Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Boris Johnson Prime Minister


Recommended Posts

Don't know what the stock levels of shops in France is like, but I have family in Spain, who say that there are no empty shelves there.

 

Yes covid has probably hit production, but the UK appears to be suffering more because of the shortgage of labour due to Brexit.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

No empty shelves reported in France.

 

The only time recently was at the beginning of the pandemic when people didn't know how things would go, but there were no shortages of loo rolls or other stuff to speak of. Some of the supermarkets had a bit of a run on pasta and soap, the small shops didn't run out at all.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Home secretary accused of breaching the ministerial code again.

 

WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK

Home Secretary Prite Patel held a secret meeting with a billionaire and British Airways - Labour is demanding a probe as she is accused of a...

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Cabinet is in need of removal, there is no democratic process, the whole Covid situation is serious, but as in France Covid Passports so easily morphed by Entrust to a CCP style Social Credit Digital ID/Pass  are sinister and counterproductive, but Klaus Schwab and WEF have told the Davos set what they must do so expect more restrictions but gradually moving over to Carbon Zero rather than Covid.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Home secretary accused of breaching the ministerial code again.

 

 
WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK

Home Secretary Prite Patel held a secret meeting with a billionaire and British Airways - Labour is demanding a probe as she is accused of a...

 

 

She's claiming that it was a 'private matter' that her and quasi-moronic attended

.. so depending on the content, - could it be treason?

If not 'official', what were mutiple ministers doing there? - I don't think anyone believes it was 'just a free lunch' ...

 

 

 

Mind you, Johnson the incompetent oathbreaking liar (IMOb - In My Observation) has Totally trashed any remaining credibility the UK had to hold or ask anything at cop26:

 

At the start of August, 'Boris the Liar' assured the UK public, and the world, that the Australia trade deal would “reaffirm commitments to multilateral environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement”
.. just as three of his cabinet ministers were agreeing to “drop both of the climate asks” just to get the already 6x better for Australia than the UK trade deal “over the line”.

 

It seems the UK ministers simply offering a six times better benefits for Australia than the UK ministers required for the UK .. obviously wasn't good enough for Australia - or perhaps our negotiators really ARE that bad - sack em.
- lets hope that in this one case Johnson Oathbreaker doesn't change his normal behavior and DOES renege on this deal too.

 

 

Oh and got to this page after clicking on the unread post star HB suggested as the last page option gave Uh Oh

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are waking up to the implications of some aspects of Patel's new bill that was voted through in the Commons. Removing or restricting the right to protest is completely wrong.

 

I can see why they want to do this because there could be a lot for ordinary people to protest about soon, including the reduction in Universal Credit and food shortages, but every other government has lived with demos.

 

This is not the only thing wrong with the bill by any means.

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

More than 350 groups join peers in challenging home secretary over ‘attack on democratic rights’ as legislation enters Lords

 

  • I agree 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Boris and Pritti are fans of the way China controls public order.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair to say that they criticise other countries that do this kind of thing.

 

ETA: The article linked to in the one about Patel's bill is worth a read as well.

 

This quote is scary 'This power effectively grants a minister the ability to suppress the kinds of protests that he or she does not like or agree with.'

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Ministers will have the power to suppress any protest they don’t agree with, says Joshua Clements

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also allows police to seize a truck or a campervan parked in a layby, same as a Traveller under the Intent To Reside bit.  A trucker pulls up in a layby, he/she is out of hours so MUST take a mandatory 11 hour break.  The Layby has a 2 hour waiting limit, but driver must remain beyond that time due to being few decent overnight facilities these days.  As they intend to reside overnight or through the day beyond the time limit, the Intent To Reside test is satisfied, a local Neighbourhood Watch worthy complains, and the Police can then arrest the driver, and seize the truck when they refuse to move under Priti-useless's pet Bill, same as if a gypsy or Traveller.

 

Same will now apply to the  rod fishermen on Colwyn Bay promenade, there is a no overnight stay for caravans and campervans there.  the fishermen use capmervans parked all night in the restricted area, the Council was always giving them hassle,  when they were sat by the railings rod over it, now Priti's Bill will allow the police to take their campervans and arrest the fishermen.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

all intended to allow ministers opinion to both 'interpret' and be above UK law

- fully intended to breach/bypass the independence of Judiciary , and a step further than simply appointing senior Judiciary as an arm of the ruling 'executive'

 

= dictatorship

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good example, BN, it hasn't been thought through.

 

David Blunkett also wrote about this from the perspective of an ex-Home secretary in April. He thought the bill was badly drafted but I don't know if it's been tweaked since then.

 

He also said the police are being asked to make high level decisons/given too many powers and that it could set them against the public and threaten policing by consent.

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

The proposed police and crime law is so badly drafted that it should unite people from across the political spectrum, says former home secretary...

 

I agree, TJ, it's very authoritarian. Worrying stuff.

  • Like 1
  • I agree 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Priti-useless will get another backlash when a dumb copper arrests some Stobart driver's or drivers from some high profile company  on their mandatory 11 hour break under Intent to Reside as couldn't get to a truckstop in time Can see a driver's strike and some legal action from the Companies on that one; Its bound to happen the way the Police have been interpreting Covid rules, so they will be emboldened to use Intent To Reside, because they can.

  • Sad 1
  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

symptoms of a weak government .. as perfectly exampled in their surrender in the Australia deal negotiations

 

A strong and confident government would have got both a better deal and which included the environment protections they were obliged to include .. and tried to claim they had.

 

Walking away from a bad Australian deal would have shown more competence and strength

.. but this government does seem to be in the habit of forcing through really crap deals and simply say they are 'great' doesn't it?

 

  • Sad 2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the protest part of the bill, I think it could be used against Steve Bray, the anti-Brexit man outside Parliament. Even if he stops shouting vociferously, I think he could be deemed to be worrying, I forget what the term in the bill is, and removed.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could cart Steve Bray off to jail under that Act HB

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

they could cart anyone off who is 'interpreted' by Patel to be causing her annoyance or disturbance  .. as defined by her

 

Well Patel annoys and offends me no end - so arrest her before she finds out Raducanu (and both her parents) weren't born in the UK  and fast tracks her on a deportation flight to Jamaica

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

that was the point HB :-)

"before she finds out Raducanu (and both her parents)"

 

Although i really should have put Emma Raducanu

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris's Business Brexit dividend is an increase in costs.

 

WWW.CITYAM.COM

UK businesses and consumers have paid 42 per cent more in customs duties on goods since Brexit came into force on 1 January of this year, according...

 

The follows on from the recent news that the additional adminstrative costs faced by businesses added up to over 6 billion

 

Cannot see there being a Brexit dividend within the next 5 years.

 

And rather than £350 miilion a week for the NHS, people are having to pay 1.25% additional National Insurance, plus see a larger increase in Council Tax.

 

Brexit going well Boris ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson’s tunnel to Ireland ends up a 'ditch

It is not yet known how much public money has been wasted on considering the PM’s “world’s most stupid tunnel”

 

WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

Scheme branded ‘world’s most stupid tunnel’ by former aide Dominic Cummings

 

Edited by tobyjugg2
  • Like 1

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like Johnsons crew are already confusing their reasons for dropping the Valneva vaccine contracts

 

First it was that Vaneva 'breached the supply agreements'

- best endeavors? Wont rather than will breach EU agreements and sneak doses to Australia to buy a trade deal?

 

Then it was 'commercial considerations'

- whats that? aren't they Tory donors?

 

Now its that the regulator would not approve a pretty traditional type vaccine (which seems to be doing quite reasonably in testing)

- Whys that then? Why hasn't the regulator made a statement?

 

WWW.REUTERS.COM

Britain cancelled its contract for about 100 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine being developed by France's Valneva in part because it was clear...

 

"There are commercial reasons that we have cancelled the contract, but what I can tell her is that it was also clear to us that the vaccine in question that the company was developing would not get approval by the MHRA here in the UK," he said in response to a question from a Scottish lawmaker.

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris 'Incompetent liar' Johnson:

“I said last year we’re the Saudi Arabia of wind." 

... (I'm sure he meant wind and wee)

"Probably the Saudi Arabia of penal policy too, under our wonderful home secretary.” 

.. ( ..well ... no doubt he meant puerile policy, despite them both certainly being total dicks - but whichever - yep, largely .. yep)

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cronyism at its worst

new 'Culture' minister that throws 'woke' insults at anyone who holds a differing opinion ,, and this

 

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Ministers restarted interview process for Ofcom job after former editor considered ‘unappointable’

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Exclusive: Second attempt to make former Daily Mail editor chair of media regulator hits stumbling block

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Government starts process from scratch, allowing PM’s favoured candidate second chance at job

 

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few choice quotes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...