In message , at 11:08:59 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:
It does not *require* it, but neither does a traveller *require* a passport to travel overseas, in that sense. There could be other ways, which did not involve showing people bits of paper. Nevertheless, in both cases, the paper solution works best.
Oh FFS. Just because we mere plebs are not on speaking terms with the chief constable does not mean we do not have a valid opinion about what is going on. You and Colin seem to be on a real arrogance trip at the moment. Your standard arguments seem to be "Can't be done because of this obscure problem that only *I* know about" to "Get yourself elected". Methinks you've been in power too long. You've completely lost sight of what either of the words Liberal or Democrat means. Authoritarian Autocrat would be far more accurate.
In message , at 11:25:12 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Dave Lloyd remarked:
Having experienced that system at first hand, it is administratively indistinguishable from the UK system.
All that happens is that you affix the annual bit of paper to the licence plate, not the windscreen. In some jurisdictions I think you need to get a whole new plate periodically, but I don't know the exact logistical details (where I lived it was just a sticker).
Potentially, you could read the licence plate and expiry in one go with ANPR - although they don't use very much ANPR. So in practice it's the MK1 eyeball again. Their system has the slight advantage that it can be queried from the rear (a typical american policeman is more likely to be behind you in a car than in front of you on foot), but this is just fine detail.
Oh good grief. Are you a civil servant or something?
I am sure that if you were to ask any policeman whether he would like more litmus tests at his disposal he would say yes. This does not mean that the test is useful for the overall objective, or the only or best way to do it.
The iris scan systems in use at airports work quite well. I use the ones at Heathrow 1-2 times a week. The disappointment is that each country has a different system which is really rather stupid. More government incompetence - not just restricted to the UK, it would appear.
Either would do, although the former would be more beneficial to the tax payer. It would certainly reduce petty crime more effectively than bits of paper.
It has been shown that the presence or absence of a valid tax disc correlates very well with the general legality or otherwise of the car and driver. These coloured bits of paper, as you call them, are a very useful aid to law enforcement.
We could just paint the numberplate on the roof of the vehicle, and subcontract the entire vehicle excise and road pricing clamjamfrie to Google mapping
That happens more frequently that you would think. I accept the certificate as is, if just one digit is wrong, and tell the applicant to get a new one pronto.
The other favourite is an MOT certificate that hasn't been signed. Again, I'll usually accept it, if both applicant and garage are local.
Yes - we get paid for the transaction, so the payment is the same, whether the disk costs twenty pounds, two hundred pounds or 'free'. SORNs are worth less. A disc is worth 62.6 pence, whereas a SORN is
10.7 pence. That may not sound like much, until compared to, say, a bar coded bill (telephone, electricity etc.) which is worth 7 pence.
During 2005, my monthly average tax disk sale was 155. The figure for last year was 129. May 2005 was 232, May 2006 175 and May this year
There may or may not be a correlation. Whether or not that equates to them being any kind of useful tool for the detection of miscreants is another matter entirely.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.