Vehicle tampering petition
- Thread starter Felonious Crud
- Start date
2b1ask1
Special case
- Messages
- 20,284
Read it and WOW that's a lot of BS... There is already sufficient legislation in place to cover this as well as sensing equipment in place to identify polluting vehicles, particularly in central London about 5-years ago. It was largely put out of use because it was primarily catching busses and old London taxis!
- Messages
- 21,218
Yeah, it's ****, Newton. Also a slippery slope to far greater governance of what is and isn't ok, especially given how loosely 'safety' could be defined. Using after-market brake pads (even if they are better), for example.
c4sman
Member
- Messages
- 1,261
Leave my callipers out of it
- Messages
- 21,218
Something to hide, have we? Calliper shame, by any chance?Leave my callipers out of it
midlifecrisis
Member
- Messages
- 16,251
How do you know? According to Benny we all have....
- Messages
- 21,218
Benny eats them. It's different.
Gazcw
Member
- Messages
- 7,792
No shame in a calliper.Something to hide, have we? Calliper shame, by any chance?
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,848
Gazcw
Member
- Messages
- 7,792
Good for a dull Bentley.
- Messages
- 21,218
Update. Of a sort.
| You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition: “Do not implement proposed new offences for vehicle "tampering"”. To unsubscribe from getting emails about this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/121725165/unsubscribe?token=t8jPeducd71SCbnK01Tg Dear ****, You recently signed the petition “Do not implement proposed new offences for vehicle "tampering"”: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/600954 The MPs on the Petitions Committee have scheduled a debate on a petition relating to the Government's proposals to create new offences of vehicle 'tampering', which you may have signed. The debate will be held on Monday 25 April. Watch the debate (from 4.30pm, Mon 25 April): Nick Fletcher MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, has been asked by the Committee to open the debate. MPs from all parties can take part, and a minister from the Department for Transport will respond for the Government. Share your views with MPs To inform the debate, Nick Fletcher would like to hear your views on the Government's plans, and what else they should be doing on this issue. Share your views by completing this short survey: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/V6ND30/ The survey will remain open until 9am on Monday 11 April. Your responses will be anonymous. A summary of responses will be shared with Nick and other MPs, and may be referred to in the debate. It will also be published on the Committee's website here: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/publications/written-evidence/. Get involved in the work of the UK Parliament Sign up to the Your UK Parliament newsletter for the latest information on how to get involved and make a difference: https://parliament.us16.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=3ad7e4c57a864f07e4db008c4&id=26d0645ea9 Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament |
- Messages
- 21,218
�
| You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition: “Do not implement proposed new offences for vehicle "tampering"”. To unsubscribe from getting emails about this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/signatures/121725165/unsubscribe?token=t8jPeducd71SCbnK01Tg Dear xxx, You recently signed the petition “Do not implement proposed new offences for vehicle "tampering"”: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/600954 On Monday 25 April, MPs took part in a debate on vehicle tampering offences, prompted by a petition you signed. The debate was opened by Petitions Committee member Nick Fletcher MP, and Transport Minister Trudy Harrison MP responded for the Government. Watch the debate: Read House of Commons Library research on this issue: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0078 Opening the debate, Nick Fletcher set out petitioners' concerns, and called on the Government to make sure the proposed new laws are clear about what is meant by 'tampering'. He also said the Government must take steps to ensure the motorsport and classic car sectors are not harmed by these proposals. Responding to the debate, Transport Minister Trudy Harrison sought to reassure petitioners that the Government does not intend its proposals to prevent legitimate motorsport activities, restoration, repairs or legitimate improvements to vehicles such as classic cars and motorbikes. The Minister said more detail on its plans would be set out in the Government's formal response to its consultation on the Future of Transport, which she said will be published "in the summer". How petitioners said the proposed offences would affect them Ahead of the debate, the Committee ran a survey of petitioners asking how these proposed new offences would affect them. We received over 5,600 responses, and a summary was shared with MPs ahead of the debate. Thanks to everyone who took part! Watch a short video summarising the key findings from the survey: Read a full summary of what petitioners told us: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/107864/default/ Get involved in the work of the UK Parliament Sign up to the Your UK Parliament newsletter for the latest information on how to get involved and make a difference: https://parliament.us16.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=3ad7e4c57a864f07e4db008c4&id=26d0645ea9 Thanks, The Petitions team UK Government and Parliament |
Zep
Moderator
- Messages
- 9,302
I saw this and actually laughed. Imagine the meeting, "What can we do for people who can't afford heat and food at the same time?" "What about making MOTs on the cars they don't own every other year?" "Brilliant, put that out on Twitter"
midlifecrisis
Member
- Messages
- 16,251
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,848
Basically it forces any nuanced discussion to be reduced in depth to a meme devoid of any real debatable worth. Thus fuelling group polarisation and human unhappiness
C
UlstermanAbroad
Member
- Messages
- 1,687
We definitely ought to clean up our act, in terms of energy usage and certainly ensure future energy and food security above all else. However, with the Chinese building at least one new coal fired power station a week, what the West can do to lower the increase in global warming is, I would suggest, minimal.
Why Europe made itself energy dependent on Russia I will never fully understand. Even I could foresee the potential problems when the initiative was announced decades ago and I can't have been the only one.
Germany, clearly the economic engine of Europe, has slashed military spending to the point where it now has no effective armed forces capable of playing a major role in any future NATO conflict.
The U.S.'s stated aim of reducing the Russian armed forces to a weak shell, incapable of invading a neighbouring country again for two generations or more, is a wise outcome to aim for. Unfortunately, Ukraine and its people will continue to suffer greatly as this strategy plays out to it's inevitable end point.
Then the US, it's Asian defence partners and NATO, will need to focus on the Chinese threat with surgical precision.
Because this is the real threat that we face, as democracies across the globe.
It might even be necessary to go to war with China, perhaps if they attempt to invade Taiwan. In order to degrade
their offensive capabilities before they become overwhelming both in numbers and in technical sophistication.
We've seen how the Chinese treat their own minorities. Millions of minorities are now imprisoned in re-education camps. We've also seen how China systematically destroyed every aspect of Tibetan religion and culture that differed from Chinese culture. They did so during the Korean War, when the West was focused there.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tactics to invade Taiwan, once they can maintain air superiority over the Taiwan Strait and build sufficient amphibious assault capability.
The only way to look at anything the Chinese state says or does, is through the lens of its ambitions to dominate Asia and then the world.
Why Europe made itself energy dependent on Russia I will never fully understand. Even I could foresee the potential problems when the initiative was announced decades ago and I can't have been the only one.
Germany, clearly the economic engine of Europe, has slashed military spending to the point where it now has no effective armed forces capable of playing a major role in any future NATO conflict.
The U.S.'s stated aim of reducing the Russian armed forces to a weak shell, incapable of invading a neighbouring country again for two generations or more, is a wise outcome to aim for. Unfortunately, Ukraine and its people will continue to suffer greatly as this strategy plays out to it's inevitable end point.
Then the US, it's Asian defence partners and NATO, will need to focus on the Chinese threat with surgical precision.
Because this is the real threat that we face, as democracies across the globe.
It might even be necessary to go to war with China, perhaps if they attempt to invade Taiwan. In order to degrade
their offensive capabilities before they become overwhelming both in numbers and in technical sophistication.
We've seen how the Chinese treat their own minorities. Millions of minorities are now imprisoned in re-education camps. We've also seen how China systematically destroyed every aspect of Tibetan religion and culture that differed from Chinese culture. They did so during the Korean War, when the West was focused there.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tactics to invade Taiwan, once they can maintain air superiority over the Taiwan Strait and build sufficient amphibious assault capability.
The only way to look at anything the Chinese state says or does, is through the lens of its ambitions to dominate Asia and then the world.