Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

kr7

tayto lover wrote: »

You selling ice-cream out of the back of that Alistair ?

Maybe fruit?

Bruthal

kr7 wrote: »

Is this what your referring to.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60309589

That van's white, not orange.

Quite the little evader/defaulter isn't he.

And he has the neck to come on here and slag us off.

On the other thread he refers to the majority of people in this country as 'taig's'

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=taig&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTaig&ei=JKMJUIiPD4fKhAealqjqCQ&usg=AFQjCNEcOAwNKc-BXwM4dMMV14S4nZkmWg

Some boy alright.


Nice car BTW:D

I have to admit, I wouldnt slag the car off myself. Id probably drive that around.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Quite the little evader/defaulter isn't he.

And he has the neck to come on here and slag us off.

No evasion at play - if it's not liable for the NCT, it's not liable.

You're actually liable for the HHC though - actual tax evasion. Spot the difference?

Bruthal

alastair wrote: »

No evasion at play - if it's not liable for the NCT, it's not liable.

You're actually liable for the HHC though - actual tax evasion. Spot the difference?

Well it was not so much that it was not liable, it was a loophole. Im sure you will say its the same thing, predictably.

The NCT is for the safety of other road users, not just you in your loophole car. If you welcome the chance to avoid it, thats your decision.

You seem big into car comparisons anyway.

As for the tax evasion, you are more experienced than us.

alastair

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well it was not so much that it was not liable, it was a loophole. Im sure you will say its the same thing, predictably.

The NCT is for the safety of other road users, not just you in your loophole car. If you welcome the chance to avoid it, thats your decision.

You seem big into car comparisons anyway.

The car wasn't liable for NCT - if you brought it to the NCT, they wouldn't test it.
It wasn't liable for DOE - if you brought it to the DOE, they wouldn't test it.

There are lots of cars that don't have to do the NCT - you can go out tomorrow and buy any new car, and it won't be liable for NCT testing. You can drive any pre '80 car without NCT testing. The roads are quite safe within this reality. Was out in my entirely legal, mechanically perfect, NCT exempt car earlier today - and lived to tell the tale.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

The car wasn't liable for NCT - if you brought it to the NCT, they wouldn't test it.
It wasn't liable for DOE - if you brought it to the DOE, they wouldn't test it.

There are lots of cars that don't have to do the NCT - you can go out tomorrow and buy any new car, and it won't be liable for NCT testing. You can drive any pre '80 car without NCT testing. The roads are quite safe within this reality.

Are you going to come clean about your tax defaulting in the UK?

You were a tax defaulter weren't you? Remember, the time you wouldn't pay your poll tax even though you were liable to pay it?

Ring any bells?

tayto lover

The only way you can prove that it's roadworthy is by having an certificate.
You have a duty to do that.

Ghandee

I quite like this post....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60310112&postcount=11

Its only avoidance, evading and defaulting when its not you Ali isn't that right?

That was some bit of detective work lads.

I think you could call that thread the head shot

Game set and match.

kr7

Another great law we have here, a car over 32 years old doesn't need to be tested but a 4 year old car does.

Probably with a big petrol, badly running polluting engine and It'll get away with 'classic' motor tax.

Brilliant, isn't it.

We give people like alastair tax breaks to keep pieces of ****e on the road.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

The only way you can prove that it's roadworthy is by having an certificate.
You have a duty to do that.

Really? That's why when they sell them, they don't require testing for four years? You should tell someone they're doing it all wrong!

kr7

Ghandee wrote: »

I quite like this post....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60310112&postcount=11

Its only avoidance, evading and defaulting when its not you Ali isn't that right?

That was some bit of detective work lads.

I think you could call that thread the head shot

Game set and match.

New (orange) balls please!

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Its only avoidance, evading and defaulting when its not you Ali isn't that right?

Nope - it's only avoidance, evading and defaulting, when you're avoiding, evading or defaulting. Like you are with your taxes.

I like this post a bit better - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60312430&postcount=26

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

We give people like alastair tax breaks to keep pieces of ****e on the road.

What with all your 'indirect' motor tax, no doubt? :rolleyes:

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Nope - it's only avoidance, evading and defaulting, when you're avoiding, evading or defaulting. Like you are with your taxes.

Any chance you could answer the questions about your previous life as a tax defaulter?

kr7

alastair wrote: »

What with all your 'indirect' motor tax, no doubt? :rolleyes:

No, with cheap tax for the pieces of ****e you love so much.

KeithM89_old

Mod
Dragging posts from other forums isnt allowed, dont do it again.

(nice van though)

Ghandee

alastair wrote: »

Nope - it's only avoidance, evading and defaulting, when you're avoiding, evading or defaulting. Like you are with your taxes.

I'm exempt..... And I've never made any secret about that fact, therefor I've not avoided paying anything, (next year might be different, but for now my estate is exempt)

You on the other hand.........

Now, I'm curious about where to proceed from there. There's an advantage to taxing it privately, thus avoiding DOE testing, and because it's a van, it doesn't need to do the NCT either.

Take a bow Alistair, you win the hypocrisy prize 2012.

kr7

KeithM89 wrote: »

Mod
Dragging posts from other forums isnt allowed, dont do it again.

(nice van though)

Keith, while we have you there, Is it against forum rules to change someone's post to have someone admitting to breaking the law?

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Any chance you could answer the questions about your previous life as a tax defaulter?

I'm more interested in your current tax evasion status. As we both know, I'm 100% tax compliant here and in the UK - which sadly can't be said for you.

Ghandee

KeithM89 wrote: »

Mod
Dragging posts from other forums isnt allowed, dont do it again.

(nice van though)

Oops, never seen this until I'd posted Keith.

Feel free to delete.

KeithM89_old

kr7 wrote: »

Keith, while we have you there, Is it against forum rules to change someone's post to have someone admitting to breaking the law?

No. Its called 'FYP'ing.
But it is against the rules to threaten legal action.

Bruthal

KeithM89 wrote: »

Mod
Dragging posts from other forums isnt allowed, dont do it again.

(nice van though)

Feck it in anyway, had a brilliant one ready and all.

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

Keith, while we have you there, Is it against forum rules to change someone's post to have someone admitting to breaking the law?

Heh - You admitted to it yourself!:D:D:D

Ghandee

robbie7730 wrote: »

Feck it in anyway, had a brilliant one ready and all.

Pm......

kr7

KeithM89 wrote: »

No. Its called 'FYP'ing.
But it is against the rules to threaten legal action.

I told the guy that by doing that he was slandering me.

alastair

Ghandee wrote: »

Take a bow Alistair, you win the hypocrisy prize 2012.

Nah - I was in the same boat as you - exempt. Nice try all the same (aside from getting it all hopelessly wrong).

Bruthal

alastair wrote: »

Heh - You admitted to it yourself!:D:D:D

Your some man for the smilies, they should ban that stupid roll eyes one
Predicts alastair`s reply

alastair

kr7 wrote: »

I told the guy that by doing that he was slandering me.

Idiocy isn't a defence.

kr7

alastair wrote: »

Heh - You admitted to it yourself!:D:D:D

Wonder is it against forum rules to refer to people as 'taigs'.

You might do that on here, you wouldn't do it face to face.

kr7

robbie7730 wrote: »

Your some man for the smilies, they should ban that stupid roll eyes one
Predicts alastair`s reply

Them there smilies look like smug orange men.