labourian.bsky.social
Bradford MDC Labour Councillor. Christian Socialist; retired teacher. Liverpool fan. No DM's unless I know and trust you.
712 posts
413 followers
661 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Maybe it's because we get fed a load of American football posts.
comment in response to
post
"Regardless of whether Vehicle Excise Duty goes towards hospitals, schools, pensions or motorway expansion, the name ‘road tax’ has stuck, and it’s mandatory for the vast majority of cars, with payments taken annually, bi-annually or monthly".
Goodbye, keep well.
comment in response to
post
You should be embarrassed. You won't be, because you are on a wind-up. Goodbye.
comment in response to
post
From government website:
What is car tax?
Car tax, often called road tax, is a levy the Government charges to people who run cars. Originally called the Road Fund Licence and intended to finance highways.
comment in response to
post
Call it what you like. We have some of the most deprived people in the whole of the UK in our city, so we don't feel like meting out too much punishment on innocent citizens; unlike the Tories who deliberately defunded us.
comment in response to
post
They don't have drives. We didn't charge for parking permits, but now we do. We have some of the most deprived Wards in the whole country. People are allowed to park on roads because they pay road tax. But you know that, don't you?
comment in response to
post
Political life is somewhat more complicated than that, as well you know. We have had to make some incredibly difficult decisions since we were starved of finance by the Tories (£350 million a year), such as charging for resident parking permits; so more emotive policies are difficult at present.
comment in response to
post
Easy, when the opposition didn't have a SINGLE shot on target.
comment in response to
post
I haven't, but then again I am a humble backbencher. I will consider proposing it, though.
comment in response to
post
You have to drive on to it. Driving on pavements is primarily about driving fairly long distances on one. I've known people do this in order to queue jump further down the road.
comment in response to
post
Yes, designed for either pedestrian access, such as pushchairs and wheelchairs, but also to allow access to driveways.
comment in response to
post
I would certainly vote for it. It wasn't a substantive motion, so it was not proposed, nor put to the vote. Each Party expressed their views on the subject. One of the Party's needs to propose it and then it would get voted on.
comment in response to
post
Dropped kerbs, so they are allowed to.
comment in response to
post
True.
comment in response to
post
Parking on pavements is not illegal, driving on them is.
comment in response to
post
Keep well.
comment in response to
post
We had a debate about it a couple of meetings ago. There are parts of Bradford where the roads are really narrow, so it would be impractical to have a blanket ban. It may well come in, in the future.
comment in response to
post
If you had explained that you were in London, and said that it was illegal in London, I wouldn't have commented at all. I simply stated the truth. I also believe that pavement parking should be made illegal everywhere.
comment in response to
post
Sadly, it's not illegal in Bradford: YET.
comment in response to
post
It's NOT illegal in Bradford. Some streets are so narrow no-one could get through if people didn't park partly on the pavement. You need access for emergency vehicles. Sarcasm doesn't become you, this isn't X, is it?
comment in response to
post
Local by-laws determine whether it is allowed to park with wheels on pavements. You are correct on time restrictions.
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately, it is legal. If the line is dashed and not solid it is legal to park over a bike lane.
comment in response to
post
Have you got £100 billion to give to the government? No? Short of renationalising the whole water industry, which we can't afford, we need to make the system work as it should be doing.
comment in response to
post
Yes; they are. The prosperity gospel is against everything that Jesus preached. They are preaching a false gospel and will pay the price for leading people astray.
comment in response to
post
There is a SLIGHT difference. Jesus said that they had turned His Father's house into a den of thieves. They had moved the trading from outside the Temple to inside of it. On top of that the traders were robbing the people with rigged scales, amongst other scams.
comment in response to
post
Ever heard of an ICBM?
comment in response to
post
I gave up a while ago. The algorithm won't let you communicate anything that upsets the programmer.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps they'll listen now. Well plagiarised.
comment in response to
post
Doesn't sound like it's universal, though.
comment in response to
post
Cheers, Norm.
comment in response to
post
Aye lad; wipes nose on sleeve.
comment in response to
post
Man City on steroids, led by the sorcerer's apprentice.
comment in response to
post
I'm not, I can assure you.
comment in response to
post
I know all that. Trump could change his mind today or tomorrow; that's where we are, I'm afraid. JLR stock prices going up?
comment in response to
post
Realpolitik at its finest. As a government, you have to deal with things as they are, not things as you would like them to be. Which sums up your position; does it not?
comment in response to
post
No upside at all, then?
comment in response to
post
Job's comforters were more optimistic than you.
comment in response to
post
Now: where have I heard that before?