Changes to the law

[JOHNNYAITCH]

You'll never stop speeding as long as humans are doing the driving and cars can exceed the speed limit..you can only educate and deter and punish.

 

Maybe GPS can be used to determine what road a car is on, what the speed limit is and so do something technically to slow the car and restrict it's speed whilst on that road?? And/or inform the police that someone is speeding..if they did the latter at the moment the police would be swamped but it might deter if you knew they were going to be informed...especially repeat offenders

[RailwayRowdy]

Of course, it makes all the difference is some maniac doing 90 mph or whatever kills your loved one(s) after a drink doesn't it ? Far too may people have died from reckless driving and it doesn't matter if drinking is involved or not - though of course it is worse if the driver is over the minit.

 

I thought, it seems probably wrongly, that you had enough common sense to realise that I was not talking about taking away someone's car for doing 35moh in a 30 limit once - but you people and your posts are always the same, twisting things, manipulating words - when you know I mean the cases like Mr H described.

 

However, if someone was caught speeding at 35 in a 30 limit 10 times, say, in a year then it might not be inappropriate for them to do 200 hours community service and be banned for a year and evenlose their car for higher over-the-limit speeds. Needs discussion, but err on the side of making someone THINK before driving like a maniac.

Each time you are convicted of breaking the speed limit, you get 3 points on your licence. If you accumulate 12 points over a 3 year period you get a driving ban, usually for 3 months. So I think that rules are in place when drivers are caught. The problem is they rarely get caught due to reasons mentioned in other posts.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

[mr.hobblesworth]

So it looks like we're in agreement with that one then. Me for PM!

 

Next, I would look at banning, or imposing penalties upon, the owning of a 2nd home. That includes buy to let properties.

[Regal Beagle]

So it looks like we're in agreement with that one then. Me for PM!

 

Next, I would look at banning, or imposing penalties upon, the owning of a 2nd home. That includes buy to let properties.

 

Why would you do that?

[mr.hobblesworth]

Many reasons but primarily, the effect on local economies of holiday homes and the fact that I don't think homes should be treated as commodities for people to buy purely to profit from.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What would the penalties be? Direct ownership or ownership via an investment instrument such as a trust or pension?.

 

I had a second home but that was because it's value had dropped so much I could not sell it without making a large loss yet needed to move to somewhere bigger..had to hang onto it until it was back in profit or lose money my family could not afford to lose.

 

For some it's their pension..they are trying to provide for themselves in their old age

 

Some are undoubtedly hovering up properties to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible.

 

There are many many reasons why people have second homes

 

I'd look at CGT on them being 'harsher' where they haven't lived in them and also how to tax income from them at maybe a higher rate. Undoubtedly in places like where I live it has a major impact on the locals who are priced out and the buy to let mkt has got out of control due to many reasons..including how housing benefit is paid and the amount available

[RailwayRowdy]

So it looks like we're in agreement with that one then. Me for PM!

 

Next, I would look at banning, or imposing penalties upon, the owning of a 2nd home. That includes buy to let properties.

Looks like I'll have to sell my "Summer Residence" in Conwy then. And there's me thinking I could do what I wanted with my money. Irony apart, what's wrong with owning more than one property ?. As the banks give ridiculously low interest rates on savings, property is one way to invest for my soon to be retirement. It's a shame that youngsters cannot afford to get on the property ladder, but that says more about the capitalist state we live in where money is king.

 

Sent from my GT-I9195I using the onevalefan mobile app

[For Us All]

Banning 2nd homes,dont think Tony Blair wouldn't be happy?😅

[geosname]

I would ban none UK citizens from buying houses or land... 10% value tax on second property annually with no offsets, 15% third and so on. 50% inheritance tax no lower limit, 25% tax on second household vehicle

[Bea Smith]

I would ban none UK citizens from buying houses or land... 10% value tax on second property annually with no offsets, 15% third and so on. 50% inheritance tax no lower limit, 25% tax on second household vehicle

 

Interesting and worthy of detailed discussion, however I think our delightful fiends in the Conservative party, and a few Labour and others be a teeny bit upset with your radical ideas.

 

That isn't to say that I am, would need to think through the implications, but the first is that so much is owned by 'non-UK citizens' already that getting it back would bankrupt the country and make nationalising the railways seem like pennies.

 

Selling off the family silver in terms of our companies, property etc has been a hallmark of policy for the Tories since a certain old bat from a cellar in Grantham decided to dupe us all.

 

The other things.. well, I am not sure 25 per cent tax on a second household vehcle for a large family where Dad is a doctor, Mum a teacher, grown up kids living with them on shifts and virtually no pulic transport - hmmmmmmm...... sure about that one ?

 

I have be rude here and ask if you own any property outsidthe UK and if you don't mind similar rules being applied to it Geo, of course you don't have to answer before anyone accuses me of being the Stasi (I quite liked that actually, their uniforms were excellent and I do like knowing all my neighbours tax evasion secrets).

[Bea Smith]

I agree, even without driverless cars, I think that technology (such as gps for example) will put a stop to speeding soon. For that reason I don't see much point in changing the law now.

 

Every day the law stays unchanged means more lives lost, or ruined by terrible injuries - in a year, maybe hundreds, and thousands upon thousands of animals too.

 

However, you are right about the technology - it just needs installing, publicising and implementing fully.

 

Earlier at the garage I was waiting and a young girl, maybe 19, came in and she had to wait too - and we got talking, she was truly a nice person having problems with her first car, a small Fiat.

 

I mentioned that the insurance must be high and how unfair it was on young people - and she told me she was paying £122 a month, and added 'and that's with the black box'.

 

I asked what a black box was, and found that for young people, insurance companies (well, hers anyway) will cut your premium if you agree to have this device fitted which records every time you go over a speed limit (she said - just how is beyond me) or do other things that make your driving less safe.

 

You can (and she did) monitor it on a phone app and see how many 'penalty ponts' you are accruing, and if it is too many they won't insure you again at all, and the cost of next years insurance depends on your score too.

 

I was elated - what a fantastic idea ! Put them in all cars and do it for all drivers soon - self-regulation until the law and technology eventually make it impossible to break the speed limit (which they will within 10 years).

 

Anyone else know much about this - it sounds too good to be true !

[Paul6754]

Indeed but for insurance companies and the like it's all about risk assessment..you are more likely to develop the condition if you have the gene and so are a higher risk..hence for example we have women having their breasts removed cos they have a breast cancer gene.

 

They do that now 'cause of family history and why shouldn't they have the choice. They could have their DNA sequenced irrespective of a database.

 

I'm not overly concerned about 'today' I'm concerned about the future use

 

But it may be better! So you're concerned about more efficient crime solving, less people being wrongly convicted, a real deterrent, mega benefits to people's health although people's health is not all database related.

 

I said it could be taken from you. You may think you are the father, turns out your not, the state decides to take the child away from you even when you are quite willing to raise the child and give it to the real father to raise

 

'Could", or could not, what about the child's perspective.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

They do that now 'cause of family history and why shouldn't they have the choice. They could have their DNA sequenced irrespective of a database.

 

Nowhere near the same..a latent gene can show up at any time. I'm sure you'll be happy when a life company turns you down cos you have a much increased chance of developing condition X and you can't get a job, can't get a mortgage or your children can't. They will do all they can to minimise their risk..this is an other way for them to do so.

 

the tale was of it being compulsory and I don't trust goivt etc to only ever use it for the currently stated purpose.

 

 

 

But it may be better! So you're concerned about more efficient crime solving, less people being wrongly convicted, a real deterrent, mega benefits to people's health although people's health is not all database related.

 

As I have said I don't deny the benefits..I am merely highlighting that there are risks to be considered too and for me they are big risks.

 

'Could", or could not, what about the child's perspective.

 

The point was the info could be used 'against' you..this was another way. You might be the best 'dad' in the world but that will cut little slack with the courts if the real 'dad' wants the child. If the DNA of the child and yours isn't available/usable then the child can't be taken from you for the reason of you not being the father cos no one knows that you aren't...if it's compulsory then it will be easy enough to find out.

 

All good unless it's you that loses the child you consider and may have raised as your own for some time

[geosname]

Interesting and worthy of detailed discussion, however I think our delightful fiends in the Conservative party, and a few Labour and others be a teeny bit upset with your radical ideas.

 

That isn't to say that I am, would need to think through the implications, but the first is that so much is owned by 'non-UK citizens' already that getting it back would bankrupt the country and make nationalising the railways seem like pennies.

 

Selling off the family silver in terms of our companies, property etc has been a hallmark of policy for the Tories since a certain old bat from a cellar in Grantham decided to dupe us all.

 

The other things.. well, I am not sure 25 per cent tax on a second household vehcle for a large family where Dad is a doctor, Mum a teacher, grown up kids living with them on shifts and virtually no pulic transport - hmmmmmmm...... sure about that one ?

 

I have be rude here and ask if you own any property outsidthe UK and if you don't mind similar rules being applied to it Geo, of course you don't have to answer before anyone accuses me of being the Stasi (I quite liked that actually, their uniforms were excellent and I do like knowing all my neighbours tax evasion secrets).

 

I own no property or land... anywhere

I cant buy land or a house here although I could buy a condo [no freehold]... not that I would.

[Bea Smith]

I own no property or land... anywhere

I cant buy land or a house here although I could buy a condo [no freehold]... not that I would.

 

Thanks - it was a genuine question in view of your opinion.

 

I can't honestly see the justification for UK nationals not owning one piece of property here to live in, at least, even if not whole blocks of Chelsea.

If I won a lot of money I'd want to live in a better country and would be a bit upset if I couldn't buy somewhere there unless the country had a fully socialist policy on ownership.