Expanded ULEZ

[motorbiking]

It might come down to the lack of signage, and who's responsible for that lack of signage.


It's a charge.


Same argument applies to CG, LEZ, Previous ULEZ and Dart Charge.
All perfectly legal charges.

It doesn't matter who is responsible, no sign = no fine. same applies for speeding etc.

Dart Charge = service being provided.

the inner zones are less problematic as you are well inside "London" before they come in to force. For the expansion you have people living just outside unable to access their local area without being charged. Those people have no ability to democratically object to the expansion.

 

[securespark]

I think TfL are probably keeping quiet about the enforceability of their ULEZ in that area.

Mais oui!

Like the A555 bypass near us which did not have a speed limit officially set when it was first built, but it didn't stop the cops issuing fines aplenty....

 

[motorbiking]

The same jury that was persuaded council tax wasn’t due because the taxpayers surname wasn’t legally valid.

Lots of taxes don’t provide a service, people who exclusively educate their children privately for example. Or don’t watch the bbc.

Blup

I don't know about the council tax one.. do you have a link?

My point is that it IS a tax if it is a charge without providing a service. Otherwise it's a charge/fee.

Mais oui!

Like the A555 bypass near us which did not have a speed limit officially set when it was first built, but it didn't stop the cops issuing fines aplenty....

All the time people pay/plead guilty - nothing gets tested. Same as speed limits for bicycles.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It doesn't matter who is responsible, no sign = no fine. same applies for speeding etc.

We'll see. There is a national speed limit. No signs are necessary.

Dart Charge = service being provided.

CG, LEZ, previous ULEZ?

 

[motorbiking]

We'll see. There is a national speed limit. No signs are necessary.

Not actually true, if you knew your traffic law. How do you set NSL on a lit dual carriageway for example (assume the lights comprise 3 or more and are spaced less than 183m apart)?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Not actually true, if you knew your traffic law. How do you set NSL on a lit dual carriageway for example (assume the lights comprise 3 or more and are spaced less than 183m apart)?

There is always a speed limit. They vary for locations.

It's part of the highway code.

 

[Mottie]

 

[Brigadier]

There is always a speed limit. They vary for locations.

It's part of the highway code.

The highway code is guidance.
No-one is or can be found guilty - not directly, anyway - of not complying with some or other part of the highway code.

 

[johnny2007]

He has 30% of the accountability. The government are responsible for the 70%.

It's pretty dishonest to blame the Mayor for failures that are caused by the government denying the police of sufficient funding.
It's also pretty dishonest to place the onus on the Mayor for the strategic direction, then to deny the police sufficient funding to achieve the objectives.

Stop spitting lies!
The khant is totally responsible for this tax on working people.
BTW, is he your boyfriend?

 

[motorbiking]

There is always a speed limit. They vary for locations.

It's part of the highway code.

the Highway Code is irrelevant. You want to read the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

 

[blup]

I don't know about the council tax one.. do you have a link?

My point is that it IS a tax if it is a charge without providing a service. Otherwise it's a charge/fee.

All the time people pay/plead guilty - nothing gets tested. Same as speed limits for bicycles.

It was/is those cases where Fred Bloggs the person and the corporation was liable, but not the freeman Fred of the family Bloggs, who was only liable if he contracted with the Council for services. A non argument that some still run. Just as arguing the ulez charge is a tax is a non argument.

Blup

 

[motorbiking]

The highway code is guidance.
No-one is or can be found guilty - not directly, anyway - of not complying with some or other part of the highway code.

While it is guidance, the guidance it is mostly based on law. For the "good practice" parts, failure to comply can aid prosecution for due care etc. Not to mention liability for an accident.

 

[motorbiking]

It was/is those cases where Fred Bloggs the person and the corporation was liable, but not the freeman Fred of the family Bloggs, who was only liable if he contracted with the Council for services. A non argument that some still run. Just as arguing the ulez charge is a tax is a non argument.

Blup

Ahh freeman of the land.. yes mostly have no clue, but sadly the cult is strong and people are genuinely surprised when they are in fact subject to the courts rulings.

But the taxation without representation defence to criminal damage is a little more sophisticated than that. Firstly, you wont end up before a jury on a council tax failure and if you recall this was the first part (damage over £5k) to give the right to trial by Jury. The second is running it as a defence to criminal damage, not failure to pay.

Section 5 and the associated case law is very broad.

Criminal Damage Act 1971

An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to offences of damage to property, and to repeal or amend as respects the United Kingdom certain enactments relating to such offences; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Brigadier]

While it is guidance, the guidance it is mostly based on law. For the "good practice" parts, failure to comply can aid prosecution for due care etc. Not to mention liability for an accident.

Which is why I worded my post in the way that I did.

 

[blup]

Ahh freeman of the land.. yes mostly have no clue, but sadly the cult is strong and people are genuinely surprised when they are in fact subject to the courts rulings.

But the taxation without representation defence to criminal damage is a little more sophisticated than that. Firstly, you wont end up before a jury on a council tax failure and if you recall this was the first part (damage over £5k) to give the right to trial by Jury. The second is running it as a defence to criminal damage, not failure to pay.

Section 5 and the associated case law is very broad.

Criminal Damage Act 1971

An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to offences of damage to property, and to repeal or amend as respects the United Kingdom certain enactments relating to such offences; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Sorry, but its inconceivable that those defences would apply to state owned property, otherwise the stop oil lot would be getting away with it.

Blup