Hundreds of drivers convicted for illegal use of green diesel

Comhrá

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/hundreds-of-drivers-convicted-for-illegal-use-of-green-diesel-35309043.html

"...The standard fine for the offence is a €2,500 fine, but one Mayo farmer was fined €9,000. In total there were 118 court ordered fines imposed for the misuse of marked gas oil.

The standard fine for using green diesel is €2,500. The standard fine for holding a phone while driving is €60. Speeding is €80 and so on.

This really shows how much the Government prioritises loss of revenue over loss of limb or worse, through the huge fine it imposes for defrauding the State of duty on fuel. Speeding & phone use or careless/dangerous driving while driving is obviously much less important.

jca

Tell us something we don't know..

Donal55

The govt would be better off removing the dye and just letting farmers etc claim the duty back. Save all the hassle of checkpoints and court cases.

colm_mcm

Donal55 wrote: »

The govt would be better off removing the dye and just letting farmers etc claim the duty back. Save all the hassle of checkpoints and court cases.

What's to stop them claiming back the duty on fuel used in their car? What's to stop them selling the fuel to neighbours?

Atlantic Dawn

Would love to know what the farmer fined €9k was at? Was he a seriel offender or running a massive fleet of vehicles on the stuff?

Buffman

tippman1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/hundreds-of-drivers-convicted-for-illegal-use-of-green-diesel-35309043.html

Some clickbait headline from the Indo, 'Hundreds of drivers' with the actual stats of:

• 2016 (to September) - 118
• 2015 (full year) -310
• 2014 (full year) - 288

Sure they should have gone back a few more years to get to 1001, then it could have been 'Thousands of drivers'!:rolleyes:

tippman1 wrote: »

This really shows how much the Government prioritises loss of revenue over loss of limb or worse, through the huge fine it imposes for defrauding the State of duty on fuel. Speeding & phone use or careless/dangerous driving while driving is obviously much less important.

Ye, sure 'Garlic man' showed us that, 6 years for smuggling Garlic, and only yesterday there's a 6 year sentence for kicking a guy to death on the Dublin quays over 70 cent. ('Garlic man' successfully appealed and got it reduced to 2 years)

RayCun

tippman1 wrote: »

This really shows how much the Government prioritises loss of revenue over loss of limb or worse, through the huge fine it imposes for defrauding the State of duty on fuel.

Detecting the use of green diesel is much harder than detecting someone speeding. Which means the chances of getting caught are low. Which means the fines have to be big.

coylemj

RayCun wrote: »

Detecting the use of green diesel is much harder than detecting someone speeding. Which means the chances of getting caught are low. Which means the fines have to be big.

+1 because by the time a person is caught, he's probably already dodged 1,000s of euros worth of excise duty so a big fine is definitely warranted.

The economics are pretty simple - if you thought you were only going to be fined €100 and the chances of being caught were as high as 10% (and they're obviously much smaller than that), it would be worth your while filling up with the green stuff. Massive fines are the only solution.

This is a revenue issue, comparing the fines to those for traffic offences is frankly ridiculous.

GM228

Buffman wrote: »

Some clickbait headline from the Indo, 'Hundreds of drivers' with the actual stats of:

• 2016 (to September) - 118
• 2015 (full year) -310
• 2014 (full year) - 288

Sure they should have gone back a few more years to get to 1001, then it could have been 'Thousands of drivers'!:rolleyes:

The actual figures are much higher, these are court convictions, but detection rates are well over the 1000 mark each year, usually legal proceedings don't go ahead when a payment is made to revenue in lieu of legal proceedings. There is a 17-25% conviction rate based on the detection vs prosecution figures for 2013 and 2014.

Comhrá

coylemj wrote: »

+1 because by the time a person is caught, he's probably already dodged 1,000s of euros worth of excise duty so a big fine is definitely warranted.

The economics are pretty simple - if you thought you were only going to be fined €100 and the chances of being caught were as high as 10% (and they're obviously much smaller than that), it would be worth your while filling up with the green stuff. Massive fines are the only solution.

This is a revenue issue, comparing the fines to those for traffic offences is frankly ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Are revenue offences more serious than road safety violations? I'd have thought drunk driving was a far more serious crime with potentially far worse potential ramifications like someone being killed, than defrauding the state of a few Euro.

coylemj

tippman1 wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous? Are revenue offences more serious than road safety violations? I'd have thought drunk driving was a far more serious crime with potentially far worse potential ramifications like someone being killed, than defrauding the state of a few Euro.

Because they are different categories of offence, one is revenue and the other criminal and you cannot measure them by the same benchmark. If you did, people found with green diesel in the tank would be fined one cent and people driving a car while holding a mobile or under the influence of drink would be flogged to death.

pa990

Donal55 wrote: »

The govt would be better off removing the dye and just letting farmers etc claim the duty back. Save all the hassle of checkpoints and court cases.

That won't work.

Dyed diesel is not just an Irish thing. It is used the world over.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dyes

In Canada, they even have dyed petrol for off road use. ( I almost filled up on it by accident)

Buffman

GM228 wrote: »

The actual figures are much higher, these are court convictions, but detection rates are well over the 1000 mark each year, usually legal proceedings don't go ahead when a payment is made to revenue in lieu of legal proceedings. There is a 17-25% conviction rate based on the detection vs prosecution figures for 2013 and 2014.

Ye, and there's probably a lot more who never get/got detected. And the fact that for a long time green diesel was a lot safer than risking your engine with potentially laundered 'road' diesel didn't exactly help deter people from chancing it.

billy few mates

Drunk drivers holding mobile phones whilst speeding in cars running on green diesel should be jailed for life....

Nonoperational

Buffman wrote: »

Some clickbait headline from the Indo, 'Hundreds of drivers' with the actual stats of:

• 2016 (to September) - 118
• 2015 (full year) -310
• 2014 (full year) - 288

Sure they should have gone back a few more years to get to 1001, then it could have been 'Thousands of drivers'!:rolleyes:




Ye, sure 'Garlic man' showed us that, 6 years for smuggling Garlic, and only yesterday there's a 6 year sentence for kicking a guy to death on the Dublin quays over 70 cent. ('Garlic man' successfully appealed and got it reduced to 2 years)

Garlic man defrauded the state of €1.6million, and that's only what he was caught for. He could have been importing sex toys for all it matters. It was serious tax evasion. You'd swear he was bringing in a few cloves for himself the way people went on about it completely missing the point.

_Kaiser_

Nonoperational wrote: »

Garlic man defrauded the state of €1.6million, and that's only what he was caught for. He could have been importing sex toys for all it matters. It was serious tax evasion. You'd swear he was bringing in a few cloves for himself the way people went on about it completely missing the point.

No, the point is how selective the application of law is and where the penalties are weighted.

Look at how much money is pissed away in this country every year by Government departments. Look at the farce that is the IW fiasco (agree with charges or not, no-one can deny that it's been a very expensive debacle), e-voting machines, agreements with toll operators to make up the difference on shortfalls to projected revenues etc.. not to mention the cronyism and corruption that goes on with the awarding of jobs and contracts. You could also of course recall how almost no-one involved in the mess that was the financial crisis has faced any real penalty

But far easier to prosecute the "little people" over what amount to pennies in the end.

unkel

Why not get rid of this unfair subsidy altogether? Why should a farmer pay less for fuel when he pollutes more?

Added benefit is that without the benefits from this illegal fuel business, the IRA will get a lot poorer quickly!

RayCun

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No, the point is how selective the application of law is and where the penalties are weighted.
....
But far easier to prosecute the "little people" over what amount to pennies in the end.

The point is ... <lots of unrelated things>

What amounts to pennies? The amount you can save by using green diesel illegally, or the amount Garlic Man avoided in tax?

unkel

unkel wrote: »

Why not get rid of this unfair subsidy altogether? Why should a farmer pay less for fuel when he pollutes more?

Added benefit is that without the benefits from this illegal fuel business, the IRA will get a lot poorer quickly!

Firstly it benefits much more people than just farmers.

Secondly it would mean much more expansive food prices and would make farming much less viable. It's very much fair that a farmer can avail of reduced prices diesel as it's a necessity for his work.

It would also drastically increase the costs of carrying out construction work as green diesel is used in all aspects of construction work, road building etc etc.

Peppa Pig

Zendaya Hot Wheelbarrow wrote: »

Firstly it benefits much more people than just farmers.

Secondly it would mean much more expansive food prices and would make farming much less viable. It's very much fair that a farmer can avail of reduced prices diesel as it's a necessity for his work.

It would also drastically increase the costs of carrying out construction work as green diesel is used in all aspects of construction work, road building etc etc.

What percentage increase would we see in the price of cabbage, or in the building of a 20km motorway?

unkel

Very little. But yes, thing will get more expensive. But we can reduce taxes (and compensate farmers & others) by using the extra income from fuel excise + VAT now that all polluters (who use fuel) are paying for it.

9935452

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Would love to know what the farmer fined €9k was at? Was he a seriel offender or running a massive fleet of vehicles on the stuff?

Id say he probably had a cattle lorry on the road and was running a jeep and car on it too.

RayCun wrote: »

Detecting the use of green diesel is much harder than detecting someone speeding. Which means the chances of getting caught are low. Which means the fines have to be big.

I was told a story about 3 farmers who made a deal between them .
The deal was they would all run green diesel.
If/When one of them was dipped they would split the fine between them and all would stop using green diesel.
I was told they got to 5 years when they were caught so a lot of money was saved.

Another odd one,
I pulled into a backroad/old main road petrol station to get a fill of diesel.
When i was filling with diesel another car came along and manouvered around me to get to the green diesel pump and filled up in front of me.
IMO there was taking a big risk doing this in front of a stranger , they hadnt a clue who i was or what i might have done.

creedp

unkel wrote: »

Very little. But yes, thing will get more expensive. But we can reduce taxes (and compensate farmers & others) by using the extra income from fuel excise + VAT now that all polluters (who use fuel) are paying for it.

Often wondered about this. Just like fuel taxes are justified to incentivise people to buy more fuel efficient cars I wonder would unsubsidised diesel incentivise farmers etc to buy appropriately sized vehicles .. these days the tractors are so big (and expensive although the taxpayer is sharing that cost also) its difficult to see who the hell is driving it. It seems like some sectors are always looking for the auld subsidy ..

creedp

9935452 wrote: »

Id say he probably had a cattle lorry on the road and was running a jeep and car on it too.




I was told a story about 3 farmers who made a deal between them .
The deal was they would all run green diesel.
If/When one of them was dipped they would split the fine between them and all would stop using green diesel.
I was told they got to 5 years when they were caught so a lot of money was saved.

Another odd one,
I pulled into a backroad/old main road petrol station to get a fill of diesel.
When i was filling with diesel another car came along and manouvered around me to get to the green diesel pump and filled up in front of me.
IMO there was taking a big risk doing this in front of a stranger , they hadnt a clue who i was or what i might have done.

Was getting fuel at local station recently and a year old A4 driven by what turned out to be a very well dressed blonde young woman shot past me to the green diesel pump. I mentioned to the owner whose response was how could you expect a young one to pay full price for fuel when she has such a long commute to Dublin .. more the fool I am!!

Buffman

creedp wrote: »

Was getting fuel at local station recently and a year old A4 driven by what turned out to be a very well dressed blonde young woman shot past me to the green diesel pump. I mentioned to the owner whose response was how could you expect a young one to pay full price for fuel when she has such a long commute to Dublin .. more the fool I am!!

Ye, I can see his point. Driving a year old Audi doesn't necessarily mean someone is loaded in these PCP days. If someone is financially struggling and has to do big mileage commuting across half the country because they can't afford to live close to Dublin, I can understand why people take the risk.

I'm not condoning it, but I do think the €2.5k fine for a first offence is excessive.

Nonoperational wrote: »

Garlic man defrauded the state of €1.6million, and that's only what he was caught for. He could have been importing sex toys for all it matters. It was serious tax evasion. You'd swear he was bringing in a few cloves for himself the way people went on about it completely missing the point.

Ye, without wanting to drag the thread too far off topic, I was using him as a comparison of the Goverments priorities in reply to the OP.

I'm not saying he should have got away with it, but 6 years was ridiculous considering other violent crimes which would get a similar sentence. Bear in mind he also had to repay the money to Revenue so the actual loss was minimal.

9935452

Buffman wrote: »

Ye, I can see his point. Driving a year old Audi doesn't necessarily mean someone is loaded in these PCP days. If someone is financially struggling and has to do big mileage commuting across half the country because they can't afford to live close to Dublin, I can understand why people take the risk.

I'm not condoning it, but I do think the €2.5k fine for a first offence is excessive.


.

I dont think it is really. They need a big fine to scare people off doing it.
IMO you have to be very unlucky to get caught for doing it.
For example My parents have had diesel cars since 1993 and have never ben dipped to their knowledge
Small fines and more people would chance it.

Buffman

9935452 wrote: »

I dont think it is really. They need a big fine to scare people off doing it.
IMO you have to be very unlucky to get caught for doing it.

In a country where some would say you'd have to be very unlucky to get caught for most offences, basing the punishment for an offence on the ability or lack thereof of the Goverment to enforce those laws is a slippery slope IMO. Lets take a random low prosecution rate example like burglary, does it warrant a death sentence to scare people off? Of course not.

IMO sentences should fit the offence, arguably most handed down by judges in Ireland don't. This €2.5k one is one of the few which is a bit harsh for a first time offence, considering the low bar set by other offences. If there're multiple offences, then throw the book at them. If the similar revenue related offence of driving with no motor tax was an automatic €2.5k fine then I think most people would consider that a bit harsh also.

9935452 wrote: »

For example My parents have had diesel cars since 1993 and have never ben dipped to their knowledge
Small fines and more people would chance it.

Ye, if you chance it, it's like a reverse lottery, the more you 'play' the more money you save, but if you 'win' you're screwed.

9935452

Buffman wrote: »

If there're multiple offences, then throw the book at them. .

I think you are talking about getting caught multiple times rather than multiple offenses.
The 2nd time someone fills up with green diesel it becomes a multiple offense.
People dont do it once , They do it multiple times ,

Buffman wrote: »

Ye, if you chance it, it's like a reverse lottery, the more you 'play' the more money you save, but if you 'win' you're screwed.

But if the fine was smaller , you start saving sooner.
For example if the fine was 500 i would save that in 4 or 5 months.
if it is 2500 it would take me the bones of 2 years to save that amount.
I reckon you are going to get caught sooner or later .
2 years is a long time to be chancing it

Buffman

9935452 wrote: »

I think you are talking about getting caught multiple times rather than multiple offenses.
The 2nd time someone fills up with green diesel it becomes a multiple offense.
People dont do it once , They do it multiple times

Ye, I mean getting caught and successfully prosecuted, as until you do it's not a proven offence. Yes, it's highly likely you wouldn't be caught the first time, but it's possible.

ShadowHearth

My buddy drove a small van with green diesel. He is workingv 7 days per week 12h++ almost each day, finish proper work and then do extra work after. Tried to get as much work as possible as he got shafted when bough a house and his repayments like 2.5K a month.

Got caught, 3K fine or 1 day in jail. He took the second option and went to work again.

selectamatic

ShadowHearth wrote: »

My buddy drove a small van with green diesel. He is workingv 7 days per week 12h++ almost each day, finish proper work and then do extra work after. Tried to get as much work as possible as he got shafted when bough a house and his repayments like 2.5K a month.

Got caught, 3K fine or 1 day in jail. He took the second option and went to work again.

Think that option is closed now as of last year or early this year sometime. Loads used to do it for no tax and other motoring fines. Now If you're unable/unwilling to pay any fine it'll be either stopped from wages or social welfare payments.

Peppa Pig

Peppa Pig wrote: »

What percentage increase would we see in the price of cabbage, or in the building of a 20km motorway?

unkel wrote: »

Very little. But yes, thing will get more expensive. But we can reduce taxes (and compensate farmers & others) by using the extra income from fuel excise + VAT now that all polluters (who use fuel) are paying for it.

Sorry lads but ye are talking rubbish, it's not about polluter pays the machines are vital and not being used for fun. Getting rid of this little bit of help is the sort of thing that could put people under. It's also a far bigger deal that you would think. It essentially doubles the price of fuel, for a farmer the exact cost is hard to say as it depends on the type of farm etc but it's not just the farmer himself it also makes it more expensive for contractors doing work for him also.

Again for construction it's essentially doubling fuel costs so on even a reasonable sized operation on a road, few excavators, rock trucks etc you could be taking thousands per day more in fuel costs.

creedp wrote: »

Often wondered about this. Just like fuel taxes are justified to incentivise people to buy more fuel efficient cars I wonder would unsubsidised diesel incentivise farmers etc to buy appropriately sized vehicles .. these days the tractors are so big (and expensive although the taxpayer is sharing that cost also) its difficult to see who the hell is driving it. It seems like some sectors are always looking for the auld subsidy ..

Trust me people only buy tractors as big as they need and modern tractors are far more fuel efficient also compared to an equivalent older machine.

9935452

Zendaya Hot Wheelbarrow wrote: »

Again for construction it's essentially doubling fuel costs so on even a reasonable sized operation on a road, few excavators, rock trucks etc you could be taking thousands per day more in fuel costs.

I was working on a site 12 years back. We were going through 2,500 gallons of diesel a day 7 days a week.
Approx 6000-7000 euros extra a day if they were running white diesel,


On another note i always wondered how many hire cars and vans have been handed back full of green diesel.

Peppa Pig

Zendaya Hot Wheelbarrow wrote: »

Sorry lads but ye are talking rubbish,

I only asked a question and you say I am talking rubbish:rolleyes:
You said food would be much more expensive and the cost of building roads would drastically increase.

So how much would prices increase by?

Peppa Pig

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I only asked a question and you say I am talking rubbish:rolleyes:
You said food would be much more expensive and the cost of building roads would drastically increase.

So how much would prices increase by?

Sorry thought you were implying it wouldn't increase costs much.

The example by the poster above would be the sort of increase per day I'd be thinking. Over the course of a project that's a lot of extra money.

Peppa Pig

Zendaya Hot Wheelbarrow wrote: »

Sorry thought you were implying it wouldn't increase costs much.

The example by the poster above would be the sort of increase per day I'd be thinking. Over the course of a project that's a lot of extra money.

And how much would that equate to in the building of a motorway - 1%, 5%, 100% ??

For farmers by how much would food become "much more expensive" by. You made the claim, justify it. You know all about farming, so what percentage of a €1 bag of carrots is down to the diesel used to plant/harvest.

Peppa Pig

Peppa Pig wrote: »

And how much would that equate to in the building of a motorway - 1%, 5%, 100% ??

For farmers by how much would food become "much more expensive" by. You made the claim, justify it. You know all about farming, so what percentage of a €1 bag of carrots is down to the diesel used to plant/harvest.

It's not even about how much more food costs, it's about people's lively hood. Doubling the price of diesel would mean thousands less per year for a farmer to Live and feed his family.

Green diesel is there for a reason, it's a big expense for farmers etc and they are entitled to the bit of relief they get by not having to burn road diesel in machines.

Peppa Pig

Zendaya Fluffy Piece wrote: »

it would mean much more expansive food prices

Peppa Pig wrote: »

What percentage increase would we see in the price of cabbage

Zendaya Fluffy Piece wrote: »

It's not even about how much more food costs ...
Green diesel is there for a reason, it's a big expense for farmers etc and they are entitled to the bit of relief they get by not having to burn road diesel in machines.

I think that we have established that you haven't a clue what the effect would be on food prices, despite stating that it would be much more expensive.

Farmers are entitled to a bit of relief? Really? According to you the following happens

Zendaya Fluffy Piece wrote:

They aren't too bothered. I've gone through customs checkpoints driving tractors which were quite obviously being used for hauling construction equipment (running green diesel) and was just waved through

Zendaya Fluffy Piece wrote:

My neighbour just taxed a brand new crew-cab commercially with his herd number and he is only a part-time farmer with a full time job which he commutes to in his crew-cab everyday along with using it for other family transportation also

Zendaya Fluffy Piece wrote:

I know countless people with crew-cabs, commercial 4x4's and car vans which are taxed commercially and used mostly or fully for private use and commuting.

You think farmers are entitled to evade tax as well.

pa990

Skip down to 'Dyes Used'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dyes#Fuel_dye_in_the_European_Union

Dyed diesel for heating and construction and agri, is common the world over.

Why... because it is the most cost effective way of doing it.
Having to claim back taxes would be an expensive admin exercise, and would be open to abuse.

Anyone could buy full price diesel, claim it's for home heating, claim tax back, then fill their car up with clean undyed, unmarked fuel.

Similarly, contractors could run entire fleets on it, farmers could run their own cars on it, and it could be sold on to joe soap.

Dyed fuel exists for a reason. It's not going away anytime soon.

billy few mates

The penalty for this should be massive and should include immediate seizure of the vehicle involved, massive fine (without the option of a night in jail in lieu) plus anyone convicted of using green diesel should be forced to present themselves and every future vehicle they own to Customs officials on a weekly basis to be checked for another two years post conviction or risk seizure of that vehicle as well.
This is a crime that could be eradicated overnight if the proper penalties were in place, at the moment it's worth the risk....

fullstop

Buffman wrote: »

Ye, I can see his point. Driving a year old Audi doesn't necessarily mean someone is loaded in these PCP days. If someone is financially struggling and has to do big mileage commuting across half the country because they can't afford to live close to Dublin, I can understand why people take the risk.

I'm not condoning it, but I do think the €2.5k fine for a first offence is excessive.

Well then she should buy something she can afford, don't you think? There's no law stating you have to spunk all your money on a flash car you can't afford but there is a law about marked diesel.

orm0nd

unkel wrote: »

Why not get rid of this unfair subsidy altogether? Why should a farmer pay less for fuel when he pollutes more?

Added benefit is that without the benefits from this illegal fuel business, the IRA will get a lot poorer quickly!

What an idiotic post,

what proof have you that farmers pollute more, ? all modern tractors are fitted with anti emission modules & work far more efficienty than the 1.2 dsl sitting at the traffic lights in Dublin with clogged up (or removed) dpf

anyhow if you checked you the defaulters list you would see that about 10% are farmers

_Kaiser_

billy few mates wrote: »

The penalty for this should be massive and should include immediate seizure of the vehicle involved, massive fine (without the option of a night in jail in lieu) plus anyone convicted of using green diesel should be forced to present themselves and every future vehicle they own to Customs officials on a weekly basis to be checked for another two years post conviction or risk seizure of that vehicle as well.
This is a crime that could be eradicated overnight if the proper penalties were in place, at the moment it's worth the risk....

That sounds like an awful lot of manpower, administration and cost to me. Not going to happen considering the resources aren't there to investigate and prosecute far more serious offences.

creedp

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I think that we have established that you haven't a clue what the effect would be on food prices, despite stating that it would be much more expensive.

Farmers are entitled to a bit of relief? Really? According to you the following happens


You think farmers are entitled to evade tax as well.

I dont think they would see it as tax evasion though, more like another deserved subsidy. Tax evasion is something others do. Funny thing is though some people are very critical of handouts being given to other sectors, even if they earn it. Then again I suppose that's simply human nature.

nice_guy80

ShadowHearth wrote: »

My buddy drove a small van with green diesel. He is workingv 7 days per week 12h++ almost each day, finish proper work and then do extra work after. Tried to get as much work as possible as he got shafted when bough a house and his repayments like 2.5K a month.

Got caught, 3K fine or 1 day in jail. He took the second option and went to work again.

What?
Has he got a 10 bedroom mansion with pool and room for a pony?

9935452

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That sounds like an awful lot of manpower, administration and cost to me. Not going to happen considering the resources aren't there to investigate and prosecute far more serious offences.

The thing is there wouldnt be a lot of time put into it .
If the fine was increased from 2.5k to 10k a lot less people would risk it.
the payback time would be 4 times so for example if i ran green , it would take 2 years to pay for the fine (in savings) . a 10k fine would mean 8 years .
All the other things that billy mentioned would only put people off running green diesel.
The net result is more revenue in tax , costing you less and there would be more money/resources to go after the more serious offenses .

Buffman

fullstop wrote: »

Well then she should buy something she can afford, don't you think? There's no law stating you have to spunk all your money on a flash car you can't afford but there is a law about marked diesel.

So by that reasoning it's OK to run green as long as you're driving a banger?

fullstop

Buffman wrote: »

So by that reasoning it's OK to run green as long as you're driving a banger?

LOL, trying to twist it the opposite way now because you realised your first post is garbage :rolleyes:

Point out where I said that, thanks.

Buffman

fullstop wrote: »

LOL, trying to twist it the opposite way now because you realised your first post is garbage :rolleyes:

Point out where I said that, thanks.

No, just pointing out that the value of the vehicle involved doesn't actually matter in the point I was making in the post you quoted, I can still empathise with the situation of being forced to commute large mileage for work.

As for twisting the opposite way, no, you'll see in the my post I said I didn't condone it, but I do understand it. And no, I don't think my first post was garbage.

Gator88

tippman1 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/hundreds-of-drivers-convicted-for-illegal-use-of-green-diesel-35309043.html

"...The standard fine for the offence is a €2,500 fine, but one Mayo farmer was fined €9,000. In total there were 118 court ordered fines imposed for the misuse of marked gas oil.

The standard fine for using green diesel is €2,500. The standard fine for holding a phone while driving is €60. Speeding is €80 and so on.

This really shows how much the Government prioritises loss of revenue over loss of limb or worse, through the huge fine it imposes for defrauding the State of duty on fuel. Speeding & phone use or careless/dangerous driving while driving is obviously much less important.

Can't they confiscate the vehicle too? Or do they have to give that back?

Zendaya Hot Wheelbarrow

Zendaya Hot Wheelbarrow wrote: »

Firstly it benefits much more people than just farmers.

Secondly it would mean much more expansive food prices and would make farming much less viable. It's very much fair that a farmer can avail of reduced prices diesel as it's a necessity for his work.

It would also drastically increase the costs of carrying out construction work as green diesel is used in all aspects of construction work, road building etc etc.

Necessary for Taxi driver too, do they get to use it?