Blair puts habitual speed criminal in charge of 'road safety'.



On 15/5/05 8:52 pm, in article [email protected], "Tosspot"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Not Responding wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not sure that revenue is actually the point, despite the ABD's
>> assertion. But even it is, surely there couldn't be a better form of tax
>> than one levied entirely from criminals?

>
> Errmmm, they werent criminals at the point of collection, they were more
> sort of, well, volunteers is the best word i can think of.


They were criminals at the point they volunteered to have money collected
from them. They may not have been convicted but are still criminals.

The point of collection is whenever they finally get round to paying up.

>> I wish that all tax were so raised; I'd be so much richer.

>
> Voluntary tax, I volunteer to pay <thinks> NONE!
>
> The thing I like is they dont actually work very well. At least in my
> experience.


If it doesn't work then why are people winging on so much about 'stealth
taxes'?

...d
 
"OG" <[email protected]>typed



> "Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > ISTR on a 3 lane motorway the best speed is 55, if you want to get the
> > maximum number of vehicles along the road in a given timeframe.


> I thought it was 22mph - irrespective of number of lanes.


I thought it was 18mph...We worked it out in a physics lesson many years
ago...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tosspot
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Not Responding wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not sure that revenue is actually the point, despite the ABD's
>> assertion. But even it is, surely there couldn't be a better form of
>> tax than one levied entirely from criminals?

>
> Errmmm, they werent criminals at the point of collection, they were
> more sort of, well, volunteers is the best word i can think of.


If they weren't committing a crime (the one that kills more people than
all others put together) they wouldn't get fined.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
 
David Martin wrote:

<snip>

> If it doesn't work then why are people winging on so much about 'stealth
> taxes'?


People winge about taxes anyway. They winge particularly when it is
giveth in one hand and taketh with the other. Why they dont just have a
flat 50% rate and forget it I dont know.

I am surpised they dont license bicycles like TVs, you pay when you pick
one up :-(
 
David Martin wrote:

<snip>

> If it doesn't work then why are people winging on so much about 'stealth
> taxes'?


People winge about taxes anyway. They winge particularly when it is
giveth in one hand and taketh with the other. Why they dont just have a
flat 50% rate and forget it I dont know.

I am surpised they dont license bicycles like TVs, you pay when you pick
one up :-(
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Tosspot
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>Not Responding wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I'm not sure that revenue is actually the point, despite the ABD's
>>>assertion. But even it is, surely there couldn't be a better form of
>>>tax than one levied entirely from criminals?

>>
>>Errmmm, they werent criminals at the point of collection, they were
>>more sort of, well, volunteers is the best word i can think of.

>
> If they weren't committing a crime (the one that kills more people than
> all others put together) they wouldn't get fined.


Then why dont they get put in prison if it kills that many people?

<sigh> I'll be taking time off from all other spped camera threads.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tosspot
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> in message <[email protected]>, Tosspot
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>>Errmmm, they werent criminals at the point of collection, they were
>>>more sort of, well, volunteers is the best word i can think of.

>>
>> If they weren't committing a crime (the one that kills more people
>> than all others put together) they wouldn't get fined.

>
> Then why dont they get put in prison if it kills that many people?


Personally, I think permanent removal of the license to drive would be a
more effective (and cheaper) remedy. Prison should be the punishment
for people who drive without a license.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---
 
On Mon, 16 May 2005 10:25:39 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Personally, I think permanent removal of the license to drive would be a
>more effective (and cheaper) remedy. Prison should be the punishment
>for people who drive without a license.


No, no, permanent removal of the /goolies/ - it's the only language
these people understand...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> No, no, permanent removal of the /goolies/ - it's the only language
> these people understand...


Seems it amounts to pretty much the same thing in some cases... ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
vernon levy wrote:

> I don't have a problem with the appointment. One only has to drive
> along the A65 in Horsforth Leeds to see the proliferation of speed
> cameras at a density that I have not witnessed elsewhere in the UK
> and that I really can not see has any other purpose than revenue
> generation. Such excess annoys me and makes me partially supportive
> of the new appointee's point of view.


There seems to be a contradiction in your view. If the placement of
cameras is excessive they will not raise revenue. If they raise
significant revenue there must be a lot of speeding, therefore the
cameras are not excessive.

--
Dave...
 

Similar threads