Part P conudrum.....

[Dave Plowman (News)]

More to do with curtailing the 'cash in hand' types that cost us all more in tax?

[Tony Bryer]

In my eight years as a BCO two people were prosecuted. One was a DIYer who cut open a drain to build a manhole then lost interest. His neighbours were not best pleased. Despite numerous letters, warnings and pleadings from us he did nothing and we were left with no alternative but to prosecute. The other was a 'professional' builder who removed a chimney breast in a loft and supported the chimney over with a bit of

4x2. Again he was given the option to rectify it but didn't.

Apart from anything else my understanding is that magistrates are less than excited when presented with purely technical offences. If you prosecute someone for failing to give notice and when asked have to admit that the work appeared to be satisfactory you would probably get a derisory amount in costs.

[Doctor Drivel]

> Contains a direct link to the Newcastle case:

> All three were acting as professional electricians to the public. It must work then

[Doctor Drivel]

How about closing down the Royal family, as they only pay a 'voluntary' 10% in tax, cost us the maintenance of 9 palaces and planes, trains and other assorted unnecessary millions.

[Andy Hall]

Don't you mean that you know FA about the rules?

[Dave]

Good heavens, I have a seven year old granddaughter who can write better than drivel :-)

Is it me, or is it that only John can read what he means?

Dave

[Peter Andrews]

So now we install connector blocks under the floor use the recovered red / black T&E up to the new sockets and use the new blue / brown cable where it won't be seen - certainly pass any house buyer/BCO inspection!!

But it does seem silly that I can still install my own gas equipment as long as I'm competant, i.e. do it correctly - but a simple ring main...

Peter

[Tim S]

Stuff that. How about closing down the Commons - they waste far more money on crap noone wants (EU harmonisation bollocks, eg every silly and unnecessary new building reg), ID cards, stupid and unjust wars etc.

Despite the various scandals, the Royal Family conduct themselves with far more dignity than the Grinning Madman and his fat sidekick. And they certainly do the nation less damage IMO.

Besides, the royals surrendered a great deal of land in exchange for the civil list, so it's not like they are total spongers.

[John Cartmell]

Where did they get the land from in the first place?

[John Rumm]

What was the estimated cost published recently? 64p/year per person IIRC. Sounds like very good value to me!

[Richard Conway]

Is that figure derived simply by dividing the cost of their upkeep by the number of people? Don't forget that there are a great many people in this country who don't pay tax - and not only are us taxpayers paying for their upkeep we are also paying the 64p for the upkeep of the royal family too.

[Andy Hall]

There are also people who pay a great deal of tax - even more now that the sleazebag in No. 11 has progressively ripped off the public through stealth taxes to fund his extravagances.

I would rather fund the Windsors any time - even Phil the Greek.

[Richard Conway]

I wasn't really being anti-royal, I was just making a point TBH.

[John Rumm]

Can't remember if that was per adult or per adult tax payer... note however it was an annual figure, so we probably spend more money reading uk.d-i-y than we do keeping the royals!

The costs however ignore the money they generate from tourism, plus the savings we get from having them (rather than tony and his cronies) act as overseas goodwill ambassadores etc.

(IIRC Tony and family use the royal flight far more frequently than the queen )

[Dave Plowman (News)]

But surely it was Her Majesty's opposition - and the House of Lords - that wasted so much time on 'fox hunting'? Both in parliament and outside...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The so called stealth taxes etc are there because the great unwashed don't want honest direct taxation. But won't accept any cuts in services.

[John Rumm]

You logic being that if you don't bother to contest the creation of bad law it will all work out so much quicker and cheaper?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I don't like the ritual killing of animals for fun anymore than that of humans.

[Tony Bryer]

In the Express last week there was a phone 'poll' (premium rate number of course) asking you to phone in if you thought inheritance tax should be scrapped. No doubt they made a bit of money that way. If they were honest enough to ask the question that should have been asked such as "would you be in favour of scrapping inheritance tax and doubling car tax|putting 2p on income tax|scrapping pensioner winter fuel allowances [or whatever]" then the answer might be very different. And of course saying that you would pay for it by scrapping waste is all very well but that should generate the question "if we can save £x bn then would you prefer (a) scrap inheritance tax; (b)...; (c) ...".

If you read the Mail or the Express then you see this dumbing down of political argument week on week. Yet ISTM that this probably acts to the detriment of the Conservatives in that people who have had their brains rotted are likely to vote for whoever spins the best yarn on the day whether it stands up to critical scrutiny or not.

[Andy Hall]

Not sure about that. It struck me as being petty spite, especially once the Parliament Act was brought into play.