Taxing a car querie
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: NM on 26 Jun 2010 12:15 On 26 June, 12:05, The Peeler <peeling...(a)invalid.admin> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:16:52 +0100, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >On 26/06/2010 01:59, NM wrote: > >> On 24 June, 12:28, bod<bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Silk wrote: > >>>> On 24/06/2010 12:12, The Peeler wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:53:36 +0100, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> I don't like paying tax any more than anyone else. That's why I got a > >>>>>> car in a lower band, so I only pay 35 quid a year. If you can't afford > >>>>>> 35 quid, you can't afford to maintain a car in good order. > > >>>>> A cheap pikey car, you mean? > > >>>> How we laughed. > > >>> Just paid mine... 245. > > >>> Bod > > >> So did I, it was a real struggle to find zero in one lump. > > >Does this mean you're "disabled"? > > Ahem. The correct expression for cripples is "differently abled". Who decides what is correct and what isn't?
From: The Peeler on 26 Jun 2010 15:26 On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 26 June, 12:05, The Peeler <peeling...(a)invalid.admin> wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:16:52 +0100, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> >On 26/06/2010 01:59, NM wrote: >> >> On 24 June, 12:28, bod<bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> �wrote: >> >>> Silk wrote: >> >>>> On 24/06/2010 12:12, The Peeler wrote: >> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:53:36 +0100, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> � �wrote: >> >> >>>>>> I don't like paying tax any more than anyone else. That's why I got a >> >>>>>> car in a lower band, so I only pay 35 quid a year. If you can't afford >> >>>>>> 35 quid, you can't afford to maintain a car in good order. >> >> >>>>> A cheap pikey car, you mean? >> >> >>>> How we laughed. >> >> >>> � �Just paid mine... 245. >> >> >>> Bod >> >> >> So did I, it was a real struggle to find zero in one lump. >> >> >Does this mean you're "disabled"? >> >> Ahem. �The correct expression for cripples is "differently abled". > >Who decides what is correct and what isn't? If it offends anyone at all, it isn't.
From: NM on 27 Jun 2010 03:42 On 26 June, 20:26, The Peeler <peeling...(a)invalid.admin> wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT), NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> > wrote: > > > > >On 26 June, 12:05, The Peeler <peeling...(a)invalid.admin> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:16:52 +0100, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> >On 26/06/2010 01:59, NM wrote: > >> >> On 24 June, 12:28, bod<bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> >>> Silk wrote: > >> >>>> On 24/06/2010 12:12, The Peeler wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:53:36 +0100, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > >> >>>>>> I don't like paying tax any more than anyone else. That's why I got a > >> >>>>>> car in a lower band, so I only pay 35 quid a year. If you can't afford > >> >>>>>> 35 quid, you can't afford to maintain a car in good order. > > >> >>>>> A cheap pikey car, you mean? > > >> >>>> How we laughed. > > >> >>> Just paid mine... 245. > > >> >>> Bod > > >> >> So did I, it was a real struggle to find zero in one lump. > > >> >Does this mean you're "disabled"? > > >> Ahem. The correct expression for cripples is "differently abled". > > >Who decides what is correct and what isn't? > > If it offends anyone at all, it isn't. That's really dumb, whatever phrase you use someone somewhere will find it offensive. In this instance to call a disabled person "differently abled" is patronising nonsense. Just because they are disabled dosen't make them stupid, they know what they are and when someone is using mealy mouthed speak, usually such nonsense is to assurge the consience of the utterer not to spare the feelings of the disabled. As an example, down to you PC nutters, ordering black coffee is offensive to blacks, gone are the days when one could call a spade a spade.
From: Brimstone on 27 Jun 2010 04:01 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:9ff7ac74-4e97-42dd-aabb-3028742fc150(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > gone are the days when one could call a spade a spade. Only because it's offensive to spades.
From: NM on 27 Jun 2010 04:40
On 27 June, 09:01, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > news:9ff7ac74-4e97-42dd-aabb-3028742fc150(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > gone are the days when one could call a spade a spade. > > Only because it's offensive to spades. At least someone got it :-) |