So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
motorist is allowed to get away woth it.

"Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
new crackdown.

During the operation by police and the Driver & Vehicle Agency,
unlicensed and 'runabout' vehicles will be clamped and untaxed
vehicles towed away.

The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will enforce
the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or more.

A police spokesman described unlicensed vehicles as a "menace on the
roads".

Chief Inspector Ian Blayney said: "Many are not only unroadworthy, but
are often driven by people who have no driving licence or insurance,
presenting a real danger to all road users and pedestrians."

Dangerous

"These untaxed and unregistered vehicles are difficult to trace and
are often used as 'run-arounds' by criminal elements.

"Unlicensed vehicles have also been used by drivers who engage in
erratic and dangerous driving. The removal of these vehicles will also
help reduce the level of anti-social behaviour that has been evident
in some parts of the city."

DVA chief executive Brendan Magee said the agency was "committed to
making roads safer and reducing vehicle crime".

"Because vehicle tax can only be purchased with a valid MoT and
insurance certificate, reducing the number of unlicensed on the road
also reduces the number of uninsured and potentially unroadworthy
vehicles on our roads," he said.

"This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."

The keeper of a clamped vehicle must pay £200 before the vehicle is
released or £80 along with the production of a valid tax disc.

Vehicles not claimed within seven days may be crushed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7590876.stm


--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?

Dunno why, you get plenty of notice both in the post and by the bonnie, 
coloured circle you stick in you car's window.

-- 
Abo

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?

No.

> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> new crackdown.

Good.

Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would 
NOT support this?

> "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."

Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:a12e1b89-4712-4be0-9266-c91fe8688cde@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
> they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? ..

Given that it is Northern Ireland, it is. In the past it was rather too 
risky to enforce most traffic laws, as the driver might well have an 
Armalite rifle to hand. On the mainland, this sort of operation has been 
going on for many years.

Colin Bignell

Doug wrote:
> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
> they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
> motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>
Does the fact that they used the name "Driver & Vehicle Agency" rather than 
the "Driver & Vehicle Licencing Agency" not tell you anything?

(Hint: Look at the url)

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:a12e1b89-4712-4be0-9266-c91fe8688cde@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

... Once again demonstrates his level of fuckwittery knows absolutely no 
bounds.

On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>
> No.
>
It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will
enforce
the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or more."
>
> > "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> > new crackdown.
>
> Good.
>
> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would
> NOT support this?
>
Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of motorists
knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why would they be
at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>
> > "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>
> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>
Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?

>> No.

> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will
> enforce the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or 
> more."

Which is very different from stating that people are _allowed_ to drive 
around untaxed for up to 27 days.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>>
>> No.
>>
>It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will
>enforce
>the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or more."

It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.

So they are not "allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days".

>>
>> > "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
>> > new crackdown.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would
>> NOT support this?
>>
>Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of motorists
>knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why would they be
>at all fussy about breaking other laws?

The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be a
rapist" argument".

>>
>> > "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>>
>> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>>
>Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?

As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).

Derek

On 2 Sep, 07:36, Derek  wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
> >> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >> saying:
>
> >> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>
> >> No.
>
> >It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will
> >enforce
> >the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or more."
>
> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>
> So they are not "allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days".
>
So it is not actually a tough crackdown but yet another example of
leniency towards motorists.
>
>
> >> > "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> >> > new crackdown.
>
> >> Good.
>
> >> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would
> >> NOT support this?
>
> >Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of motorists
> >knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why would they be
> >at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>
> The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be a
> rapist" argument".
>
Hardly.
>
>
> >> > "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>
> >> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>
> >Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?
>
> As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
> look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).
>
We also know about those who are observed breaking the law on a daily
basis while not getting caught.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 07:36, Derek  wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>> were saying:
>>
>>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>>
>>>> No.
>>
>>> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks,
>>> will enforce
>>> the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or
>>> more."
>>
>> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
>> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>>
>> So they are not "allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days".
>>
> So it is not actually a tough crackdown but yet another example of
> leniency towards motorists.
>>
>>
>>>>> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a
>>>>> tough new crackdown.
>>
>>>> Good.
>>
>>>> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers
>>>> would NOT support this?
>>
>>> Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of
>>> motorists knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why
>>> would they be at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>>
>> The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be
>> a rapist" argument".
>>
> Hardly.
>>
>>
>>>>> "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>>
>>>> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>>
>>> Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?
>>
>> As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
>> look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).
>>
> We also know about those who are observed breaking the law on a daily
> basis while not getting caught.

Indeed, a number of people have reported seeing police officers observe 
cyclists riding on the footpath, ignoring red traffic lights and infringing 
other laws and doing nothing about it.

In article <a12e1b89-4712-4be0-9266-c91fe8688cde@
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
> they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
> motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
> 
> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> new crackdown.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7590876.stm
> 
...in Ireland. 

In mainland GB, the DVLA automatically send a fine in the post.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:42:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

taxed for up to 27 days".
>>
>So it is not actually a tough crackdown but yet another example of
>leniency towards motorists.
>>
>>
>> >> > "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
>> >> > new crackdown.
>>
>> >> Good.
>>
>> >> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would
>> >> NOT support this?
>>
>> >Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of motorists
>> >knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why would they be
>> >at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>>
>> The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be a
>> rapist" argument".
>>
>Hardly.

Same argument. "You are breaking one law, so you can't be fussy about
breaking any & all of them".

>>
>>
>> >> > "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>>
>> >> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>>
>> >Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?
>>
>> As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
>> look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).
>>
>We also know about those who are observed breaking the law on a daily
>basis while not getting caught.

If they are not getting caught *HOW* do you know ?

Derek

On Sep 2, 7:42 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 07:36, Derek  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> > wrote:
>
> > >On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
> > >> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > >> saying:
>
> > >> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>
> > >> No.
>
> > >It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will
> > >enforce
> > >the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or more."
>
> > It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
> > any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>
> > So they are not "allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days".
>
> So it is not actually a tough crackdown but yet another example of
> leniency towards motorists.

Thank you for agreeing what you said was incorrect.

>
> > >> > "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> > >> > new crackdown.
>
> > >> Good.
>
> > >> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would
> > >> NOT support this?
>
> > >Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of motorists
> > >knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why would they be
> > >at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>
> > The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be a
> > rapist" argument".
>
> Hardly.
>

Thank you for agreeing that you didn't have a point there.  Your
making slow progress towards openly saying "I was wrong".  Perhaps one
day soon we'll hear you say it.

Fod

On Sep 2, 8:28 am, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 2 Sep, 07:36, Derek  wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
> >>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >>>> were saying:
>
> >>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>
> >>>> No.
>
> >>> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks,
> >>> will enforce
> >>> the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or
> >>> more."
>
> >> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
> >> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>
> >> So they are not "allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days".
>
> > So it is not actually a tough crackdown but yet another example of
> > leniency towards motorists.
>
> >>>>> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a
> >>>>> tough new crackdown.
>
> >>>> Good.
>
> >>>> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers
> >>>> would NOT support this?
>
> >>> Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of
> >>> motorists knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why
> >>> would they be at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>
> >> The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be
> >> a rapist" argument".
>
> > Hardly.
>
> >>>>> "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>
> >>>> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>
> >>> Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?
>
> >> As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
> >> look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).
>
> > We also know about those who are observed breaking the law on a daily
> > basis while not getting caught.
>
> Indeed, a number of people have reported seeing police officers observe
> cyclists riding on the footpath, ignoring red traffic lights and infringing
> other laws and doing nothing about it.

The pair of cops on bikes that I saw the other day certainly observed
each other doing all those things...

Fod

On Sep 2, 9:43 am, Derek  wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:42:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
> taxed for up to 27 days".
>
>
>
>
>
> >So it is not actually a tough crackdown but yet another example of
> >leniency towards motorists.
>
> >> >> > "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> >> >> > new crackdown.
>
> >> >> Good.
>
> >> >> Look, Duhg, why on earth do you think the vast majority of drivers would
> >> >> NOT support this?
>
> >> >Well, Adrain, it is a fact, for example, that a majority of motorists
> >> >knowingly break the law by exceeding speed limits so why would they be
> >> >at all fussy about breaking other laws?
>
> >> The old "Because you repair your bicycle on the pavement you must be a
> >> rapist" argument".
>
> >Hardly.
>
> Same argument. "You are breaking one law, so you can't be fussy about
> breaking any & all of them".
>
>
>
> >> >> > "This is good news for the law-abiding motorists."
>
> >> >> Oh, look... You clearly didn't get past the headline. Again.
>
> >> >Yes but how many of them are law-abiding?
>
> >> As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
> >> look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).
>
> >We also know about those who are observed breaking the law on a daily
> >basis while not getting caught.
>
> If they are not getting caught *HOW* do you know ?

Normally Doug demands exacting evidence.  But in this case a simple
wave of his hands and "Its obvious innit" will be your only answer.

Facts there will be none.

Fod

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:36:03 +0100, Derek 
wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>wrote:
>
>>On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks, will
>>enforce
>>the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or more."
>
>It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
>any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.

Does that include roads that haven't been "adopted" by the local
authority?

-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Petert wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:36:03 +0100, Derek 
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>> were saying:
>>>>
>>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks,
>>> will enforce
>>> the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or
>>> more."
>>
>> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
>> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>
> Does that include roads that haven't been "adopted" by the local
> authority?

Is a road that hasn't been adopted by the local authority maintained at 
public expense?

On 1 Sep, 18:54, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:a12e1b89-4712-4be0-9266-c91fe8688cde@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
> > they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? ..
>
> Given that it is Northern Ireland, it is. In the past it was rather too
> risky to enforce most traffic laws, as the driver might well have an
> Armalite rifle to hand. On the mainland, this sort of operation has been
> going on for many years.

That is funny. Police were reluctant to stop "motorist terrorists"
just in case there were any real terrorists in the car. Now Doug
supports the real terrorists but not the "motorist terrorists", so
once again his support of terrorist groups backfired on his other
views.

The question is, does Doug support "motorist terrorists" if they are
also real terrorists, .e.g IRA.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:39:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
 wrote:

>Petert wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:36:03 +0100, Derek 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>> were saying:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks,
>>>> will enforce
>>>> the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or
>>>> more."
>>>
>>> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
>>> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>>
>> Does that include roads that haven't been "adopted" by the local
>> authority?
>
>Is a road that hasn't been adopted by the local authority maintained at 
>public expense? 
>
Probably not, but you may be charged with many traffic offences whilst
in a car park - such as Tesco or Asda - they are certainly not
maintained at the public expense
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Petert wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:39:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
>
>> Petert wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:36:03 +0100, Derek 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>>> were saying:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks,
>>>>> will enforce
>>>>> the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or
>>>>> more."
>>>>
>>>> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
>>>> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
>>>
>>> Does that include roads that haven't been "adopted" by the local
>>> authority?
>>
>> Is a road that hasn't been adopted by the local authority maintained
>> at public expense?
>>
> Probably not, but you may be charged with many traffic offences whilst
> in a car park - such as Tesco or Asda - they are certainly not
> maintained at the public expense

Indeed, because (AIUI) they are deemed to be public places within the 
meaning of the relevant act.

In article , Petert says...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:39:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  wrote:
> 
> >Petert wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:36:03 +0100, Derek 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1 Sep, 18:47, Adrian  wrote:
> >>>>> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >>>>> were saying:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>>
> >>>> It says: "The operation, which will run initially for two weeks,
> >>>> will enforce
> >>>> the law against vehicles which have been untaxed for 28 days or
> >>>> more."
> >>>
> >>> It is against the law to use on a road maintained at public expense
> >>> any vehicle upon which the VED has not been paid.
> >>
> >> Does that include roads that haven't been "adopted" by the local
> >> authority?
> >
> >Is a road that hasn't been adopted by the local authority maintained at 
> >public expense? 
> >
> Probably not, but you may be charged with many traffic offences whilst
> in a car park - such as Tesco or Asda - they are certainly not
> maintained at the public expense
> 
But they are a public area.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 02:05:41 -0700 (PDT), Fod
 wrote:


>> >> As with all laws we only know about the law breakers that get caught.
>> >> look it up for yourself, (Not in the Daily Wail).
>>
>> >We also know about those who are observed breaking the law on a daily
>> >basis while not getting caught.
>>
>> If they are not getting caught *HOW* do you know ?
>
>Normally Doug demands exacting evidence.  But in this case a simple
>wave of his hands and "Its obvious innit" will be your only answer.
>
>Facts there will be none.
>

Sounds like the "Duggie Nostra" ... "Doug's Prayer"


Facts? There'll be none...

*My will* be done ...

On earth as soon to be in heaven.

Give us this day our Peruvian Veg

Forgive us our trespassing

For *mine* is this kingdom, the power, and 'lectricity,

For ever and ever.

Amen. 

Derek.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
>they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
>motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>
>"Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
>new crackdown.

Excellent news

Steve (a car driver)

On 6 Sep, 16:38, Steve in Herts  wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
> >So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
> >they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
> >motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>
> >"Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
> >new crackdown.
>
> Excellent news
>
> Steve (a car driver)

So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 16:38, Steve in Herts  wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
>>> they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
>>> motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>>
>>> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a
>>> tough new crackdown.
>>
>> Excellent news
>>
>> Steve (a car driver)
>
> So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
> 'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
> uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?

As ever Doug, you show yourself to be utterly stupid.

Doug wrote:
> On 6 Sep, 16:38, Steve in Herts  wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
>>> they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
>>> motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>>> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
>>> new crackdown.
>> Excellent news
>>
>> Steve (a car driver)
> 
> So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
> 'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
> uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Ahh the rare art of arguing with somebody who agrees with you, perhaps 
you could earn some extra money by giving lessons.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>On 6 Sep, 16:38, Steve in Herts  wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
>> >they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the over-privileged
>> >motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>>
>> >"Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a tough
>> >new crackdown.
>>
>> Excellent news
>>
>> Steve (a car driver)
>
>So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
>'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
>uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?

What is wrong with you Doug?  I agree with you and you still want an
argument.

Steve in Herts wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
>
>> On 6 Sep, 16:38, Steve in Herts  wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So they are allowed to drive around untaxed for up to 27 days? And
>>>> they call it a 'tough new crackdown'? Once again the
>>>> over-privileged motorist is allowed to get away woth it.
>>>
>>>> "Drivers who fail to tax their vehicles are to be targeted in a
>>>> tough new crackdown.
>>>
>>> Excellent news
>>>
>>> Steve (a car driver)
>>
>> So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
>> 'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
>> uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?
>
> What is wrong with you Doug?  I agree with you and you still want an
> argument.

He's so intent on having arguments he doesn't realise that people are 
agreeing with him. He's to be pitied more than condemned. But, until he 
realises that he's making an ass of himself I guess we'll just have to carry 
on helping with his attempts to develop self awareness.

Doug  wrote:

> So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
> 'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
> uninsured and un-MOTed, 

Why do you assume that someone who has failed to pay VED is also
uninsured and "un-MOTed"?

It's perfectly possible for the due dates for MoT, insurance and VED to
spread around the year. Most drivers I know deliberately arrange for MoT
and VED to be six months apart so they don't have to face a mad rush of
getting both done at the same time. Similarly insurance falls due 12
months after the vehicle was last insured. For a second hand car this is
unlikely to fall in the same month that the MoT is due since the vehicle
would have been purchased some random number of months after it was
first registered.

I know you make a habit of talking through your arse, but it would be
nice if you could permit some thought to cross you mind before you
posted your garbage.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
>'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
>uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?

Told you before Duhg.

They're not, repeat *NOT*  "allowed to drive around untaxed for 27
days".

Got it Duhg? - *Not Allowed*.

Derek

In message , Derek 
 writes
>On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 23:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>wrote:
>
>>So you think being allowed to drive around untaxed for 27 days by a
>>'tough new crackdown', with the implication that they are also
>>uninsured and un-MOTed, is excellent news?
>
>Told you before Duhg.
>
>They're not, repeat *NOT*  "allowed to drive around untaxed for 27
>days".
>
>Got it Duhg? - *Not Allowed*.

You're expecting Duhg, the hard-of-thinking coffin dodger, to grasp a 
concept as simple as that?

Good luck.

-- 
Ed Banger