From: delboy on
On 16 Mar, 00:36, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
> > On 15/03/2010 18:25, Adrian wrote:
> >> Nick Finnigan<n...(a)genie.co.uk>  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >> were saying:
>
> >>>> But, please, stop confusing that "liking" for a "need" - and accept
> >>>> that an inevitable corollory of that liking is going to be increased
> >>>> running costs - due to the fact that their inherent design requirements
> >>>> mean they tend to be big, heavy, thirsty vehicles - which inevitably
> >>>> means increased taxation due to the fact they emit more CO2 and use
> >>>> more fuel - after all, it's not exactly a secret that CO2 has been used
> >>>> as the basis for vehicle taxation for a decade, and that fuel has been
> >>>> taxed for one hell of a lot longer.
>
> >>>    Although I think Chelsea Tractor Man claims to emit less CO2 than
> >>> your
> >>> 2.0 petrol car
>
> >> <shrug>  I wouldn't know. There's no official CO2 figures for my car..
>
> > Though if it did, it would happily demonstrate the lack of a 4x4 tax. I
> > see JNugent has now dropped his claim there was one.
>
> I never said that there *was* one specifically devoted to 4x4s. Those are
> words which someone else tried to put into my mouth.
>
> I pointed out that if the owners of 4x4s were to complain about the
> spite/envy taxes which are levied on them (the question of whether they are
> levied upon the owners of other sorts of expensive and large cars is
> irrelevant), I would find myself in some sympathy with them.
>
> There *is* a system of spite/envy/playing to the gallery taxes on more
> expensive cars, often reported as a "4x4 tax".- Hide quoted text -
>
>
Even quite humble ex rep Ford Mondeos and Vauxhall Vectras have quite
high rates of VED applied to them!

Derek C

From: Brimstone on


"Jacobian" <Jacobian(a)live.com> wrote in message
news:80ab7dF9vaU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> On 16/03/2010 21:06, Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:6jRnn.50828$Ym4.39128(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> message news:_UPnn.50799$Ym4.4900(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:dpznn.50620$Ym4.41311(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>> S wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about drivers identity clearly displayed on the outside of
>>>>>>>> their cars?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doh! Its called a number plate knobhead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That identifies the vehicle, not the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> It identifies the registered keeper and if the vehicle is involved in
>>>>> breaking traffic law the registered keeper is obliged to name the
>>>>> driver. Same thing innit?
>>>>>
>>>> No, because there's no guarantee that the registered keeper will know
>>>> who the driver is.
>>>
>>> Oh really? In that case the registered keeper is liable.
>>>
>> In the case of a car leasing company pool car, who are you going to
>> prosecute?
>>
>>
> Company secretary, happens all the time, look it up!

Which company secretary?


From: Peter Grange on
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:21:54 +0000, Jacobian <Jacobian(a)live.com>
wrote:

>On 16/03/2010 21:06, Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:6jRnn.50828$Ym4.39128(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> message news:_UPnn.50799$Ym4.4900(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:dpznn.50620$Ym4.41311(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>>> S wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about drivers identity clearly displayed on the outside of
>>>>>>>> their cars?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doh! Its called a number plate knobhead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That identifies the vehicle, not the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> It identifies the registered keeper and if the vehicle is involved in
>>>>> breaking traffic law the registered keeper is obliged to name the
>>>>> driver. Same thing innit?
>>>>>
>>>> No, because there's no guarantee that the registered keeper will know
>>>> who the driver is.
>>>
>>> Oh really? In that case the registered keeper is liable.
>>>
>> In the case of a car leasing company pool car, who are you going to
>> prosecute?
>>
>>
>Company secretary, happens all the time, look it up!

That'll be the Company Secretary that a company is not required to
have any more.
From: Jacobian on
On 17/03/2010 10:54, Peter Grange wrote:

>>>
>>>
>> Company secretary, happens all the time, look it up!
>
> That'll be the Company Secretary that a company is not required to
> have any more.

Just because you don't 'need' a company secretary anymore, doesn't mean
that most don't have one.

Anyway, fill in the name of a company on a logbook, you are required to
nominate a responsible real person.. they get the points/fine if they
cannot point finger at someone else.
From: The Medway Handyman on
Jacobian wrote:
> On 17/03/2010 10:54, Peter Grange wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Company secretary, happens all the time, look it up!
>>
>> That'll be the Company Secretary that a company is not required to
>> have any more.
>
> Just because you don't 'need' a company secretary anymore, doesn't
> mean that most don't have one.
>
> Anyway, fill in the name of a company on a logbook, you are required
> to nominate a responsible real person.. they get the points/fine if
> they cannot point finger at someone else.

Don't be surprised if they don't understand that - cyclists are a bit thick.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.