Abandoned cars!
MrNatural
causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
prices.
And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
--
Smiley's UK Radical Campaigns Jump Page,
a treasurehouse of radical solutions,
is moving from www.zing.cwc.net
to www.zing.icom43.net
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
news:B80560A5...@195.44.209.3...
> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
> prices.
Please don't for a minute think that your perverse views come even close to
those of the general public.
>
> And who has to pay to clear up this mess?
What would you know about physical labour?
> Not the motorist concerned nor
> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
>
What would you know about paying taxes? Or indeed what would any of the
'non-car using' general public know about paying taxes?
Michael Saunby
Bagpuss
(MrNatural) wrote:
>Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
>causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
>dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
>prices.
>
>And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
>the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
I thought you would be glad that people are dumping old inefficient
cars.
Barry Cragg
----------
In article <B80560A5...@195.44.209.3>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
(MrNatural) wrote:
> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
> prices.
>
> And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
Surely you should be happy people are dumping their cars!
BAZZA
N M
MrNatural wrote:
> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
> prices.
>
> And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
The same hapless taxpayers that has been enjoying the surplus cash the
various owners of the car have contributed to the taxation system during the
cars useful lifetime, not forgetting the vat and car tax on the vehicles
purchase.
Seems like a good deal for the hapless taxpayer.
NM
>
>
>
ian dickson
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
>"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
>news:B80560A5...@195.44.209.3...
>> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
>> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
>> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
>> prices.
>
>Please don't for a minute think that your perverse views come even close to
>those of the general public.
do. Ask people if they would go to the trouble and expense of having a
car if there was an effective alternative, and many would say no.
Esp when they realise that their second hand motor has a net of income
tax cost of about 40 quid a week.
>
>>
>> And who has to pay to clear up this mess?
>
>What would you know about physical labour?
>
>> Not the motorist concerned nor
>> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
>>
>
>What would you know about paying taxes? Or indeed what would any of the
>'non-car using' general public know about paying taxes?
>
I was for a number of years a non car using member of the public paying
several grand a year in taxes. I lived in Newcastle within walking
distance of the Metro, and owned a bike.
Many Londoners pay even more taxes and don't own cars, because they do
have an effective alternative.
--
ian dickson
Michael Saunby
news:3afeRLAy...@iand.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1004516194.2028.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
> >
> >"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> >news:B80560A5...@195.44.209.3...
> >> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
> >> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
> >> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap
metal
> >> prices.
> >
> >Please don't for a minute think that your perverse views come even close
to
> >those of the general public.
> Are you sure? Ask most people if they need their car and they say yes. I
> do. Ask people if they would go to the trouble and expense of having a
> car if there was an effective alternative, and many would say no.
>
Um, so are you saying their main concern may be cost? I thought MrEn's
concern was 'environmental' presumably the damage done by burning oil and
using tar and stone quarried from our landscape to construct a road
infrastructure - these have nothing to do with 'trouble and cost'. I'd
agree however that most people are selfish.
> Esp when they realise that their second hand motor has a net of income
> tax cost of about 40 quid a week.
> >
> >>
> >> And who has to pay to clear up this mess?
> >
> >What would you know about physical labour?
> >
> >> Not the motorist concerned nor
> >> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
> >>
> >
> >What would you know about paying taxes? Or indeed what would any of the
> >'non-car using' general public know about paying taxes?
> >
> I was for a number of years a non car using member of the public paying
> several grand a year in taxes. I lived in Newcastle within walking
> distance of the Metro, and owned a bike.
>
I've done similar in the past, also used a bike quite a bit, and now I work
from home most days. I do what suits me, influenced to a large degree by
what I know and what I believe in. I still maintain that most of the UK's
taxes are paid by people who make regular use of cars - and I'd include
myself in that even though I only use a car one or two days a week.
> Many Londoners pay even more taxes and don't own cars, because they do
> have an effective alternative.
>
You could also take the view that they have little alternative, consider the
grief caused in London by tube strikes. London is used as a working base
for rather more people than it can comfortably accommodate. Indeed many of
the trains that take commuters into London in the morning immediately leave
again, empty, because London doesn't even have enough space to accommodate
empty trains until the evening. Mass transit is probably not the answer to
the damage done by petrol and diesel engine cars any more than cars were the
answer to the horse problem of C19th London.
Michael Saunby
Barry Cragg
----------
In article <1004522290.20610....@news.demon.co.uk>, "Michael
Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
> Um, so are you saying their main concern may be cost?
> I thought MrEn's
> concern was 'environmental' presumably the damage done by burning oil and
> using tar and stone quarried from our landscape to construct a road
> infrastructure - these have nothing to do with 'trouble and cost'.
Yes this has always surprised me about the Duhgling. Although he hates cars
he is quite happy with the roads that are built for them, and wants to adopt
them for pedestrian and cycle use.
So he appears to be dead against burning petroleum to move vehicles around
but seems quite happy to have oil-field products laid all over the country
as roads. Why is this not a polluting activity in his mind. Surely with his
paranoia about carcinogens he should be campaigning for concrete roads only.
BAZZA
The Technical Manager
> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
> prices.
>
> And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
Who exactly owns an abandoned vehicle once the council has stuck a notice on
it saying it will be moved if the owner (or somebody else for that matter)
doesn't move it first ?
A policeman once told me that abandoned vehicles are crown property. Is that
really true ?
Bagpuss
If you see a vechicle abandoned you can lay claim to if after a
certain amount of time and request the log book. After a certain point
(2 weeks or month?) it is calssed as abandoned and can become yours. I
guess the DVLA or police will know about this.
One of the guys I know did that when someone left a motorcycle outside
their house. Very nice bike it was too.
The Technical Manager
So that cop telling me that an abandoned vehicle is crown property is a lying
toerag !!
I perceived his statements as specious considering that abandoned vehicles are
removed from the road by private transporting companies and later dumped into a
privately owned scrapyard without the Queen ever being informed at all.
ian dickson
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>I've done similar in the past, also used a bike quite a bit, and now I work
>from home most days. I do what suits me, influenced to a large degree by
>what I know and what I believe in. I still maintain that most of the UK's
>taxes are paid by people who make regular use of cars - and I'd include
>myself in that even though I only use a car one or two days a week.
>
cause.
Most people in this country who work have no alternative but to own a
car, therefore most taxes are paid by car owners.
Likewise most taxes are paid by people who have been vaccinated against
smallpox (ie are over 30ish).
Now if you want to make the argument that the largest source of tax
revenue are the taxes levied on cars and driving, go ahead. I don't have
the numbers to hand myself, but no doubt others do.
--
ian dickson
Bagpuss
Do you think the Queen *really* is informed of all the abandoned cars?
Of course not, Prince Phillip deals with the bulk of them,
particularly the Japaneese cars.
Bagpuss
wrote:
>
>>I perceived his statements as specious considering that abandoned vehicles are
>>removed from the road by private transporting companies and later dumped into a
>>privately owned scrapyard without the Queen ever being informed at all.
>>
>And what evidence do you have that the Queen has not been informed?
Proof, evidence, liar !?!??
;-)
Michael Saunby
>
> Most people in this country who work have no alternative but to own a
> car, therefore most taxes are paid by car owners.
>
> Likewise most taxes are paid by people who have been vaccinated against
> smallpox (ie are over 30ish).
>
> Now if you want to make the argument that the largest source of tax
> revenue are the taxes levied on cars and driving, go ahead. I don't have
> the numbers to hand myself, but no doubt others do.
No, I wouldn't argue that, and I fully accept your point re. car
ownership/smallpox. However MrEn was trying to make the point that car
owners were in someway a liability to the taxpaying 'general public'. Which
to an extent is true - most drivers curse the vehicles in front of them but
have no regard for the vehicles behind them. But it's still the case that to
a very good first approximation motorists are the taxpaying general public,
they are not a distinct group, and they are certainly not, as MrEn seems to
be suggesting, some kind of sub-human being. Also most car owners don't
abandon their cars, they take care of them and sell them to someone else. Of
course when really poor folks get hold of knackered old cars that's a
different matter, but the tax regime and price of fuel, etc. is supposed to
make sure that doesn't happen.
Michael Saunby
Phil Bradshaw
oisp.noco.nouk> changes tack again to avoid da bigga questions...
> motorists are now
>dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers
Evidence?
>due to a drop in scrap metal
>prices.
What, another? Nowt new there.
Metal price only part of the problem; more to do with reduction of
content of metals and increase in (predominantly) plastics, demonstrated
by there not much left to weigh in after a vehicle burnout these days.
Something to do with cost of recycling materials that aren't exactly
made recyclable yet, if at all possible to the last bit. This is causing
problems for the scrap trade from breakers to end users of recycled
materials. End result is costs and charges made accordingly for
disposing of a scrapper even if it is driven to a scrap yard.
Some yards are managing to cover their EP obligations by specialising
away from the rotbox end of the market and running a tidy operation but
that leaves a lot of thoroughly worn out stuff no-one wants alongside an
already reduced number of pile 'em up, let 'em moulder yards.
However, if manufacturers were obliged to take back their worn out
products maybe vehicles would become more readily recyclable. IIRC VW
seem to be going that way already but it's probably going to take a
while.
Get a grip of the bigger picture do.
Maybe you would be better asking your nearest MVDA members what they
think...
--
Phil Bradshaw Not in my name
Helen Deborah Vecht
from ian dickson <i...@iand.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Many Londoners pay even more taxes and don't own cars, because they do
> have an effective alternative.
Yebbut we're good fun to mock and abuse in this newsgroup, aren't we???
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
TossPot
It was reported in the Guardian, but I can't find anything relating to
hard figures.
Why not make the user pay the disposal costs when the car is purchased
and refund them on 'proper' disposal of the car.
This system is common in Germany for all sorts of environmentaly
unfriendly stuff. IIRC, the Swiss are even worse(or better).
Brings to mind the old deposit on lemonade bottles. If you had a grand
sitting on a car then you'd be likely to dispose of it properly.
Conor
nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk says...
> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
> prices.
>
> And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
> the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
>
>
2) THe councils put ones that run through auctions thus generating
revenue.
Over to you.
--
_________________________
Conor Turton
conor....@bigfoot.com
ICQ:31909763
_________________________
JNugent
news:200110311...@zetnet.co.uk...
> from ian dickson <i...@iand.demon.co.uk> said:
> > Many Londoners pay even more taxes and don't own cars, because they do
> > have an effective alternative.
> Yebbut we're good fun to mock and abuse in this newsgroup, aren't we???
Not sure what your point is or even whether you've got one. However much tax
a Londoner (or anyone else) pays, they will pay even more if they come into
possession of a car. The tax they pay on the car and car-costs will not be
balanced by a reduction in any other taxes. IOW, even though they are
admittedly income-stratified just like non-motorists, motorists pay more tax
than non-motorists in the same income bracket.
It is meaningless to (for instance) point to a non-car-owning partner in a
firm of solicitors and say he pays more tax than a postman who happens to
run a car. He always will, but if he buys a car he will pay even more.
Phil Bradshaw
<frank...@yahoo.tits.com> writes
>
>It was reported in the Guardian, but I can't find anything relating to
>hard figures.
Missed it then; Germany kicked off with implementing EC Directive on end
of life of vehicles (ELV) in August and the Beeb did something on how
manufacturers would go to the wall, 200,000 cars dumped p.a. gone up to
~1million p.a. in the UK IIRC, numbers maybe based on local authority
disposals.
My guess is the thread title comes from regurgitation of some version of
that but looking at it as symptomatic of desthpicable motorists somehow
seems to miss the point.
>
>Why not make the user pay the disposal costs when the car is purchased
>and refund them on 'proper' disposal of the car.
>
>This system is common in Germany for all sorts of environmentaly
>unfriendly stuff. IIRC, the Swiss are even worse(or better).
Looks like something similar is to be for new vehicles across Europe
once manufacturers have to pick up the tab, target ~2012 or thereabouts
providing there aren't any more big disagreements re: ELV Directive.
ACORD (Automotive Consortium on Recycling and Disposal) seems to be the
barometer of UK car manufacturers and breakers and things like the
Vauxhall/Opel disassembly manual that goes back to 1975 models are a
must for efficient recovery of materials; someone seems to be listening
at least.
However, ISTM the UK version of implementing the Directive (whichever
version is in the frame - I've lost track) is a bit too top-down for
some and not (or falsely) registering a vehicle in its last use isn't
that hard to get away with at present.
>
>Brings to mind the old deposit on lemonade bottles.
From the numbers collected to supplement my pocket money not many
bothered; no stopper, no thruppence either!
> If you had a grand
>sitting on a car then you'd be likely to dispose of it properly.
Indeed, a way to seeing off bottom-of-market bangers too but there'd be
a glut of pre-deposit motors first, maybe more than 1million p.a.
MrNatural
N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
Trouble is there is no surplus cash. Motorists do not pay nearly enough for
the massive harm and inconvenience they cause.
MrNatural
"Barry Cragg" <b.c...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>----------
>In article <1004522290.20610....@news.demon.co.uk>, "Michael
>Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Um, so are you saying their main concern may be cost?
>> I thought MrEn's
>> concern was 'environmental' presumably the damage done by burning oil and
>> using tar and stone quarried from our landscape to construct a road
>> infrastructure - these have nothing to do with 'trouble and cost'.
>
>Yes this has always surprised me about the Duhgling. Although he hates cars
>he is quite happy with the roads that are built for them, and wants to adopt
>them for pedestrian and cycle use.
Wrong yet again. I am not at all happy about having too many roads.
>So he appears to be dead against burning petroleum to move vehicles around
>but seems quite happy to have oil-field products laid all over the country
>as roads. Why is this not a polluting activity in his mind. Surely with his
>paranoia about carcinogens he should be campaigning for concrete roads only.
You see, you do not have a clue.
It is motorists who demand ever more roads, not I.
MrNatural
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
The news item that gave rise to this thread suggested that there was
recently on average a 500% increase in abandoned cars due to the fall in
price of scrap metal. Previously, scrapyards would have accepted these
objectionable items but not any longer.
So motorists and motor manufacturers, what are you going to do about this
costly nuisance and environmental problem you have created? Why should I, a
carless taxpayer, subsidise you?
MrNatural
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>In article <3BDFB9F4...@chello.nl>, N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> writes:
>
>[11 lines snipped]
>
>>The same hapless taxpayers that has been enjoying the surplus cash the
>>various owners of the car have contributed to the taxation system during the
>>cars useful lifetime, not forgetting the vat and car tax on the vehicles
>>purchase.
>>Seems like a good deal for the hapless taxpayer.
>
>There was a good article in one of papers here, showing that an avergae
>family saloon, costing about £10K, "contributes" about £30K to the Government
>in taxes over its life.
>
>As you say, the taxpayer is getting a brilliant deal.
Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
MrNatural
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>MrNatural <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote:
>
>> Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
>> causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
>> dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
>> prices.
>
>I see you still swallow every line of bollocks spoken so long as it
>agrees with your prejudices. The drop in scrap metal prices isn't the
>reason for an increase in dumping, it's the stupid landfill tax.
It is both and more.
>Now let me see, who in this group supported the landfill tax and denied
>that it would lead to an increase in dumping. Ah yes, you.
The real reason for the problem is too many cars. Too many for the road
infrastructure, too many for landfills, too many for the environment, and
too many for my personal health and safety.
TossPot
Phil Bradshaw wrote:
>
<most informative post snipped>
Cheers for that Phil, I was unaware of most of that.
It would appear that the ecological arguments against the car are
getting thin on the ground.
'Part from diesels that is.
<fx: Jumps under table and hides>
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> In article <1004540514.15000....@news.demon.co.uk>,
>
> So motorists and motor manufacturers, what are you going to do about this
> costly nuisance and environmental problem you have created? Why should I,
a
> carless taxpayer, subsidise you?
>
Please don't. You're welcome to leave any time you wish.
Michael Saunby
Barry Cragg
----------
In article <B8069D57...@195.44.210.25>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
(MrNatural) wrote:
> In article <GM2Gv...@bath.ac.uk>,
> "Barry Cragg" <b.c...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>----------
>>In article <1004522290.20610....@news.demon.co.uk>, "Michael
>>Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Um, so are you saying their main concern may be cost?
>>> I thought MrEn's
>>> concern was 'environmental' presumably the damage done by burning oil and
>>> using tar and stone quarried from our landscape to construct a road
>>> infrastructure - these have nothing to do with 'trouble and cost'.
>>
>>Yes this has always surprised me about the Duhgling. Although he hates cars
>>he is quite happy with the roads that are built for them, and wants to adopt
>>them for pedestrian and cycle use.
>
> Wrong yet again. I am not at all happy about having too many roads.
>
>>So he appears to be dead against burning petroleum to move vehicles around
>>but seems quite happy to have oil-field products laid all over the country
>>as roads. Why is this not a polluting activity in his mind. Surely with his
>>paranoia about carcinogens he should be campaigning for concrete roads only.
>
> You see, you do not have a clue.
>
> It is motorists who demand ever more roads, not I.
So you are not demanding full and free access to them then as a pedestrian
and cyclist?
Weird!
BAZZA
The Technical Manager
> In article <3BDFF5E7...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
> >Bagpuss wrote:
> >
> >> If you see a vechicle abandoned you can lay claim to if after a
> >> certain amount of time and request the log book. After a certain point
> >> (2 weeks or month?) it is calssed as abandoned and can become yours. I
> >> guess the DVLA or police will know about this.
> >>
> >> One of the guys I know did that when someone left a motorcycle outside
> >> their house. Very nice bike it was too.
> >
> >So that cop telling me that an abandoned vehicle is crown property is a lying
> >toerag !!
> >
> >I perceived his statements as specious considering that abandoned vehicles are
> >removed from the road by private transporting companies and later dumped into a
> >privately owned scrapyard without the Queen ever being informed at all.
> >
> And what evidence do you have that the Queen has not been informed?
I asked the council if they informed the Queen as the cop claimed it was crown
property and they gave me a funny look before replying that the only people they
inform is a towing company to pick the car up. I then asked the towing company if
they informed the Queen and told me they didn't as they had no contact details.
Next I asked the scrapyard if they informed the Queen and they replied that the
Queen doesn't need to be informed but the DVLA does. Occasionally a car comes in
that is shorn of any identity but the DVLA is still informed. Once the car is in
the scrapyard it is property of the scrapyard and if the Queen wants it then she
will have to buy it.
In other words that cop is a complete liar !!
>
> If you've found a way of monitoring communications with the Palace you
> might well be on to a nice little earner with one of the tabloids.
>
>
N M
Malcolm wrote:
>
>
> Tell me, next time I find a dead whale, should I inform the DVLA?
>
> --
> Malcolm
What did you do last time?
NM
Bagpuss
wrote:
>>I asked the council if they informed the Queen as the cop claimed it was crown
>>property and they gave me a funny look before replying that the only
>>people they
>>inform is a towing company to pick the car up. I then asked the towing
>>company if
>>they informed the Queen and told me they didn't as they had no contact details.
>
>I would have thought her address wasn't too difficult to find :-)
I think she's on the take and its all a con. She's shipping them all
out of a third world country on the side.
>
>>Next I asked the scrapyard if they informed the Queen and they replied that the
>>Queen doesn't need to be informed but the DVLA does. Occasionally a car
>>comes in
>>that is shorn of any identity but the DVLA is still informed. Once the
>>car is in
>>the scrapyard it is property of the scrapyard and if the Queen wants it
>>then she
>>will have to buy it.
>>
>>In other words that cop is a complete liar !!
>>
>Indeed, and I'm delighted to learn how thorough you were in the
>investigation of the true facts.
>
>Tell me, next time I find a dead whale, should I inform the DVLA?
No as they are sea based, but if you find a dead elephant or rhino I
would presume so.
ian dickson
<mal...@ogilvie.org> writes
>
>In article <3BE14C10...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
><tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> writes
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> And what evidence do you have that the Queen has not been informed?
>>
>>I asked the council if they informed the Queen as the cop claimed it was crown
>>property and they gave me a funny look before replying that the only
>>people they
>>inform is a towing company to pick the car up. I then asked the towing
>>company if
>>they informed the Queen and told me they didn't as they had no contact details.
>
>
found is entirely a different matter.
Which makes me think.
How would one serve a writ on the Queen?
--
ian dickson
The Technical Manager
> MrNatural <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote:
>
> > The news item that gave rise to this thread suggested that there was
> > recently on average a 500% increase in abandoned cars due to the fall in
> > price of scrap metal.
>
> That news item failed to mention the involvement of government in this
> issue, by the imposition of a stupid tax, and the culpability of
> so-called "green" advisers who advocated the disastrous policy.
> Reporting on this issue has been biased and one must assume derived
> entirely from government briefings with no investigation of the
> economics behind the situation.
>
> Whenever a scrapyard operator is interviewed, they first point out that
> landfill tax is crippling their business, not the value of scrap metal.
Absolutely true. Staff wages when it comes to stripping out cars is another
problem. Scrap metal dealers only take cars that have had their glass and
interior removed and the stripping costs are sometimes higher than the value
of the materials sold to the scrap dealers.
Around 30% of a car by mass is not made up of metal and that 30% if difficult
to dispose of as it can't be recycled and gives off black smoke when it is
burnt.
What I fail to understand is the prices that scrapyards charge for seats and
trim. It would be in their interest to give such items away for free.
Bagpuss
wrote:
>MrNatural <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote:
>
>> >Now let me see, who in this group supported the landfill tax and denied
>> >that it would lead to an increase in dumping. Ah yes, you.
>>
>> The real reason for the problem is too many cars. Too many for the road
>> infrastructure, too many for landfills, too many for the environment, and
>> too many for my personal health and safety.
>
>Whoa! Just look at the way he swerves.
>
>Ever thought of taking up football Doug? You could have a professional
>career as a goalpost mover.
Well he's passed the interview for a groundsman then :-)
Phil Bradshaw
<frank...@yahoo.tits.com> writes
>
>Cheers for that Phil,
You're welcome.
>
>It would appear that the ecological arguments against the car are
>getting thin on the ground.
Looks that way especially considering that reduction of resources use
and pollution at manufacture also is a big thing ATM. Not perfect by a
long chalk - GM USA make a thing of their disassembly (ELV) manual but
that's 2000/01 models only AFAIK, different priorities over the pond -
but all good stuff compared to even just a decade ago, going the right
way at least.
>
>'Part from diesels that is.
>
><fx: Jumps under table and hides>
:-)
Way I see it retrofit cleanup (i.e., fancy engine management, exhaust
gas treatment, rather than chucking out the piston engine) eventually
might put diesel on a par with petrol but it may be academic in the end.
CNG may go somewhere for things like PT while piston engines persist but
that strikes me as clinging onto technology maybe past its sell by date.
Leading edge in generation of motive power seems to be in hydrogen;
onboard liquid fuel cracking attractive to bigoil already so there's a
lot of money being thrown at research, similarly by the likes of Air
Products a step or two nearer to stored H being feasible. Maybe the two
can be blended together for best performance; I dunno.
Anyway, if H-based motive power does take off reliant on existing liquid
fuel supply infrastructure then exhaust pollution should go down a fair
chunk; a start. Not the end though; also a potential means to things
getting cleaner still as oil gets more expensive and cells become viable
using renewables like alcohol as fuel.
As much as it may dismay certain *green* factions fuel cells have merits
in becoming feasible in conventional cars as the kit gets smaller and
more efficient (pile of stuff on the web, easy enough to spot the big
players' influence and treat accordingly...); less upheaval changing
assembly lines if nothing else.
Downside at present is fuel cell constituents being a bit on the dodgy
side environmentally but, hey, the piston engine started using
magnificently polluting coal dust before someone twigged that there was
a liquid fuel lying around untouched that did away with the wick going
out, cleared the smoke a bit too. At least these days people seem to be
thinking a bit beyond just making the technology work.
Best not to mention problems like recycling tyres though; have to get
rid of the wheel to see that li'l old problem nootralised. All that the
EC Landfill Directive seems to have done here is to move the end of a
lot of tyres from landfill to *disappear* in already dirty industries,
like for firing cement kilns alongside things like industrial
hydrocarbon tailings no-one wants.
Maybe my turn to duck...
Peter Hill
(MrNatural) wrote:
>Not content with putting lives at risk, wrecking the environment and
>causing massive inconvenience to the general public, motorists are now
>dumping their cars in ever increasing numbers due to a drop in scrap metal
>prices.
>
>And who has to pay to clear up this mess? Not the motorist concerned nor
>the motor manufacturer but the hapless taxpayer.
About 4 out of 5 of the abandoned cars I see are the result of theft.
I pass a car park on the ring road in Derby where it is almost a
certainty that yet another car will turn up over the weekend, windows
out and burnt out. By Wed or Thursday it will have gone. There are
three other locations on the A38 where cars are abandoned half on the
verge and half on the carriageway on a regular basis. These are
usually in better condition unless someone tailgates them. These
locations are in a convenient place to exit the A38 up the bank into
the housing estate above. Lots cheaper and easier to find than a
bright yellow taxi at 2 am. Usually they are small vans or hatchbacks
but at one location it was large 4x4's two Sunday mornings in a row
followed by a Sierra 4x4. As they are obstructing the carriageway (a
clearway) I would have thought that they would have been moved as soon
as they are found but no, they just put 4x3 inch Police Aware stickers
on a few windows. They only sit around for about a day.
The ones that turn up further out of Derby near the Toyota plant are
dumped. It's easy to spot these as they sit there for weeks. After a
week a few windows and panels are kicked or bricked in but not out.
Then the windows are broken to get in and the interior ransacked for
anything nickable. Then if it doesn't have foldable seats the boot is
forced for anything nickable. Then the fuelcap is removed and any
fuel left is nicked. Then it gets recycled by people nicking any
useful bits - headlamps, taillights, bumpers, battery and larger lumps
of alloy like the head. Finally someone adds a match. This whole
process takes about a month. There has been a long wheelbase
refrigerated Transit van near the Burton north junction now for two
months.
--
Peter Hill
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Phil Bradshaw
.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>
>The news item that gave rise to this thread suggested that there was
>recently on average a 500% increase in abandoned cars due to the fall in
>price of scrap metal.
Citation?
Beeb piece by Quentin Sommerville 18 August by any chance?
> Previously, scrapyards would have accepted these
>objectionable items but not any longer.
Er, so what do scrap yards accept?
I was under the impression that cash going their way has been the
preferred method all along.
Seeing as demand for their services hasn't slackened any AFAICS maybe
fault if any is somewhere other than at the hands of last user motorists
some of whom may be the least able or even aware of doing any better.
Meanwhile I can't see a nice little earner from council-enforced tow-
aways being given up without a fight...
Conor
nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk says...
> Trouble is there is no surplus cash. Motorists do not pay nearly enough for
> the massive harm and inconvenience they cause.
>
I put £10 worth of petrol in and £8 goes to the Govt. Add on top of
this the road tax AND the tax on the car insurance I pay as well as the
portion of the MOT fee which goes to the Govt PLUS the VAT I pay on
repairs and spares then it adds up to a bob or two.
Conor
nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk says...
> Why should I, a
> carless taxpayer, subsidise you?
>
Actually its the other way around. The car owner subsidises the non car
owning taxpayer. What percentage of the Govts budget do you think was
raised by the tax on fuel and VAT on cars, car parts as well as the tax
on company cars?
Conor
old.demon.co.uk says...
> In article <B8069D58...@195.44.210.25>, MrNatural <nospam@noplace
> .noisp.noco.nouk> writes
> >
> >The news item that gave rise to this thread suggested that there was
> >recently on average a 500% increase in abandoned cars due to the fall in
> >price of scrap metal.
>
> Citation?
>
> Beeb piece by Quentin Sommerville 18 August by any chance?
>
> > Previously, scrapyards would have accepted these
> >objectionable items but not any longer.
>
> Er, so what do scrap yards accept?
>
> I was under the impression that cash going their way has been the
> preferred method all along.
>
not worth stripping them.
Conor
nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk says...
> Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
>
You are just so full of shit. Compare two people with identical
standards of living regarding income etc BUT one is a car owner, the
other isn't. Who pays the most tax to the Govt?
Conor
nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk says...
> The real reason for the problem is too many cars. Too many for the road
> infrastructure, too many for landfills, too many for the environment, and
> too many for my personal health and safety.
>
Go live at the North Pole then. Not many cars there.
Phil Bradshaw
<conor....@bigfoot.com> writes
>>
>One I worked at years ago now just chucks them all in a compactor..its
>not worth stripping them.
>
lifts so stripping is slow whatever machines are available for tearing
lumps out.
Seeing as it would cost a fortune to set up what it needs to strip a car
quickly - a disassembly plant no less - not many do.
One or two end of life car plants cut down a bit and run in reverse
might do the trick though.
Nah, too simple...
MrNatural
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>In article <B8069D59...@195.44.210.25>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>(MrNatural) writes:
>>In article <9rpksn$cpb$4...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
>>hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3BDFB9F4...@chello.nl>, N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>[11 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>>The same hapless taxpayers that has been enjoying the surplus cash the
>>>>various owners of the car have contributed to the taxation system during the
>>>>cars useful lifetime, not forgetting the vat and car tax on the vehicles
>>>>purchase.
>>>>Seems like a good deal for the hapless taxpayer.
>>>
>>>There was a good article in one of papers here, showing that an avergae
>>>family saloon, costing about £10K, "contributes" about £30K to the Government
>>>in taxes over its life.
>>>
>>>As you say, the taxpayer is getting a brilliant deal.
>>
>>Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
>
>A lie. A politically inspired fabrication believed only by idiots.
Excuses, excuses, motorist!
MrNatural
Peter Hill <pe...@skyshack.demon.co.uk> wrote:
SNIP
>The ones that turn up further out of Derby near the Toyota plant are
>dumped. It's easy to spot these as they sit there for weeks. After a
>week a few windows and panels are kicked or bricked in but not out.
>Then the windows are broken to get in and the interior ransacked for
>anything nickable. Then if it doesn't have foldable seats the boot is
>forced for anything nickable. Then the fuelcap is removed and any
>fuel left is nicked. Then it gets recycled by people nicking any
>useful bits - headlamps, taillights, bumpers, battery and larger lumps
>of alloy like the head. Finally someone adds a match. This whole
>process takes about a month. There has been a long wheelbase
>refrigerated Transit van near the Burton north junction now for two
>months.
And when the match is added yet more pollution is caused. Is there no end
to this folly?
MrNatural
"Barry Cragg" <b.c...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
What is really weird is that you can't distiguish between the words 'more'
and 'access'.
It wouldn't be so bad if I could freely access as a pedestrian the old
pre-car roads, let alone environmentally destructive motorways and new
roads.
MrNatural
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the car dumpers left? Or do you
approve of them?
N M
MrNatural wrote:
> In article <9rs6u5$rmh$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
> hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>
> >In article <B8069D59...@195.44.210.25>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
> >(MrNatural) writes:
> >>In article <9rpksn$cpb$4...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
> >>hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <3BDFB9F4...@chello.nl>, N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> writes:
> >>>
> >>>[11 lines snipped]
> >>>
> >>>>The same hapless taxpayers that has been enjoying the surplus cash the
> >>>>various owners of the car have contributed to the taxation system during the
> >>>>cars useful lifetime, not forgetting the vat and car tax on the vehicles
> >>>>purchase.
> >>>>Seems like a good deal for the hapless taxpayer.
> >>>
> >>>There was a good article in one of papers here, showing that an avergae
> >>>family saloon, costing about £10K, "contributes" about £30K to the Government
> >>>in taxes over its life.
> >>>
> >>>As you say, the taxpayer is getting a brilliant deal.
> >>
> >>Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
> >
> >A lie. A politically inspired fabrication believed only by idiots.
>
> Excuses, excuses, motorist!
Translation = "OK you are right, I have run out of arguments".
NM
>
>
N M
MrNatural wrote:
>
>
> And when the match is added yet more pollution is caused. Is there no end
> to this folly?
Have you also noticed the amount of bikes and parts of bikes that are left
unattended for months or even years, clogging up the pavements of our cities
and left, usually in pieces,
clamped to railings thereby choking the arteries vital for the progress of
pedestrians.
These evil cyclists, who pay no taxes towards cleaning up the vile pollution
they cause, take advantage of the lax laws that allow them to pollute with
impunity, there being no registration to assist tracing them.
Is there no end to this folly?
NM
>
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> In article <mn33ut4c2o0vq3na3...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Hill <pe...@skyshack.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >The ones that turn up further out of Derby near the Toyota plant are
> >dumped. It's easy to spot these as they sit there for weeks. After a
> >week a few windows and panels are kicked or bricked in but not out.
> >Then the windows are broken to get in and the interior ransacked for
> >anything nickable. Then if it doesn't have foldable seats the boot is
> >forced for anything nickable. Then the fuelcap is removed and any
> >fuel left is nicked. Then it gets recycled by people nicking any
> >useful bits - headlamps, taillights, bumpers, battery and larger lumps
> >of alloy like the head. Finally someone adds a match. This whole
> >process takes about a month. There has been a long wheelbase
> >refrigerated Transit van near the Burton north junction now for two
> >months.
>
> And when the match is added yet more pollution is caused. Is there no end
> to this folly?
>
And all of it almost certainly done by young males who don't own a car, and
don't pay taxes. They should (and probably will) be locked up.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> In article <1004602723.10127....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> >"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> >news:B8069D58...@195.44.210.25...
> >> In article <1004540514.15000....@news.demon.co.uk>,
> >>
> >> So motorists and motor manufacturers, what are you going to do about
this
> >> costly nuisance and environmental problem you have created? Why should
I,
> >a
> >> carless taxpayer, subsidise you?
> >>
> >
> >Please don't. You're welcome to leave any time you wish.
>
> Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the car dumpers left? Or do you
> approve of them?
>
They should certainly be disposed of. They are not normal motorists, they
probably haven't paid their road tax and are not insured, so are a serious
liability and expense to tax paying motorists.
Michael Sauny
The Technical Manager
I used to know of someone who went round towns taking parts off abandoned bikes
and putting them together to make new bikes before selling them. They claimed
it was profitable.
N M
The Technical Manager wrote:
>
>
> I used to know of someone who went round towns taking parts off abandoned bikes
> and putting them together to make new bikes before selling them. They claimed
> it was profitable.
I'm in Amsterdam at the moment and here it's a cottage industry.
NM
Conor
nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk says...
>
> Excuses, excuses, motorist!
>
Not exactly a counter argument. I would have expected more unless of
course you realise we are right.
Conor
> Have you also noticed the amount of bikes and parts of bikes that are left
> unattended for months or even years, clogging up the pavements of our cities
> and left,
Most around here get chucked in the local streams.
MrNatural
N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
You have no argument nor source and your so-called translation is quite
wrong.
MrNatural
N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
>MrNatural wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> And when the match is added yet more pollution is caused. Is there no end
>> to this folly?
>
>Have you also noticed the amount of bikes and parts of bikes that are left
>unattended for months or even years, clogging up the pavements of our cities
>and left, usually in pieces,
>clamped to railings thereby choking the arteries vital for the progress of
>pedestrians.
Yes but the impact of this is much less than with cars.
>These evil cyclists, who pay no taxes towards cleaning up the vile pollution
>they cause, take advantage of the lax laws that allow them to pollute with
>impunity, there being no registration to assist tracing them.
>
>Is there no end to this folly?
That's right, try to divert blame away to cyclists, as usual.
The scale of the problem caused by cyclists is several orders of magnitude
less that that caused by cars, so think again.
MrNatural
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
Ah yes, I was forgetting. With motorists it is always the fault of the
other guy isn't it.
MrNatural
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
>news:B807F480...@195.44.5.24...
>> In article <1004602723.10127....@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
>> >news:B8069D58...@195.44.210.25...
>> >> In article <1004540514.15000....@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> >>
>> >> So motorists and motor manufacturers, what are you going to do about
>this
>> >> costly nuisance and environmental problem you have created? Why should
>I,
>> >a
>> >> carless taxpayer, subsidise you?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please don't. You're welcome to leave any time you wish.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the car dumpers left? Or do you
>> approve of them?
>>
>
>They should certainly be disposed of. They are not normal motorists, they
>probably haven't paid their road tax and are not insured, so are a serious
>liability and expense to tax paying motorists.
But there are so many of them.
MrNatural
And they don't just steal parts from abandoned bikes either.
Phil Bradshaw
oisp.noco.nouk> writes
>
>But there are so many of them.
>
place was attracting car dumpers.
Reminds me of slum clearance time in Manchester when Hulme got to be the
repository for dumped cars...
Its not really me
> In article <3BE25513...@chello.nl>,
> N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> >MrNatural wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> And when the match is added yet more pollution is caused. Is there no
end
> >> to this folly?
> >
> >Have you also noticed the amount of bikes and parts of bikes that are
left
> >unattended for months or even years, clogging up the pavements of our
cities
> >and left, usually in pieces,
> >clamped to railings thereby choking the arteries vital for the progress
of
> >pedestrians.
>
> Yes but the impact of this is much less than with cars.
>
> >These evil cyclists, who pay no taxes towards cleaning up the vile
pollution
> >they cause, take advantage of the lax laws that allow them to pollute
with
> >impunity, there being no registration to assist tracing them.
> >
> >Is there no end to this folly?
>
> That's right, try to divert blame away to cyclists, as usual.
>
> The scale of the problem caused by cyclists is several orders of magnitude
> less that that caused by cars, so think again.
>
Says who? Whats your source? Irrespective, the motorist contributes several
orders of magnitude more than the cyclist, which wipes out any advantage you
claim.
(snip loony carhating website plug)
Lordy
> cyclist, which wipes out any advantage you claim.
Hmmm, I'm as fanatical about cars as the next turbo nutter bastard
wasting a tenner of fuel for every 30 miles, but I'm still not stupid
enough to think that a motorist paying more money - of which hardly any
is spent solving the problems motorists create, and they don't even
succeed in solving them anyway - is an advantage over a cyclist which
creates hardly any problems :/
--
Lordy
John Buckley
>
> In article <qRVE7.6690$Cl3.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Its not really me" <theres...@home.net> writes:
>
> [39 lines snipped]
>
> >Says who? Whats your source? Irrespective, the motorist contributes several
> >orders of magnitude more than the cyclist, which wipes out any advantage you
> >claim.
>
> cyclist, since the cyclist "contributes" nothing.
My word, is it bedtime already?
John Buckley
Barry Cragg
----------
In article <B8092EB2...@195.44.203.2>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
(MrNatural) wrote:
You mean in the same way that nothing has ever been your fault?
BAZZA
Michael Saunby
"Barry Cragg" <b.c...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:GMA4s...@bath.ac.uk...
>
> >>
> >>And all of it almost certainly done by young males who don't own a car,
and
> >>don't pay taxes. They should (and probably will) be locked up.
> >
> > Ah yes, I was forgetting. With motorists it is always the fault of the
> > other guy isn't it.
>
> You mean in the same way that nothing has ever been your fault?
>
I blame the parents.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> >
> >They should certainly be disposed of. They are not normal motorists,
they
> >probably haven't paid their road tax and are not insured, so are a
serious
> >liability and expense to tax paying motorists.
>
> But there are so many of them.
>
Then cull them if it bothers you so much. I'm sure many motorists would be
quite happy if joy-riding, non-payment of road tax and motor insurance, etc.
became a hanging offences; so perhaps at last we have an issue on which
cyclists and motorists might agree.
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
> In article <3BE28FA3...@niobiumfive.co.uk>,
> >
> >I used to know of someone who went round towns taking parts off abandoned
bikes
> >and putting them together to make new bikes before selling them. They
claimed
> >it was profitable.
>
> And they don't just steal parts from abandoned bikes either.
>
Think of it as redistribution of wealth. This privately run scheme does not
cost the tax payer anything, yet helps to make cycling more affordable to
the poorer members of our community, and also creates much needed employment
in inner city areas :-)
Michael Saunby
John Buckley
>
> I'm sure many motorists would be
> quite happy if joy-riding, non-payment of road tax and motor insurance, etc.
> became a hanging offences; so perhaps at last we have an issue on which
> cyclists and motorists might agree.
They may agree, but Dugh won't.
John Buckley
Niall
(MrNatural) wrote:
>
>Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
You should tell the prime minister then. He seems to think motorists
are paying for schools, the NHS etc. etc.
--
Niall
MrNatural
John Buckley <jpb.d...@virgin.net> wrote:
It is strange that relatively minor traffic offences should be considered
hanging matters but not the death of many people on our roads. Or does the
writer have something even more sinsister in mind for these killers?
--
Twat Damien, aka Omen,
aka Damian...@preston-couriers.co.uk
doesn't know how to generate a proper sig
like normal people so he posts a load of
lying rubbish about others instead.
MrNatural
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
You have a good point. Also, parts only tend to be stolen from the more
expensive machines which poor people cannot easily afford.
Is much the same true of cars?
MrNatural
Niall <nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Bomber Blair is no favourite of mine. The man is a menace to socialism as
well as to his mounting numbers of innocent victims. I wouldn't believe a
word he says and I abhore his slimy rabble-rousing rhetoric.
It was a very bad day they made him leader of the once proud Labour Party
and this unfortunate country.
One good thing though, he has clearly demonstrated to the people that we do
not live in a real democracy, by declaring war without reference to either
parliament or the people. If that is not a clear example of overt oligarchy
I do not know what is. Better still, the Tories are his clear allies in
this.
What a thoroughly nasty fiasco our system of government is! Is it any
wonder it only has the support of 25% of the electorate and many regard
voting as a futile exercise?
Whew! I am glad I got that off my chest.
MrNatural
"Barry Cragg" <b.c...@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
No, it is a very noticable characteristic of motorists in particular.
Bagpuss
(MrNatural) wrote:
>In article <1004893795.14250....@news.demon.co.uk>,
>"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
>>news:B8092EB3...@195.44.203.2...
>>> In article <3BE28FA3...@niobiumfive.co.uk>,
>>> >
>>> >I used to know of someone who went round towns taking parts off abandoned
>>bikes
>>> >and putting them together to make new bikes before selling them. They
>>claimed
>>> >it was profitable.
>>>
>>> And they don't just steal parts from abandoned bikes either.
>>>
>>
>>Think of it as redistribution of wealth. This privately run scheme does not
>>cost the tax payer anything, yet helps to make cycling more affordable to
>>the poorer members of our community, and also creates much needed employment
>>in inner city areas :-)
>
>You have a good point. Also, parts only tend to be stolen from the more
>expensive machines which poor people cannot easily afford.
>
>Is much the same true of cars?
Well if you can fit a V8 rover engine into a Fiat Panda then maybe.
Michael Saunby
"MrNatural" <nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> wrote in message
>
> What a thoroughly nasty fiasco our system of government is! Is it any
> wonder it only has the support of 25% of the electorate and many regard
> voting as a futile exercise?
>
Plus the number, and size, of the disenfranchised groups is growing daily.
With IDS as Tory leader even Protestants (can I still say that?) are
disenfranchised for the first time in centuries; perhaps now they'll learn
how other religious groups and atheists feel. At least we were still
allowed our little Guy burning ceremony this year; but for how much longer?
Michael Saunby
Matthew Black
<nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>
>Bomber Blair is no favourite of mine. The man is a menace to socialism as
>well as to his mounting numbers of innocent victims. I wouldn't believe a
>word he says and I abhore his slimy rabble-rousing rhetoric.
<snip>
>What a thoroughly nasty fiasco our system of government is! Is it any
>wonder it only has the support of 25% of the electorate and many regard
>voting as a futile exercise?
Blair, Bush, Robertson. All part of the B*********g group, innit?
Has IDS had his invite yet?
--
Matthew Black
Niall
(MrNatural) wrote:
>In article <M+TlO2EReS+qJBYI7=3Twbk...@4ax.com>,
>Niall <nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 06:34:01 +0000, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>>(MrNatural) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
>>
>>You should tell the prime minister then. He seems to think motorists
>>are paying for schools, the NHS etc. etc.
>
>Bomber Blair is no favourite of mine. The man is a menace to socialism as
>well as to his mounting numbers of innocent victims. I wouldn't believe a
>word he says and I abhore his slimy rabble-rousing rhetoric.
>
Good grief, we agree about something. He's right about the revenue
from fuel taxes though. (How much of it there is, not that it should
be collected at the level it is).
Mind you, if you think New Labour is bad, Scotland still has the Old
variety which is worse. Mind you, they're not doing too well up here
today :-)
--
Niall
MrNatural
Matthew Black <matt...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Yes. Robertson is a particularly nasty piece of work. His TV appearences
during our bombing of innocents in Kosovo and Serbia were particularly
disgusting. And to think they then made him head of NATO! Are these rampant
warmongers part of an international cabal or what?
MrNatural
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
It has been devalued as a traditional reminder of bad government and is now
a fortnight long firework nuisance instead. Surely though, they will
welcome anything that might divert attention away from their undemocratic
machinations?
Phil Bradshaw
.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
> Are these rampant
>warmongers part of an international cabal or what?
>
Somebody doesn't know what the B*********g group is...
MrNatural
Niall <nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 07:11:25 +0000, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>(MrNatural) wrote:
>
>>In article <M+TlO2EReS+qJBYI7=3Twbk...@4ax.com>,
>>Niall <nia...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 06:34:01 +0000, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>>>(MrNatural) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bollocks! Not according to my sources. The taxpayer is net loser.
>>>
>>>You should tell the prime minister then. He seems to think motorists
>>>are paying for schools, the NHS etc. etc.
>>
>>Bomber Blair is no favourite of mine. The man is a menace to socialism as
>>well as to his mounting numbers of innocent victims. I wouldn't believe a
>>word he says and I abhore his slimy rabble-rousing rhetoric.
>>
>Good grief, we agree about something. He's right about the revenue
>from fuel taxes though. (How much of it there is, not that it should
>be collected at the level it is).
No, motorists do not pay enough to cover all of the many costs to society
they incur.
>Mind you, if you think New Labour is bad, Scotland still has the Old
>variety which is worse. Mind you, they're not doing too well up here
>today :-)
I used to like old Labour, it had some egalitarian principles. The new lot
have none.
MrNatural
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>In article <B8128872...@tc04-s15-196-1-103.cwcom.net>,
>nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk (MrNatural) writes:
>>In article <ywPrO2ICIBnCSNbElQ61KvZ7G2=s...@4ax.com>,
>
>[26 lines snipped]
>
>>No, motorists do not pay enough to cover all of the many costs to society
>>they incur.
>
>Stop repeating this lie. Repetition does not cause it to become true.
You have nothing with which to disprove it, as usual.
--
CAR BUSTERS, for the world car-free/anti-car movement.
Kratka 26, 100 00 Praha 10, Czech Republic
tel: +(420) 2-7481-0849 ; fax: +(420) 2-7481-6727
<carbu...@ecn.cz> - <www.carbusters.ecn.cz>
MrNatural
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>In article <B813BF04...@tc03-s15-198-1-166.cwcom.net>,
>nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk (MrNatural) writes:
>>In article <9sin59$g8u$6...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
>>hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <B8128872...@tc04-s15-196-1-103.cwcom.net>,
>>>nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk (MrNatural) writes:
>>>>In article <ywPrO2ICIBnCSNbElQ61KvZ7G2=s...@4ax.com>,
>>>
>>>[26 lines snipped]
>>>
>>>>No, motorists do not pay enough to cover all of the many costs to society
>>>>they incur.
>>>
>>>Stop repeating this lie. Repetition does not cause it to become true.
>>
>>You have nothing with which to disprove it, as usual.
>
>One again you demonstrate that as well as not knowing what "vegan"
>means
Hypocrite! Use a dictioanry for a change.
>and not understanding the scientific method, you have no idea how
>logical debate works. You make an assertion, it is up to you to prove
>it. I need produce nothing.
As you well know, I have already produced evidence in this newsgroup that
motorists do not pay enough, see previous posts for citation, 'Surface
Transport Costs & Charges Great Britian 1998', commissioned by the DETR.
As you have contested these findings, it is up to you to produce evidence
with which to refute them.
But of course you have nothing. With you it is all the usual bluff,
bluster, abuse and deliberate misrepresentation of other people's posts.
Matthew Black
<nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>Hypocrite! Use a dictioanry for a change.
Priceless. :)
--
Matthew Black
Phil Bradshaw
<nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>
>As you well know, I have already produced evidence in this newsgroup that
>motorists do not pay enough, see previous posts for citation, 'Surface
>Transport Costs & Charges Great Britian 1998', commissioned by the DETR.
Refer to the source then.
What of the stated assumptions, qualifications, uncertainties, caveats?
For example, where is the like-for-like car:PT given the glaring holes
in rail passenger data, pkm for PT in general (i.e., empty running
somehow lost in the fog of diesel fume)?
What about large uncertainties in noise pollution starting at 55dB when
time of day (day/night disturbance thresholds), effects of vibration,
intermittence of noise from some transport sources, perception and
potential health impacts each and all largely are guesstimates at
present?
Have you read Watkiss et al on Health Impact Assessment of Transport in
London, 2000? I suggest you do.
>
>But of course you have nothing.
Fool; the DETR publication is in the public domain and thus is common
ground. You could try reading it for what it is...
>With you it is all the usual bluff,
>bluster, abuse and deliberate misrepresentation of other people's posts.
>
Duhgpile!
MrNatural
^OmeN^ <Damian...@nospam.preston-couriers.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 05:39:34 +0000, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>(MrNatural) wrote:
>
>>In article <9slkk5$6o6$1...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
>>hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <B813BF04...@tc03-s15-198-1-166.cwcom.net>,
>>>nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk (MrNatural) writes:
>>>>In article <9sin59$g8u$6...@anubis.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <B8128872...@tc04-s15-196-1-103.cwcom.net>,
>>>>>nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk (MrNatural) writes:
>>>>>>In article <ywPrO2ICIBnCSNbElQ61KvZ7G2=s...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>
>>>>>[26 lines snipped]
>>>>>
>>>>>>No, motorists do not pay enough to cover all of the many costs to society
>>>>>>they incur.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop repeating this lie. Repetition does not cause it to become true.
>>>>
>>>>You have nothing with which to disprove it, as usual.
>>>
>>>One again you demonstrate that as well as not knowing what "vegan"
>>>means
>>
>>Hypocrite! Use a dictioanry for a change.
>>
>Cambridge Online Dictionary
>
>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=vegan*1+0
>
>vegan
>noun [C]
>a person who does not eat or use any animal products, such as meat,
>fish, eggs, cheese or leather
>
>you've admitted using leather so you are not a vegan.
If not a vegan then what?
Collins _New_ English Dictionary:
Vegan - A person who does not eat meat, fish or any animal products such as
cheese, butter, etc.
This is the definition I choose to use.
MrNatural
Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <B8151116...@tc05-s15-33-16-10.cwcom.net>, MrNatural
><nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>>
>>As you well know, I have already produced evidence in this newsgroup that
>>motorists do not pay enough, see previous posts for citation, 'Surface
>>Transport Costs & Charges Great Britian 1998', commissioned by the DETR.
>
>Refer to the source then.
>
>What of the stated assumptions, qualifications, uncertainties, caveats?
>For example, where is the like-for-like car:PT given the glaring holes
>in rail passenger data, pkm for PT in general (i.e., empty running
>somehow lost in the fog of diesel fume)?
>
>What about large uncertainties in noise pollution starting at 55dB when
>time of day (day/night disturbance thresholds), effects of vibration,
>intermittence of noise from some transport sources, perception and
>potential health impacts each and all largely are guesstimates at
>present?
>
>Have you read Watkiss et al on Health Impact Assessment of Transport in
>London, 2000? I suggest you do.
Health is just one aspect and there are caveats in that source too.
>>
>>But of course you have nothing.
>
>Fool; the DETR publication is in the public domain and thus is common
>ground. You could try reading it for what it is...
What do you think it is?
>>With you it is all the usual bluff,
>>bluster, abuse and deliberate misrepresentation of other people's posts.
>>
>
>Duhgpile!
Where is _your_ source that embraces _all_ social costs of motoring?
With you it is just empty posturing, as usual.
N M
MrNatural wrote:
>
> >
> >vegan
> >noun [C]
> >a person who does not eat or use any animal products, such as meat,
> >fish, eggs, cheese or leather
> >
> >you've admitted using leather so you are not a vegan.
>
> If not a vegan then what?
>
> Collins _New_ English Dictionary:
>
> Vegan - A person who does not eat meat, fish or any animal products such as
> cheese, butter, etc.
>
> This is the definition I choose to use.
Yet another example of you ignoring reality, only believing aspects of a subject
that appeal to you whilst ignoring all other facts.
Hardly surprising that you are regarded as a buffoon.
Regards
NM
>
>
Phil Bradshaw
.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>In article <73y91kAD...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
>Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <B8151116...@tc05-s15-33-16-10.cwcom.net>, MrNatural
>><nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>>>
>>>As you well know, I have already produced evidence in this newsgroup that
>>>motorists do not pay enough, see previous posts for citation, 'Surface
>>>Transport Costs & Charges Great Britian 1998', commissioned by the DETR.
>>
>>Refer to the source then.
>>
>>What of the stated assumptions, qualifications, uncertainties, caveats?
>>For example, where is the like-for-like car:PT given the glaring holes
>>in rail passenger data, pkm for PT in general (i.e., empty running
>>somehow lost in the fog of diesel fume)?
>>
>>What about large uncertainties in noise pollution starting at 55dB when
>>time of day (day/night disturbance thresholds), effects of vibration,
>>intermittence of noise from some transport sources, perception and
>>potential health impacts each and all largely are guesstimates at
>>present?
>>
>>Have you read Watkiss et al on Health Impact Assessment of Transport in
>>London, 2000? I suggest you do.
>
>Health is just one aspect and there are caveats in that source too.
List them.
>
>>>
>>>But of course you have nothing.
>>
>>Fool; the DETR publication is in the public domain and thus is common
>>ground. You could try reading it for what it is...
>
>What do you think it is?
I have already stated what I think it is; read the thread.
>
>>>With you it is all the usual bluff,
>>>bluster, abuse and deliberate misrepresentation of other people's posts.
>>>
>>
>>Duhgpile!
>
>Where is _your_ source that embraces _all_ social costs of motoring?
The very one that is being discussed; best there is at present. Read the
thread do.
>
>With you it is just empty posturing, as usual.
>
Fits you perfectly.
Phil Bradshaw
<hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> writes
>In article <B8168582...@195.44.205.11>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>
>>Where is _your_ source that embraces _all_ social costs of motoring?
>
>
>"social costs of motoring" = made up bollocks.
>
You've seen some of it then :-)
MrNatural
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>In article <B816857B...@195.44.205.11>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>(MrNatural) writes:
>
>>Collins _New_ English Dictionary:
>>
>>Vegan - A person who does not eat meat, fish or any animal products such as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ergo you are not a vegan.
Still learning to read then? Don't you know what 'eat' means?
MrNatural
hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) wrote:
>In article <B8168582...@195.44.205.11>, nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk
>(MrNatural) writes:
>
>>Where is _your_ source that embraces _all_ social costs of motoring?
>
>*guffaw*
>
>"social costs of motoring" = made up bollocks.
No source or answer then, as usual.
MrNatural
N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
Something that has obviously escaped your notice, probably becuase of a
poor reading ability, which seems to be widespread on this newsgroup, is
that I have readily _admitted_ a minor shortcoming, which is something you
and your carnivorous and polluting chums dare not do, because you and they
are craven cowards and damned hypocrites.
Lordy
> and your carnivorous and polluting chums dare not do, because you and
> they are craven cowards and damned hypocrites.
Hmm...
cowards... Nowadays you have to be pretty brave to eat meat in this
country, so the only cowardice is those who choose to shy away from it.
Hypocrites... It is not hypocritical to not do something that you just
don't want to do, however it would be hypocritical if they did do it just
to make others happy.
hth.
--
Lordy
Carnivore, Pollutivore.
N M
MrNatural wrote:
Can you not see, the 'minor shortcoming' is the difference between being a vegan or
not, that is the fact you choose to ignore. As a smokescreen you attack my reading
comprehension and gratitiously insult everyone.
You are a buffoon.
NM
MrNatural
N M <nik.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
Idiot! There are many different categories of vegetarians as there are
vegans. You obviously know nothing of this subject, as usual.
My claim has only ever been that I _eat_ a vegan diet.
What about you, what do you eat/wear, hypocrite?
MrNatural
Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <B8168582...@195.44.205.11>, MrNatural <nospam@noplace
>.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>>In article <73y91kAD...@brads-old.demon.co.uk>,
>>Phil Bradshaw <ph...@brads-old.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <B8151116...@tc05-s15-33-16-10.cwcom.net>, MrNatural
>>><nos...@noplace.noisp.noco.nouk> writes
>>>>
>>>>As you well know, I have already produced evidence in this newsgroup that
>>>>motorists do not pay enough, see previous posts for citation, 'Surface
>>>>Transport Costs & Charges Great Britian 1998', commissioned by the DETR.
>>>
>>>Refer to the source then.
>>>
>>>What of the stated assumptions, qualifications, uncertainties, caveats?
>>>For example, where is the like-for-like car:PT given the glaring holes
>>>in rail passenger data, pkm for PT in general (i.e., empty running
>>>somehow lost in the fog of diesel fume)?
>>>
>>>What about large uncertainties in noise pollution starting at 55dB when
>>>time of day (day/night disturbance thresholds), effects of vibration,
>>>intermittence of noise from some transport sources, perception and
>>>potential health impacts each and all largely are guesstimates at
>>>present?
>>>
>>>Have you read Watkiss et al on Health Impact Assessment of Transport in
>>>London, 2000? I suggest you do.
>>
>>Health is just one aspect and there are caveats in that source too.
>
>List them.
I'll list mine when you list yours.
>>
>>>>
>>>>But of course you have nothing.
>>>
>>>Fool; the DETR publication is in the public domain and thus is common
>>>ground. You could try reading it for what it is...
>>
>>What do you think it is?
>
>I have already stated what I think it is; read the thread.
I have read the thread and I don't know what you are referring to. Why so
coy?
>>
>>>>With you it is all the usual bluff,
>>>>bluster, abuse and deliberate misrepresentation of other people's posts.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Duhgpile!
>>
>>Where is _your_ source that embraces _all_ social costs of motoring?
>
>The very one that is being discussed; best there is at present. Read the
>thread do.
Your source does _not_ embrace all social costs, just health costs.
>>
>>With you it is just empty posturing, as usual.
>>
>
>Fits you perfectly.
Parrot.
Lordy
It doesn't matter because he has made no claims about it
> hypocrite
You're wearing that one out and you haven't even found a valid target for
it yet. Try harder, time is passing, you'll have a new favorite word
soon.
--
Lordy