Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:38 Conor wrote: > In article <hf2fic$col$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > >> Although on the local housing estate where plenty of the residents are >> unemployed and live on benefits and do not pay council tax, they still >> manage to run untaxed cars on the road. > > How do you know they're unemployed? Are you basing it solely on the > virtue that they live on a council estate? > and this from someone who can only equate 'caravan' to 'gypsy'? You couldn't make it up. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:48 Conor wrote: > In article <9d33e176-16e0-4113-8190- > 918d191b121e(a)j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, SW says... > >>> That is a weak argument, import duty on a foreign manufactured bike or >>> bike parts allows rights to use the UK road system paid and maintained >>> by vehicle users. FFS. >> And Council Tax payers. >> > Nope. The road maintenance budget comes from central government. > > > Nope - check it out. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: NM on 1 Dec 2009 14:02 On 1 Dec, 14:25, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > news:a59ea90c-71e4-42b8-9875-f9865a57f39b(a)v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > According to mileburner all cyclists are tracable. > > According to NM all cyclists live on council estates, are unemployed and > live on benefits. Where did I say that?
From: The Medway Handyman on 1 Dec 2009 14:12 mileburner wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7nkeqdF3jkdn1U8(a)mid.individual.net... >> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding >> much like they were saying: >> >>>> 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. >> >>> That's right, you managed to work it out for yourself after that is >>> ixactly what I posted. Well done! >> >> No, it isn't. It's the opposite of what you claimed. >> >>> Re-read the whole original sentence (the one you cut short) which >>> you are trying to make an argument out of. >> >> Yes, gladly. > > You failed I don't think so. Adrian is quite correct, you don't pay those as a cyclist. You are a sponging freloader. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
From: The Medway Handyman on 1 Dec 2009 14:14
mileburner wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7nknf7F3jkdn1U16(a)mid.individual.net... >> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding >> much like they were saying: >> >>>> Fine. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to enlighten me as to how use of >>>> a bicycle affects income tax, council tax and the VAT you pay on >>>> non- directly-cycling purchases? >> >>> I am unable to >> >> Clearly. > > Did you find the answer to your bizarre question? Its not a bizarre question at all. You came out with total bollox about irrelevant taxes and you are now being asked what they have to do the discussion. Why don't you just admit to talking bollox? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |