Petrol blockade: They weren't so easy on the miners
Tom
Mark Campion wrote in message <8plune$t3q$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>
>The amazing thing is that, at the moment, most people seem to be in favour
>of the action :-)
>
Hardly amazing since the rise in the price of petrol affects most of the
working population and its not over yet. We have yet to see the inflationary
effects of the pound's fall against the dollar. What's the betting on a
good old fashioned Labour Government Sterling Crisis and only a year or so
away from a General Election?
Who did say 'Events, my boy, events'.
Alun Jones
<h...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> Now we see how our masters treat pickets when the picketers are bosses
> instead of workers. The haulage operators and farmers are not arrested for
> blocking motorways or fuel depots. The police have "agreements" with them.
You're not paying attention, are you?
1. Different government than in 1970's - different party, no less.
2. The miners were organised under one or two unions. The fuel protesters
are not organised in anywhere near as much a manner.
Alun.
~~~~
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)378-3246 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.
Simon Brown
some northern wimp lawyer (omit northern if offended).
--
Simon Brown, Casa Bergenia, 7031 Laax, Switzerland
Tel: +41 81 921 6853, GSM: +41 78 608 3854
"Hugh Mather-Farquhar" <h...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2000091213320...@nym.alias.net...
> When the miners went on strike to protest about low wages, dangerous
> working conditions and job insecurity the government took immediate
action.
>
> Police were out in force, sometimes joined by soldiers wearing police
> uniforms, to beat the miners into submission. Horses, tear-gas and baton
> charges were used against unarmed and hungry men and women who had the
> temerity to picket their place of work.
>
> Roadblocks were set up in all the mining areas and cars were turned back
if
> the police suspected the occupants were secondary pickets. The final
> revenge was the destruction of the British coal industry.
>
> Now we see how our masters treat pickets when the picketers are bosses
> instead of workers. The haulage operators and farmers are not arrested for
> blocking motorways or fuel depots. The police have "agreements" with them.
>
> The government has taken special powers to deal with the crisis but we
> won't see them use these powers against the petrol stations and
> supermarkets which have increased their prices today and have become
> profiteers.
>
> It occurs to me that a lot of farmhouses and hauliers houses are unguarded
> tonight.
David Holder
<simon...@kns.com> wrote:
>Yes, but in the good old days Saint Margaret was in power. Now it's just
>some northern wimp lawyer (omit northern if offended).
I hardly consider that "soldiers wearing police uniforms beating
miners into submission" was indicative of a civilised society. You
may disagree with what is (or is not) being done about the petrol
'blockade', but at least the methods employed are less uncivilised.
Besides, if you beat drivers they might end up with concussion, and
that would leave them in an unfit state to drive :)
dlph
--
David L. P. Holder <dlph...@davidholder.org.uk>
http://www/geocities.com/psicorps2000
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
ICQ # 83438869
Simon Brown
Downing Street. Whether you approved of her policies, there was no doubt as
to who was in the driving seat. I reckon Humphrey the cat was onto a good
thing when it did a runner. I couldn't start living with Phoney Toney either
:-)
--
Simon Brown, Casa Bergenia, 7031 Laax, Switzerland
Tel: +41 81 921 6853, GSM: +41 78 608 3854
"David Holder" <dlph...@davidholder.org.uk> wrote in message
news:39be4fd...@news.cableinet.co.uk...
Gavin Gillespie
news:MJrv5.1846$XT1....@news5.giganews.com...
> You're not paying attention, are you?
>
> 1. Different government than in 1970's - different party, no less.
> 2. The miners were organised under one or two unions. The fuel
protesters
> are not organised in anywhere near as much a manner.
But the powers already exist to curb the blockades, and the slow moving
convoys, it is just that the police are not using them.
If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
recommend him for a fine. All that is needed is for the leading convoy
vehicles to be pulled over, and issued with a ticket, then if others
took over, the front vehicles could again be pulled over etc. It would
not take many tickets before the message, and the traffic, got through.
Gavin
--
e-mail use ga...@giltbrook.co.uk
www.giltbrook.co.uk
Gavin Gillespie
Nottingham UK
David Holder
<ga...@giltbrooks.co.uk> wrote:
>If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>recommend him for a fine. All that is needed is for the leading convoy
>vehicles to be pulled over, and issued with a ticket, then if others
>took over, the front vehicles could again be pulled over etc. It would
>not take many tickets before the message, and the traffic, got through.
That could be fun to do, although I wouldn't fancy having to put up
with the abuse it would get me.
The Dedicated Partnership
>convoys, it is just that the police are not using them.
>If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>recommend him for a fine. All that is needed is for the leading convoy
>vehicles to be pulled over, and issued with a ticket, then if others
>took over, the front vehicles could again be pulled over etc. It would
>not take many tickets before the message, and the traffic, got through.
That's all very well for a stretch of motorway, but what if it's
around a roudabout/ringroad... who then is the offender???? ;-)
The DEDICATED PARTNERSHIP - promoting tourism - http://www.dedicate.co.uk
Visit @UK - The UK Travel & Tourist Guide at http://www.atuk.co.uk
Now also available... UKhotel at http://www.ukhotel.com !
(Replace antispam.com with dedicate.co.uk to reply by e-mail...)
Gavin Gillespie
news:39be6ec6...@news.clara.net...
> That's all very well for a stretch of motorway, but what if it's
> around a roudabout/ringroad... who then is the offender???? ;-)
>
Then you would pick on the ring road leader. :-)
Just seen on the news where a lorry driver on the A1, is to be
prosecuted for continually blocking the outside lane.
Steve Brooks
> <simon...@kns.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but in the good old days Saint Margaret was in power. Now it's just
> >some northern wimp lawyer (omit northern if offended).
>
> I hardly consider that "soldiers wearing police uniforms beating
> miners into submission" was indicative of a civilised society. You
> may disagree with what is (or is not) being done about the petrol
> 'blockade', but at least the methods employed are less uncivilised.
>
On 'PM' tonight they announced that, for the first time, the blockade is
starting to have a significant effect in London and the SE... No doubt
sterner government action will swiftly follow.
--
SB
Mark Campion
"Steve Brooks" wrote:
> On 'PM' tonight they announced that, for the first time, the blockade is
> starting to have a significant effect in London and the SE... No doubt
> sterner government action will swiftly follow.
Controversial, or is it?
The amazing thing is that, at the moment, most people seem to be in favour
of the action :-)
Most people are understandably not happy about having to pay substantially
more tax than many other countries. In fact, we also pay additional road tax
which AFAIK isn't the case in France.
I reckon the government are trying to hold out until public opinion changes
(It won't be long before parents realise that the Discovery won't run
anymore and they'll have to *walk* their children half a mile to
school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Mark.
toml...@my-deja.com
al...@texis.com (Alun Jones) wrote:
> In article <2000091213320...@nym.alias.net>, Hugh Mather-
Farquhar
> <h...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> > Now we see how our masters treat pickets when the picketers are
bosses
> > instead of workers. The haulage operators and farmers are not
arrested for
> > blocking motorways or fuel depots. The police have "agreements"
with them.
>
> You're not paying attention, are you?
>
> 1. Different government than in 1970's - different party, no less.
> 2. The miners were organised under one or two unions. The fuel
protesters
> are not organised in anywhere near as much a manner.
>
> Alun.
> ~~~~
>
tanker drivers are in sympathy with the 'pickets'. As a deal has been
agreed with the suppliers to supply the fuel and Blair has said that
supplies will get back to normal, who is going to drive the tankers if
the drivers refuse? That is when it will get nasty! However the
difference between this dispute and the miners is that most people, for
the time being, are behind the campaign to reduce the fuel price (tax).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bob Spowart
Simon Brown wrote in message <8plitn$df3o2$1...@ID-6220.news.cis.dfn.de>...
>Yes, but in the good old days Saint Margaret was in power. Now it's just
>some northern wimp lawyer (omit northern if offended).
>
>--
Bob
Simon Brown
news:8plv3v$tet$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sorry, I didn't realise it was as bad as that :-)
Simon
Ian Johnston
: The amazing thing is that, at the moment, most people seem to be in favour
: of the action :-)
Of course. They have petrol in their tanks and fancy a cheaper fill up
next time. I wouldn't count on their support lasting long after they
run out of petrol...
: Most people are understandably not happy about having to pay substantially
: more tax than many other countries. In fact, we also pay additional road tax
: which AFAIK isn't the case in France.
'Sfunny, but I haven't heard the hauliers campaigning for French-level
motorway tolls as well as French-levl fuel taxes...
: I reckon the government are trying to hold out until public opinion changes
: (It won't be long before parents realise that the Discovery won't run
: anymore and they'll have to *walk* their children half a mile to
: school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Shock horror probe!
Ian
Tom
>some northern wimp lawyer (omit northern if offended).
>
Alun Jones
> Just seen on the news where a lorry driver on the A1, is to be
> prosecuted for continually blocking the outside lane.
If they would only do that when there wasn't a blockade on, as well :-)
Ophelia
"Gavin Gillespie" <ga...@giltbrooks.co.uk> wrote in message
news:owuv5.11584$Xe4.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "The Dedicated Partnership" <dedi...@antispam.com> wrote in message
> news:39be6ec6...@news.clara.net...
> > That's all very well for a stretch of motorway, but what if it's
> > around a roudabout/ringroad... who then is the offender???? ;-)
> >
>
> Then you would pick on the ring road leader. :-)
>
> Just seen on the news where a lorry driver on the A1, is to be
> prosecuted for continually blocking the outside lane.
>
> Gavin
I remember last summer.. there was the story on radio 4 news about some guy
in a very large slow vehicle on the A9 up here. He travelled for miles at
around 5mph with a massive tailback and refused to stop to allow them to
pass. Eventually a police car pulled him over and he was asked why he had
not pulled over.. he said..' I was in a hurry!!!'
Ophelia
a goss
<ga...@giltbrooks.co.uk> wrote:
>"The Dedicated Partnership" <dedi...@antispam.com> wrote in message
>news:39be6ec6...@news.clara.net...
>> That's all very well for a stretch of motorway, but what if it's
>> around a roudabout/ringroad... who then is the offender???? ;-)
>>
>
>Then you would pick on the ring road leader. :-)
>
>Just seen on the news where a lorry driver on the A1, is to be
>prosecuted for continually blocking the outside lane.
>
It's about bloody time too.
--
Alan Goss
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
Marc Living
<ga...@giltbrooks.co.uk> wrote:
>If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>recommend him for a fine.
Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
snippet in?
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
************************************************
puff...@my-deja.com
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
> snippet in?
I'll try "dangerous driving" or "driving without due care and
attention" as my starter for 10 points please, Jeremy.
Regards, Ade
John A Fotheringham
>>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>>recommend him for a fine.
>
>Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
>snippet in?
I don't know about a law or fines being applied, but I'm sure I've
heard news reports along the lines of the above (i.e. slow driver
is removed by police from the motorway).
In the context of a motorway there might be some sort of "dangerous
driving" charge that would apply, given the likely effect on other
traffic, but I'm not a lawyer.
--
Jaf (or John A Fotheringham for "long")
http://www.jafsoft.com/
Marc Living
>In article <msctrsk24ppt7pupe...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
>> snippet in?
>I'll try "dangerous driving"
How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
dangerous?
> or "driving without due care and
>attention" as my starter for 10 points please, Jeremy.
Can't see this being a runner either. Driving at 5mph implies neither
a failure to take care, or a failure to pay attention.
Marc Living
<spam.my....@jafsoft.com> wrote:
>>>If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
>>>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>>>recommend him for a fine.
>>Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
>>snippet in?
>I don't know about a law or fines being applied, but I'm sure I've
>heard news reports along the lines of the above (i.e. slow driver
>is removed by police from the motorway).
Can't say I've seen them. Unlike (say) the US, there are no minimum
speed limits on British motorways.
>In the context of a motorway there might be some sort of "dangerous
>driving" charge that would apply, given the likely effect on other
>traffic, but I'm not a lawyer.
See my reply to the other post.
neveryoumind
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message news:msctrsk24ppt7pupe...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:04:29 +0100, "Gavin Gillespie"
> <ga...@giltbrooks.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
> >would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
> >recommend him for a fine.
>
> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
> snippet in?
>
however, what do we do every day on the motorway in that jam?
and aren't the police using astras now :-)
John A Fotheringham
>>> snippet in?
>
>>I'll try "dangerous driving"
>
>How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
>dangerous?
Equating slower speeds with safety isn't necessary always true on a
motorway.
Parking in the outside lane or doing an unwarranted emergency stop
would both involve you travelling at a slower speed. I would regard
both as highly dangerous activities on a motorway, and would not
congratulate the driver for their "safety first" approach in
either circumstance :-)
I think that whilst the "speed kills" lobby advocate travelling at
lower speeds, I've never heard them advocate going all the way down
to 5mph on a motorway.
P.D.Stamford
>> ~~~~
>>
>The acid test is yet to come as from the reports I have seen, the
>tanker drivers are in sympathy with the 'pickets'. As a deal has been
>agreed with the suppliers to supply the fuel and Blair has said that
>supplies will get back to normal, who is going to drive the tankers if
>the drivers refuse?
Few tanker drivers would be prepared to put their jobs on the line for
any cause. They are the highest-paid drivers in the country with some of
the best working conditions in the haulage business. The reason they are
so well paid is precisely because they could, should they wish, bring
the whole country to a standstill in a matter of days. They are a very
privileged group.
--
P.D.Stamford
Alun Jones
> Few tanker drivers would be prepared to put their jobs on the line for
> any cause. They are the highest-paid drivers in the country with some of
> the best working conditions in the haulage business. The reason they are
> so well paid is precisely because they could, should they wish, bring
> the whole country to a standstill in a matter of days. They are a very
> privileged group.
One of the other reasons is that driving a fuel tanker is bloody dangerous.
Cars, no matter what you've seen on TV, don't tend to explode into huge
fireballs when they crash. You only had to see footage of the devastation
wrought over here by a fuel tanker deciding it could get across the level
crossing before the train came, to realise just how unlikely you are to
survive as the driver of a fuel tanker in anything more than minor damage.
P.D.Stamford
Fotheringham <spam.my....@jafsoft.com> writes
>>>If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
>>>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>>>recommend him for a fine.
>>
>>Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
>>snippet in?
>
>I don't know about a law or fines being applied, but I'm sure I've
>heard news reports along the lines of the above (i.e. slow driver
>is removed by police from the motorway).
There is no statutory minimum speed on our motorways (unlike some
countries). The police remove drivers that are a hazard to other
motorway users but do not prosecute unless there are factors involved in
a driver driving at a dangerously slow speed such as defective eyesight
or defective vehicle. If somebody is driving at 5 mph on a motorway then
it is usually because their vehicle has a problem or the driver does.
--
P.D.Stamford
Marc Living
<ric...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Previously, <0atursgcbcdpb9qgl...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>>Sudden changes in speed without warning or indication can indeed be
>>dangerous. Travelling at a steady speed is not, however, the same
>>thing.
>Why do you think that mopeds aren't allowed on the motorway?
Because motorways are dangerous places.
>Regardless of whether someone travelling at 5mph on the motorway is
>breaking the law, the police /would/ stop them and remove them from the
>flow of traffic.
If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
Steve Brooks
"Mark Campion" <ma...@mcampion.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8plune$t3q$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
<snip>
> I reckon the government are trying to hold out until public opinion
changes
> (It won't be long before parents realise that the Discovery won't run
> anymore and they'll have to *walk* their children half a mile to
> school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>
Judging by the light traffic on the way to work today I suspect this is
already
happening. It's ironic that, for the first time ever, the fuel price
escalator
is having the effect it was supposedly introduced to cause.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
"John A Fotheringham" <spam.my....@jafsoft.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> I don't know about a law or fines being applied, but I'm sure I've
> heard news reports along the lines of the above (i.e. slow driver
> is removed by police from the motorway).
>
In the only example I can recall of this happening the gentleman in question
was also on the wrong side..
--
SB
toml...@my-deja.com
"P.D.Stamford" <pa...@smith-wesson.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
From the reports I have seen, there are some drivers not crossing the
lines and as someone has posted, they are not at the moment being
discouraged to cross them. As you state they could bring the country
to it's knees...is there anything written into their contracts
regarding this?
Looks like the blockade will have a major effect if they do maintain
supplies....esp London...
John A Fotheringham
>little
>> >> >>> snippet in?
>> >> >
>> >> >>I'll try "dangerous driving"
>> >> >
>> >> >How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
>> >> >dangerous?
>> >>
>> >> Equating slower speeds with safety isn't necessary always true on a
>> >> motorway.
>> >>
>> >> Parking in the outside lane or doing an unwarranted emergency stop
>> >>
>>
>> I was responding your point that seemed to be asking how could going
>> slow possibly be deemed dangerous, and thus liable to a "dangerous
>> driving" charge.
>>
>> The two (extreme) examples I give both result in the vehicle going
>> slower. Both would be dangerous on a motorway, although whether they
>> would incur "dangerous driving" charges I'm not qualified to say.
>>
>> I was not suggesting that either activity had ever been proposed or
>> adopted as a form of direct action. Nor, from later in your post,
>> was I advocating driving at 70 mph into a traffic jam, and I'm
>> slightly puzzled as to how you formed either view from what I wrote.
>
>ah I see, you were simply going off at a tangent and making no attempt to
>stay on topic or follow the thead, sorry my mistake.
I was responding directly to the question "How can obeying the
dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be dangerous?"
I call that following the thread, but I accept your apology in any
case :-)
Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
Ermm.. how on earth did you all manage to pass your tests?..
There *is* an offence that someone doing 5mph on a motorway can be
charged with, though I would suggest that there are quite a few..
"failing to make due progress" is the main one, though I suspect there
would be good grounds for "driving without due consideration for other
road users"[1] and possibly even "behaviour liable to cause a breach of
the peace"..
Gid
[1] a nice law this one.. I saw someone pulled for it who deliberately
swerved into a puddle to splash some pedestrians.. he should've checked
his mirrors first..
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
Forecast for tonight: Dark..
Ian Johnston
: If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
: What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
: not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
"Driving without due consideration for other road users" is the offence,
I believe. Can be fixed-penalty, can be court.
Ian
Steve Brooks
<snip>
> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
In other contexts this doesn't seem to be a problem to them
--
SB.
Roger Barnett
Most vehicles travelling at 10mph on a motorway could reasonably
be considered to have some form of mechanical problem and could
be pulled over for safety checks.
Deliberately driving slowly on a motorway in order to impede other
people falls foul of several laws and/or regulations including, I
would have thought, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the
peace and - if appropriate - failing to observe traffic instructions
from a police officer. Certainly it could be classed as dangerous
driving, as in likely to directly or indirectly cause an accident,
which of course is totally separate from speeding (despite recent
attempts to conflate the two).
Personally I think the government should cut the VAT rate on fuel
- this would give an immediate effect and have the pleasant side
effect that it would provide the least benefit to the protestors since
most of them either don't pay VAT or else claim it back. They could
also limit such a cut to petrol since diesel is so much worse for our
health.
And of course if they're worried about the loss of revenue then they
can always get it back from the smokers...
I look forward to the truckers lining up on the motorways in their
usual cheery and jovial fashion behind the scores of electric vehicles
even now being prepared for action by various environmental groups.
Its amazing how far those things will travel, providing you don't try
and go too fast.
--
Roger Barnett
Ian Johnston
: Hardly amazing since the rise in the price of petrol affects most of the
: working population and its not over yet. We have yet to see the inflationary
: effects of the pound's fall against the dollar.
What, you mean a drop in the value of the universally-agreed-to-be
overvalued pound? That should help things a bit.
Ian
Richard Miller
<al...@texis.com> writes
>In article <2000091213320...@nym.alias.net>, Hugh Mather-Farquhar
><h...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>> Now we see how our masters treat pickets when the picketers are bosses
>> instead of workers. The haulage operators and farmers are not arrested for
>> blocking motorways or fuel depots. The police have "agreements" with them.
>
>You're not paying attention, are you?
>
>1. Different government than in 1970's - different party, no less.
>2. The miners were organised under one or two unions. The fuel protesters
>are not organised in anywhere near as much a manner.
What difference does the different government make? As for the latter
point, the port protests against live animal exports were hardly
organised but that didn't stop the police going in hard, and the, who
was it now, oh yes the *farmers* insisting on their right to carry on
their business unmolested.
The farmers, that is, who pay only about 3p per litre duty on fuel
because they have a special exemption.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
>In article <msctrsk24ppt7pupe...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
>> snippet in?
>
>I'll try "dangerous driving" or "driving without due care and
>attention" as my starter for 10 points please, Jeremy.
>
Or even the other lesser known half of the due care and attention law,
driving without due consideration for other road users.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
>tanker drivers are in sympathy with the 'pickets'. As a deal has been
>agreed with the suppliers to supply the fuel and Blair has said that
>supplies will get back to normal, who is going to drive the tankers if
>difference between this dispute and the miners is that most people, for
>the time being, are behind the campaign to reduce the fuel price (tax).
Most people who haven't thought the issue through properly.
It is very interesting to see the pickets arguing for tax harmonisation
with Europe. Do they also want the higher income and business taxes
which other European countries have, or is it a case of wanting all the
benefits without the responsibilities? (Silly question, really. Who
doesn't want something for nothing?)
--
Richard Miller
Marc Living
Holyoake) wrote:
>In article <ap5vrscv8c258dof9...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
>generously decided to share with us..
>Snippetry..
>> If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
>> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
>> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
>Ermm.. how on earth did you all manage to pass your tests?..
Quite easily (eventually:-), but more years ago than I care to
remember.
>There *is* an offence that someone doing 5mph on a motorway can be
>charged with, though I would suggest that there are quite a few..
>"failing to make due progress" is the main one, though I suspect there
>would be good grounds for "driving without due consideration for other
>road users"[1] and possibly even "behaviour liable to cause a breach of
>the peace"..
None of which would apply if 5mph happens to be the speed at which a
number of people were driving.
(Otherwise, the police would have a field day every time there was a
traffic jam.)
>Gid
>[1] a nice law this one.. I saw someone pulled for it who deliberately
>swerved into a puddle to splash some pedestrians.. he should've checked
>his mirrors first..
It is a catch all, but isn't an offence.
a goss
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:32:55 +0100, Richard Kilpatrick
><ric...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Previously, <0atursgcbcdpb9qgl...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
>><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>
>>>Sudden changes in speed without warning or indication can indeed be
>>>dangerous. Travelling at a steady speed is not, however, the same
>>>thing.
>
>>Why do you think that mopeds aren't allowed on the motorway?
>
>Because motorways are dangerous places.
>
>>Regardless of whether someone travelling at 5mph on the motorway is
>>breaking the law, the police /would/ stop them and remove them from the
>>flow of traffic.
>
>If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
>What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
>not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
>
>
Well they don't have to arrest them there and then. Merely put up road
blocks and arrest them on suspicion of being pickets like they did
with the miners. The magistrates could issue blanket exclusion orders
and curfews like they did with the miners.
I understand a road block should normally be authorised by a
superintendent or above, but can be set up in an emergency by an
officer of any rank. In this case, he has to report the fact to his
superiors. However, **authorisation is not needed** for road blocks to
detect traffic or road tax offences. You can do a lot with a road
block. Keep truckers sitting round for hours I expect.
I wonder why the police are soft pedalling on this. You know as well
as me the immense power the police have. Those truckers were probably
breaking some law just by breathing. Not that I agree with what
they're doing. IMNSHO Brown is attempting to shift the burden of
vehicle taxation onto those who use the roads the most. Something I've
advocated for years.
Richard Kilpatrick
<Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>The farmers, that is, who pay only about 3p per litre duty on fuel
>because they have a special exemption.
As has been stated, the farmers are not protesting the fuel tax -
although one bright yokel mentioned that they paid 25p/litre last year,
and now it's 35p. IIRC, they don't pay duty, but they do pay VAT which
they can then reclaim [1]
They are merely backing up the hauliers, who's increased costs push the
cost of transport up, thereby putting pressure on the farmers to reduce
the cost of their produce to keep products competitive.
Farmers are seen as some weird greedy people - I'm sure many are - but
this is not always the case.
Richard
[1] Remarkably, Labours Idiot (I mean, minister) for Agriculture,
Michael Brown, was earlier this year suggesting that Farmers may like to
run businesses such as off-roading courses, B&Bs, adventure playgrounds,
to make up for the potential 200,000 redundancies predicted in
agriculture over the next 6-10 years. What happens if a Farmer starts
running another business from the same premises? They can't claim all
their VAT back.
--
1975 Rover 3500S P6 |\ _,,,---,,_
1975 Vauxhall FE Ventora, Peugeot 306 Cabriolet /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
1982 Cadillac Eldorado 4.1HTi |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
E-Mail: Richard<at>lovecraft.demon.co.uk '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
Ken Tough
>Well they don't have to arrest them there and then. Merely put up road
>blocks and arrest them on suspicion of being pickets like they did
>with the miners. The magistrates could issue blanket exclusion orders
>and curfews like they did with the miners.
Not only that, but it's clearly an organized protest. Under
the Criminal Justice [sic] Act 1995? isn't it illegal to have
an organized protest of more than 20-odd people on the public
highway? ... bang 'em up!
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
>If farmers "have a special exemption" from fuel duty, then so does
>everybody with oil-fired heating "have a special exemption" from fuel
>duty.
Works in a diesel car too, from all accounts...
--
Ken Tough
Patrick Doherty
Marc Living wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 23:27:24 GMT, puff...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <msctrsk24ppt7pupe...@4ax.com>,
> > Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
> >> snippet in?
>
> >I'll try "dangerous driving"
>
> How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
> dangerous?
>
> > or "driving without due care and
> >attention" as my starter for 10 points please, Jeremy.
>
> Can't see this being a runner either. Driving at 5mph implies neither
> a failure to take care, or a failure to pay attention.
There is such thing as a minimum speed limit. 30Mph on motorways.
Patrick
>
>
> --
> Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
> ***********************************************
> "The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
> would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
> to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
> trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
> http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
> ************************************************
--
Patrick
There are THREE types of people in this world
Those who can count, and those who can't.
d1x1e
Hugh Mather-Farquhar <h...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
news:2000091213320...@nym.alias.net...
> When the miners went on strike to protest about low wages, dangerous
> working conditions and job insecurity the government took immediate
action.
>
> Police were out in force, sometimes joined by soldiers wearing police
> uniforms, to beat the miners into submission. Horses, tear-gas and baton
> charges were used against unarmed and hungry men and women who had the
> temerity to picket their place of work.
That's probably because these protesters haven't murdered anyone by dropping
a paving slab off an overpass through a car windscreen. Or threatened
anyones wives or children with physical violence or destroyed or damaged
anyones property.
>
> It occurs to me that a lot of farmhouses and hauliers houses are unguarded
> tonight.
....and your true nature comes to the fore. Not only a trouble maker but
the lowest form, who tries to incite in others what he is to afraid to do
himself. Do fuck off there's a good little shit.
d1x1e
> >>> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that little
> >>> snippet in?
> >
> >>I'll try "dangerous driving"
> >
> >How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
> >dangerous?
>
> Equating slower speeds with safety isn't necessary always true on a
> motorway.
>
> Parking in the outside lane or doing an unwarranted emergency stop
>
would both involve you travelling at a slower speed. I would regard both as
highly dangerous activities on a motorway,
which is why they are not part of the prtestors agenda, merely going slow.
and would not
> congratulate the driver for their "safety first" approach in
> either circumstance :-)
>
unless of course you happen to have come to a sudden stop yourself, and some
one was approaching you at motor way speeds from behind.
> I think that whilst the "speed kills" lobby advocate travelling at
> lower speeds, I've never heard them advocate going all the way down
> to 5mph on a motorway.
ah, so in a traffic jam or tail back would you advocate driving into it at
70 miles an hour.
d1x1e
Alun Jones <al...@texis.com> wrote in message
news:G1Cv5.5302$XT1....@news5.giganews.com...
> In article <1TTJpXAz...@smith-wesson.freeserve.co.uk>, "P.D.Stamford"
> <pa...@smith-wesson.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Few tanker drivers would be prepared to put their jobs on the line for
> > any cause. They are the highest-paid drivers in the country with some of
> > the best working conditions in the haulage business. The reason they are
> > so well paid is precisely because they could, should they wish, bring
> > the whole country to a standstill in a matter of days. They are a very
> > privileged group.
>
> One of the other reasons is that driving a fuel tanker is bloody
dangerous.
> Cars, no matter what you've seen on TV, don't tend to explode into huge
> fireballs when they crash. You only had to see footage of the devastation
> wrought over here by a fuel tanker deciding it could get across the level
> crossing before the train came
so there clearly not being paid highly for their aptitude and intelligence
then.
and...@nildram.co.uk
> Few tanker drivers would be prepared to put their jobs on the line for
> any cause.
I don't think that's likely to be a risk.
It seems quite obvious that the oil companies are quietly encouraging the
drivers not to cross the picket lines. "Go on lads - think of some more
excuses we can give Blair for not delivering fuel."
The oil companies are not stupid; all the way through this they've tacitly
supported the protestors, and a big part of that is because they know that
their customers support the protestors.
Absolutely every party involved - oil companies, delivery drivers,
protestors, policemen and everyday motorists - all have a common interest in
having fuel duty lowered. Only the government wants to keep the rates high,
but they face an uphill struggle...
Andrew
Chris Simon
> That's probably because these protesters haven't murdered anyone by dropping
> a paving slab off an overpass through a car windscreen. Or threatened
> anyones wives or children with physical violence or destroyed or damaged
> anyones property.
Someone was on the telly last night saying how he hasn't forced his drivers
to cross the picket lines as he wants them to be 'safe'.
Also, from that Guardian article:
Danny Bryan, national secretary of the TGWU's road transport
group, accused some pickets of bully-boy tactics. "We have
evidence of the windscreen of a lorry being smashed over the
weekend, our drivers being physically abused and there are
rumours of drivers being followed to their houses," he said.
--
Chris Simon,
Analyst/Programmer,
Prifysgol Cymru Bangor - University of Wales Bangor,
John A Fotheringham
>> >>> snippet in?
>> >
>> >>I'll try "dangerous driving"
>> >
>> >How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
>> >dangerous?
>>
>> Equating slower speeds with safety isn't necessary always true on a
>> motorway.
>>
>> Parking in the outside lane or doing an unwarranted emergency stop
>>
>Who said anything about emergency stops or parking in the outside lane.
I was responding your point that seemed to be asking how could going
slow possibly be deemed dangerous, and thus liable to a "dangerous
driving" charge.
The two (extreme) examples I give both result in the vehicle going
slower. Both would be dangerous on a motorway, although whether they
would incur "dangerous driving" charges I'm not qualified to say.
I was not suggesting that either activity had ever been proposed or
adopted as a form of direct action. Nor, from later in your post,
was I advocating driving at 70 mph into a traffic jam, and I'm
slightly puzzled as to how you formed either view from what I wrote.
Marc Living
<my_sp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Can't see this being a runner either. Driving at 5mph implies neither
>> a failure to take care, or a failure to pay attention.
>There is such thing as a minimum speed limit. 30Mph on motorways.
I'm not aware of any such minimum. What is you authority for this
proposition? (I *hope* you're wrong: it is a minimum which I have
broken on many occasions whilst stuck in traffic on the M25.)
Marc Living
<spam.my....@jafsoft.com> wrote:
>Parking in the outside lane or doing an unwarranted emergency stop
>would both involve you travelling at a slower speed. I would regard
>both as highly dangerous activities on a motorway, and would not
>congratulate the driver for their "safety first" approach in
>either circumstance :-)
Sudden changes in speed without warning or indication can indeed be
dangerous. Travelling at a steady speed is not, however, the same
thing.
Ken Tough
>One of the other reasons is that driving a fuel tanker is bloody dangerous.
>Cars, no matter what you've seen on TV, don't tend to explode into huge
>fireballs when they crash. You only had to see footage of the devastation
>wrought over here by a fuel tanker deciding it could get across the level
>crossing before the train came, to realise just how unlikely you are to
>survive as the driver of a fuel tanker in anything more than minor damage.
Unless you're hauling diesel, of course.
--
Ken Tough
Dave Plowman
Alun Jones <al...@texis.com> wrote:
> You only had to see footage of the devastation wrought over here by a
> fuel tanker deciding it could get across the level crossing before the
> train came, to realise just how unlikely you are to survive as the
> driver of a fuel tanker in anything more than minor damage.
Shouldn't thing it did the train passengers or crew any good either.
--
* What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *
Dave Plowman dave....@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
RIP Acorn
Jon Rouse
>But the powers already exist to curb the blockades, and the slow moving
>convoys, it is just that the police are not using them.
>If an elderly driver was going down the motorway at 5mph, the police
>would soon pull him/her over, remove him from the motorway, and
>recommend him for a fine. All that is needed is for the leading convoy
>vehicles to be pulled over, and issued with a ticket, then if others
>took over, the front vehicles could again be pulled over etc. It would
>not take many tickets before the message, and the traffic, got through.
Customs and Excise could check all the farmers vehicles for traces of red
diesel, department of transport officials could check that all the lorries
were roadworthy, Radio Authority could check that all the truckers had CB
licences......
--
The views expressed are my own, and may not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
Richard Kilpatrick
>Sudden changes in speed without warning or indication can indeed be
>dangerous. Travelling at a steady speed is not, however, the same
>thing.
Why do you think that mopeds aren't allowed on the motorway?
Regardless of whether someone travelling at 5mph on the motorway is
breaking the law, the police /would/ stop them and remove them from the
flow of traffic.
The demonstrations are different. The police forces are made aware of
them, in some cases, police vehicles escort them.
Richard
d1x1e
ah I see, you were simply going off at a tangent and making no attempt to
stay on topic or follow the thead, sorry my mistake.
d1x1e
Ken Tough <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XN1mPOAW...@objectech.co.uk...
I though that, until one of the drivers delivering diesel to the plant I'm
working at was killed in a fire after his truck crashed.
Ken Tough
>> >Cars, no matter what you've seen on TV, don't tend to explode into huge
>> >fireballs when they crash. You only had to see footage of the
>devastation
>> >wrought over here by a fuel tanker deciding it could get across the level
>> >crossing before the train came, to realise just how unlikely you are to
>> >survive as the driver of a fuel tanker in anything more than minor
>damage.
>> Unless you're hauling diesel, of course.
>I though that, until one of the drivers delivering diesel to the plant I'm
>working at was killed in a fire after his truck crashed.
Sure, the stuff is very flammable, but my point was they don't
explode in huge fireballs .
--
Ken Tough
Chris Baker
>
> Patrick
No there isn't. There is a prohibition against vehicles not *capable*
of travelling at more than thirty miles per hour. Not the same thing.
Regards, Chris B (serving out newbie apprenticeship)
Dan
> Customs and Excise could check all the farmers vehicles for traces of red
> diesel, department of transport officials could check that all the lorries
> were roadworthy, Radio Authority could check that all the truckers had CB
> licences......
There is no such thing as a CB licence.
Charles Bryant
Richard Miller <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8pme46$pom$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, puff...@my-deja.com writes
>>I'll try "dangerous driving" or "driving without due care and
>>attention" as my starter for 10 points please, Jeremy.
>
Since they're campaigning to reduce the tax on fuel, which would be a
direct benefit to all other road users, if anything they're driving
with excess consideration for other road users.
--
Eppur si muove
Simon
"Richard Miller" <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:$+d0P3Dd...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In article <MJrv5.1846$XT1....@news5.giganews.com>, Alun Jones
> <al...@texis.com> writes
> >In article <2000091213320...@nym.alias.net>, Hugh
Mather-Farquhar
> ><h...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
snip
> What difference does the different government make? As for the latter
> point, the port protests against live animal exports were hardly
> organised but that didn't stop the police going in hard, and the, who
> was it now, oh yes the *farmers* insisting on their right to carry on
> their business unmolested.
Strange I have a different memory of the animal rights protests at
Dover...very little police action for the first 2 weeks
Simon
Simon
> In article <8plum6$6aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, toml...@my-deja.com writes
> >The acid test is yet to come as from the reports I have seen, the
> >tanker drivers are in sympathy with the 'pickets'. As a deal has been
> >agreed with the suppliers to supply the fuel and Blair has said that
> >supplies will get back to normal, who is going to drive the tankers if
> >the drivers refuse? That is when it will get nasty! However the
> >difference between this dispute and the miners is that most people, for
> >the time being, are behind the campaign to reduce the fuel price (tax).
>
> Most people who haven't thought the issue through properly.
>
> It is very interesting to see the pickets arguing for tax harmonisation
> with Europe. Do they also want the higher income and business taxes
> which other European countries have, or is it a case of wanting all the
> benefits without the responsibilities? (Silly question, really. Who
> doesn't want something for nothing?)
Sounds good to me but then I,ve said that before
Simon
Marc Living
<Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The farmers, that is, who pay only about 3p per litre duty on fuel
>because they have a special exemption.
<sigh> Farmers do *not* pay only 3p per litre duty. They are allowed
to use red diesel *only* in off-road vehicles. For vehicles used on
roads - including taking goods to and from market - they are required
to buy the same fuel as everybody else.
If farmers "have a special exemption" from fuel duty, then so does
everybody with oil-fired heating "have a special exemption" from fuel
duty.
Marc Living
>I understand a road block should normally be authorised by a
>superintendent or above, but can be set up in an emergency by an
>officer of any rank. In this case, he has to report the fact to his
>superiors. However, **authorisation is not needed** for road blocks to
>detect traffic or road tax offences. You can do a lot with a road
>block. Keep truckers sitting round for hours I expect.
But that would make the rolling-blockage even more effective. All it
would mean is that the truckers could turn their engines off and blame
the police for any hold-up.
Gid Holyoake
share with us..
> Jon Rouse wrote:
> > Customs and Excise could check all the farmers vehicles for traces of red
> > diesel, department of transport officials could check that all the lorries
> > were roadworthy, Radio Authority could check that all the truckers had CB
> > licences......
>
> There is no such thing as a CB licence.
When did they change that then?.. there used to be a tenner charge for
27/81 certified equipment..
Gid
--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
ISTP http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page! MJBC
To kiss a fool is bad.. to let a fool kiss you is even worse..
Patrick Doherty
Marc Living wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:32:55 +0100, Richard Kilpatrick
> <ric...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Previously, <0atursgcbcdpb9qgl...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
> ><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>
> >>Sudden changes in speed without warning or indication can indeed be
> >>dangerous. Travelling at a steady speed is not, however, the same
> >>thing.
>
> >Why do you think that mopeds aren't allowed on the motorway?
>
> Because motorways are dangerous places.
>
> >Regardless of whether someone travelling at 5mph on the motorway is
> >breaking the law, the police /would/ stop them and remove them from the
> >flow of traffic.
>
> If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
Clive D.W. Feather
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>Regardless of whether someone travelling at 5mph on the motorway is
>>breaking the law, the police /would/ stop them and remove them from the
>>flow of traffic.
>
>What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
>not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
Who said "arrest" ?
"Excuse me sir, I had to pull you over because I thought I saw a bald
patch on one of your tyres. Let's check them all while we're here, shall
we ? Oh, and can I see your documents ? And would you mind testing out
all your indicators and brake lights for me ? Shall we check your tacho
disc to ensure you've been taking your statutory rest breaks ?"
In fact, for rolling blockades of lorries we don't even need that. Just
divert them into the nearest weighbridge.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | Thus plc | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
d1x1e
> >> >> >>> Really? Exactly which book of imaginary law did you read that
> >little
> >> >> >>> snippet in?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>I'll try "dangerous driving"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How can obeying the dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be
> >> >> >dangerous?
> >> >>
> >> >> Equating slower speeds with safety isn't necessary always true on a
> >> >> motorway.
> >> >>
> >> >> Parking in the outside lane or doing an unwarranted emergency stop
> >> >>
> >> >Who said anything about emergency stops or parking in the outside
lane.
> >>
> >> I was responding your point that seemed to be asking how could going
> >> slow possibly be deemed dangerous, and thus liable to a "dangerous
> >> driving" charge.
> >>
> >> The two (extreme) examples I give both result in the vehicle going
> >> slower. Both would be dangerous on a motorway, although whether they
> >> would incur "dangerous driving" charges I'm not qualified to say.
> >>
> >> I was not suggesting that either activity had ever been proposed or
> >> adopted as a form of direct action. Nor, from later in your post,
> >> was I advocating driving at 70 mph into a traffic jam, and I'm
> >> slightly puzzled as to how you formed either view from what I wrote.
> >
> >stay on topic or follow the thead, sorry my mistake.
>
> dictates of the "speed kills" lobby possibly be dangerous?"
>
> case :-)
I dont' recall the speed kills lobby advocating parking in the 'fast' lane
of a motorway, so clearly you appear to be following a different thread,
still it's good to have your input, by the way how long have they had an
internet connection on Pluto then?
d1x1e
I refer the honourable gentleman to the paddington rail crash
David Husband
<k...@objectech.co.uk> writes
>Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>>If farmers "have a special exemption" from fuel duty, then so does
>>everybody with oil-fired heating "have a special exemption" from fuel
>>duty.
>
Of course it does, that's why it is dyed red.
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset.
Timothy Lee
Holyoake <pisto...@brynamman.org.uk> writes
>Ermm.. how on earth did you all manage to pass your tests?..
>
>There *is* an offence that someone doing 5mph on a motorway can be
>charged with, though I would suggest that there are quite a few..
>"failing to make due progress" is the main one, though I suspect there
>would be good grounds for "driving without due consideration for other
>road users"[1] and possibly even "behaviour liable to cause a breach of
>the peace"..
>
When I took my test, (just over two years ago) I received two minor
faults for not driving fast enough, that was the examiners only comment
really.
--
Timothy Lee http://www.town-village.demon.co.uk
Timothy Lee
>
>There is no such thing as a CB licence.
>
>Dan
Hello, why are you not on alt.durge?
Phil Bradshaw
Marc Living
<my_sp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
>> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
>> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
>Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
constitute an arrest.
Terry Harris
>In article <8plum6$6aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, toml...@my-deja.com writes
>>The acid test is yet to come as from the reports I have seen, the
>>tanker drivers are in sympathy with the 'pickets'. As a deal has been
>>agreed with the suppliers to supply the fuel and Blair has said that
>>supplies will get back to normal, who is going to drive the tankers if
>>the drivers refuse? That is when it will get nasty! However the
>>difference between this dispute and the miners is that most people, for
>>the time being, are behind the campaign to reduce the fuel price (tax).
>
>Most people who haven't thought the issue through properly.
>
So assuming you have thought through the issue properly what do you see as
the justification for a tax rate on road transport fuel 60 times higher
than for doemestic heating fuel?
Cheers, Terry.
Patrick Doherty
Marc Living wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:43:11 +0100, Patrick Doherty
> <my_sp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
> >> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
> >> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
>
> >Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
>
> It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
> constitute an arrest.
What? Sorry....you'll have to explain that to me....
A cop can't ask someone to leave the motorway without arresting them????
Clive D.W. Feather
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
>It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
>constitute an arrest.
So I'm arrested every time the police wave me over for something ?
Bugger, that's my ability to enter the USA gone (you can't enter on visa
waiver if you've been arrested).
a goss
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:03:57 GMT, Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>
>>I understand a road block should normally be authorised by a
>>superintendent or above, but can be set up in an emergency by an
>>officer of any rank. In this case, he has to report the fact to his
>>superiors. However, **authorisation is not needed** for road blocks to
>>detect traffic or road tax offences. You can do a lot with a road
>>block. Keep truckers sitting round for hours I expect.
>
>But that would make the rolling-blockage even more effective. All it
>would mean is that the truckers could turn their engines off and blame
>the police for any hold-up.
>
They would be directed to the side of the road as usual leving the
road clear for those vehicles the police permitted to pass. I take it
you're unfamiliar with police road blocks in Kensington.
--
Alan Goss
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
a goss
wrote:
>a goss <Ala...@freeuk.net> wrote:
>
>>Well they don't have to arrest them there and then. Merely put up road
>>blocks and arrest them on suspicion of being pickets like they did
>>with the miners. The magistrates could issue blanket exclusion orders
>>and curfews like they did with the miners.
>
>Not only that, but it's clearly an organized protest. Under
>the Criminal Justice [sic] Act 1995? isn't it illegal to have
>an organized protest of more than 20-odd people on the public
>highway? ... bang 'em up!
>
ISTR something about *processions* in one of the acts. Used on
travellers by the tories.
Stephen Burke
news:8plune$t3q$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Steve Brooks" wrote:
> > On 'PM' tonight they announced that, for the first time, the blockade is
> > starting to have a significant effect in London and the SE... No doubt
> > sterner government action will swiftly follow.
That was the PM which kept telling us that it would cover Tony Blair's
statement live, and then cut it part way to give us the weather and the
obligatory trails? Nice sense of priorities there!
> Most people are understandably not happy about having to pay substantially
> more tax than many other countries. In fact, we also pay additional road tax
> which AFAIK isn't the case in France.
Overall we pay significantly less tax than in most European countries. I
wonder which taxes people would like to increase to counterbalance a lower
fuel tax? (Roughly speaking, the US Federal government takes 30% of GDP in tax
plus some more for each state, the UK takes 40%, France 45%, Germany 50% and
Sweden 60%.)
--
Stephen Burke
Richard Miller
<terry....@iname.com> writes
Well, for starters, the fact that the country has voted for it for the
last two elections.
Secondly the lower income taxes which we pay in this country due to the
massively increased indirect taxation resulting from the Tories'
economic policies of the 80s and 90s.
Thirdly the commitments which have been made to reduce pollutant
emissions, which we still seem nowhere near reaching, but which will be
no easier to reach if petrol prices are reduced.
Fourthly the lack of road tolls on our motorways.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<ric...@lovecraft.demon.co.uk> writes
>Previously, <$+d0P3Dd9...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk>, Richard Miller
><Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> dipped their finger in oil and wrote:
>
>>The farmers, that is, who pay only about 3p per litre duty on fuel
>>because they have a special exemption.
>
>although one bright yokel mentioned that they paid 25p/litre last year,
>and now it's 35p. IIRC, they don't pay duty, but they do pay VAT which
>they can then reclaim [1]
>
>They are merely backing up the hauliers, who's increased costs push the
>cost of transport up, thereby putting pressure on the farmers to reduce
>the cost of their produce to keep products competitive.
Ah, secondary picketing then.
--
Richard Miller
Richard Miller
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:19:25 +0100, Richard Miller
><Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The farmers, that is, who pay only about 3p per litre duty on fuel
>>because they have a special exemption.
>
><sigh> Farmers do *not* pay only 3p per litre duty. They are allowed
>to use red diesel *only* in off-road vehicles. For vehicles used on
>roads - including taking goods to and from market - they are required
>to buy the same fuel as everybody else.
>
>If farmers "have a special exemption" from fuel duty, then so does
>everybody with oil-fired heating "have a special exemption" from fuel
>duty.
>
>
Farmers have no different gripes about fuel prices from anyone else who
has to travel or transport goods. They do on the other hand gain a
benefit which is not available to any other industry except, perhaps,
the fishermen.
--
Richard Miller
Marc Living
<cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <u8c1ssk74ds9rm3an...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>>Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
>>It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
>>constitute an arrest.
>So I'm arrested every time the police wave me over for something ?
>Bugger, that's my ability to enter the USA gone (you can't enter on visa
>waiver if you've been arrested).
If somebody prevents you from going where you wish to go (or leaving
where you wish to leave), then you have been arrested. There is masses
of law on this.
As for the USA, they are interested in convictions - not arrests.
Marc Living
<my_sp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Marc Living wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:43:11 +0100, Patrick Doherty
>> <my_sp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> If they did that, they would themselves seem to be breaking the law.
>> >> What authority do you say they would have to arrest somebody who is
>> >> not (and doesn't reasonably appear to be) breaking any law?
>> >Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
>> It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
>> constitute an arrest.
>What? Sorry....you'll have to explain that to me....
See my reply to Clive Feather.
>A cop can't ask someone to leave the motorway without arresting them????
He can *ask* without making an arrest. It is only if he *forces* you
to leave the motorway that he has made an arrest.
Marc Living
<Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <k450ssktqiof2pg82...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 22:19:25 +0100, Richard Miller
>><Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>The farmers, that is, who pay only about 3p per litre duty on fuel
>>>because they have a special exemption.
>><sigh> Farmers do *not* pay only 3p per litre duty. They are allowed
>>to use red diesel *only* in off-road vehicles. For vehicles used on
>>roads - including taking goods to and from market - they are required
>>to buy the same fuel as everybody else.
>>If farmers "have a special exemption" from fuel duty, then so does
>>everybody with oil-fired heating "have a special exemption" from fuel
>>duty.
>Farmers have no different gripes about fuel prices from anyone else who
>has to travel or transport goods.
You agree then that they *do* have as much of a "gripe" as the rest of
us?
>They do on the other hand gain a
>benefit which is not available to any other industry except, perhaps,
>the fishermen.
And electricity companies and railway companies and airline companies
and everybody who uses oil-fired central heating: and, indeed,
virtually everybody who uses oil to power things otherwise than on the
road.
Alun Jones
<cl...@demon.net> wrote:
> In article <u8c1ssk74ds9rm3an...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
> <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
> >>Who mentioned arresting? He just said removed from traffic flow.
> >It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
> >constitute an arrest.
>
> Bugger, that's my ability to enter the USA gone (you can't enter on visa
> waiver if you've been arrested).
And you can't enter the USA on a visa without first answering some
mind-boggling questions (my favourite - "Have you ever committed genocide?")
Alun.
~~~~
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)378-3246 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.
Michael R N Dolbear
Steve Brooks <st...@REMOVETHIS6vaudrey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
article <8poc00$4e1$6...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...> <snip>
>
> > I don't know about a law or fines being applied, but I'm sure I've
> > heard news reports along the lines of the above (i.e. slow driver
> > is removed by police from the motorway).
> >
> In the only example I can recall of this happening the gentleman in
question
> was also on the wrong side..
Driving without proper consideration for other road users should do it,
but it probably isn't arrestable.
--
Mike D
Terry Harris
>In article <qgk1ss842top2omre...@4ax.com>, Terry Harris
><terry....@iname.com> writes
>>Richard Miller <Ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8plum6$6aj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, toml...@my-deja.com writes
>>>>The acid test is yet to come as from the reports I have seen, the
>>>>tanker drivers are in sympathy with the 'pickets'. As a deal has been
>>>>agreed with the suppliers to supply the fuel and Blair has said that
>>>>supplies will get back to normal, who is going to drive the tankers if
>>>>the drivers refuse? That is when it will get nasty! However the
>>>>difference between this dispute and the miners is that most people, for
>>>>the time being, are behind the campaign to reduce the fuel price (tax).
>>>
>>>Most people who haven't thought the issue through properly.
>>>
>>
>>So assuming you have thought through the issue properly what do you see as
>>the justification for a tax rate on road transport fuel 60 times higher
>>than for doemestic heating fuel?
>
>Well, for starters, the fact that the country has voted for it for the
>last two elections.
So when we elect a political party that means we are considered to have
voted for anything they do during the next 4 years? You really think like a
politician.
>Secondly the lower income taxes which we pay in this country due to the
>massively increased indirect taxation resulting from the Tories'
>economic policies of the 80s and 90s.
>Thirdly the commitments which have been made to reduce pollutant
>emissions, which we still seem nowhere near reaching, but which will be
>no easier to reach if petrol prices are reduced.
>Fourthly the lack of road tolls on our motorways.
Maybe you should try again, the 5% tax rate on domestic fuels is indirect
taxation, domestic fuels also pollute (and create every bit as much carbon
dioxide as road fuels for anyone that thinks it is an issue). The current
revenue from VED and road fuel tax vastly exceeds the amount spend on the
road infrastructure.
I guess you should include yourself in those "that have not thought the
issue through properly".
Cheers, Terry.
P.D.Stamford
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>They do on the other hand gain a
>>benefit which is not available to any other industry except, perhaps,
>>the fishermen.
>
>And electricity companies and railway companies and airline companies
>and everybody who uses oil-fired central heating: and, indeed,
>virtually everybody who uses oil to power things otherwise than on the
>road.
Aviation fuel seems to be tax-exempt only for airlines. Private flyers
actually pay more per gallon for aviation fuel than they do for petrol.
--
P.D.Stamford
P.D.Stamford
<sbu...@eggconnect.net> writes
>
>Overall we pay significantly less tax than in most European countries. I
>wonder which taxes people would like to increase to counterbalance a lower
>fuel tax? (Roughly speaking, the US Federal government takes 30% of GDP in tax
>plus some more for each state, the UK takes 40%, France 45%, Germany 50% and
>Sweden 60%.)
And look how much poorer the French, Germans and Swedes are. Old cars
all over the place, children running around without shoes, failing
infrastructure, virtually no health care, pensioners rounded up and
turned into Solent Green....
--
P.D.Stamford
P.D.Stamford
<Ro...@natron.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I look forward to the truckers lining up on the motorways in their
>usual cheery and jovial fashion behind the scores of electric vehicles
>even now being prepared for action by various environmental groups.
>Its amazing how far those things will travel, providing you don't try
>and go too fast.
>
No future in electrically powered vehicles. Their 'fuel' is impossible
to tax. That's why national governments don't encourage their
development. Gas guzzlers are far better generators of tax revenues.
--
P.D.Stamford
Ken Johnson
news:lkn2ssgf4ig84toin...@4ax.com...
> The current revenue from VED and road fuel tax
> vastly exceeds the amount spend on the road
> infrastructure.
It's worse than that! The current revenue from the duty on
beer and spirits vastly exceeds the amount spent on public
houses, restaurants, breweries and distilleries.
Ken Johnson
--
http://simsey.cjb.net
Ken Johnson Ltd.
Should these opinions cause irritation, discontinue use.
John A Fotheringham
>> >It would be impossible to do that without doing actions which would
>> >constitute an arrest.
>>
>> So I'm arrested every time the police wave me over for something ?
>> Bugger, that's my ability to enter the USA gone (you can't enter on visa
>> waiver if you've been arrested).
>
>And you can't enter the USA on a visa without first answering some
>mind-boggling questions (my favourite - "Have you ever committed genocide?")
How strange. All I remember being asked was whether or not I was
carrying any fruit or vegetables :-)
Maybe Texas welcomes megalomaniacs :-))
--
Jaf (or John A Fotheringham for "long")
http://www.jafsoft.com/