More government stupidity.

Weak yes, although I accept that there is a correlation between a vehicle being untaxed for prolonged periods, and its owner being guilty of a number of other offences like driving without insurance, or in a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition etc.

However as was mentioned elsewhere, for better or worse big brother technology systems like ANPR will prove far more effective at mopping up that class of felon.

Government computer systems have an uncanny knack of being total failures, though :-)

In message , at

The ANPR cameras at fixed places (all over the road system) are not used to chase tax evaders. From reports here and elsewhere they aren't even used to chase stolen vehicles. But the mobile ones which have an accompanying roadblock produce a result that indicates it's well worth stopping untaxed cars first.

The mobile ANPR checks are sufficiently rare that you *also* need the ability to check parked cars by eyeball.

In message , at 01:36:15 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

Every system of policing has false positives. I get the feeling you really don't understand what practical policing is all about.

Of course they do.

And a straw man. Far more likely "we stopped Bloggs because we saw his tax disk was out of date, and found the proceeds of the robbery in his boot".

But if the police are on the street for other reasons anyway, a quick glance at the colour of tax discs they pass is much easier than looking up number plates in a database. At least until we can give them wearable cameras capable of doing the automatic number plate recognition on anything in the field of view, instead of it taking a van dedicated to the task.

An even better reason then ;-)

Which can be done by a check of the license plate.

No you don't.

Oh I do. I also pay for it and would like to see value for money.

Somebody plans a bank robbery and steals a car to assist in carrying it out. They would have to be rather unlucky to steal one without paid tax.

In message , at 08:58:41 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

It's been explained why that isn't either as accurate or as easy.

Panto over, please.

In message , at 09:01:57 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

Apparently not, as you are spending a lot of time contradicting the accepted wisdom from the professionals, and coming up with straw men on the intellectual level of "why do I need third party fire and theft insurance, non-one will steal a burning car".

Unfortunately your suggestions would not deliver that.

Another straw man.

By "evidence" I meant "please post the URL of a best value report that comes to the conclusion you claim, or some other research of at least equivalent standing". In response you have continued only to offer unsubstantiated claims. Not impressed.

She, dear boy, not he. If that's the level of your knowledge of such things I shall cease to take your comments seriously.

Unnecessary. For the objective of determining that tax has been paid, the computer record is adequate and does not require a physical look at the vehicle.

It doesn't require additional evidence.

It is fairly obvious that having people checking coloured bits of paper on the street is going to cost more than not doing it.

Why would I waste my time looking up the sex of a chief constable in area where I don't live anyway? For the purposes of this the term 'he' can include 'she'; or are you saying that the sex of the person has an influence on the way that they perform their job?

Then that problem needs to be fixed because it is potentially more serious.

Having number plates *and* tax discs is an unnecessary duplication.

Different issue as you well know.

There is value in spending police time checking coloured discs on cars to see that the tax has been paid?

Just the real scenario.

It does however determine that tax has been paid on that particular vehicle, which is physically present & therefore can have sanctions applied to it.

This is not required to achieve the objective. All that is required to do that is for the computer record to be checked and a determination made that the tax hasn't been paid. The DVLA can then pursue the individual for the money using the normal remedies for pursuing unpaid sums due. Anything else is duplication.

Whilst it is certainly true that some public policy decisions are taken without the standard of evidence that would satisfy the pedantic academic statisticians here, the suggestion that we can make public policy changes based on your personal assertion, which is so "obviously" "right" that "it doesn't require additional evidence", is going just a tad too far for most of us.

Tell you what - get yourself elected, get yourself into the position where you can change that system, then change it. 'Cos you ain't making a very good job of persuading the current lot of elected politicians.

You're assuming the DVLA knows eher they live.