One traffic law for us and a different traffic law for Gordon Brown

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No. In the most basic terms... It's her land.

Plus her personal fortune is more than enough to cover any claim (see post # 19 )
 
Not too sure about post 19. I've been on ride alongs with the MET police and seen plenty of wealthy people get tugged for no insurance. And they could obviously afford to replace and compensate most of the "ragamuffin" cars as one gentleman once said early one morning.

Then again I only got to see the front line. Most of the real policing tends to happen in the paperwork these days.
 
Section 144 of the Road Traffic Act would cover against having insurance

Exemption
(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £15,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.
 
I thought the current rate was to lodge £250,000 with LLoyds if you want to self insure. (A lot of big companies do this for fleet vehicles)
 
Last edited:
No, there were news stories recently about how she *now* had to get a passport following some changs to the rules for (so-called) VIPs.

I presume she'll just cut down a tenner rather than nipping along to the photo machine in Woolies
 
Gordon Brown does not have a driving licence and, I believe, has never had one.

Spend hundreds of pounds on driving lessons just so you can pay fuel tax and road excise duty? Prudence demands otherwise...
 
I read a newspaper article taking peebles from Felixstowe beach is stealing from the Queen, everything belongs to the Queen.:doh:
 
Yup, including us, although I believe we were recently upgraded from "subjects" to "citizens". We're still serfs though.
 
Spend hundreds of pounds on driving lessons just so you can pay fuel tax and road excise duty? Prudence demands otherwise...

Suspect it's more to do with his eyesight.

But it does rather demonstrate how he isn't best placed to judge how taxes such as VED and fuel tax affect the ordinary people of this country.
 
Yup, including us, although I believe we were recently upgraded from "subjects" to "citizens". We're still serfs though.

Not that recent. Back in 1981.

The term subject still applies under special circumstances.
 
I hope Gordon can live with his green conscience after needlessly wasting so much more extra fuel just to arrive at his destination a few minutes earlier. I hope he drives(or gets driven) 5 miles less next week to compensate, as he implores the rest of us to do.

As an old fashioned socialist, his toes must curl when he's treated in such a bourgeois manner by his staff. What ever happened to the 'prudence' he used to bleat on about all the time? Someone put him out of his/our misery. Please!
 
No. In the most basic terms... It's her land.

In basic terms if the public have access to private land (suchas private roads) then insurance is required.
 
I do get why the OP is angry, but gordy cloon being driven 10mph above the speed limit, its hardly crime of the century and if I were done for doing 60mph in a 50mph zone I'd feel a bit hard done by/can the police not do something better with their time.

There are many, much more valid, reasons to be angry and resent the cloon than this.

Afterall, if it was one of us here posting I got done for 60mph in a 50 I'd be saying how bad I think this is, etc.
The 50 MPH limit is due to roadworks (although currently it's still a dual carriageway with no contraflow...) and is enforced by average speed cameras. The distance from Needham to Ipswich on the A14 is (at most!) about 7 miles. Travelling 10 miles an hour faster wouldn't even of saved a minute on the journey...

*everyone* on that road does 50 because there are 4 average speed cameras along the road doing both lanes - it takes the piss that (for no real reason) the PM is just ushered through... Same for the MP in the 110 MPH car on the Msomething.
 
Travelling 10 miles an hour faster wouldn't even of saved a minute on the journey...

It's worth remembering that security considerations may be involved.

One of the reasons security convoys often travel faster than other traffic is a practical one. A threat in the slower moving traffic may be more likely to make an identifiable transition in its behaviour to deal with the faster convoy.

Basically you travel fast enough to ensure any chasing vehicle will be behaving abnormally (ie. speeding). And that any vehicle attempting to block or intercede will have to move differently from the slower mass of traffic. You don't expose your convoy within the vicinity of any vehicle for longer than is practically necessary.

So there is a tradeoff here - a bit of extra speed - but not too much so much you introduce other risks.

It's about planning, control, and vigilance.
 
Same for the MP in the 110 MPH car on the Msomething.

Can't whinge about that either. I frequently used to do so when it was quiet, can see for a good distance and conditions allow drive at such speeds and fully endorse the same. Alas a roadside capture has reigned in my motorway antics (brum to Clydebank in 3 1/2hrs)

Quite frankly, we all speed, its not the MP speeding that narks me, its the relentless speed kills endoctorines etc that narks me and the anti car user policies of the government.

Perhaps if we had more MPs that drove fast, we might have a more sympathetic government towards car users. As we do not and they speed, I am fine with this as it exposes them as they hypocritical scumbags that they are.
 
It's worth remembering that security considerations may be involved.

One of the reasons security convoys often travel faster than other traffic is a practical one. A threat in the slower moving traffic may be more likely to make an identifiable transition in its behaviour to deal with the faster convoy.

Basically you travel fast enough to ensure any chasing vehicle will be behaving abnormally (ie. speeding). And that any vehicle attempting to block or intercede will have to move differently from the slower mass of traffic. You don't expose your convoy within the vicinity of any vehicle for longer than is practically necessary.

So there is a tradeoff here - a bit of extra speed - but not too much so much you introduce other risks.

It's about planning, control, and vigilance.
That makes sense - if there was an element of risk.

If this was the case, though, surely they would *always* be driving above the speed limit?
Can't whinge about that either. I frequently used to do so when it was quiet, can see for a good distance and conditions allow drive at such speeds and fully endorse the same
I must admit I have done the same - but if I was caught doing over 110 I would not have a license for a considerable period of time, but when an MP's driver is caught doing it, nothing ever comes of it.

Same for if I ran into a parked car while on the phone and drove off then, really... :rolleyes:
 
Perhaps if we had more MPs that drove fast, we might have a more sympathetic government towards car users.

Didn't Stephen Ladyman have 6 points as mentioned on Top Gear once? :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom