Car insurance question, tax disc

Tilt

FiremanDave wrote: »

Have you ever seen an MGDD/D?

What has a manual guidance drink/drug got to do with this thread or the hovercraft case (which you are simply bringing up in determination to slate me)?

FiremanDave

Tilt wrote: »

What has a manual guidance drink/drug got to do with this thread or the hovercraft case (which you are simply bringing up in determination to slate me)?

Sorry it should have been A my bad. The D is a technical defence form not the manual of guidance. (Bad Google hit by tilt there)

Have you seen that?

Yes or no will do no need to google it

Tilt

FiremanDave wrote: »

Yeah don't listen to tilt.


Why would they even try the mib?

Maybe the car has to be insured before it can be driven on the road? I am aware they no longer check at the PO but do they electronically check on line? I will bow down to you more superior knowledge on that one as I have yet to use the system myself.

BUT as far as my limited knowledge extends, I do believe that to be fully legal, you need valid insurance which is what the OP was most concerned about.

Tilt

FiremanDave wrote: »

Sorry it should have been A my bad. The D is a technical defence form not the manual of guidance. (Bad Google hit by tilt there)

Have you seen that?

Yes or no will do no need to google it

Can you explain what relevance (apart from increasing the animosity between us) this has to the thread?

FiremanDave

Tilt wrote: »

Can you explain what relevance (apart from increasing the animosity between us) this has to the thread?

It was in response to your comment here.

Tilt wrote: »

It wasn't deemed to be a drink drive case in the end. That spect of the charges were dropped. The pilot was convicted under different transport regs. In fact the MCA involved in the case. Even you must see this incident as pretty unusual as far as a straight forward drink drive case.

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/hovercraft-pilot-pleads-guilty-to-drink-offence-65017.aspx

But as you don't condider it relevant I'll leave it.

pine77

Well went to the post office, they gave me the tax disc no problem. Showed my insurance and mot, registered keeper document and paid £130 which seems a bit steep for a 1.2 punto, but there you go.

Hopefully that is the end of it. For what it is worth, thanks for the advice Tilt.

It is strange, I worked 5 years for London Probation in the Substance Misuse Unit. Would meet many habitual users, who had a MG16's an arm long. However, we would never grill them on why they they took crack for the first time for example. However when some more poor middle class drone like myself forgets his car insurance for 7 days for the first time in his life - for some reason that is a carte blanche for the Spanish Inquisition from other users on here as to why I let my life get that far out of control. :rotfl: We are really missing some perspective in this country.

Once again, thanks for the calm advice Tilt.

FiremanDave

pine77 wrote: »

Well went to the post office, they gave me the tax disc no problem. Showed my insurance and mot, registered keeper document and paid £130 which seems a bit steep for a 1.2 punto, but there you go.

Hopefully that is the end of it. For what it is worth, thanks for the advice Tilt.

It is strange, I worked 5 years for London Probation in the Substance Misuse Unit. Would meet many habitual users, who had a MG16's an arm long. However, we would never grill them on why they they took crack for the first time for example. However when some more poor middle class drone like myself forgets his car insurance for 7 days for the first time in his life - for some reason that is a carte blanche for the Spanish Inquisition from other users on here as to why I let my life get that far out of control. :rotfl: We are really missing some perspective in this country.

Once again, thanks for the calm advice Tilt.

Their previous convictions for drugs and their on going problems would be nothing compared to yours had you killed someone with dependants or seriously injured them whilst driving without insurance though.

Yes the mib would have eventually paid out, you if you killed them would probably go to prison section 3 z b or something and then they'd come after you for their loss so your house etc would go too.

So it's more a case of you missing perspective.

Sorry.

pine77

Well seeing as my car was in a field as previously stated, on private land while uninsured I think it is you who needs to learn how to read and perhaps get an IQ test, because whatever you think your number might me, you can probably deduct 30 points judging by how you have represented yourself on this thread so far.

Also, the service users I was managing, were mainly Licence cases. Rape, murder, serious assault etc. So again, get the IQ test done. Will help you save face for next time.

FiremanDave

pine77 wrote: »

Well seeing as my car was in a field as previously stated, on private land while uninsured I think it is you who needs to learn how to read and perhaps get an IQ test, because whatever you think your number might me, you can probably deduct 30 points judging by how you have represented yourself on this thread so far.

Also, the service users I was managing, were mainly Licence cases. Rape, murder, serious assault etc. So again, get the IQ test done. Will help you save face for next time.

Not many would realise substance misuse means rape, murder or serious assault. But spoken like a true sandal wearing leftie calling then service users. How many rapists did you take home for tea and cakes with your missus?:rotfl:

pine77

If I was lefty, I wouldn't have told you to take an IQ test. It wouldn't matter to me how wrong you were, I would fight for your right to be wrong or have an opinion. As you can see, this was not the case.

Secondly, the appropriate name is service users. We are trying to rehabilitate citizens and being reminded of your previous convictions and offences is not always a positive way to go.

Thirdly, the department was substance misuse, which does not exist anymore to my knowledge. However, all that would be required would be a drug habit greater than occasional use to be brought under our umbrella at the time.

Finally, there were POs who would initiate an over familiar relationship with certain service users, however I was not one of them. My only concern was risk to the public and rehabilitation - not sharing spliff building advice.