Dear Friends,

I have set up a petition about the ever rising fuel prices in the UK. 
Please add your name(s) and then send the link onto as many people as you 
can.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ukfuelcosts/signatures-1.html

Kind Regards.

Tim.

In article ,
The Master  wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>
>I have set up a petition about the ever rising fuel prices in the UK. 
>Please add your name(s) and then send the link onto as many people as you 
>can.
>
>http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ukfuelcosts/signatures-1.html

I'm sure the US treasury and the government of China will pay the
utmost attention to your petition.

-- 
Andy Breen	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

		Post-September, somebody figured out that the Internet was 
		cheaper than babysitters (Dick Gaughan)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> In article ,
> The Master  wrote:
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> I have set up a petition about the ever rising fuel prices in the UK. 
>> Please add your name(s) and then send the link onto as many people as you 
>> can.
>>
>> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ukfuelcosts/signatures-1.html
> 
> I'm sure the US treasury and the government of China will pay the
> utmost attention to your petition.
> 
and the greedy bastards on the Chicago commodities exchange that's 
actually causing the problems

In article <g1ec10$9mh$1@aioe.org>, Alan Smith   wrote:
>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>> In article ,
>> The Master  wrote:
>>> Dear Friends,
>>>
>>> I have set up a petition about the ever rising fuel prices in the UK. 
>>> Please add your name(s) and then send the link onto as many people as you 
>>> can.
>>>
>>> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ukfuelcosts/signatures-1.html
>> 
>> I'm sure the US treasury and the government of China will pay the
>> utmost attention to your petition.
>> 
>and the greedy bastards on the Chicago commodities exchange that's 
>actually causing the problems

I'm sure they'll be delighted to fall in line once they see the
petition.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
		"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
						(Peter D. Rieden)

The date being 26 May 2008, "The Master" 
 decided to write:

> Dear Friends,

> I have set up a petition about the ever rising fuel prices in the UK.
> Please add your name(s) and then send the link onto as many people as you
> can.

> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ukfuelcosts/signatures-1.html

Well actually I think you're a bit off-target. Fuel prices are 
beginning to byte, which might encourage people to use smaller and 
more efficient vehicles and reduce journeys. However the VED proposals 
are completely illogical. By all means have a duty on new cars because 
of the emissions caused by manufacturing them, but the government is 
just using global warming as an excuse to increase taxation, whilst at 
the same time pressing ahead with airport expansion.

Increasing the VED on the cars people already own is daft for two 
reasons. If it encourages people to recycle old cars and buy new ones 
that will only increase carbon emissions. Secondly, once they have 
paid the VED it is no longer a disincentive to use the car. They might 
as well make the most of it.

-- 
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:9d35ffa54f.news@user.minijem.plus.com...
> The date being 26 May 2008, "The Master"
>  decided to write:
>
> > Dear Friends,
>
> > I have set up a petition about the ever rising fuel prices in the UK.
> > Please add your name(s) and then send the link onto as many people as
you
> > can.
>
> > http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ukfuelcosts/signatures-1.html
>
> Well actually I think you're a bit off-target. Fuel prices are
> beginning to byte, which might encourage people to use smaller and
> more efficient vehicles and reduce journeys. However the VED proposals
> are completely illogical. By all means have a duty on new cars because
> of the emissions caused by manufacturing them, but the government is
> just using global warming as an excuse to increase taxation, whilst at
> the same time pressing ahead with airport expansion.
>
> Increasing the VED on the cars people already own is daft for two
> reasons. If it encourages people to recycle old cars and buy new ones
> that will only increase carbon emissions. Secondly, once they have
> paid the VED it is no longer a disincentive to use the car. They might
> as well make the most of it.

And why have a policy which actually encourages certain sectors to use
highly uneconomical vehicles??
A new Dodge Ram (the dirty big model) comes with a Chrysler 5.7 Hemi V8
engine. A Chrysler 300c has the same engine. The Dodge Ram has permanent
4-wheel drive and the aerodynamics of a garage, the 300c is 2 wheel drive
and has slightly better aerodynamics. Average mpg in the Dodge is about 13,
the 300c returns an easy 19mpg. The Dodge owner pays £185 for 12 months tax,
the 300c's owner pays £400!!!!!!!!  Why? Because the Dodge Ram is so bloody
heavy it's taxed as a commercial vehicle, that's why! It falls into the same
class as a 3500-7500kg truck. Where is the logic? I despair, I really do.
Badger.

"Badger"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> A new Dodge Ram (the dirty big model) comes with a Chrysler 5.7 Hemi V8
> engine. A Chrysler 300c has the same engine. The Dodge Ram has permanent
> 4-wheel drive and the aerodynamics of a garage, the 300c is 2 wheel
> drive and has slightly better aerodynamics. Average mpg in the Dodge is
> about 13, the 300c returns an easy 19mpg. The Dodge owner pays £185 for
> 12 months tax, the 300c's owner pays £400!!!!!!!!  Why? Because the
> Dodge Ram is so bloody heavy it's taxed as a commercial vehicle, that's
> why! It falls into the same class as a 3500-7500kg truck. Where is the
> logic? I despair, I really do. Badger.

Or a slightly different loophole.

An Alpina 5-series is £185 tax, because it's a low production/sales model 
which doesn't have an official CO2 figure...

Adrian wrote:
> "Badger"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
>> A new Dodge Ram (the dirty big model) comes with a Chrysler 5.7 Hemi V8
>> engine. A Chrysler 300c has the same engine. The Dodge Ram has permanent
>> 4-wheel drive and the aerodynamics of a garage, the 300c is 2 wheel
>> drive and has slightly better aerodynamics. Average mpg in the Dodge is
>> about 13, the 300c returns an easy 19mpg. The Dodge owner pays £185 for
>> 12 months tax, the 300c's owner pays £400!!!!!!!!  Why? Because the
>> Dodge Ram is so bloody heavy it's taxed as a commercial vehicle, that's
>> why! It falls into the same class as a 3500-7500kg truck. Where is the
>> logic? I despair, I really do. Badger.
> 
> Or a slightly different loophole.
> 
> An Alpina 5-series is £185 tax, because it's a low production/sales model 
> which doesn't have an official CO2 figure...

Stretch limos pay £185 a year because of a lack of CO2 figure. That 
amuses me.

-- 
Pete M - OMF#9
Range Rover V8 Turbo
Range Rover 4.6 HSE
"Professional Petrolhead"

I run a Citroen Xantia 2.0 HDi Estate. (2000 model) and pay £185. One of my 
work colleagues has a Peugeot 307 2.0 HDi, same engine, and pays less than 
half that. WHY!!!
"Pete M"  wrote in message 
news:g1hl8j$g45$4@registered.motzarella.org...
> Adrian wrote:
>> "Badger"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>
>>> A new Dodge Ram (the dirty big model) comes with a Chrysler 5.7 Hemi V8
>>> engine. A Chrysler 300c has the same engine. The Dodge Ram has permanent
>>> 4-wheel drive and the aerodynamics of a garage, the 300c is 2 wheel
>>> drive and has slightly better aerodynamics. Average mpg in the Dodge is
>>> about 13, the 300c returns an easy 19mpg. The Dodge owner pays £185 for
>>> 12 months tax, the 300c's owner pays £400!!!!!!!!  Why? Because the
>>> Dodge Ram is so bloody heavy it's taxed as a commercial vehicle, that's
>>> why! It falls into the same class as a 3500-7500kg truck. Where is the
>>> logic? I despair, I really do. Badger.
>>
>> Or a slightly different loophole.
>>
>> An Alpina 5-series is £185 tax, because it's a low production/sales model 
>> which doesn't have an official CO2 figure...
>
> Stretch limos pay £185 a year because of a lack of CO2 figure. That amuses 
> me.
>
> -- 
> Pete M - OMF#9
> Range Rover V8 Turbo
> Range Rover 4.6 HSE
> "Professional Petrolhead"

"Charles Hamilton"  wrote in message 
news:TbCdnQb1yPT8LKDVRVnyiAA@bt.com...
>I run a Citroen Xantia 2.0 HDi Estate. (2000 model) and pay £185. One 
>of my work colleagues has a Peugeot 307 2.0 HDi, same engine, and 
>pays less than half that. WHY!!!

Have you bothered to look at the performance, fuel consumption, 
emissions specs for each vehicle and not just the outward appearance 
of the engine?...

"Charles Hamilton"  gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

> I run a Citroen Xantia 2.0 HDi Estate. (2000 model) and pay £185. One of
> my work colleagues has a Peugeot 307 2.0 HDi, same engine, and pays less
> than half that. WHY!!!

Simple. The 307 is post-01, so CO2 taxed, hence about £120. 2001 Xant 
HDis are taxed at about £150 - the CO2 emissions are slightly higher than 
those for the 307 HDi, at least in part because it's a nominally larger 
car - the 406 is closer to the Xant, and 407 with the C5, whilst the 307 
shares a lot with the C4.