time, so an MP has to adopt and speak on behalf of a topic over any issues they have from their own constituency. Unfortunately, I think we need a Parliament that thinks that the concensed view of the (chattering) masses is something to which they should pay attention as opposed to just an opinion poll.

Guido, I hope you are right. Did you send your response recorded delivery and was it signed for? Even this is not definitive. Some SCPs max out and deal with the impending cases so it's brinkmanship all the way - NIPs sent 13 days after, cases laid 5 months 29 days etc. If they have lost a case or more on vague locus then you might be lucky. I wonder if the 1mph over SAC works in your favour: SAC is profit, Court is overhead to SCP. NIP wizard looks like pepipoo, some good expertise there. Not that it helps at court, but the controlled study by Transport Research Laboratory report TRL595 now in public domain showed an increase in accidents with speed cameras used at roadworks. It's actually safer for the workmen *without* cameras. My view is people spend less time focussing on their speedo and more time looking at the road.

You are right, it's not the offence, it's the detection mechanism. Devices approved for unattended operation need a second corroborating detection mechanism eg: Gatso's radar + photos. If the two don't agree to 10% then there is insufficient evidence. Somewhere I recall 'shall not be convicted on the word of one officer alone', and there is good legislative support for 'Formed Opinion' confirmed by a device that is regularly ignored in court, where the reverse order seems to do.

The Police do have to lay the summons before a Justice of the Peace within 6 months of the alleged offence. I think they did that? Sounds like the alleged offence was 9th Aug and they laid the notice on 5th Feb. Technically, entering the offence into a computer at the back office of the SCP isn't putting it before anyone: the information isn't at the court until the clark logs in and retrieves it, just like this post isn't in your house until you log on. Unfortunately science doesn't rule in a court, the last wise words of some old man does, and Magistrates are generally a bit blind to procedural errors anyway. The Court is obliged to keep a record of all cased laid so you can call them and confirm dates. As you are pleading guilty, you will get a bigger fine and costs from the court but the points are probably going to be the same.

To be valid, the Notice of Intended Prosecution for speeding must have been delivered to your old address within 14 days of the alleged offence. Worth checking.

Ignoring open petitions, of 21,000 only about 30 have crossed the 100k threshold, and even there the response is sometimes just a request for scheduling a commons debate. Some don't have champion MPs and the inference is they won't be debated. 23,000 were rejected. I have yet to sign one where the govt response differed from their position when the e-petition was opened, so I'm trending to the opinion that whilst this could be e-democracy, it's really just a venting board to keep us busy. Browsing the top hitters, it seems that arguably only Hillsborough caused a change in outcome. Anyone had more luck? Do we need an e-petition to take e-petitions seriously?

Dear Sir or Madam, Complaint concerning reference: xxx I appeal against this fine. I have received your letter dated 23rd December 2008, which I opened on my return from Cornwall on the 6th January. I note it threatens legal action on the 9th January. 1) It is unreasonable to use 14 days to respond without taking account of the Christmas and New Year holidays. You probably do not work those weekdays yourself. 2) I highlight again your lack of compliance with SI 2002 No. 2742, schedule 4, part 1, and your misuse of the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 as amended by the Finance Act 2002 Section 19, in refusing to accept SORN due to lack of reference number. 3) That I declared SORN on my other vehicles whilst in China proves that I made contact with you at that time. 4) That I know you refuse SORN due to lack of reference number from the V5 or renewal reminder, both online and over the phone, proves that attempts have been made to declare SORN by these paths. 5) By definition these attempts were not on the vehicles for which SORN was declared. Therefore they were made for the vehicle in question. 6) I have proof by independent witness that all the information required by Statute Law was provided as required whilst I was in China. 7) I have proof by my computer records that attempts were made to declare this vehicle SORN online. 8) I wrote to you in November pointing out that your online system was still refusing to accept a SORN declaration from the UK (and using the V5 reference number). 9) I have proof by independent witness that attempts were made in the UK to declare SORN. 10) (7),(8) & (9) prove your assertion that according to your computer records no prior attempts were made is mistaken. 11) The passing of this matter to a Debt Collecting Authority denies me my right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. 12) I will not pay a Debt Collector since this amounts to trial by computer. As far as I am concerned, I discharged my SORN responsibility within time as required by Statute Law. If you disagree then you will have to take me to Court and prove otherwise. I believe this to be malicious pursuit of an illegal fine, and against the original intent of Parliament when it enacted the legislation, and also against the stated aims of the DVLA. I have made a complaint to my MP and to the head of Enforcement at the DVLA. Please provide a copy of the original Late Licensing Penalty notice. Please inform me of the appeals process since I can find none.