"Mr Macaw" wrote in message news
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:27:35 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:04:36 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:25:42 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:23:54 +0100, whisky-dave

wrote:

On Monday, 11 April 2016 22:23:02 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:49:36 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

Then don't plug in 1 million mp3 players at the same time
then.
As this would be how a smartmeter could detect and know what
you
are plugging in.
I do know someone that was writing an app for use with
smartmeters.

Easy enough to make your car charge unevenly to simulate other
things.

No it would't be in reality.
Sure you could just charge your car at 100ma the same as a torch,
for a
few weeks, but no one would care would they.

But we use things like kettles, tumble driers, etc. So you just
make
the
car charge then stop then charge then stop, preferably at a
different
level each time.

That would depend on how you think the electicity will be paid for
which
you don't.
What you be the advantage of stopping and starting charging a car ?
The amount of electricity used will be pretty much the same.

But if the smartmeter can't work out that its being used to charge a
car,

why would the smart meter need be able to work that out. ?

Because we are discussing how electric cars could be taxed
when there are enough of them that not enough tax is collected
via the taxation of petrol used in cars.

Mileometer. GPS. ANPR cameras on major roads.

Much more expensive than doing it at the charger.

The car would know whether it's being charged or not.

And it need to tell the system that it is being charged so
that electricity can be taxed at a higher rate because
it is being used to charge a car.

Too easy to get round.

Impossible to get around, like with the smart meter
for the rest of the use of electricity in the house.

See my three suggestions above. But don't tell the UK government because
they'll never think of it.

They already have with the congestion charge.

the consumer wouldn't be charged the EXTRA tax when the electricity is
used to charge a car because they don't get any petrol tax with that
car.

reams of your mindless silly **** flushed where it belongs

You;re also assuming the govenment will tax electricity more if you use
it
for aq car than anything esle

Not assuming anything. That happens to be what was being discussed
and whether it would be possible to have a system that could not be
easily avoided. Of course it is possible to do that.

Never assume anything with a government, they don't use common sense,
logic, or anything else which requires intelligence.

I don;t see this as the way forward all they;ll do is tax ALL
electricity
more.

They wouldn't be able to do that because the voters would give
any govt stupid enough to do that the bums rush at the next election.

Likewise with people prying into what they do with our cars.

Didn't happen with the ANPR cameras.

I nearly voted anarchist in this election, but the "get the **** out of
Europe" party got my vote instead.

And that didn't even get even a single member
elected, just one refugee from the Torys who
would have got re-elected whatever party
he belonged to.

If they really want people to go electric

That wasn't what was being discussed.

Then we shall start a further discussion and widen our horizons.

Nope, they already encourage people to
go electric by giving them a free MOT etc.

they;ll start taxing electric used in cars less than normal electric.

You really should try replying when not completely ****ing blotto.

I realise that there isnt any time like that with you.

I was just about to remind you of that. Thing is I make more sense when
drunk.

That was a comment to Dave the sot, not you.

Ethanol is a fuel, just like glucose, it enhances thought processes.

Doesn't work with ear to ear dog **** like Dave the sot has.