From: The Medway Handyman on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:04:36 GMT the perfect time to write:
>
>> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:
>>> On 13 Dec, 16:18, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled
>>>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>
>>>>> A multi millionaire cyclist still wouldn't have to pay a
>>>>> 'specific' fee before being able to use his cycle on a public
>>>>> road though would he?
>>>>
>>>> If it makes you any happier, perhaps you ought to buy this van -
>>>> you could then use the roads yourself, for work, without paying
>>>> any VED or fuel duty. Perfectly legally.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/80500342.htm
>>>
>>> I'd buy the bloody thing for him out of my own pocket, just to hear
>>> of him driving around Kent having paid no "road tax".
>>
>> I wouldn't want it though. I have no problem paying my way. Unlike
>> freeloading cyclists.
>
> But you don't pay income tax on the cost of your tax disc.
> Bloody freeloading tightarsed shelf-bodger.

No idiot, because its an allowable business expense.

BTW 'Bodger' ;-
"Bodgers were highly skilled itinerant wood-turners, who worked in the beech
woods on the chalk hills of the Chilterns. "

So thank you for the compliment about my highly skilled shelf fitting.

I rather think you meant "botcher". Not too bright are you?


--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist


From: The Medway Handyman on
Adrian wrote:
> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> A multi millionaire cyclist still wouldn't have to pay a 'specific'
>>>> fee before being able to use his cycle on a public road though
>>>> would he?
>
>>> If it makes you any happier, perhaps you ought to buy this van - you
>>> could then use the roads yourself, for work, without paying any VED
>>> or fuel duty. Perfectly legally.
>>>
>>> http://www.leboncoin.fr/vi/80500342.htm
>
>> If I lived in France I might.
>
> Depends where in France, but - being in Kent - you wouldn't have very
> much further to travel to collect it than somebody in the North of
> France.
>
>> Are you trying out for idiot of the year?
>
> I'm not the one who doesn't seem to understand the concept of
> importing a vehicle.

I have no wish to do so.


--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist


From: Peter Grange on
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:32:27 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Peter Grange wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:59:36 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
>> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Grange wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was responding to "Cyclists don't pay VED". I am a cyclist, I pay
>>>> VED. The End.
>>>
>>> Not to use your push bike on the road you don't. Fuckwit.
>>
>> That wasn't what you said, fuckwit. "Cyclists don't pay VED" is
>> incorrect. Which SPECIFIC bit of the English language do you have a
>> problem with?
>
>Nice one, except that I've never caled it VED, I've called it Road Tax.
>
>Which SPECIFIC bit of paying your way do you have a problem with?
>
>
I pay all the SPECIFIC taxes the government asks me for. Do you?

--

Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist
From: Mr Benn on
"The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cueVm.14974$Ym4.13557(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote:
>> On 13 Dec, 18:33, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote
>>> innews:23017181-2785-41ab-89e6-875c1a475935(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On 13 Dec, 17:49, "Mr. Benn" <%...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> If you give me your address Simon, I'll order you one of those
>>>>> GBP1.35 high visibility vests that you seem so reluctant to wear if
>>>>> it reduces the chace of you not getting hurt in an accident.- Hide
>>>>> quoted text -
>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>> No need thanks - they don't work in the dark and our site stores has
>>>> 100's of them in stock.
>>>> I rely on my lights which are much more useful.
>>>
>>> They do work in the dark which is why the vests are made from a
>>> fluorescent
>>> and reflective fabric. They reflect light from oncoming vehicles.
>>> Why is
>>> that difficult for you to understand? They are a very useful
>>> compliment to
>>> cycle lighting and even the CTC recognise this. The only reason I
>>> don't
>>> wear one is that I never cycle at night.
>>>
>>> It's all down to whether you want to reduce the chance of getting
>>> involved
>>> in an accident at the end of the day. If your own arrogance leads
>>> you to
>>> believe that a reasonable and proven safety measure doesn't work,
>>> then you
>>> have yourself partially to blame if another road user doesn't see
>>> you in
>>> time to avoid a collision. A driver seeing you a second sooner could
>>> make
>>> all the difference between life and death if that matters to you.
>>>
>>> BTW, have you received your insurance payout yet for your most recent
>>> accident?
>>
>> Most recent? You mean the only one I have had in my life?
>> Next month, after a physio examines me for long term damage.
>>
>> I do have reflective stripes on my shoe covers, tights, shorts and
>> jacket for cars coming from the front and rear.
>> For side traffic this is no use, so I have a 1000 lumen flashing front
>> light and if they miss that there is no hope.
>
> So you admit you are a danger to innocent motorists?

He's a danger to himself because he won't take sensible advice.


From: Peter Grange on
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:39:32 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Adrian wrote:
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled
>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>> Would it be OK if all of country's millions of bicycles, which
>>>> would be in VED band A (Fee = �0), got a stamped round bit of paper
>>>> from the Post Office and stuck it on their frames? Would that do it
>>>> for you? I wouldn't mind if it made van drivers gave me more
>>>> respect on the road.
>>
>>> No, not really. They would have to pay a fee to cover the
>>> inconvenience of admin.
>>
>> Why does that apply to one form of zero-charge VED, yet not to others?
>>
>Because zero rated cars still have number plates, so the pokice can check
>they have insurance & trace them when they break traffic laws.
>
>> Or do you think that all zero-charge VED should pay an "inconvenience
>> of admin" fee?
>
>No, they pay enough in VAT & fuel duty to cover it.

Hang on, we had the VAT argument already. In your strange world VAT on
bikes doesn't count, so wht does it on cars?

--

Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist