Auto Insurance :: View topic - Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Auto Insurance
Auto Insurance

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Auto Insurance Forum Index -> Classic Cars

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Dave Plowman (News)
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In article <1ig2efw.1b5ba4q164qe6hN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It exists
for two reasons, so that politicians can prove to themselves
that they have power over ordinary people's lives and to put
money into the Treasury to pay for the stupid ideas of
politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first
though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

It was abuse, pure and simple.

The way to prevent abuse, then, is to stop writing shite. I've heard
fanatic Iatollas talk more sense.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Steve Firth
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

In article <1ig2efw.1b5ba4q164qe6hN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It exists
for two reasons, so that politicians can prove to themselves
that they have power over ordinary people's lives and to put
money into the Treasury to pay for the stupid ideas of
politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first
though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

It was abuse, pure and simple.

The way to prevent abuse, then, is to stop writing shite.

More abuse.

Quote:

I've heard fanatic Iatollas talk more sense.

Possibly because when the evidence is given to you, you refuse to read
it. I'd guess you also refuse to listen to it.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Chris Bolus
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:16:15 +0100, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
wrote:

Quote:

"Chris Bolus" <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> wrote in message
news:3hq814lmi2snrfrqrmvlkof8bjtg2ij032@4ax.com...
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:32:45 +0100, Richard Porter
dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

snip

Actually I quite like the AP box even if it does soak up
the power.
It's not just the inefficiency. It's fairly fragile; I'm on my third
in
under 10k miles, and the parts to repair it are virtually
unobtainable.

It was never that fragile whilst in production!

snip

It is unpredictable, being inclined to slip if driven hard, and if
it's

I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road
test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like
dropping the clutch.

cold it's slow to drive or change. Sharing the oil with the engine
means
that the oil grade is critical and it wasn't designed for modern
oils.

Then don't run it on modern oils, nothing wrong with a good old 20/50
[1] or even one of the (then) specified straight grades, and don't
skimp on oil and filter changes. It sounds to me if you have a serious
valve block issue, or possibly a worn oil pump - IIRC it used to be
possible to take a oil pressure reading from the gearbox.

I never run it on modern oils. 20/50 is all it ever gets. Engine oil

pressure is fine; I have a capillary oil gauge which does react when it
changes gear. My current 'box is from an '88 model. The previous one was
admittedly cheap and of unknown provenance, but the one before that had
allegedly been reconditioned.

Even in the Mini forums, very few people have many good things to say
about the auto box. The fact remains, you can't get the parts to repair
them, so nobody will recondition them, so there's no way to guarantee a
good one.

--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Dave Plowman (News)
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In article <1ig2n7l.1ng60e7j095loN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig2efw.1b5ba4q164qe6hN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It
exists for two reasons, so that politicians can prove to
themselves that they have power over ordinary people's lives
and to put money into the Treasury to pay for the stupid
ideas of politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first
though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal
abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

It was abuse, pure and simple.

The way to prevent abuse, then, is to stop writing shite.

More abuse.

I've heard fanatic Iatollas talk more sense.

Possibly because when the evidence is given to you, you refuse to read
it. I'd guess you also refuse to listen to it.

Stop digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Before I gave you the credit of *possibly* understanding what you'd
written.

Now I'm not sure.

--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Steve Firth
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:23 am Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

In article <1ig2n7l.1ng60e7j095loN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig2efw.1b5ba4q164qe6hN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It
exists for two reasons, so that politicians can prove to
themselves that they have power over ordinary people's lives
and to put money into the Treasury to pay for the stupid
ideas of politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first
though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal
abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

It was abuse, pure and simple.

The way to prevent abuse, then, is to stop writing shite.

More abuse.

I've heard fanatic Iatollas talk more sense.

Possibly because when the evidence is given to you, you refuse to read
it. I'd guess you also refuse to listen to it.

Stop digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Stop coming up with non sequiturs.

Quote:

Before I gave you the credit of *possibly* understanding what you'd
written.

No you didn't you simply saw a trigger word and jerked your knee.

Quote:

Now I'm not sure.

What do you mean "now"? You've had your head in the samd over taxation
for umm ever.

Shouldn't you be worshipping an efigy of Lenin at this time of night?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Chris Bolus
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:23:40 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Quote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

snipped silly argument

For God's sake you guys, stop having a silly public squabble!

As far as I'm concerned you both make valid points.

OK, so you disagree with each other - fine, that's the nature of Usenet.
Just leave it at that. The childish argument/abuse is at Monty Python
level - it does neither of you any favours.

--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Peter Balcombe
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Chris Bolus" <chrisB@RILEYELFb0lus.com> wrote in message
news:5cu614ltbmsdbjucloccj5jjhiobv25rkj@4ax.com...

Quote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:07:54 GMT, Jim Warren
jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Ian wrote:

There is a difference, I think - most people with several classics
will only ever be using one at a time.

Indeed. My insurance cover insists on that.

Technically I could be using two as my wife is a named driver... it
doesn't happen often, but she does drive my Elf on occasion.
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

My tax free1970 Midget did 35 miles last MOT year - largely because
increasing age and stiffness makes it more difficult for me to use it. Yes I
ought to move it on and will no doubt do so if I can gain a fair price and
it goes to a good home but in the meantime it's damage to the environment
has been pretty miniscule! To charge car tax in such a situation would be
very unfair.Fuel tax is a tax on use and therefore inherently fairer than
charging the owner of (say) the 1974 equivalent of my car full wack even
though he or she might do a similar mileage. Many will no doubt tax for part
of the year only but do we really want all the hassle of SORNs etc. I am a
Lib Dem councillor but still support the good sense of the Conservative
introduced 25 year roll on. However will they re-introduce it if they return
or is this a potential broken promise in the making?

Peter
>

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Chris Morriss
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

In message <1ig2ww2.e6fhen1snsoiqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes

Quote:

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig2n7l.1ng60e7j095loN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig2efw.1b5ba4q164qe6hN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig1z20.zhfiwm9wyl4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <1ig166a.p7i5r3wm1i5fN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve
Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It
exists for two reasons, so that politicians can prove to
themselves that they have power over ordinary people's lives
and to put money into the Treasury to pay for the stupid
ideas of politicians.

Thanks for confirming you're an even bigger fool than I first
though.

Thanks for confirming that you can only respond with personal
abuse.

Not abuse - merely a fact if you actually believe what you wrote.

It was abuse, pure and simple.

The way to prevent abuse, then, is to stop writing shite.

More abuse.

I've heard fanatic Iatollas talk more sense.

Possibly because when the evidence is given to you, you refuse to read
it. I'd guess you also refuse to listen to it.

Stop digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Stop coming up with non sequiturs.

Before I gave you the credit of *possibly* understanding what you'd
written.

No you didn't you simply saw a trigger word and jerked your knee.

Now I'm not sure.

What do you mean "now"? You've had your head in the samd over taxation
for umm ever.

Shouldn't you be worshipping an efigy of Lenin at this time of night?

Dave Plowman appears to be a perfectly reasonable chap, but he is
somewhere to the left of Pol Pot. To those of us of a more libertarian
viewpoint, he gets rather tiresome.
--
Chris Morriss

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Richard Porter
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

The date being 27 Apr 2008, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) decided
to write:

Quote:

Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

There are plenty of commercial channels if that's what you want.

You still have to pay for the channel(s) that you don't want via a
licence fee.

And you still have to pay for commercial channels through the costs of
goods and services - the customer always pays in the end! What's more
the customer has to pay for the making of the ads. Even if you know
what's being advertised and can avoid those products, there is still a
knock-on effect on the prices of competing products.

Quote:

The BBC should be made subscription only and that's entirely possible
when DVB completely displaces analogue. The argument for having a
licence fee will be invalid once access to the BBC can be controlled
by encryption.

If the BBC really believes that it offers the best TV and Radio let it
broadcast pay-for-view and that will prove the case.

I don't want to pay per view any more than I want to pay for internet
connectivity per minute or per megabyte.

Of course we do pay per mile for using our cars through fuel duty, and
then we have to pay VED on top of that.

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Richard Porter
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

The date being 27 Apr 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> decided to write:

Quote:

My memory says they were. A relative had a new VDP 1300 with one which
gave lots of problems. And the trade weren't surprised. Sharing engine
oil and auto fluid seemed a daft idea to me at the time since autos
like clean fluid.

My parents has a vdP (Princess) 1300 and it was pretty reliable. There
was a small problem towards the end when it would change up a bit late
and with a jerk.

Quote:

I never found that and we used to purposely drive them hard on road
test, at worse the change up could be a bit harsh - a bit like
dropping the clutch.

That's because it didn't have a torque convertor but a fluid flywheel
instead - doesn't cushion changes as well, as many an old Rolls or Merc
owner would testify too also.

I thought we'd nailed that one before. The AP box most certainly does
have a three element torque converter. I could drive it in fourth in
slow moving traffic using only the torque converter. You can't do that
with a fluid flywheel. They were normally used in cars like Daimlers,
Lanchesters and Rileys with preselector boxes.

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Steve Firth
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

If the BBC really believes that it offers the best TV and Radio let it
broadcast pay-for-view and that will prove the case.

I don't want to pay per view any more than I want to pay for internet
connectivity per minute or per megabyte.

If it were pay per view, you would hve the choice of paying to see
advert free content or of watching the ads. If you don't want to pay per
view, then you don't have to pay. The same programs crop up over and
over again with and without adverts. I caught up on some BBC TV stuff I
wanted to see via a Freeview channel with ads recently, for example.

What you seem to want is to force other people into subsidising your
viewing preferences.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Richard Porter
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

The date being 27 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
decided to write:

Quote:

That's not what I'm saying. The BBC should still get the agreed fee
per household with no strings. The government negotiates the licence
fee as it is.

Three points;
1/. The above would make those who don't have a TV, pay for what they
don't use.

There are lots of things paid for out of income tax that we don't use.
But when nearly every household has access to a tv it becomes a lot
cheaper to pay through general taxation that have all the overheads
associated with the licence. The radio licence was abandoned for the
same reason.

Quote:

2/. Allow those who don't pay tax to use what they don't need, for
free.

There are lots of people who don't pay tax but use services provided
at tax payers' expense for free. Maybe you need a tourist tax to cover
tvs in hotels, etc., used by overseas visitors.

Quote:

3/. ATM a *cross parliament* - none party line - debate decides on the
amount of funding the BBC receives via the TVL (the DfCM&S only
suggest a figure), not HMG, ...

OK, but I'm not suggesting any change to that process - merely that
whatever the agreed figure is, it is paid by the treasury per
household. That means that the Beeb would get marginally more, and
Ofcom would save all the associated costs. So overall everyone apart
from detector van drivers would be better off.

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Richard Porter
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

The date being 28 Apr 2008, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) decided
to write:

Quote:

What you seem to want is to force other people into subsidising your
viewing preferences.

No, I want a public service broadcaster that caters for as many
viewing preferences as possible over the course of a week, and doesn't
just go for instantaneous ratings. I don't think pay per view would
help achieve this. They'd just make the programmes that brought in the
most money.

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

:Jerry:
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

"Richard Porter" <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bf551b974f.news@user.minijem.plus.com...

Quote:

The date being 27 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID
decided to write:

That's not what I'm saying. The BBC should still get the agreed
fee
per household with no strings. The government negotiates the
licence
fee as it is.

Three points;
1/. The above would make those who don't have a TV, pay for what
they
don't use.

There are lots of things paid for out of income tax that we don't
use.
But when nearly every household has access to a tv it becomes a lot
cheaper to pay through general taxation that have all the overheads
associated with the licence. The radio licence was abandoned for the
same reason.

The TVL pays for the BBC radio service, only the BBC World Service is
paid for out of central taxation - indeed it has *never* been funded
by either the radio or TV licence.

Quote:

2/. Allow those who don't pay tax to use what they don't need, for
free.

There are lots of people who don't pay tax but use services provided
at tax payers' expense for free. Maybe you need a tourist tax to
cover
tvs in hotels, etc., used by overseas visitors.

AIUI hotels pay very handsomely for those TV... It's true that people
who don't pay tax use things that are funded by the taxation system
BUT those are things that they need (and in some cases, are need so
they can carry on living), *no one needs a TV* - that is the
difference, were would it stop, fund the trains and busses via the
taxation system and allow free travel - many would suggest that would
be a far more worthwhile use of taxation...

Quote:

3/. ATM a *cross parliament* - none party line - debate decides on
the
amount of funding the BBC receives via the TVL (the DfCM&S only
suggest a figure), not HMG, ...

OK, but I'm not suggesting any change to that process - merely that
whatever the agreed figure is, it is paid by the treasury per
household. That means that the Beeb would get marginally more, and
Ofcom would save all the associated costs. So overall everyone apart
from detector van drivers would be better off.

Then you are clueless as to how the tax system works, and how the BBC
works ATM, you would create a state owned broadcaster and not one that
is (nominally) owned by it's viewers and listeners. You have snipped
out the very reason why funding the BBC via the tax system would be so
very dangerous and why such a funding method was rejected at the BBCs
creation.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Willy Eckerslyke
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Quote:

Absolutely. I doubt there's anyone reading this group where the cost of
the VED is a serious consideration of owning a car.

I hate to own up to this, but it's a major factor in my choice of a Land
Rover as tow-car. As I only do a few hundred miles a year in it, I
probably wouldn't bother at all if I had to fork out 180 quid a year for
the privilege.
And of course, it's a lot easier justifying all these cars to the missus
if she doesn't think they're costing anything to run.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Display posts from previous:

	Auto Insurance Forum Index -> Classic Cars	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum