Anti-cycling bias in todays Metro
Comments
-
The taxpayers alliance have very little to do with this story, or in fact, taxpayers. Seeing as their director isn't one, not in the UK anyway.
They're just a slightly more right-wing group of Tories who want the plebs and oiks to have no gov't money spent on them so they don't have to worry with the inconvenience of moving their money to foreign accounts in order to pay less tax. They also do a nice trade in rent-a-gob quotes for the Daily Mail.0 -
What's the jib with the TPA? I don't have much of a problem with a body making sure the government spend the money they extract from me on pain of imprisonment on things that are worthwhile doing, rather than just lining their own pockets or buying crap?0
-
W1 wrote:What's the jib with the TPA? I don't have much of a problem with a body making sure the government spend the money they extract from me on pain of imprisonment on things that are worthwhile doing, rather than just lining their own pockets or buying crap?
The Taxpayers' Alliance seem to have replaced the pro-speeding lobby group "Safespeed" (not a group at all, run by a widow with zero road safety background) whenever the media request self-important windbag quotes on stories about speeding fines or whatever.
It's run by a tax dodger, and they are also similar to Safespeed in that they can bugger right off.0 -
W1 wrote:What's the jib with the TPA? I don't have much of a problem with a body making sure the government spend the money they extract from me on pain of imprisonment on things that are worthwhile doing, rather than just lining their own pockets or buying crap?
Thats not what the TPA are about.
"The TaxPayers’ Alliance is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes."
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/about
Also, they fraudulently claimed charitable status at one point I believe, which is odd for an organisation that claims to champion the interests of the tax payer.
Oh, and they lower the level of debate to trash. That too.0 -
I think the tax argument is an interesting one. I pay sh!t loads of tax so perhaps all the motorists should f*ck off out my way so I can get home quicker
0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's run by a tax dodger, and they are also similar to Safespeed in that they can bugger right off.
That's an interestingly libellious comment.
Is that a tax evader or a tax avoider?0 -
W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's run by a tax dodger, and they are also similar to Safespeed in that they can bugger right off.
That's an interestingly libellious comment.
Is that a tax evader or a tax avoider?
It would be, if I'd actually named anyone. Genius.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:What's the jib with the TPA? I don't have much of a problem with a body making sure the government spend the money they extract from me on pain of imprisonment on things that are worthwhile doing, rather than just lining their own pockets or buying crap?
Thats not what the TPA are about.
"The TaxPayers’ Alliance is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes."
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/about
Also, they fraudulently claimed charitable status at one point I believe, which is odd for an organisation that claims to champion the interests of the tax payer.
Oh, and they lower the level of debate to trash. That too.
From the page you linked to I don't see too much that's objectionable? Surely we are all interested in an efficient government - or as they say - "Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending"?0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:W1 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's run by a tax dodger, and they are also similar to Safespeed in that they can bugger right off.
That's an interestingly libellious comment.
Is that a tax evader or a tax avoider?
It would be, if I'd actually named anyone. Genius.
You don't necessarily have to.0 -
Hang on, you lot purport to be cycle commuters - when do you read the Metro?
- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Thats not what the TPA are about.
"The TaxPayers’ Alliance is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes."
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/about
Also, they fraudulently claimed charitable status at one point I believe, which is odd for an organisation that claims to champion the interests of the tax payer.
Oh, and they lower the level of debate to trash. That too.
From the page you linked to I don't see too much that's objectionable? Surely we are all interested in an efficient government - or as they say - "Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending"?
Well it would appear that their opinion is that the smaller a government gets, the more efficient it is. Less taxes, less spending, thats what they want. And thats fair enough if thats your ideology.
The main point is that they're often brought on board to back up stories of the type linked in the OP. This story is really about how much an MP has saved in expenses by not using a car. But the way it has been twisted the MP is made out to be some kind of greedy duck house buying, moat cleaning criminal. Thats hardly helping the discourse at all, is it?0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:What's the jib with the TPA? I don't have much of a problem with a body making sure the government spend the money they extract from me on pain of imprisonment on things that are worthwhile doing, rather than just lining their own pockets or buying crap?
Thats not what the TPA are about.
"The TaxPayers’ Alliance is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes."
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/about
Also, they fraudulently claimed charitable status at one point I believe, which is odd for an organisation that claims to champion the interests of the tax payer.
Oh, and they lower the level of debate to trash. That too.
From the page you linked to I don't see too much that's objectionable? Surely we are all interested in an efficient government - or as they say - "Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending"?
Let's just say that their definition encompasses pretty much anything. And do you really want to take seriously an organisation that actually responds to a request for comment on such a non-story as this?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
W1 wrote:
No, they think they pay road tax. Which they don't.___________________________________________
People need to be told what to do so badly they'll listen to anyone0 -
W1 wrote:CiB wrote:W1 wrote:Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't.
What? You mean like this prat?
My Roads - my ar$e. Who does this bloke think he is? Prat. Reckon I'll show him my pay slip.However, since motorists also pay PAYE, VAT (on the fuel tax!) and all the others, they pay as extra taxes far more than is actually spent on the roads and road-related services, so it is quite valid for motorists to complain. While I'm quite happy to permit cyclists to use my roads... [drones on in simlar vein for 3 more sentences...
No, exactly not like that prat. He's saying their "his" roads because he pays more tax for them, not because he's richer. That's the distinction I made above, beautifully illustrated.
No, he thinks he pays more tax. In fact, a survey found that the average London cycling commuter is wealthier than the average London car commuter - and hence pays more tax.___________________________________________
People need to be told what to do so badly they'll listen to anyone0 -
Il Principe wrote:Hang on, you lot purport to be cycle commuters - when do you read the Metro?
trap 2 at 9.45am ,leaving at 9.59 am for teabreak at 10. I might be management but old habits die hard Veni Vidi cyclo I came I saw I cycled
0 -
No, he thinks he pays more tax. In fact, a survey found that the average London cycling commuter is wealthier than the average London car commuter - and hence pays more tax.
So, could it be argued "Motorists" are imposting on "our" roads?Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.0 -
northstar wrote:No, he thinks he pays more tax. In fact, a survey found that the average London cycling commuter is wealthier than the average London car commuter - and hence pays more tax.
So, could it be argued "Motorists" are imposting on "our" roads?
Well they are, aren't they.
Our roads started off as tracks for driving beasts and roads for marching troops.
You have to jump through a lot of hoops to be let loose on those routes in what is potentially a killing machine.
You have to be insured against the damage you are likely to do, tested (not nearly rigorously or often enough IMHO) to see whether you can actually drive, have your vehicle tested regularly to see whether it's still roadworthy and pay excise duty (pro rata according to emissions) to offset the damage you do to the atmosphere.
To walk, cycle or ride a horse, you have no constraints such as these - just a requirement to obey the law.___________________________________________
People need to be told what to do so badly they'll listen to anyone0 -
I hope his Brompton was a 6 speed as he'd need all 6 gears getting up onto the moores to visit his constituents in more remote locations.
This article just proves that we cyclists are viewed as being down there with benefit cheats, tax evaders and scamming MPs. This could have been a very positive story for the benefits of cycling financial and health wise. Making fat lazy MPs and journos cycle instead of claiming unecessary and ridiculous travel expenses is surely a good thing for them and financial prudence in these austere times?Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
Think how stupid the average person is.......
half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.0 -
Ian.B wrote:
[Rant] At least this time they had a quote from someone with at least a tenuous basis for giving an opinion, even if you don't think much of them. What really annoys me is the constant quoting in Metro articles of random tweets by people who have no connection with or relevant background knowledge or experience of what they're reporting on - "so and so tweeted "blah-de-blah!" ", thrown in pointlessly to pad out the article. [end of rant]rjsterry wrote:Surprise, surprise, the F***wits' (sorry, Taxpayers) Alliance are brought in to spout their usual drivel at the first opportunity. Why does anyone think they have any legitimacy to comment on anything? Wouldn't let my cat (if I had one) sh*t on it. Just reconfirms my opinion of 'journalists'.
Erm not really, self appointed big mouths claiming to speak for us all, just giving themselves a fancy jumped up title to try and stand out as more legitimate than the Twitter crowd, when in actual fact the only difference is this lot and their ilk are sadder. Much the same mould as Mary Whitehouse & the national viewers and listeners association and any other minority bunch of bigots with their own narrow world view and a made up name0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:What's the jib with the TPA? I don't have much of a problem with a body making sure the government spend the money they extract from me on pain of imprisonment on things that are worthwhile doing, rather than just lining their own pockets or buying crap?
Thats not what the TPA are about.
"The TaxPayers’ Alliance is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes."
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/about
Also, they fraudulently claimed charitable status at one point I believe, which is odd for an organisation that claims to champion the interests of the tax payer.
Oh, and they lower the level of debate to trash. That too.
From the page you linked to I don't see too much that's objectionable? Surely we are all interested in an efficient government - or as they say - "Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending"?
In whos eyes is what deemed inefficient or wasteful and unneccesary? Who appointed them as arbiters? & go and have a look at the BNP website, superficially it comes across quite reasonable and cogent. Who'd have thought some tinpot group with delusions of grandeur sounding reasonable on their own site.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Thats not what the TPA are about.
"The TaxPayers’ Alliance is Britain’s independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes."
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/about
Also, they fraudulently claimed charitable status at one point I believe, which is odd for an organisation that claims to champion the interests of the tax payer.
Oh, and they lower the level of debate to trash. That too.
From the page you linked to I don't see too much that's objectionable? Surely we are all interested in an efficient government - or as they say - "Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending"?
Well it would appear that their opinion is that the smaller a government gets, the more efficient it is. Less taxes, less spending, thats what they want. And thats fair enough if thats your ideology.
The main point is that they're often brought on board to back up stories of the type linked in the OP. This story is really about how much an MP has saved in expenses by not using a car. But the way it has been twisted the MP is made out to be some kind of greedy duck house buying, moat cleaning criminal. Thats hardly helping the discourse at all, is it?
I agree they've done themselves no favours in contributing to the piece in question - but in principle I'm surprised by the ire shown to this group, who are better placed than most of us to bring government waste to broader attention (although perhaps they should refrain from being the token "anti").
Stil, as I said on the helmet thread, I can't understand the mindset of people who want more and more government intervention, with presumably higher taxes (for other people though, not themselves obviously).0 -
W1 wrote:I agree they've done themselves no favours in contributing to the piece in question - but in principle I'm surprised by the ire shown to this group, who are better placed than most of us to bring government waste to broader attention (although perhaps they should refrain from being the token "anti").
Well personally speaking, most of the TPA contributions I've seen have been in articles like this one. That is what I'm judging them on.W1 wrote:Stil, as I said on the helmet thread, I can't understand the mindset of people who want more and more government intervention, with presumably higher taxes (for other people though, not themselves obviously).
I assume you mean stuff like mandatory helmet use when you say Government Intervention, not sure how that would lead to higher taxes?
Also, interesting use of language there. You say "Government intervention", I say "Public Service".0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I agree they've done themselves no favours in contributing to the piece in question - but in principle I'm surprised by the ire shown to this group, who are better placed than most of us to bring government waste to broader attention (although perhaps they should refrain from being the token "anti").
Well personally speaking, most of the TPA contributions I've seen have been in articles like this one. That is what I'm judging them on.W1 wrote:Stil, as I said on the helmet thread, I can't understand the mindset of people who want more and more government intervention, with presumably higher taxes (for other people though, not themselves obviously).
I assume you mean stuff like mandatory helmet use when you say Government Intervention, not sure how that would lead to higher taxes?
Also, interesting use of language there. You say "Government intervention", I say "Public Service".
Fair enough - it sounds like I would support their premise, but not how they go about it if that's the case.
There's a big different between "government interference" (such as prescriptive laws, minute regulation of everything) and "public sevice" (the provision of services which are of benefit to society as a whole but which individuals are unlikely/unable to provide/procure).
Helmet use would most likely be enforced by the police, but there are plenty of other "initiatives" which require the government to implement and run them, leading to higher costs/taxes. E.g. bicycle registration/licencses, should it ever be required.0 -
This is why I think they're called on so often. Their superficial premise is that they're against government wasting money. Its hard to argue against that really isn't it? I mean, is anyone really *for* that? The real issues that they're trying to push almost always have have something to do with reducing government for ideological reasons. They basically just want lower taxes. The MP's expenses scandal was perfect for them. It allowed them to essentially make the argument that higher taxes means more money for MPs to buy duck houses and hotel porn. Its harder for "Small Government" advocates to argue that kids around the country should have their school playing fields and parks sold off so that we can pay a couple pence less tax.W1 wrote:Fair enough - it sounds like I would support their premise, but not how they go about it if that's the case.W1 wrote:There's a big different between "government interference" (such as prescriptive laws, minute regulation of everything) and "public sevice" (the provision of services which are of benefit to society as a whole but which individuals are unlikely/unable to provide/procure).
Which is why I find it strange that you seemed to conflate the two? Anyway, you're exactly right in your description of public service. Thats what tax is for imo. And I would happily take a tax hit to improve public service.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Which is why I find it strange that you seemed to conflate the two? Anyway, you're exactly right in your description of public service. Thats what tax is for imo. And I would happily take a tax hit to improve public service.
I conflated the two because I'd just responded to the "helmet" thread but I appreciate that they are different. Having said that I'm not in favour of "Big Government" regardless of the tax situation because I value my personal freedom and responsibility.
As with a business, if times are tough it's better to increase efficiency and lower costs before putting up prices. It seems that this is turned on it's head when it comes to government (for various reasons) and the first point of call is to increase taxes before tackling waste. If I ran a business where I could extract higher prices from my customers on threat of imprisonment then no doubt the temptation would be to do the same! However governments have an obligation to be efficient.
I presume that where you feel that public services are poor you contribute to charities instead where possible? That's not a dig, BTW.0 -
W1 wrote:As with a business, if times are tough it's better to increase efficiency and lower costs before putting up prices. It seems that this is turned on it's head when it comes to government (for various reasons) and the first point of call is to increase taxes before tackling waste. If I ran a business where I could extract higher prices from my customers on threat of imprisonment then no doubt the temptation would be to do the same! However governments have an obligation to be efficient.
I don't know enough about how taxation and policy works to either agree or disagree with your assumption that the first port of call is to increase taxes before tackling waste. But I'm inclined to think that it isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. I do however strongly agree with you that governments have an obligation to be efficient. And its our responsibility to hold them to a high standard.
On paper the TPA looks like just the kind of organisation we need to help keep the government in check, but in reality its just a front for right wing ideologues who would like public service to be reduced rather than be forced to be more efficient.W1 wrote:I presume that where you feel that public services are poor you contribute to charities instead where possible? That's not a dig, BTW.
The charities I support are ones that do actually rely heavily on public money to do their work.0
