Bazza wrote:Hi PCNetSpec...
> I just don't agree that people should be required to state they *aren't*
> breaking the law...
> I see a SORN as another small but significant erosion of the
> presumption of innocence.
...happy to see unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads just as long as they are old enough?
...so that they need not bother, at our expense, checking up on you
Bazza wrote:Erm, am I missing something here?
Mine has been off of the road for 22 years, that is bordering on
permanently, NOT temporarily, taken out of service don't you think?
Bazza wrote:But it was already off of the road, and they knew/know it, so why
change the law to antagonise relatively honest citizens?
Probably to get easy money for their coffers...
PCNetSpec wrote:That doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have to make a legal declaration that you *aren't* using it illegally.
PCNetSpec wrote:I just don't agree that people should be required to state they *aren't* breaking the law... I see a SORN as another small but significant erosion of the presumption of innocence.
nelz wrote:Ah, so what you're really complaining about is not the need to advise the authorities of the status of your vehicle but the cost of doing so. I was under the impression there was no charge for a SORN.
PCNetSpec wrote:How is that the same? .. the MOT is a declaration that the vehicles is safe for legal road use.
It's the shift of responsibility that I object to...
from the authorities having to prove you were doing something wrong, to you having to declare you aren't... and not making that declaration carrying a penalty, even if you weren't using it on the road.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests