yay. another new tax

[randyandy]

I've had 'words' with Sadiq Khan at an international development meeting and he is an arrogant idiot.

The impression I got of this clown that is the worse thing the Chamber of Commerce could have done is threaten him with what would happen.

I am not sure if people will pay it to be honest.

I think most will relocate, cut staff etc and blame the Government which, sadly, this prat is a member of.

The trouble is the finance for the tram system needs to be found and Khan's excuse for the tax, which at the mo is 'just for Nottingham', is funding of it.

[one eyed jack]

Us motorists have been taking it up de batty for too long but what else can we do but just be angry and go along with it.

Gone are the good old days when people had a bit of fire in their belly and would riot like they did in the 80s. remember the Toxteth riots?

Not sure where rioting would get us these days so maybe tekkin it oop batty and moaning about it is the best solution...Or just pay up and shut the fuck up!

Lets face it, all it is is another source of revenue for the government to line their pockets and recoup all that money they are paying out to the banks. Not only are we already paying for that but we have to pay for it again with stupid taxes like this.

[Peter]

Trouble is, all those little laws that go through without the fine print being read mean that action is near impossible theses days.

Any action designed to make a government change policy is now classed as an act of terrorism.

[randyandy]

Peter wrote:

> Trouble is, all those little laws that go through without the
> fine print being read mean that action is near impossible
> theses days.
>
> Any action designed to make a government change policy is now
> classed as an act of terrorism.

You mean a bit like the Gurkha Justice Campaign Peter?

Could have sworn Ms Lumley was being celebrated in Nepal last week not locked away in Belmarsh.

[Peter]

randyandy wrote:


>
> You mean a bit like the Gurkha Justice Campaign Peter?
>

To the letter of the law, yes, she she could have been deemed to be involved in an act of terrorism, should they have chosen to pursue it that way.

Its why the last fuel strike failed to get off the ground, legal advice told them that pickets could and probably would be viewed as committing an act of terrorism, even simple acts such as bringing a flask of tea to one of the pickets could be construed to be 'supporting terrorism'.

Welcome to NuLabour Britain.