Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: POTASH on August 07, 2006, 12:10:52
-
anyone see thenews thismorning, mps want to see more tax [for 4x4 gas guzzelers] what everthey are, up to 1,800pound tax, im getting p>>>>d of now, always getting picked on, why is it always 4x4s,
-
Debating this on Talk sport , just emailed my views and had them read out,MPS hypocrits, Prescott, Jag ,Margaret Beckett, Range Rover......ok for them but not for us working class........
-
yeah i heard that on talk sport. i listen to talk sport a lot!!
-
There talking about it now on radio2.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5251022.stm
We should complain to the BBC (yet again) for mis-reporting. It would NOT be an increase for 4x4's but ALL large engined cars [Edited].
When are the BBC goining to stop linking this CO2 nonsense to 4x4's in every bl**dy sentence?
Complain here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4070000/newsid_4076400/4076445.stm
-
done lets how they reply to me, when theyy do i will post their reply. :evil:
-
Really gets yer goat eh?
I responded to the BBC website 'have your say' forum. My gas guzzling landy might be 18 years old and only do 20 to the gallon but I only do about 3000 miles a year. Mr salesrep might have a tax efficient motor but if he does 30,000 a year and has a new car every three years who is doing most harm to the environment?.... you gotta look at the big picture. :evil:
-
look up the action network on the beeb site, used to be some good comments there about 4x4s, lots of circular arguments from the antis where they would start on environment, be proved to be talking rubbish, move on to safety, be proved to ...... and so on until they just ran out of steam and got beck to the beginning again :)
i even had one anti agree that their perfect choice of car would be......... a lexus SUV !!!! :):):)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/C2314
-
Really gets yer goat eh?
I responded to the BBC website 'have your say' forum. My gas guzzling landy might be 18 years old and only do 20 to the gallon but I only do about 3000 miles a year. Mr salesrep might have a tax efficient motor but if he does 30,000 a year and has a new car every three years who is doing most harm to the environment?.... you gotta look at the big picture. :evil:
It would be fairer to put the Road Fund tax on fuel as those that do the miles would have to pay, those that don't shouldn't have to pay what is in effect a standing charge for owning a particular type of vehicle :roll:
-
Complaint sent:
Sir,
I listened with disappointment yet again ythis morning to an item regarding recommendations from a committee of MP's about charges that they believe should be levied on "polutting" vehicles.
Your report specifically identified this with 4x4's, a term that in and of itself is innacurate. I have a number of points:
1. If the MP's stated "large engined vehicles" or words to that general effect, then this is what should be reported. Tying 4x4's to this statement is innacurate and bias in nature. Yes, some 4x4's have large engines compared to some other vehicles. However, some apparently small vehicles have large engines.
2. If MP's said "4x4's" is the role of balanced and fair journalism to challenge innacuracis? Some 4x4's are all terrain, Land Rover type vehicles. Some vehicles are saloon vehicles with 4x4 transmission to aid handling.
For comparison statistics, please see the tables on this site:
http://www.4x4prejudice.com/
More often as I listen or watch the news on BBC, I find myself disappointed by what is left unsaid or the phrasing of a particular piece that infers an underlying truth that is not proven.
I would add that I am not taking one side or the other in the debate about large engined vehicles, how they should be taxed or the appropriatness of targeting an identifiable group over a more effective target.
What I AM asking is for more professional wording to be used by journalists before your once respected service turns into a tabloidesque shadow of it's former self.
Kindest
Frank McGoldrick
Let's see what they say.
-
Out of interest I had a look at the actual report.
The MP's only used the term 4x4 once and that was along with a reference to luxury saloons.
As things stand, the VED paid by the highest emitting 4x4s and luxury saloons in Band G represents a lower percentage of their sales price, and works out at half the cost per gramme CO2 emitted, than lower emitting hatchbacks in Band C.
However, the news coverage seems to translate that statement VERY effectively..... doncha think?
Skibum
-
Bet this doesn't get included:
"Sir,
This is yet another piece of biased reporting - all too often the BBC highlights 4x4s for being gas guzzling without the same level of reporting for other large vehicles - remember some small sports cars are far more polluting than your average Land rover or similar truck.
There is also NO mention of the fleet of 4x4s now running on bio fuels, some running exclusively on these renewable carbon neutral fuels - effectively this tax will punish owners of vehicles which release less carbon than your average town runabout.
The BBC used to be the byword for impartial reporting, clearly now you are failing to reach previously high standards of reporting.
Regards
Trevor Wilson"
Trev
-
why put sir in front? i diddnt.
-
What annoys me is the lack of reportage regarding the truth about so-called environmentally friendly vehicles. As far as I am aware, the worst is the Toyota Prius, which is being hailed as a breakthrough in personal transport.
When you look at the environmental damage caused whilst manufacturing these petrol/electric hybrids, the figures do not stack up. Just take, for instance, the power storage system on these vehicles. The Prius uses a combination of lead-acid and NiMH (nickel metal hydride) cells. The lead-acid cells run the 12v systems and the NiMH (220v nominal) run through an inverter to increase the output to 500v.
Lead acid batteries are recycleable, albeit a non cost effective process. The NiMH cells (Prius has 26 of these) are even more uneconomicl to recycle and there are very few companies world wide who are capable of doing the job. It's expecteded that the vast majority of theses cells will end up as landfill.
The life expectancy of the NiMH celss is 8-10 years but Toyota only offer a 5 year guarantee on thier service life, thats how confident they are in thier product. The cost of replacing these cells is currently around £2000+labour.
So the expected lifespan of these hybrid vehicles is currently 8-10 years but Toyota are only confident of 5 years. What happens at the end of the (say) 8 years? Are people going to spend in excess of £2000 to replace the cells? Personally, I think not.
The impact on the environment of first manufacturing and then recycling these hybrids after only 8 years of service life is immense when compered to a Landrover with a service life which is measured typically in decades, not years.
-
And lets not even start on the environmental debt created in the mineing and refining of the trace elements which are integral in the manufacture of catalytic converters.
Don't even consider getting me started on the use of Benzine (one of the most carcinogenic substances known) in unleaded fuel.
Hat, coat, door.
-
Came up again on the 10 o'clock news this evening...i've complained once again, when will they learn to accuratly report facts and not this BS they continue to spout. :evil:
-
probably never.. thats the press and bad reporting for you...
-
how about this whilst there doing the report rong we complain to this old web site we get agro of anti 4x4 people we might as well get them to do the reports proply www.ofcom.org.uk/complain
-
any replies yet lads?