Who gets your vote?

On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:13:21 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 6 May, 14:38, soup wrote:
On 05/05/2010 01:17, The Medway Handyman wrote:

*What they want is the bins emptied, the street lights to work *the roads
to be swept and the schools to teach their kids to read& *write.

And they get all this (to some extent or other) using the same 'pot of
money' that pays for roads.
So less cars = less roads = more money for the services outlined

Or less cars = much less money = cuts in the services outlined.

Less cars on the road would result in a shift in taxation away from
cars and onto other items.

So the best way to encourage lower taxation on cars is to stop driving
;-)
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:36:02 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:24:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

al Mossah wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:
No such thing as road tax.
We've had all that bollox before. Cyclists don't like the term because it
reminds them that they are sponging freeloaders.
I don't like the term because it's meaningless.
I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what you meant
by it - ie, if it had no meaning.

But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with meaning.
But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the right
to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a motorist
to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And even that
isn't completely accurate).
Hmmm...

"It implies a tax giving the right to use the road - which it isn't".

"It is a tax which allows a motorist to use the road...".

Do you think you really thought that "distinction" through properly?

Yes. Anyone can use roads (except motorways and a few other
exceptions) without paying 'road tax', so it is not a tax giving
people the right to use roads.

Is that really your idea of "cleverness"?

Why I am unavoidably reminded of Harry Enfield's "little brother" character?

On Fri, 07 May 2010 15:15:38 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:36:02 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:24:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

al Mossah wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:
No such thing as road tax.
We've had all that bollox before. Cyclists don't like the term because it
reminds them that they are sponging freeloaders.
I don't like the term because it's meaningless.
I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what you meant
by it - ie, if it had no meaning.

But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with meaning.
But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the right
to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a motorist
to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And even that
isn't completely accurate).
Hmmm...

"It implies a tax giving the right to use the road - which it isn't".

"It is a tax which allows a motorist to use the road...".

Do you think you really thought that "distinction" through properly?

Yes. Anyone can use roads (except motorways and a few other
exceptions) without paying 'road tax', so it is not a tax giving
people the right to use roads.

Is that really your idea of "cleverness"?

Why I am unavoidably reminded of Harry Enfield's "little brother" character?

I wasn't trying to be clever, I was simply pointing out that the term
'road tax' implies that VED it is something that it isn't.

Tom Crispin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

[etc]

... road tax.

I don't like the term because it's meaningless.

I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what you meant
by it - ie, if it had no meaning.
But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with meaning.

But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the right
to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a motorist
to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And even that
isn't completely accurate).

Hmmm...
"It implies a tax giving the right to use the road - which it isn't".
"It is a tax which allows a motorist to use the road...".
Do you think you really thought that "distinction" through properly?

Yes. Anyone can use roads (except motorways and a few other
exceptions) without paying 'road tax', so it is not a tax giving
people the right to use roads.

Is that really your idea of "cleverness"?
Why I am unavoidably reminded of Harry Enfield's "little brother" character?

I wasn't trying to be clever, I was simply pointing out that the term
'road tax' implies that VED it is something that it isn't.

It's a tax you have to pay in respect of a motor vehicle if you want to use
it on the roads.

On 6 May, 14:42, soup wrote:
On 05/05/2010 23:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:

*(because Road Tax pays for them)

No it doesn't

* and push bikes are not a viable form of transport in the 21st

century.

Unlike those cars, oh hold on the oil will run out (to the uneconomical
to recover it in mass amounts level).

Not in your lifetime sunshine!

Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Crispin considered Thu, 06
May 2010 21:31:02 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:24:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

al Mossah wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

No such thing as road tax.

We've had all that bollox before. Cyclists don't like the term
because it reminds them that they are sponging freeloaders.

I don't like the term because it's meaningless.

I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what
you meant by it - ie, if it had no meaning.

But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with
meaning.

But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the
right to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a
motorist to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And
even that isn't completely accurate).

ITYM "it is a tax which allows a motor vehicle to be used on the road,
with many exemptions but subject to many conditions".

The motorist can use the road for free, any time they want, simply by
SORNing their motor vehicle and using a bicycle, tricycle, horse,
electric vehicle, vintage vehicle, or their own feet.
They can use a team of huskies and a wheeled sled if they feel like
it.

Did you train specifically to be a **** - or does it come naturally?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

Phil W Lee wrote:
Jim A considered Thu, 06 May 2010 21:08:52
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On 05/06/2010 08:45 PM, The Medway Handyman wrote:
Great idea. If you are already vulnerable - why not make your kids
vunerable as well?

For the record I don't have any kids myself (none that I'm aware of
anyway).

That's one up on the mudway handjob - better to be short of children
than parents.

'mudway handjob'. Oh stop it please, my sides are splitting.

YAWN


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

On 7 May, 19:27, "The Medway Handyman" davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Tom Crispin considered Thu, 06
May 2010 21:31:02 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:24:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

al Mossah wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

No such thing as road tax.

We've had all that bollox before. *Cyclists don't like the term
because it reminds them that they are sponging freeloaders.

I don't like the term because it's meaningless.

I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what
you meant by it - ie, if it had no meaning.

But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with
meaning.

But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the
right to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a
motorist to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And
even that isn't completely accurate).

ITYM "it is a tax which allows a motor vehicle to be used on the road,
with many exemptions but subject to many conditions".

The motorist can use the road for free, any time they want, simply by
SORNing their motor vehicle and using a bicycle, tricycle, horse,
electric vehicle, vintage vehicle, or their own feet.
They can use a team of huskies and a wheeled sled if they feel like
it.

Did you train specifically to be a **** - or does it come naturally?

--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Its just the sort of ******** that stupid ****s like Anchor come out
with time after time

On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:21:22 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

[etc]

... road tax.

I don't like the term because it's meaningless.

I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what you meant
by it - ie, if it had no meaning.
But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with meaning.

But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the right
to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a motorist
to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And even that
isn't completely accurate).

Hmmm...
"It implies a tax giving the right to use the road - which it isn't".
"It is a tax which allows a motorist to use the road...".
Do you think you really thought that "distinction" through properly?

Yes. Anyone can use roads (except motorways and a few other
exceptions) without paying 'road tax', so it is not a tax giving
people the right to use roads.

Is that really your idea of "cleverness"?
Why I am unavoidably reminded of Harry Enfield's "little brother" character?

I wasn't trying to be clever, I was simply pointing out that the term
'road tax' implies that VED it is something that it isn't.

It's a tax you have to pay in respect of a motor vehicle if you want to use
it on the roads.

Phil may nit-pick at that definition, but I will agree with you.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:21:22 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
[etc]

... road tax.
I don't like the term because it's meaningless.
I'll agree that it *would* be meaningless if no-one understood what you meant
by it - ie, if it had no meaning.
But everyone *does* understand it, and the term glitters with meaning.
But it doesn't mean what it implies. It implies a tax giving the right
to use the road - which it isn't. It is a tax which allows a motorist
to use the road if they are appropriately licenced. (And even that
isn't completely accurate).
Hmmm...
"It implies a tax giving the right to use the road - which it isn't".
"It is a tax which allows a motorist to use the road...".
Do you think you really thought that "distinction" through properly?
Yes. Anyone can use roads (except motorways and a few other
exceptions) without paying 'road tax', so it is not a tax giving
people the right to use roads.
Is that really your idea of "cleverness"?
Why I am unavoidably reminded of Harry Enfield's "little brother" character?
I wasn't trying to be clever, I was simply pointing out that the term
'road tax' implies that VED it is something that it isn't.
It's a tax you have to pay in respect of a motor vehicle if you want to use
it on the roads.

Phil may nit-pick at that definition, but I will agree with you.

Thanks for that. I'll come back to this in due course, since it seems that we
might - finally - have hit upon an agreed form of words on the subject.