Skip to main content

Rip Off Britain part 94.....


Why should the motorist, who already pays more indirect taxation on driving for a smaller re-investment in transport than anyone else in Europe (not to forget the other indirect taxes such as council tax, water rates, TV licence, housing stamp duty, licences for functions, driving tests and licences, passports, licences for scaffolding, licences to operate a cherry-picker, licences to drive a taxi, business rates, planning permission, corporation tax, licences to sell alcohol/cigarettes, death duty [on already-taxed income], birth certificates, death certificates, marriage licences] etc etc etc), have to fork out further for the privilege of parking outside their own home (reminder: a home they already pay council tax on)?

It will come to the stage where shopkeepers and store managers will lose so many customers that they will either retreat to the relative safety of their local out-of- town shopping centre or retire to the relatively tax-free haven that is the car boot sale, and town centres will simply die.

I appreciate that many town centres can at times become completely gridlocked due to the number of vehicles, but this is at peak times when city executives insist on driving their car, with only themselves as passenger, into town. I make sure that my visits to town are at off-peak times, and I certainly object to paying over the odds for parking when I do go shopping that itself already includes 20% VAT that I cannot avoid. But the public transport infrastructure is simply not available to cater conveniently for my, and others', needs.

A round trip to town in my car, with a 2 hour stay, takes just under 3 hours. By bus it would take almost 5 hours, and leave me 'schlepping' all over the place from inward to outward bound bus stops which are miles from each other (and in the wrong direction to the centre for shopping).

But it's like everything else in this Kingdom. A complete rip-off.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The "Win a Million" free scratch card newspaper inserts

One of those three-panel "Win a Million" scratchcards fell out of my newspaper this morning. Not a major or in anyway newsworthy event in itself, but I must admit my surprise. I didn't think anyone bothered with them anymore, or, to be a little more technical, I didn't think anyone was taken in by them anymore. Firstly, it actually is printed on the bottom of each panel that "Every card has a set of 3 matching symbols, 2 matching symbols and no matching symbols". Right, so you are going to 'win', half-win and not win respectively. Then, while the prize list is somewhat impressive with 1x£1m, 1x£100k, 2x£20k, 3x£10k and other things like holidays, tablet PC's city breaks all the way down to 1000 "faux" fashion watches, 1000 salon  makeovers and 1000xVIP Thames cruises. Now should I be stupid enough to spend the £1.53 a minute for the 6 minute phone call to claim my prize (that's almost a tenner, for those of you without cal...

Chancellor's letter of apology to Bob Diamond of Barclays

Thanks to my contacts at the new News International business "Phonetaps'R'Us", I was exclusively sent a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Executive of Barclays Bank, Bob Diamond, from the Chancellor yesterday. "Dear Bob Trusting you and yours are well. Listen mate. Sorry the F inancially S tupid A sses wrote to your bank yesterday to demand £290million as a fine. It's nothing personal, and just because your bank head office people are a bunch of dishonest, thieving bastards, I thought there was no reason to carry on that way and fine you. I made this clear to the FSA yesterday as soon as I heard the news. I told them that the taxpayer would have been more than happy to bail you out. And also. Look mate. Sorry you've had to give up your bonus this year. It must have come as quite a shock, and was a wonderful thing for you to volunteer to do. I only hope you've put something by from the £17million you received last year. No doubt the bank pay...

"Q". My name is Bond. Oh. not THAT Q.

I was sent a story today by a friend who knows my feelings on the subject - that is, about one of the consummately greatest of all British activities, namely, queuing. It seems some Danish Professor or other has come up with the theory that those who queue the longest should actually be served the last. He claims it makes purchasing something altogether more efficient and smooth through the idea of 'contra-queuing' (whatever the devil that may mean). 'Serve the people at the back of the queue first', he says, with profound wisdom. Altogether very professorial, albeit demonstrating a somewhat keen lack of understanding of the purchasing psyche. The Nobel Prize-chasing Prof suggests that if, for example, a popular entertainment act was to announce a tour, with tickets going on sale at 11am one morning, using the theory of 'contra-queuing', no one will want to be first to buy said tickets. So no one will turn up 14 months in advance and venues will...