New Car No Tax Disc

Cardelia

I think you'll find that at the time the Scottish law was initially passed, it was still illegal to commit acts of murder. That didn't stop the Scottish law being technically valid then and it is still technically valid now. It will be wiped off the statute books in good time, but at the moment it is still UK law, albeit obsolete law. And, if you'd like more examples of ridiculous laws, there are whole websites out there devoted to them. For example, have you ever eaten a mince pie on christmas day? If so, you broke the law. Cromwell banned mince pies on christmas day in the 17th century and the legislation has never been repealed or superceded. Ridiculous? Yes. But if we had your way, nobody would eat a single mince pie on christmas day.

You obviously don't know what a true democratic society is, otherwise you wouldn't continually hold up the UK as an example of one. The UK is a MONARCHY where the sovereign rules. Our elected representatives (i.e. parliament) cannot pass any law without the approval of a) an upper house of unelected representatives* and b) an unelected sovereign. That is the constitutional arrangement in this country. We are not a democracy. Oh, as an aside, we also don't vote for a prime minister. We vote for a local representative (our MP) to act on our behalf in parliament. The party with the most MPs forms a government and the leader of the party with the most MPs becomes prime minister. Democracy? Yeah, right.

Alright, if you won't accept the South African example, what about the suffragettes? Assuming you hold to your belief that the UK is a democracy, the suffragettes were a minority. Was it wrong for them to want equal rights? Oh, and what about the race riots in the American South? Was it undemocraticwrong for black people (a minority) to demand equal rights in what is probably the nearest thing to a democratic government on this planet?

* = excepting the parliament act

cajef

Wig wrote: »

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.

Once again when someone disagrees with you all you can do is descend to insults which show your mentality, keep going then people can see you for what you are, which is someone who will not admit he could be wrong and is incapable of reasoned debate.

Still that is enough of this I have enjoyed the reasoned posts in the thread and will leave others to form their own opinions of your 'expert' knowledge before I end up at your low level, enjoy the rest of your rubbish.:rolleyes:

Wig

cajef wrote: »

Once again when someone disagrees with you all you can do is descend to insults which show your mentality, keep going then people can see you for what you are, which is someone who will not admit he could be wrong and is incapable of reasoned debate.

I very rarely insult people on here, it just goes to show how little of my posts you have read. I sometimes throw an insult back at someone by referring them to their own post about me. I will also say that I did not insult you in this thread, just told you that you were talking rubbish about me. I am after all definately an "expert" on my own posting history am I not?

Still that is enough of this I have enjoyed the reasoned posts in the thread and will leave others to form their own opinions of your 'expert' knowledge before I end up at your low level, enjoy the rest of your rubbish.:rolleyes:

A pity you failed to "reason" your own claims about me and failed to say why you thought what I said in #3 was not by definition a "suggestion".

Tozer

Cardelia wrote: »

I think you'll find that at the time the Scottish law was initially passed, it was still illegal to commit acts of murder. That didn't stop the Scottish law being technically valid then and it is still technically valid now. It will be wiped off the statute books in good time, but at the moment it is still UK law, albeit obsolete law. And, if you'd like more examples of ridiculous laws, there are whole websites out there devoted to them. For example, have you ever eaten a mince pie on christmas day? If so, you broke the law. Cromwell banned mince pies on christmas day in the 17th century and the legislation has never been repealed or superceded. Ridiculous? Yes. But if we had your way, nobody would eat a single mince pie on christmas day.

You obviously don't know what a true democratic society is, otherwise you wouldn't continually hold up the UK as an example of one. The UK is a MONARCHY where the sovereign rules. Our elected representatives (i.e. parliament) cannot pass any law without the approval of a) an upper house of unelected representatives* and b) an unelected sovereign. That is the constitutional arrangement in this country. We are not a democracy. Oh, as an aside, we also don't vote for a prime minister. We vote for a local representative (our MP) to act on our behalf in parliament. The party with the most MPs forms a government and the leader of the party with the most MPs becomes prime minister. Democracy? Yeah, right.

Alright, if you won't accept the South African example, what about the suffragettes? Assuming you hold to your belief that the UK is a democracy, the suffragettes were a minority. Was it wrong for them to want equal rights? Oh, and what about the race riots in the American South? Was it undemocraticwrong for black people (a minority) to demand equal rights in what is probably the nearest thing to a democratic government on this planet?

* = excepting the parliament act

Ridiculous laws - there are bucketfulls and the Law Commission has a task force which repeals several hundred per year. Unfortunately, they prioritise those laws which actually need it as opposed to those that provide little more than comedy value.

We ARE a democracy. I think you will find that the Sovereign cannot refuse to give "Royal Assent" to legislation and if she did it would be a constitutional crisis. As for your comments about the House of Lords, they can be overruled by the House of Commons by the imposition of the Parliament Act - and it is done of a reasonably frequent basis. So what is your point? The HoL can only act as a delay on Parliament.

As for your comment regarding not voting for the PM - true. But in theory we act on a "first amongs equals" basis so the PM is, in theory, not a particularly special office. Clearly that has changed over the years but the democratic values stay true.

As for your comments about the other civil rights issues, how do you relate that to Wig wanting to opt out of driving laws? What is the similarities? What laws were ignored? I just don't see it!

Wig

I suppose you approve of 3 or more heterosexuals having in group sex but dissapprove of 3 or more homosexuals having group sex? I'm sure the very fabric of our society is under threat.

Tozer

Wig wrote: »

I suppose you approve of 3 or more heterosexuals having in group sex but dissapprove of 3 or more homosexuals having group sex? I'm sure the very fabric of our society is under threat.

Who me? Can honestly say I haven't given it a single thought! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Cardelia

Tozer wrote: »

As for your comments about the other civil rights issues, how do you relate that to Wig wanting to opt out of driving laws? What is the similarities? What laws were ignored? I just don't see it!

And, finally, we get to the point.

Wig is suggesting that breaking the law regarding driving without road fund licence is not necessarily the end of the world. He cited several reasons, one that it was a victimless crime (provided the vehicle was retrospectively taxed) and two that the law was stupid because it allowed exemptions for some reasonable circumstances but not others (which the OP was struggling with).

To which some people on this thread reacted in utter horror, castigated him for advising other people to break the law and generally treated him like public enemy #1 (well, maybe #144 - I don't want to exaggerate ). Their reasoning? The law is the law and shouldn't ever be broken.

I am making the point that people who adopt the "laws are laws and shouldn't ever be broken" attitude are, quite frankly, on very dodgy ground. History is littered with people who have broken laws and, as a direct result of their actions, we now have a far better society than we otherwise would have had. Breaking the law is not necessarily a Bad Thing. Especially when the law is stupid (hence the ridiculous laws argument) or unfairly discriminatory (the civil rights cases). In this case, the road fund licence law falls under these definitions.

So, is it illegal to break the law? Well, yes. Is it a Bad Thing? No, I wouldn't say so. Not in this particular case. If you disagree then stick your reasoning up, but if it's the kind of sheep-like, unthinking 'justification' of "laws are laws and we shouldn't break them" then there are loads of examples in this thread of why I believe that particular point of view is downright dangerous to society.

JoeA81

Great post Cardelia, agree with you and Wig 100%.

Presumably most intelligent people have built up their own sense of what is right and wrong over the course of their lives, and are able to discrimiate between where the laws are clearly right and correct, and where laws are less than perfect. The fact that "Laws" differ across vitrually every country in the world shows that there is no such thing as "absolute law", it is simply the local law-makers interpretation of what is, and what is not not deemed acceptable to that particular society.

As Cardelia indicated above, people need to use their inner sense of right and wrong to judge when laws get things wrong, and either ignore them and risk prosecution, or do something positive to get them changed.

After all, laws were not delivered 'on high', from some superior being, they were made and amended over many years, by our fellow, often flawed, human beings.

Tozer

Big crock of crud in my opinion. Going to have to agree to differ. When someone says that road tax laws are either "ridiculous" or "discriminatory", I really cannot be bothered to argue.

Cardelia

Ridiculous. Adj. Causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous

Discriminatory. Adj. Capable of making fine distinctions

Given that at least two people on this thread have said the law is stupid, absurd etc., it is by definition ridiculous. If you don't find it ridiculous then you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion, but you can't deny the fact that I (and others) think the law is worthy of ridicule.

Given that the law makes fine distinctions between situations where exemptions can and cannot apply, it is by definition discriminatory. Note I'm not even saying whether the exemptions are reasonable or ridiculous, the mere fact that the law contains exemptions for certain situations makes it discriminatory. That's a fact.

Oh, and if you want to put up a post about how you can't be bothered to argue with the dictionary then I'm not going to stand in your way