Is P**l Sm**h behind this?

[[email protected]]

Speed Cameras hold no fear for this lot:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750138,00.html

A loophole that needs closing.

I sort of hope those who make obscene gestures at the cameras lose
control and crash into an inanimate object.

I wonder if Mr Smith is behind this - I've been away for a while and
can't find any further mention of his forthcoming "comeuppance",

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
> Speed Cameras hold no fear for this lot:
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750138,00.html
>
> A loophole that needs closing.
>

And the story give lie to the claim that if there were no speed limits
drivers would behave responsibly and drive at an appropriate speed.
119mph in a built up area cannot be classed as appropriate by any measure.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[naked_draughtsman]

[email protected] wrote:
> Speed Cameras hold no fear for this lot:
>
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750138,00.html
>
> A loophole that needs closing.

Is it really legal to register your vehicle to a false address?

We've just bought a car and in order to get it taxed we've had to take
that registration details form to the post office, with insurance
certificate and the guy at the post office took a copy of my mum's
driving licence (with address on it). Surely if the addresses don't
match up it should set alarm bells ringing.

peter

 

[TheMgt]

Tony Raven wrote:

> And the story give lie to the claim that if there were no speed limits
> drivers would behave responsibly and drive at an appropriate speed.
> 119mph in a built up area cannot be classed as appropriate by any measure.

Well, no. It only shows that the current existence of speed limits doesn't
cause drivers to behave responsibly and drive at an appropriate speed.

The statement by the RAC guy that automatic number plate recognition cameras
would somehow prevent this doesn't make any sense whatsoever given
that "Insurance may be registered at the same false address, or the
offenders may drive uninsured".
And I see the Home Office spokesman used the issue to sell the f*****g ID
card scheme. I hear it cures baldness as well.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 9 Apr 2006, naked_draughtsman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We've just bought a car and in order to get it taxed we've had to take
> that registration details form to the post office, with insurance
> certificate and the guy at the post office took a copy of my mum's
> driving licence (with address on it). Surely if the addresses don't
> match up it should set alarm bells ringing.

The bloke at teh post office says "the addresses don't match". You
say "yes - it's a company car - that's teh work address". Alarm bells
silenced.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Phil Cook]

Ian Smith wrote:

>On 9 Apr 2006, naked_draughtsman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> We've just bought a car and in order to get it taxed we've had to take
>> that registration details form to the post office, with insurance
>> certificate and the guy at the post office took a copy of my mum's
>> driving licence (with address on it). Surely if the addresses don't
>> match up it should set alarm bells ringing.
>
>The bloke at the post office says "the addresses don't match". You
>say "yes - it's a company car - that's teh work address". Alarm bells
>silenced.

All that is needed to buy VED is the V5C (or the new keeper part of
it) an insurance certificate and an MOT certificate if the car needs
one. You don't need any proof of address, the only document with an
address on is the V5C.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 10:01:39 GMT someone who may be TheMgt
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>And I see the Home Office spokesman used the issue to sell the f*****g ID
>card scheme. I hear it cures baldness as well.

Indeed. It shows how desperate the Home Office are.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony Raven wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Speed Cameras hold no fear for this lot:
>>
>> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750138,00.html
>>
>> A loophole that needs closing.
>>
>
> And the story give lie to the claim that if there were no speed limits
> drivers would behave responsibly and drive at an appropriate speed.
> 119mph in a built up area cannot be classed as appropriate by any
> measure.

Tell that to the West Coast Main Line.

--
Ambrose

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 16:32:25 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> 119mph in a built up area cannot be classed as appropriate by any
>> measure.
>
>Tell that to the West Coast Main Line.

A separate fenced off route, so slightly different to a road.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 16:32:25 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose
> Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> 119mph in a built up area cannot be classed as appropriate by any
>>> measure.
>>
>> Tell that to the West Coast Main Line.
>
> A separate fenced off route, so slightly different to a road.

Well, yes. Also, vehicle separations are a touch more rigourous on that
route as well, distinguishing it from the M6, which is a separately fenced
off route from where I am right now where no more than 70mph is permitted.

However, a plane just flew over, and that was not fenced off, and going well
in excess of 100mph.
--
Ambrose

 

[Kristian Davies]

>>The bloke at the post office says "the addresses don't match". You
>>say "yes - it's a company car - that's teh work address". Alarm bells
>>silenced.
>
> All that is needed to buy VED is the V5C (or the new keeper part of
> it) an insurance certificate and an MOT certificate if the car needs
> one. You don't need any proof of address, the only document with an
> address on is the V5C.

It's true, and if you give them the whole V5, they should take it off you
and send it away, leaving you with the new keeper part. This happened to me
last week.

-Kristian

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:20:05 +0100 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Well, yes. Also, vehicle separations are a touch more rigourous on that
>route as well,

Generally, the occasional crash excepted.

>However, a plane just flew over, and that was not fenced off, and going well
>in excess of 100mph.

Difficult for pedestrians to reach. On the ground probably fenced
off.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Doki]

"Phil Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> All that is needed to buy VED is the V5C (or the new keeper part of
>> it) an insurance certificate and an MOT certificate if the car needs
>> one.
>
> indeed.
>
> How do you get hold of your V5C if you've registered your car at "a
> shopfront where noone lives" (to quote the article)?

You don't tax it. Plenty of people don't. Most tax enforcement is automated
(ANPR), so they just send a fine to the address nobody lives at. The Police
don't like to pull people over with no tax as they tend to be rather angry
about it.