Speeding

So the House of Commons Transport Committee wants to limit the speed of motorcycles because they are dangerous and cause pollution.

Sounds fair enough, you might say. What is the possible justification for a vehicle being able to go over 70mph when that is the maximum permitted speed? The trouble with this is that it is an accepted part of living in a free country rather than a police state that many of the laws are drafted in a draconian way on the understanding that it is in fact perfectly acceptable to break them whenever you like as long as you don’t take the piss.

However, it has now become technologically possible to enforce many more of the laws absolutely than in the past. GPS in every car, linked to speed limit map and engine management system could prevent people from ever breaking the speed limit. Maximum speed limits at the top end could be just the beginning. They’ve already banned guns on an arguably shakier premise (in that despite its potential to be used for unlawful reasons, a gun can at least also be used for lawful reasons: there is no lawful reason for a road–licensed vehicle to do more than 70mph).

More and more CCTV cameras go up in London every day and before long it will be possible to nick and send out fixed penalties to each and every person who at any time commits a parking offence, traffic violation, piece of bad driving, or who spits gum on the floor or has a smoke when it’s raining in a “semi–enclosed area to which the general public habitually has access” (bus shelter). What’s the problem: if people aren't supposed to do it, they should expect to get punished for it. The problem is that it’s not how this country has historically worked and absolute law enforcement of relatively minor laws is absolutely an encroachment on day–to–day freedom.

Labels: driving, motorcycles, UK politics

Apparently, Westminster suck slightly less than Camden

Westminster has backed down, although not with a great deal of good grace. Their letter kindly explains the rules for me:

“The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. The notes made by the Parking Attendant at the time of the contravention show that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines.

Yellow lines, at the edge of the road, means that there are parking restrictions in force, which apply to the whole length and width of the road, apart from designated parking places, such as parking bays [my emphasis]. These have their own restrictions, which are displayed on associated signs and instruction plates.

On this occasion only, your Representation has been accepted, and the PCN and Notice to Owner has been cancelled”.

So given the fact that my vehicle was clearly parked in a designated parking place exactly as they describe and that therefore to the PCN was issued entirely without justification, their stance is that they are kindly prepared to let me off the “contravention” just this once. Nice of them. Still, the right result. Now, just Camden to deal with.

Labels: driving, london

Council Tax

I have written about this before, but it still seems to me that the stories about Council Tax revaluations are based upon flawed logic. It is often quoted that since Council tax bands were set in 1991, the average house price has increased threefold. The implication appears to be that everyone is going to face an enormous Council Tax increase if the bands are reassessed on current prices. You’re three times richer than you were in 1991, so you should pay three times the tax, right? And what about the pensioners? It’s not their fault that their two–bedroom London maisonette, where they’ve lived since 1946, is now worth £2,400,000. How are they going to pay the tax out of £85 a week?

It’s nonsense. Council Tax is about dividing the costs of local services fairly among local residents. The Government has decided that ‘fairness’ can be achieved by making contribution to services proportional to the value of property inhabited. It’s not a capital gains tax, based upon absolute increases in value. Therefore, it doesn’t actually matter much when the valuations were conducted, unless for some reason since the valuation, the prices of some residents’ properties have increased more than those of other residents. Pensioners only get screwed on revaluation if since 1991, their two–bedroom London maisonette has soared in value, while the value of the maisonette round the corner has remained static. If, as is likely, prices within a given area have more or less risen uniformly across the board, the pensioners will be in exactly the same position when bands are set on a revaluation as they were in 1991.

A related article talks about proposals to bring in a new band for houses of £1m plus, which will incur double the tax. This is hard to get particularly excited about either, but I accept that it may be somewhat more prone to producing unfairness. This is because £1m appears to be an arbitrary cut–off, leading to a stark increase. If the situation really is that in some Councils’ territories, historic house price inflation means that many houses are now above that limit, while many remain just below, it could look to be unfair. Greater fairness is obviously more likely to be achieved by a larger number of smaller incremental increases. But is it really the position that there are many income–poor people, particularly pensioners, living in £1m+ houses? I somehow doubt it. And if so, one reaction might be to say “lucky bastards; why don’t you release some equity or move to a cheaper pad, if the Council Tax payments really are unduly burdensome”.

Labels: economics, UK politics

EU farming subsidy

Farmers being paid by the EU not to produce crops that are not needed seemed mad enough in the first place. Now, it is alleged that the “decoupling” of those EU farming subsidies from the land to which they relate has resulted in the surreal dealing in the rights to receive EU payouts by “entitlement traders”.

“This is the final reduction to absurdity of the Common Agricultural Policy. Only the EU could have created a situation where people who are not farmers are paid not to farm” (Neil O’Brien, director of Open Europe).

Labels: economics, UK politics

Xenith?

I thought that the Tories’ anti–flying policies, announced over the weekend, sounded ridiculous and this article goes some way to explaning why they are. All the talk about “changing behaviour” using taxation is a euphamism for “people need to pay more tax so that poor people cannot afford to consume”. If they are to achieve anything, these policies require a reversal of progress and a reduction in standards of living for the non–elite.

Labels: science, UK politics

Woah, I just heard/saw Natasha Bedingfield’s song “I want to have your babies” and its accompanying video and they are bloody terrifyingly egregious. Following on from her earlier single “These Words” (“I love you, I love you, I love U-hu”), this confirms my view that Natasha Bedingfield’s concept is totally, like, “the over–sized nightmare psychotic girlfriend set to music”. Clever positioning: sure she’ll sell millions.

Labels: music

On a few occasions now around dawn or dusk, I’ve seen a fat, sleek and healthy–looking urban fox that must live in my neighbourhood.

Labels: london

Westminster suck even more than Camden

Wankers! Westminster Council have rejected my written representations as well! Unlike Camden, Westminster give no reasons for the rejection, but jump straight to the increased fine and threats of bailiffs. I know they say that you should beware a war on two fronts, but I thought this one was a slamdunk. I am going to have to appeal it. What a bloody waste of time, though. I think it’s a disgrace.

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

She’s lucky. In America, the cops would probably have shot her. Given that drunken violence and vandalism is no longer an exclusively male prerogative, why should we make a big fuss when the police need to deploy physical violence to restrain and arrest a female subject? If some pissed up 19 year old bint took it upon herself to attempt to separate me from my wedding tackle, I’d smack her one too.

Labels: news

Not every Akon grows into a mighty oak

Is it just me, or are Gwen Stefani and Akon crap? By which I don’t mean “Gwen Stefani feat. Akon” is crap. I mean separately, they are both crap. “Gwen Stefani feat. Akon” should be doubly crap, but in fact it is actually slightly less crap than some of their particularly crap stuff separately. But it’s still crap. In my opinion.

Labels: music