M4 speed cameras. Completely non boaty.

[BrendanS]

This has been doing the rounds for a while. It's a hoax.

They cannot put speed cameras on motorways due to some arcane law, expect where the motorway has special speed restrictions, such as roadworks or the controlled section of the M25 (but even then only when the speed restriction signs are activated)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[primitiveman]

"Inflated pensions for government workers" !!??
I expect you are one of those self employed twats who think all of us in the public sector should be on minimum wage and working 80 hours a week so you can pay a little less tax and buy a slightly bigger Mercedes.
No doubt you'll expect the highest possible standard of care from these despised "government workers" when you have your next heart attack.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Well that is the issue. As I posted to jfm, there has been a conviction by Aldershot magistrates (the only one AFAIK) which will be appealed. The law is not clear (at least it is clear in the sense that on an ordinary reading, a signature is not required) so the magistrates had to resort to finding an implied obligation - not something that should happen in connection with statute law, especially not at magistrates court level.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

I don't want to get into an argument about public sector pay levels but consider this.

There is a fundamental immorality in the state pension and in public sector pension arrangements because they are (largely if not wholly) unfunded. In essence, successive governments have made promises to electors/state employees today which can only be paid for by taxpayers of future years. It is tantamount to dipping your hand in someone else's pocket. Simple demograhics demonstrate that the burden on future taxpayers to pay for the promises that have been made in the past will be unsustainable. Something will have to give.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

the route by which you reach your conclusion is not entirely correct in that the vast majority of public sector schemes are funded ... your conclusion is, of course, correct that taxpayers fork out for the shortfall - one way or another.

whether its immoral is quite another issue ... whether state funded or private, both represent a transfer of assets from one group (the working population) to another (those in retirement). the question ought to be how efficient each is and there's a growing body of evidence that argues private funding is more expensive.

the true immorality is the growing disparity between what the state employee is offered compared with that offered by the private sector ...


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

But (if I'm wrong I am happy to be corrected) in most cases only funded to the extent of the employee's contribution which is probably only one third or so of the amount needed to meet the future obligations. I'm not arguing for or against private or public sector funding - just for funding.

The consequence of what we have done, it seems to me, is saddled our children, and grandchildren yet to be born, with the liability of paying for promises we have made to ourselves today. I find that immoral.

I agree with your final point, which underlines the need for future pension obligations to be funded by or during the working lives of those who will benefit from them. I'm not a natural supporter of Frank Field but he had the clarity of thought to recognise the problem.




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Sorry to have to tell you this Primitiveman but take it from one who has consulted across both public and private sector organisations in a number of countries, public sector empoyees by and large are less competent, display less emotional intelligence and are more inflexible (both by nature and by ability) than private sector ones. I do understand the nature of the public sector that either makes their employees behave that way or which makes it only attractive for employees who are that way.

I do not think public sector employees should be paid the minimum wage nor have to work 80 hours a week. They should certainly be paid what they are worth, however that would generally mean that their incomes would fall into the lower percentiles of those for all employees in similar jobs.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

no ... there are real assets backing them. not enough, of course, but that's typical of most. i was also being disingenuous because the NHS scheme is, for example, not funded in the sense you and i mean but employs a huge number of people (1.5 m) .... on the other hand, local authority, teachers etc are ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

What about all the rest of the civil service? And, most significantly in terms of cost, the entire state retirement pension scheme. Isn't all of that paid out of current tax receipts?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jhr]

You are right to say that the State scheme is funded out of current tax and NI receipts. The difference between the UK and much of Europe is, imho, that those of us in the UK who are now, ahem, middle aged, stand some chance of ultimately receiving an (albeit minimal) State Pension, whereas most Western European Governments are struggling with the dilemna of how to fund the extravagant future state pension promises that have been made to their citizens, from the contributions of a shrinking active workforce.

I believe, as ParaHandy says, that most public sector pension schemes are required to be funded in just the same way as a private employer's scheme - though no doubt many of them are underfunded at present, for exactly the same reasons (removal of ACT credits, longer life expectancy, poor stock market performance, MFR valuations etc.) as their private sector opposite numbers.

Public Sector salaries are generally lower than their private sector equivalents, possibly for the reasons suggested above but perhaps also because we are taking advantage of some people's predisposition to put serving their communities before personal gain (and not just in the obvious areas such as the emergency services, healthcare etc, I'd suggest). To move from my present job in the private sector to an equivalent public sector job would cost me about 20% of my salary, I reckon.

Sorry, but I don't buy MainlySteam's "public sector employees are low calibre, therefore deserve lower salaries" argument. I have come across some of the biggest dolts I have ever met in the private sector!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re: Sport????

Portugal.......forgive me but is that not one of the eu counties with most road deaths.
still you will not be the one calling round to break the news that a son/daughter/parent has been killed by some "sporty" motorist.
Do you have any children ?


<hr width=100% size=1>If it aint broke fix it till it is.

 

[peterg]

Yep, complete b*ll*cks though it's been posted on nearly every forum I've visted.......

You can check with the Thames Valley police website which actually tells you there are no SPECS or other cameras on the motorway

<hr width=100% size=1>currently boatless but kicking up a storm on the hillclimbs instead!

 

[jfm]

implied obligation to sign

Observer, thanks for info. you are more up to date than me.

As you say, the non signed form fails under RTOA. So far as finding an implied obligation to sign under PACE is concerned, that magistrate is quite imaginative. Will be interesting to see the appeal.

In particular, most NIPs involve naming yourself as driver, so find an implied obligation to incriminate yourself under pain of a penalty is an astonishing magistrate decision.

In all the other cases I can think of where you are forced to sign, there is express statury provision. Eg your tax return, theres lots of legal guff about declaring your income etc but there is an express requirement in TMA1970 s.8(2) "Every return under this section shall include a declaration by the person making the return.......that it is......correct and complete".

So to decide that parliament intended people to be forced to sign their own confession (someting much more significant than a tax return) without actually saying so in express terms is a pretty racy magistrate decision imho!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Do you have to sign at roadside?

No, you do not have to sign the HORT1 form at the roadside. Some police forces even have "request only" printed in tiny font by the signature box.

The police have power to arrest you. They will only do that if they need to do so to confirm your ID. So, in practice, if you are polite and give your correct name address (so it checks when they radio your car details back to base) they will not htink you are using this gambit. When they ask you to sign, you need to be smooth. Eg say "Oh alright, ....urm actually do I have to sign, officer?" To which he must reply no, then you say "Oh, ok then, actually, I'd prefer not to if that's ok with you"

99.9% of time this will work fine. also you must not show them your licence or other ID. Just make them think you are contrite and will diligently take your licence and insurance/logbook to the police station in next 7 days (which of course you wont)

They then have no evidence of your ID, other than their personal memory of what you look like, which is no good if you aint in court.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[telmate]

Woops, sorry! Came from what i thought was a reliable source too! Still, having only just been done by the camera near Gunwharf Quays I wish I hadn't signed the form!

<hr width=100% size=1>I've only gone and bought it!

 

[primitiveman]

So now I not only have an unjustly inflated pension, but I'm of low calibre!!??
You're really trying to annoy me!
Most of the people I come across inthe private sector are utterly incompetent or totally dishonest or both; for instance garage mechanics, plumbers, financial advisers etc. A lot of them work in trades where they are in short supply, and can therefore charge what they like and turn up when they like, and they still get work however hopeless they are. No GMC hovering over them!
My pension will be funded; I pay superannuation AND income tax. A lot of self employed people can avoid the latter because they have clever accountants to make everything deductible.
I guess when you have your next heart attack you'll be going private?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hlb]

Well. After calling me a twat on your very first visit to this forum, I'm afraid you have left yourself open for any abuse that is thrown at you..
The comment was meant light heartedly, to a friend. The inclusion of hand signals and man with red flag, would have implied to most sane folk that this was a joke.

You however appear not to be one of them. You seem to have shot your self in the foot and proved beond a shaddow of a doubte that you are indeed of low calibre and thick as well.../forums/images/icons/laugh.gif.

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue>No one can force me to come here.<font color=red> I'm a volunteer!!.<font color=blue>

Haydn

 

[jfm]

public/private

Primitiveman, I think you are in the NHS. Yes, you pay income tax and superannuation. However the superannuation you pay is a small fraction of the fair price of the pension available under your scheme. Your pension is therefore subsidised by the taxpayer, or alternatively your true earnings are much larger than your headline salary number (you can look at it either way).

You have a very naive view of the private sector. No doubt some behave as you say but there is a much more important element that takes real risk, invests real capital, puts in effort and hours that public sector workers generally don't comprehend, acts clever, and pays income tax per year per individual in amounts greater than an NHS worker's lifetime earnings. I don't mean to say doctors/nurses are not important, but in a civilised country you can only have doctors and nurses if there are others who do these things I mention. Praps they drive mercedes but that's part of the deal. You are being unfair to begrudge someone material rewards if they build value, and you're possibly on a slippery slope - you have a boat frexample?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

I guess your obvious irritation is a not unreasonable reaction to a very generalised slur, but you had better be grateful to the "wholy dishonest and incompetent" rest of the economy because this is the bit which earns almost the whole of the countries living. No "corrupt private sector" would mean no health service or vat office etc - as is so often the case in Africa. And the problem is that as the earning part of the economy shrinks, and the govt part gets ever larger, the camel is getting more and more straw on its back.

The comments about pay are factually incorrect. For the first time ever, average public sector pay passed average private sector pay earlier this year. This does not take into account issues like secure salary related pension schemes, or company cars for that matter. Nor does it take into account shorter actual public sector working hours, better sick pay systems, and a distinctly more lax attitude to absenteeism (eg in the police, for example).

Best way to compare is to work in both, like I have done. I preferred the private sector because of the absence of petty rules and regulations, but I was in no doubt where I was most secure.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[duncan]

Re: boat babe and string....

suckered me good and proper into reading a further 42 posts on this thread in the hope of something juicy......................

<hr width=100% size=1>