UK SORN... ;'(

Non-computer-related chit-chat

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Postby Bazza » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:24 pm

Hi AndyBaxman...

Erm, I didn't quote the above at all, nelz did. Is that why the written
reference is there?

I'm curious...

Why should I have to scrap a vehicle that is KNOWN to be off of the
road by the powers that be and they still have a record of?

Why suddenly does this situation make all owners of old cars, like
many that are in farms with weeds growing around them, potential
criminals?

What was wrong with the old method that if your vehicle was not
on the road prior to the 1998 date it was considered as SORN?

It all comes down to revenue, in the form of OTS fines or
prosecutable fines. There are thousands of semi-restored vehicles
out there that have have now got to have SORN or the owners
can be prosecuted.

Why change the status quo?

REVENUE that's why.

I have no problem with taking old junk off of the road but
semi-restored vehicles?

Come on gimme a break, get real...
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...
User avatar
Bazza
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Loughborough

Postby towy71 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:45 pm

All legal vehicles can be taxed online because the details of the MOT and insurance are stored on the DVLA's computers; the logic of SORN is clearly to enable people to keep that machine on the database as being a possible legal road user once again.
It may be that the legislation is draconian but, as a victim of an accident where some gobshite drove into my car and then sped away leaving me with a written off car and loss of my no claims bonus, I don't think it is much of an onus to SORN your hobby horse ;-)
still looking for that door into summer
User avatar
towy71
Moderator
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: wild West Wales

Postby Bazza » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:10 pm

Hi towy71...

How is a SORN going to cure that situation?

The driver could have been drunk and this situation would
have nothing to do with SORN what-so-ever...

Those assholes would never be legal anyhow!
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...
User avatar
Bazza
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Loughborough

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:26 pm

I give up... I'm baffled as to why some cannot see this as a small infringement of civil liberties.

People NEED to question the motives behind these things, and how they may impact on things that may not at first appear to be directly connected.

But as the thread is now descending into people saying "that's a ridiculous conclusion" and others implying (incorrectly) that I'm "happy to see unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads", I think reasoned discussion has come to an end.

I understand the frustration of having so many unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads, but IMHO the SORN is totally unecessary, and an erosion of the presuption of innocence, which should not be accepted as a justifiable fix.

People who are intent on using vehicles illegally are going to continue to do so, they'll just fill in a SORN, then drive the car, they have already decided to risk the fine (and peoples live)... the main impact is on those that aren't.

I also agree with Bazza that the sole reason behind the SORN is financial, and that as a subsequence it criminalises people that weren't (up to the point of its introduction) breaking any laws.

I refuse to *unquestioningly* accept unecessary laws that criminalise people that are doing nothing wrong.

This does NOT mean I'd be brave enough to refuse to comply ;) .. I'm ashamed to say, I leave such justifiable acts of defiance to the "activists".
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby Bazza » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:10 pm

Hi PCNetSpec...

I give up too...

It does seem a contradiction in terms when suddenly I could
become a criminal for something that I have NOT done...

Oh well, such is life...
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...
User avatar
Bazza
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Loughborough

Postby lok1950 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:51 pm

I see it as moving the goal posts as PCNetSpec stated why the need to declare innocence in advance.

Enjoy the Choice :)
User avatar
lok1950
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:31 am
Location: Ottawa

Postby towy71 » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:57 pm

I'm sorry Bazza I now have read through a load of stuff about SORN and agree it is bad law and should be rescinded asap. Sadly we all know that ain't going to happen unless someone with very deep pockets can take the thing to judicial review because natural justice dictates there should be some method of appeal.
still looking for that door into summer
User avatar
towy71
Moderator
 
Posts: 4276
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: wild West Wales

Postby AndyBaxman » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:35 pm

Bazza wrote:Hi PCNetSpec...

I give up too...

It does seem a contradiction in terms when suddenly I could
become a criminal for something that I have NOT done...


What, like failing to fill in your tax return?

Not completing the Census?

Not registering births, deaths, marriages?

Refusing to do an alcohol breath test?

Not wearing a seat belt?

Not wearing a crash helmet?

Not turning up for jury service (unless excused or deferred)?

There are plenty of things you are required to do in law and plenty of things (particularly relating to tax) where you can easily be banged up or presented with huge fines if you don't do them.

This is a minor modification to the requirements placed upon you as the keeper of a motor vehicle. If you don't like it, sell the car.
Bomb #20: "Let there be light"
User avatar
AndyBaxman
LXF regular
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:47 am

Postby AndyBaxman » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:43 pm

PCNetSpec wrote:I also agree with Bazza that the sole reason behind the SORN is financial, and that as a subsequence it criminalises people that weren't (up to the point of its introduction) breaking any laws.


How can it be for financial reasons when it doesn't cost anything to SORN your vehicle?

And you won't be breaking any laws if you comply with the new rules, neither does it prevent you from doing anything, so it doesn't "criminalise" anyone.
Bomb #20: "Let there be light"
User avatar
AndyBaxman
LXF regular
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:47 am

Postby Ram » Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:52 am

Doesn't a vehicle that's been SORN, if found on the road (not going to/from a pre booked MOT ) give the police the authority have the vehicle towed & crushed.

Where if you had just forgot to renew your tax and where caught you'd be fined and owe money from the 1st of the current month, if not from the following day of expired tax disc.

lubuntu LXDE 13.10 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
User avatar
Ram
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:44 pm
Location: Guisborough

Postby guy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:18 pm

Yes there is a principle of justice that we are innocent until proved guilty and in a free society we do not have to demonstrate that innocence.

But there is also a principle that society has a right to defend itself. A car is a lethal weapon. Guns, combat knives, explosives, poisons, aeroplanes, power grids, each has a bureaucracy wrapped around it so that unless you are deemed safe enough you cannot be let loose with it. The UK has the busiest roads - and among the safest - in Europe. We square this circle by enlightened management of the bureaucracy. Too many bad guys were abusing the previous law, so we tightened it up.

You never replied - do you want to give these bad guys looser rein, as long as they stick to older motors? Do you want to encourage the higher death toll, the higher number of uninsured drivers, we are trying to fix? Or perhaps you have a better idea how to go about that? Let's hear less of the injured innocence in a vacuum and more of the responsible citizen in today's society.
"Klinger, do you know how many zoots were killed to make that one suit?" — BJ Hunnicutt
User avatar
guy
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Postby guy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:26 pm

PCNetSpec wrote:I also agree with Bazza that the sole reason behind the SORN is financial, and that as a subsequence it criminalises people that weren't (up to the point of its introduction) breaking any laws.

Hate to disabuse you, PCNetSpec, but the whole point of a new law is to criminalise people who weren't breaking any laws before.

Nor is the SORN about money, that's just silly. It's about keeping vehicles off the road until they are street legal - regardless of age.
Last edited by guy on Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Klinger, do you know how many zoots were killed to make that one suit?" — BJ Hunnicutt
User avatar
guy
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Postby wyliecoyoteuk » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:12 pm

Sorry, but you have to register a lethal weapon, i.e. you have to license a gun.
Just because a gun is an antique does not exclude it from the law, simply because it is still possible to kill someone with it.
A vehicle is a potentially lethal weapon.
You have to license it, and you have to specify if is off-road or not.
The roadside cameras rely on the SORN database to catch illegal drivers.
The sig between the asterisks is so cool that only REALLY COOL people can even see it!

*************** ************
User avatar
wyliecoyoteuk
LXF regular
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 10:41 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby stuartpalmer » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:47 am

If you think the SORN system is bad, you should try taking on the TV licensing Gestapo!
stuartpalmer
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 8:30 am
Location: Highlands of Scotland

Postby ollie » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:33 am

stuartpalmer wrote:If you think the SORN system is bad, you should try taking on the TV licensing Gestapo!


That's one licence that I can never understand - a licence to keep receiving radio waves :?

Assuming I lived in the UK, if I don't pay it can the government please stop sending the radio waves into my house, they're interfering with my TV connected to the BlueRay player!

IMHO the registration and insurance of vehicles in the UK must be extremely complicated. There seems to be plenty of examples on TV and in the news of illegal vehicles in the UK. It sounds like it needs a total rethink on the whole process.
User avatar
ollie
Moderator
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Bathurst NSW Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest