Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
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 >says... >= >> 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 >buiding budget? 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 says... > > 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 > >>>driver. > > > >> 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. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk 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 news:MPG.257f00e2a143488b9899db(a)news.eternal-september.org... > 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 >> 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.
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" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message news:1ja1f08.1t39gqdxpn134N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... > 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? |