From: Peter Grange on 1 Dec 2009 05:46
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:39:53 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <thq9h59v48poocktlfvm2objdp7orclqs3(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange
>> More bollocks.
>So what direct costs do you pay to maintain the roads, bearing in mind
>that taxation on motor vehicles is eight times the road maintenance and
Income tax, VAT, VED on my car, to name but 3.
From: Conor on 1 Dec 2009 05:49
In article <m8s9h5ln77n1haqvra81gaq9oeebsmirbv(a)4ax.com>, Peter Grange
> On 1 Dec 2009 10:24:43 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much
> >like they were saying:
> >>>> It is also frequently demonstrated in court when an offence is
> >>>> committed by the actual driver cannot be identified and the case
> >>>> thrown out.
> >>>ITYF that that particular "loophole" has long been closed, and there's
> >>>now a legal responsibility on the registered keeper to identify the
> >> As in "Please Sir, I can't remember whether it was my wife or myself
> >> that was driving when our car triggered the speed camera" you mean?
> >Yup. That is far from an automatic get-out.
> But it has worked often enough.
In the last few years all it has done is get the person claiming not to
remember a prosecution, and in some cases a prison sentence, for
perverting the course of justice.
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 06:32
"Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> In article <hf2eoj$agp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says...
>> Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT and
>> for cycling,
> No you don't. The only thing out of all of that lot that is specific to
> cycling is the VAT on any purchases directly connected to the bicycle.
You seem to have snipped the relevant sentence:
"and specifically for cycling, import duty on the components of my all bikes
in addition to
Please read properly before making a knee-jerk reaction.
From: Adrian on 1 Dec 2009 06:37
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:
>>> Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT and
>>> specifically for cycling,
>> No you don't. The only thing out of all of that lot that is specific to
>> cycling is the VAT on any purchases directly connected to the bicycle.
> You seem to have snipped the relevant sentence:
> "and specifically for cycling, import duty on the components of my all
> bikes in addition to the VAT."
> Please read properly before making a knee-jerk reaction.
No, you need to think properly.
That VAT and duty is the _only_ contribution you make to the exchequer AS
A CYCLIST. You do not pay income tax, council tax or VAT on non-cycling
items AS A CYCLIST.
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 06:41
"Steve Firth" <%email@example.com> wrote in message
> mileburner <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > And yet the same individual apears to believe that cycling on the
>> > pavement, cycling through red lights and cycling at speed in close
>> > proximity to pedestrians cannot possibly be "dangerous". Yet each of
>> > the
>> > incidents referred to above involves one or more of those activities.
>> It seems reasonable to me to class any of the above actions as dangerous.
> Excellent I look forward to reminding you of that next time you try to
> excuse cyclists from the consequences of their fuckwittery.
Perhaps you could remind me how I have ever tried to excuse cyclists of
anything illegal or stupid?
Or are you confusing me with someone else?