"PDR" wrote in message
news:48285b30$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Nick" wrote in message
> news:68r225F2s5i16U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > So he should have been more careful. What do you want?
>
> What *I* want is for our tax-funded officials to focus on the things which
> matter. This car was clearly off-road w9ithin the intent of the
> legislation - the 2" overhang is itself a dubious claim in view of the
> caselaw on parking and start/stop points of yellow lines (the nearest
> parallel). There was no indication that there was even a suspicion that
the
> car had been driven on the public road, or that it constituted any danger
to
> the public, or that any tax was being evaded. The attention of the
> tax-funded officials should have been entirely on those cars which were
> being driven without tax/insurance/MoT (or any permutation of same).
>
> This is clearly a leadership failure - a culture of gestapoism is being
> allowed to develop in the supervisory level of these departments, and we
> need a few voltairian executions to persuade the others to behave. The
> supervisors who defend such actions should be sacked and should be placed
> under a life-time prohibition of holding posts which weild any authority
> over the public as they are clearly behaviourally unsuitable for the role.
> Public floggings and the odd stake-burning might help get the message
> accross that such flagrant abuse of powers will not be tollerated.
>
> PDR
> When there is a case of somebody not taxing their vehicle, you cannot get
them to act at all
>
|