A rather nifty scam…


to do these things:-

David Davis

(1) get lots of poor-people’s cars confiscated,

(2) get another nail in the coffin of non-surveillance,

(3) increase the income-stream of the insurance-arms of busticated banks owned by the taxpayer government.

The Englishman’s noticed it too. Wouldn’t be surprised in the Devil and Obotheclown say something mild also.

The “civil liberties campaigners” apologists for mild surveillance, and the “motorists’ organisations” semi-detached arms of State Transport Control always go about rearguard actions the wrong way. They say things like “the scheme is sound in principle, but…” and “it will penalise law-abiding drivers who forget…” – all of which is quite irrelevant to the principle of defending liberty under Common Law.

The tobacco manufacturers made exactly the same mistakes in the early 1980s, when smoking and tobacco advertising was under assault. They tried to justify resisting an ad-ban by saying that it was “all about persuading people to switch brands” – rather than actively and politically resisting what amounted to State-censorship of information about legal products. Nobody was going to swallow the brand-switching nonsense, and the Enemy Class certainly didn’t.

So here we are again.

About these ads

One response to “A rather nifty scam…

  1. What is the situation under the existing regulations?

    It’s my understanding that for a car to be on the public highway it has to be insured (whether being used or not). If anything, apart from the DVLA having explicit access to the insurance database, is there any real change in the legal position?