If you own an individual type house, now would be a good time to invite the
Pikeys to camp on your front drive. ;-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
http://tinyurl.com/4ej6c

"Mark" wrote in message
...
If you own an individual type house, now would be a good time to invite
the
Pikeys to camp on your front drive. ;-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
http://tinyurl.com/4ej6c

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a reduced
valuation!

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
If you own an individual type house, now would be a good time to invite
the
Pikeys to camp on your front drive. ;-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
http://tinyurl.com/4ej6c

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a
reduced
valuation!

Mary



We have just managed to get a one-band deduction, backdated for 18 months,
by the simple expedient of a £25 ramp out of the french windows and a Part M
compliant ground floor. Admittedly we also have to put up with a sprog in a
wheelchair but any savings are a bonus :-)

Cheers

Mark

In article ,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
If you own an individual type house, now would be a good time to invite
the
Pikeys to camp on your front drive. ;-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
http://tinyurl.com/4ej6c

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a reduced
valuation!

Mary






But there was somebody on the radio the other day from the Local
Government whatever, saying that there would be as many reductions as
increases, and that overall it would be a revenue-neutral exercise. He
wouldn't be lying now, would he? That sort of thing just doesn't happen
in politics, and certainly not before an election...

"Gary Cavie" wrote in message
...

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a
reduced
valuation!

Mary






But there was somebody on the radio the other day from the Local
Government whatever, saying that there would be as many reductions as
increases, and that overall it would be a revenue-neutral exercise. He
wouldn't be lying now, would he? That sort of thing just doesn't happen
in politics, and certainly not before an election...

Oh, sorry, I didn't hear that.

No, of course he wouldn't have lied. Not a politician.

Thanks for telling us that, I look forward to our reduction :-)

Mary

"Gary Cavie" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
If you own an individual type house, now would be a good time to
invite
the
Pikeys to camp on your front drive. ;-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
http://tinyurl.com/4ej6c

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a
reduced
valuation!

Mary






But there was somebody on the radio the other day from the Local
Government whatever, saying that there would be as many reductions as
increases, and that overall it would be a revenue-neutral exercise. He
wouldn't be lying now, would he? That sort of thing just doesn't happen
in politics, and certainly not before an election...

Oh sure, and the Scottish parliament would cost only £40m... (That's what
the same people told us).

In message , Gary Cavie
wrote



But there was somebody on the radio the other day from the Local
Government whatever, saying that there would be as many reductions as
increases, and that overall it would be a revenue-neutral exercise. He
wouldn't be lying now, would he? That sort of thing just doesn't happen
in politics, and certainly not before an election...


Was this the same interview where it was stated that in some areas of
Wales, where the valuations have already taken place, the local council
raised _more_ money from this property tax? Central government then
reduced the amount of money it paid. The local council were left with a
revenue-neutral result.
--
Alan

Mary Fisher wrote:

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a reduced
valuation!

Mary

Not so, according to 'Moneybox' yesterday.

Richard

--
Real email address is RJSavage at BIGFOOT dot COM

The information contained in this post
may not be published in, or used by

http://www.diyprojects.info

"Richard" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a
reduced valuation!

Mary

Not so, according to 'Moneybox' yesterday.

I look forward to hearing from those who do - on uk.d-i-y.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...

If you own an individual type house, now would be a good time to invite
the
Pikeys to camp on your front drive. ;-(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
http://tinyurl.com/4ej6c


Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a reduced
valuation!

I'm particularly hacked off about it, because when we extended our house
about 3 years ago, one of the things we looked into before doing so was
what effect it would have on my council tax banding. We were assured
that it wouldn't affect it; there was an exemption on paying any extra
until we ever came to sell the house; at that point it would be subject
to revaluation for the new owners. Fine, we thought. But now the
goalposts have been moved - why am I not surprised? - and apparently my
property is to be re-banded at its full new value.

Checking at http://www.voa.gov.uk/council_tax/index.htm shows a large
asterisk against my address, placed there by the LA when they gave us
planning permission, denoting that we would need re-banding when we sold
the property - so, not much chance we'll be overlooked.

David

Mary Fisher wrote:


I look forward to hearing from those who do - on uk.d-i-y.

Mary




Hi Mary,

I seriously doubt that, living as I do in Sevenoaks, I will be blessed
with a reduction. But I'll let the NG know either way (if I remember!)

Rgsd Richard

--
Real email address is RJSavage at BIGFOOT dot COM

The information contained in this post
may not be published in, or used by

http://www.diyprojects.info

"Lobster" wrote in message
news:tyQ3e.4312$Br.1218@newsfe2-

Checking at http://www.voa.gov.uk/council_tax/index.htm shows a large
asterisk against my address, placed there by the LA when they gave us
planning permission, denoting that we would need re-banding when we sold
the property - so, not much chance we'll be overlooked.

Useful site. But it wouldn't recognise my address until I removed the
apostrophe from St Martin's!

Mary



David

"Richard" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a
reduced
valuation!

Mary

Not so, according to 'Moneybox' yesterday.


Well! That's it then! "They said so on the BBC (Radio 4?) ...
it's unthinkable that the BBC would ever say anything
_bad_ about government policy ...
"Things can only get better"'; ... "24 hours to save the NHS" ...;
" ... which can be deployed within forty-five minutes ... ";
What exactly happened to the DG who said something that
didn't quite endorse the Nu-Labor world-eye-view"?

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

"Richard" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Whatever you do, wherever you live, you can bet that you won't get a
reduced
valuation!

Mary

Not so, according to 'Moneybox' yesterday.


Well! That's it then! "They said so on the BBC (Radio 4?) ...
it's unthinkable that the BBC would ever say anything
_bad_ about government policy ...
"Things can only get better"'; ... "24 hours to save the NHS" ...;
" ... which can be deployed within forty-five minutes ... ";
What exactly happened to the DG who said something that
didn't quite endorse the Nu-Labor world-eye-view"?

Poor old Greg :-(

But of course it wasn't anything to do with Our Glorious Leader ...

Mary

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Gary Cavie
wrote



But there was somebody on the radio the other day from the Local
Government whatever, saying that there would be as many reductions as
increases, and that overall it would be a revenue-neutral exercise. He
wouldn't be lying now, would he? That sort of thing just doesn't happen
in politics, and certainly not before an election...


Was this the same interview where it was stated that in some areas of
Wales, where the valuations have already taken place, the local council
raised _more_ money from this property tax? Central government then
reduced the amount of money it paid. The local council were left with a
revenue-neutral result.
--
Alan


I
I believe the politicians when they say no overall increase in council tax.
How ever I don't think they are telling you everything.

What I thing will happen will be more of Labours grand redistribution of
wealth. I.e. council tax in the south will go up in the south and go down in
the north. Hence no overall increase.



I.e. there will be one banding systems for the country, not one for each
area, and since houses are typically cheaper in the north they will pay
less, and the extra taxes taken in the south will be sent to the north.



Can't wait for May 5th

"Furby" wrote in message
...


I
I believe the politicians when they say no overall increase in council
tax.
How ever I don't think they are telling you everything.

What I thing will happen will be more of Labours grand redistribution of
wealth. I.e. council tax in the south will go up in the south and go down
in
the north.

That would be nice. But I don't think it will happen. The re-assessment is
for the what used to be called rateable value of properties isn't it? The
amount you pay NEVER goes down.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Furby" wrote in message
...


I
I believe the politicians when they say no overall increase in council
tax.
How ever I don't think they are telling you everything.

What I thing will happen will be more of Labours grand redistribution of
wealth. I.e. council tax in the south will go up in the south and go
down
in
the north.

That would be nice. But I don't think it will happen. The re-assessment is
for the what used to be called rateable value of properties isn't it? The
amount you pay NEVER goes down.

Mary


Not sure on that point , but a large amount of the council tax from the
south of England has been sent up north. The south is effectively
subsidising the north's council tax. That's one of the reasons council tax
is so high in the south of England.

Mary Fisher wrote:

"Lobster" wrote in message
news:tyQ3e.4312$Br.1218@newsfe2-

Checking at http://www.voa.gov.uk/council_tax/index.htm shows a large
asterisk against my address, placed there by the LA when they gave us
planning permission, denoting that we would need re-banding when we sold
the property - so, not much chance we'll be overlooked.


Useful site. But it wouldn't recognise my address until I removed the
apostrophe from St Martin's!

Mary



David



If councils are still raising the same revenue from council tax, then
if, say, since the last valuation properties have double in value then
surely the band rates should double. the only people who should see an
increase are those who have built extension etc., thereby increasing the
value.
Yours
Naively

"Furby" wrote in message
news:42502b5a$0$303$cc9e4d1f@news-

What I thing will happen will be more of Labours grand redistribution
of
wealth. I.e. council tax in the south will go up in the south and go
down
in
the north.

That would be nice. But I don't think it will happen. The re-assessment
is
for the what used to be called rateable value of properties isn't it? The
amount you pay NEVER goes down.

Mary


Not sure on that point , but a large amount of the council tax from the
south of England has been sent up north. The south is effectively
subsidising the north's council tax. That's one of the reasons council tax
is so high in the south of England.

Hurrah :-)

But that still doesn't mean that ours goes down ... :-(

Mary

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:



If councils are still raising the same revenue from council tax, then if,
say, since the last valuation properties have double in value then surely
the band rates should double. the only people who should see an increase
are those who have built extension etc., thereby increasing the value.

Our council (Leeds) has a greater income every year from rates/community
charge/council tax no matter what the 'banding'.

Mary

In message , Furby
wrote


What I thing will happen will be more of Labours grand redistribution of
wealth. I.e. council tax in the south will go up in the south and go down in
the north. Hence no overall increase.


I'm still awaiting the refund of the Poll Tax levy that was charged to
lower taxation areas to help out the higher spending Tory councils.

I.e. there will be one banding systems for the country, not one for each
area, and since houses are typically cheaper in the north they will pay
less, and the extra taxes taken in the south will be sent to the north.


The local taxation system is very wrong! Local taxation should not be
based on the ability to pay or the size of the house - it should be
based on what you use. On average, a house with single adult is going to
use less of the council's resources than a household with two adults who
in turn are going to use less than a household with two adults and 2.5
kids.

A fair system would be to tax the whole population, including children,
the same amount per person.
--
Alan

In message , Broadback
wrote


If councils are still raising the same revenue from council tax, then
if, say, since the last valuation properties have double in value then
surely the band rates should double.

If the council can raise twice as much from the revaluation process
central government can reduce the amount they pay by the same amount.
It is only revenue neutral for the council.

Furthermore, if certain 'groups' have been promised smaller bills who
will have to make up the shortfall?

What annoys me is the vast amounts of money some councils waste. At a
cost of millions, Southend-on-Sea High Street was resurfaced in
expensive cobbles in artistic patterns. The unfriendly surface for
anyone with a disability and for anyone who is pushing children in a
buggy didn't last long. Transco dug it all up a few weeks later. It was
a planned activity to replace the main gas pipes that the council knew
about _before_ starting the refurbishment!

I walked down this recently refurbished street yesterday. The clock
commissioned for a vast sum of money to celebrated the turn of the
century was broken again, the cobbled surface resembled some off road
course suited to 4x4s rather than pedestrians and all the trendy 'floor
lights' were full of water. Money well spent
--
Alan

"Alan" wrote in message

I'm still awaiting the refund of the Poll Tax

There hasn't been a Poll Tax since mediaeval times ...

levy that was charged to lower taxation areas to help out the higher
spending Tory councils.


A fair system would be to tax the whole population, including children,
the same amount per person.

I agree. A poll taxc.

Mary
--
Alan

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Broadback
wrote


If councils are still raising the same revenue from council tax, then if,
say, since the last valuation properties have double in value then surely
the band rates should double.

If the council can raise twice as much from the revaluation process
central government can reduce the amount they pay by the same amount. It
is only revenue neutral for the council.

Furthermore, if certain 'groups' have been promised smaller bills who
will have to make up the shortfall?

What annoys me is the vast amounts of money some councils waste. At a cost
of millions, Southend-on-Sea High Street was resurfaced in expensive
cobbles in artistic patterns. The unfriendly surface for anyone with a
disability and for anyone who is pushing children in a buggy didn't last
long. Transco dug it all up a few weeks later. It was a planned activity
to replace the main gas pipes that the council knew about _before_
starting the refurbishment!

I walked down this recently refurbished street yesterday. The clock
commissioned for a vast sum of money to celebrated the turn of the century
was broken again, the cobbled surface resembled some off road course
suited to 4x4s rather than pedestrians and all the trendy 'floor lights'
were full of water. Money well spent

What have you done about it?

Mary
--
Alan

Mary Fisher wrote:

But of course it wasn't anything to do with Our Glorious Leader ...

Who is...

Peter.
Gordon.
Alister (sp).
????

Or his puppet masters in Brussels?

Or his mater puppet master in the White house?

Or are you talking about queen Blair (chose the sex as appropriate)

Dave

"Furby" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Furby" wrote in message
...


I
I believe the politicians when they say no overall increase in council
tax.
How ever I don't think they are telling you everything.

What I thing will happen will be more of Labours grand redistribution
of
wealth. I.e. council tax in the south will go up in the south and go
down
in
the north.

That would be nice. But I don't think it will happen. The re-assessment
is
for the what used to be called rateable value of properties isn't it?
The
amount you pay NEVER goes down.

Mary


Not sure on that point , but a large amount of the council tax from the
south of England has been sent up north. The south is effectively
subsidising the north's council tax. That's one of the reasons council tax
is so high in the south of England.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. In my experience CT is much higher
in the North than the South. Speaking to my parents yesterday they are due
to pay £1400 for a band E property in Kent compared to £1200 for my band C
property in Sheffield. That being said I know that a large part of local
government finance comes from Westminster according to formulae set by the
government of the day. (*)

I had always assumed that each council, roughly, needs a similar amount of
cash per capita. I believe that the CT is set on band D properties and
raised, or lowered, by about 11% for each band above or below this. Where
properties values tend to be higher the initial rate can be relatively low
as there will be more E's, F's & G's. However where property values are low
the converse applies. This may be a complete load of old monkey futtocks
but it seems to make a bit of sense to me. (**)

Cheers

Mark

(*) CYNIC MODE ON...
The formula being to send more money to those councils of the same hue as
the sitting government

(**) Although if it makes sense to me it is almost definitely wrong.

Alan wrote:

What annoys me is the vast amounts of money some councils waste. At a
cost of millions, Southend-on-Sea High Street was resurfaced in
expensive cobbles in artistic patterns. The unfriendly surface for
anyone with a disability and for anyone who is pushing children in a
buggy didn't last long. Transco dug it all up a few weeks later. It was
a planned activity to replace the main gas pipes that the council knew
about _before_ starting the refurbishment!

I am sure the same thing happened in my neck of the woods. The main
shopping street (for Chorley read a few shops and a lot of charity shops
in such a small area you would not believe) had the main street paved
with these fantastic blocks, where you are never sure which way your
foot will fall. I sometimes think that I have had too much to drink,
when I walk over them, even though I am stone cold sober in the morning.

I digress.
Part of the street was dug up to make changes to the drainage system.
Did they re-lay the original blocks? (they had a pattern to them as
yours did)
No! They commissioned new blocks and laid them after the drains were
re-fitted.

Total job time so far has been 4 months.

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

But of course it wasn't anything to do with Our Glorious Leader ...

Who is...

Peter.
Gordon.
Alister (sp).
????

Or his puppet masters in Brussels?

Or his mater puppet master in the White house?

Or are you talking about queen Blair (chose the sex as appropriate)

Dave

I half-heard a snippet on BBC R4 'Today' [you know it
must be true] where the 'anchor' was introducing
Fiona Miller - Alistair's "thing" - who 'had worked
with Tony Blair in the _White House_" ... "Oh, No!..
did I say White House? ... I meant 'Downing Street'

There's probably some wonderful broadband method of
re-visiting the 'package' ..

[Out of the mouths of babes , and nuLabor sycophants ..]

--

Brian

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

But of course it wasn't anything to do with Our Glorious Leader ...

Who is...

Peter.
Gordon.
Alister (sp).
????

Or his puppet masters in Brussels?

Or his mater puppet master in the White house?

Or are you talking about queen Blair (chose the sex as appropriate)

Dave

Beautifully put.

Mary

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Alan wrote:

What annoys me is the vast amounts of money some councils waste. At a
cost of millions, Southend-on-Sea High Street was resurfaced in
expensive cobbles in artistic patterns. The unfriendly surface for anyone
with a disability and for anyone who is pushing children in a buggy
didn't last long. Transco dug it all up a few weeks later. It was a
planned activity to replace the main gas pipes that the council knew
about _before_ starting the refurbishment!

I am sure the same thing happened in my neck of the woods. The main
shopping street (for Chorley read a few shops and a lot of charity shops
in such a small area you would not believe) had the main street paved with
these fantastic blocks, where you are never sure which way your foot will
fall. I sometimes think that I have had too much to drink, when I walk
over them, even though I am stone cold sober in the morning.

I digress.
Part of the street was dug up to make changes to the drainage system. Did
they re-lay the original blocks? (they had a pattern to them as yours did)
No! They commissioned new blocks and laid them after the drains were
re-fitted.

Total job time so far has been 4 months.

Has anyone ever challenged this and insisted on an explanation?

Mary

Dave

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

But of course it wasn't anything to do with Our Glorious Leader
....

Who is...

Peter.
Gordon.
Alister (sp).
????

Or his puppet masters in Brussels?

Or his mater puppet master in the White house?

Or are you talking about queen Blair (chose the sex as
appropriate)

Dave

I half-heard a snippet on BBC R4 'Today' [you know it
must be true] where the 'anchor' was introducing
Fiona Miller - Alistair's "thing" - who 'had worked
with Tony Blair in the _White House_" ... "Oh, No!..
did I say White House? ... I meant 'Downing Street'

There's probably some wonderful broadband method of
re-visiting the 'package' ..

[Out of the mouths of babes , and nuLabor sycophants ..]

--

Brian



Brian,

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/index.shtml?logo and follow the
'listen again' button

AWEM

Huge wrote:
Alan writes:
A fair system would be to tax the whole population, including children,
the same amount per person.

That was tried already, and look what happened then.

Children weren't included. I thought it was a good system - I disliked
it the first year, went from paying £0 to £410-ish, then it went *down*
to £250-ish, which I thought was quite reasonable. I don't know why it
was disliked. Bring it back!

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
Alan writes:
A fair system would be to tax the whole population, including children,
the same amount per person.

That was tried already, and look what happened then.

Children weren't included.

That's why the Labour Party got it wrong when they called it a Poll Tax.

I thought it was a good system - I disliked
it the first year, went from paying £0 to £410-ish, then it went *down*
to £250-ish, which I thought was quite reasonable. I don't know why it
was disliked. Bring it back!

Hear hear!

Mary

I don't know why it was disliked. Bring it back!

I agree! However, the real problem was the ease with which it was possible
to avoid it. It is much easier to tax property rather than people.

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:
I don't know why it was disliked. Bring it back!
I agree! However, the real problem was the ease with which it
was possible to avoid it. It is much easier to tax property
rather than people.

That's because it was an inefficient local authority based collection
system. Some local authorities are chronically inefficient in collecting
council tax too.

Collecting poll tax through the (a) Inland Revenue (b) Benefits Agency,
deducted at source (c) Passports Agency, requiring a certificate of
current contributions to be submitted with passport applications (d)
Education Authority, ditto certificate every term for every child in the
school (e) Criminal Justice, ditto certificate every time a person is
brought before the court for any other offence (f) Road Tax, ditto
certificate by the keeper of any motor vehicle to be shown when renewing
road tax at the PO ...

And I haven't even mentioned Entitlement^WIdentity cards :-)

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Peter Crosland wrote:
I don't know why it was disliked. Bring it back!
I agree! However, the real problem was the ease with which it was
possible to avoid it. It is much easier to tax property
rather than people.

That's because it was an inefficient local authority based collection
system. Some local authorities are chronically inefficient in collecting
council tax too.

Collecting poll tax

It wasn't a poll tax ...

Mary

"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message
news:d2r593

But of course it wasn't anything to do with Our Glorious Leader

snip

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/index.shtml?logo and follow the
'listen again' button

Found this:

Oliver won't fight PM in general election
Prior to Tony Blair's U-turn on extra funding for school dinners,
campaigning chef Jamie Oliver had planned to stand against the prime
minister in his Sedgefield constituency on a "school meals ticket".
Following the promise of more money for school dinners, the chef has
withdrawn the plan. - Mail on Sunday, 3 April

Now dear old Jamie hasn't been put under any pressure, has he?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

I digress.
Part of the street was dug up to make changes to the drainage system. Did
they re-lay the original blocks? (they had a pattern to them as yours did)
No! They commissioned new blocks and laid them after the drains were
re-fitted.

Total job time so far has been 4 months.


Has anyone ever challenged this and insisted on an explanation?

Not yet, but I am inclined to do just that and ask why the council does
not take part in its own green recycling scheme.

My wife works for them and tells me that they do not recycle a thing at
our council buildings...

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

I digress.
Part of the street was dug up to make changes to the drainage system. Did
they re-lay the original blocks? (they had a pattern to them as yours
did)
No! They commissioned new blocks and laid them after the drains were
re-fitted.

Total job time so far has been 4 months.


Has anyone ever challenged this and insisted on an explanation?

Not yet, but I am inclined to do just that and ask why the council does
not take part in its own green recycling scheme.

My wife works for them and tells me that they do not recycle a thing at
our council buildings...

Point out that OGL has set targets. Or was it Brussels ... or Kyoto...
Anyway, councils have to meet certain levels by some time.

Wish I hadn't started this reply ...

Mary

Dave

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Peter Crosland wrote:
I don't know why it was disliked. Bring it back!
I agree! However, the real problem was the ease with which it
was possible to avoid it. It is much easier to tax property
rather than people.

That's because it was an inefficient local authority based collection
system. Some local authorities are chronically inefficient in collecting
council tax too.


Back in those days ... we had a Parliament
wherein genuine debate occurred and Bills were scrutinised
line-by-line with Divisions occurring at any hour of
the day ... it's all been 'modernised' to become
'family-friendly' and MPs don't have be subjected to the
tedium of listening to nor attending debates - they can vote
on Bills, conveniently once a week - so, during the passage
of the 'Community Charge' Bill the (then) Labour Opposition
obtained a requirement that _seperate_ registers would be
maintained for the 'Poll Tax" which could _not_ be used
for any other purpose.

Collecting poll tax through the (a) Inland Revenue (b) Benefits Agency,
deducted at source (c) Passports Agency, requiring a certificate of
current contributions to be submitted with passport applications (d)
Education Authority, ditto certificate every term for every child in the
school (e) Criminal Justice, ditto certificate every time a person is
brought before the court for any other offence (f) Road Tax, ditto
certificate by the keeper of any motor vehicle to be shown when renewing
road tax at the PO ...

And I haven't even mentioned Entitlement^WIdentity cards :-)

Owain

All of Owain's suggestions were _specifically and explicitly_
enacted as unlawful thanks to the Labour Opposition.

BTW; the Labour Opposition insisted that 'Lottery' money
could not be used in lieu of Government money.

Have you heard about the 'School Food Foundation'?

--

Brian