New Car No Tax Disc

Tozer

Cardelia wrote: »

Oh really? So if I was in York on a Sunday evening and spotted a Scotsman inside the city walls, it would be ok to shoot him with a bow and arrow? Provided, of course, I was on horseback at the time.

On a more serious note, if everyone had the same attitude as you (and cajef), then women would still be unable to vote, South Africa would still be under apartheid, homosexuality would still be illegal etc. etc. I find the attitude of 'laws are laws, end of story' to be even scarier than somebody suggesting that breaking a minor and stupid law might not be the end of the world.

Ridiculous examples.

There is a democratic process - Parliament makes law so if you don't like a political party's proposals, don't vote for them. In a democracy, you have to go with the majority view. Not acceptable to 'opt out'.

Tozer

Wig wrote: »

Why ever not? You mean I shouldn't also talk loudly aout such things in the public street? I don't know about you but I think we have free speech in this country, and not thought police. You ought not to wrap yourself (and the internet) in cotton wool it a real world out there, no amount of cotton wool will protect you from it.

Yes we do have free speech. But you are condoning criminal activity and that is not acceptable.

Wig

Tozer wrote: »

Yes we do have free speech. But you are condoning criminal activity and that is not acceptable.

It may not be acceptable to YOU, but as far as the laws on free speech are concerned it is pefectly acceptable. Aren't you listening to the news lately?

cajef

Wig wrote: »

Why? It is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they want to break a law.

Exactly if people wish to break the law that is up to them.

I was only suggesting that to do it that way would not incur much risk.

Hardly suggesting, actually advising people to break the law. You post in many threads on these forums and set yourself up as an expert in everything from motoring, insurance, legal problems etc. etc. if anyone questions your posts, despite your protestations, you will never admit you could be wrong or that they are just your opinions.

Anyone can look things up on the internet and try and be helpful but that does not necessarily mean they are right all the time.

Cardelia

Yes, the Scotsman idea is a ridiculous example. Reductio ad absurdum, I believe it's called (look it up, even Wikipedia will do). However, just because it is ridiculous, it does not mean it is invalid.

The other examples, however, are not ridiculous. In case you're unaware of history, they were all actual situations from the 20th century (so not exactly a forgotton relic of a law like the Scotsman example) where people deliberately broke laws in order to bring about a societal change for the better. The logical inference from your stated point of view is that you believe Nelson Mandela should never have been released from prison and South Africa should still be living under apartheid, because that was the law at the time. Do you not see how inflexible and downright scary the position of "laws are laws" is?

Tozer

Cardelia wrote: »

Yes, the Scotsman idea is a ridiculous example. Reductio ad absurdum, I believe it's called (look it up, even Wikipedia will do). However, just because it is ridiculous, it does not mean it is invalid.

The other examples, however, are not ridiculous. In case you're unaware of history, they were all actual situations from the 20th century (so not exactly a forgotton relic of a law like the Scotsman example) where people deliberately broke laws in order to bring about a societal change for the better. The logical inference from your stated point of view is that you believe Nelson Mandela should never have been released from prison and South Africa should still be living under apartheid, because that was the law at the time. Do you not see how inflexible and downright scary the position of "laws are laws" is?

No that is not a "logical inference" at all.

Couple of things - the Scottish example is ridiculous because there are express laws subsequent to the passing of that law which outlaw such crimes. Nobody could use it in Court...and rightly so.

The South African example is an absolutely stupid example - because it did not occur in a DEMOCRATIC society. Neither is Zimbabwe a good example. Or China. Or North Korea. Or Iran. But, thank God, we are living in a democracy so if there is an issue with the law, then it is appropriate to vote for a new government.

The point is it is not for a minority to decide which laws can and cannot be broken. I would dearly love to "cook the books" on my tax return. But I do not and will not as I have respect for the requirement.

I hate certain laws - the Human Rights Act (which is probably one of the worst drafted laws I have ever seen) for one, some employment laws and many others. However, I acknowledge their applicability despite the fact that I did not vote for Mr Blair and will not vote for Mr Brown. That is because I acknowledge the pros and cons of living in a democracy.

Wig

cajef wrote: »

Hardly suggesting, actually advising people to break the law.

Sorry I fail to understand the difference?

You post in many threads on these forums and set yourself up as an expert in everything from motoring, insurance, legal problems etc. etc. if anyone questions your posts, despite your protestations, you will never admit you could be wrong or that they are just your opinions.

You're talking rabbit droppings there mate, I could show you innumerable posts where I have said amongst other things
"IANAL"
"seek legal advice"
"I was wrong about that"
"I dunno exactly but .. this law might apply"
"I was corrected"

What I do not do, is just roll over and give up if I believe I am right, and someone comes along and says I am "talking rubbish" I will prove my position to be correct, or admit I was wrong if someone else proves me to be incorrect. I don't set myself up as anything. I am not responsible for your thoughts. I help people where I can. and if that means telling an OP that some replies so far are based on internet myths about legal this or legal that, so be it. I like to put the record straight so an OP is fully informed. At the very least they can atleast take away with them the knowledge that there are 2 schools of thought on this or that.

[quotee]Anyone can look things up on the internet and try and be helpful but that does not necessarily mean they are right all the time.[/quote] I never say I am right all the time.

You obviously even missed my post #48 #12 in this thread.
and only today I have been replying to this thread of mine
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=744825
note posts #12 & #21
I can't be bovvered to search for anymore that prove I admit I was wrong, when I am wrong you can do that if you wish. I don't care what you think Think whatever you want to.

anewman

Wig wrote: »

OR, why not scrap tax discs all together and transfer the tax burden onto petrol? The motoring public will in theory pay no more than they do now, the frugal users will pay less and the guzzlers will pay more.
[/COLOR]

If only the government was that sensible. Unfortunately they like as many avenues of income as possible - so per mile road charging, and also probably more of the London Congestion charge in other cities?

cajef

Wig wrote: »

Sorry I fail to understand the difference?

Well that says a lot about you.

I don't care what you think Think whatever you want to.

Enough said, rather proves the points I made in my last post.:rolleyes:

Wig

cajef wrote: »

Well that says a lot about you.

Says a lot about you too. I suggest to someone in post #3 the following
"If it is not too far and you can do it under cover of darkness, you might aswell go for it, I doubt you will be caught."
If you want to say I was advising them they would in all likelyhood not get caught that's fine with me, but I was also suggesting to them an alternative solution.

Enough said, rather proves the points I made in my last post.:rolleyes:

Proves nothing matey except to your own deluded self. I proved you were incorrect by quoting the post#s of mine which shows you are talking rabbit droppings.