On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
> "Steve O"  wrote in message

> > As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
> > covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>
> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
> still do, but it is possible.

As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
few years back ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.

Ian

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>  wrote:
>
>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>
>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
>>>> covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>>>
>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
>>> still do, but it is possible.
>>
>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
>> few years back 
>
> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
> caught up.
>
>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
>> rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>
> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.

If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the system.

Tony

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
>>>>> covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
>>>> still do, but it is possible.
>>>
>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
>>> few years back 
>>
>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
>> caught up.
>>
>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
>>> rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>
>If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the system.

Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
beaten elsewhere?

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
>>>>>> covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
>>>>> still do, but it is possible.
>>>>
>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
>>>> few years back 
>>>
>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
>>> caught up.
>>>
>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
>>>> rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>
>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>
>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the system.
>
> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
> beaten elsewhere?

Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky investment,
but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost interest" versus
their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to misunderstand what "lost" means.

But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is required?
You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle
>>>>>>> which is covered under a security rather than an insurance
>>>>>>> policy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know
>>>>>> if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>
>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
>>>> caught up.
>>>>
>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>
>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the
>>> system.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
>> beaten elsewhere?
>
> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>
> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>
> Tony

"Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or security
(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person 
who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the 
Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a time when the vehicle is being 
driven under the owner's control.

Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle
>>>>>>>> which is covered under a security rather than an insurance
>>>>>>>> policy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know
>>>>>>> if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>>
>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary
>>>>> pressures caught up.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>
>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
>>> beaten elsewhere?
>>
>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
>> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
>> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
>> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>
>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
>> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>
>> Tony
>
> "Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
> 144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or security
> (1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a
> person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant
> General of the Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a time when the
> vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.

My mistake, a security is defined by section 146 of the Act.  The above is 
an exemption from it and would have been better in the right order.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:01:47 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy" 
wrote:

> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle
>>>>>>>>> which is covered under a security rather than an insurance
>>>>>>>>> policy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know
>>>>>>>> if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary
>>>>>> pressures caught up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>>>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the
>>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
>>>> beaten elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
>>> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
>>> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
>>> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>>
>>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
>>> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>> "Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
>> 144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or security
>> (1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a
>> person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant
>> General of the Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a time when the
>> vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.
>
> My mistake, a security is defined by section 146 of the Act.  The above is 
> an exemption from it and would have been better in the right order.

Maybe you have given Graz enough of a clue but last time I pointed him to a
section of that Act he asked "Is there an English translation available?",
so probably not.

News:48dbcc56.135456187@news.motzarella.org 

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:01:47 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>  wrote:
>
>> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a
>>>>>>>>>> vehicle which is covered under a security rather than an
>>>>>>>>>> insurance policy?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't
>>>>>>>>> know if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary
>>>>>>> pressures caught up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But
>>>>>>> the lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand
>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be
>>>>> easily beaten elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
>>>> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
>>>> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
>>>> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>>>
>>>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
>>>> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>
>>> "Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
>>> 144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or
>>> security (1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle
>>> owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the
>>> Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a
>>> time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.
>>
>> My mistake, a security is defined by section 146 of the Act.  The
>> above is an exemption from it and would have been better in the
>> right order.
>
> Maybe you have given Graz enough of a clue but last time I pointed
> him to a section of that Act he asked "Is there an English
> translation available?", so probably not.
>
> News:48dbcc56.135456187@news.motzarella.org
>
> Tony

My immediate thought is that anyone who cannot cope with the English 
language should not be posting to uk.legal, but then numerous 
counter-examples spring to mind; however, my personal opinion is that, er, 
they should not be posting to uk.legal either.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:45:20 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
>>>>>>> covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
>>>>>> still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
>>>>> few years back 
>>>>
>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
>>>> caught up.
>>>>
>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
>>>>> rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>
>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the system.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
>> beaten elsewhere?
>
>Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky investment,
>but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost interest" versus
>their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to misunderstand what "lost" means.

To hold all one's funds in Treasuries is being excessively cautious.

>But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is required?
>You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.

"Bond" is a generic term for the funds kept aside for self-insurance.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:31:52 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
 wrote:

>Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:01:47 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a
>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle which is covered under a security rather than an
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance policy?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't
>>>>>>>>>> know if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary
>>>>>>>> pressures caught up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But
>>>>>>>> the lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand
>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be
>>>>>> easily beaten elsewhere?
>>>>>
>>>>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
>>>>> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
>>>>> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
>>>>> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
>>>>> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>> "Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
>>>> 144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or
>>>> security (1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle
>>>> owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the
>>>> Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a
>>>> time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.
>>>
>>> My mistake, a security is defined by section 146 of the Act.  The
>>> above is an exemption from it and would have been better in the
>>> right order.
>>
>> Maybe you have given Graz enough of a clue but last time I pointed
>> him to a section of that Act he asked "Is there an English
>> translation available?", so probably not.
>>
>> News:48dbcc56.135456187@news.motzarella.org
>>
>> Tony
>
>My immediate thought is that anyone who cannot cope with the English 
>language should not be posting to uk.legal, but then numerous 
>counter-examples spring to mind; however, my personal opinion is that, er, 
>they should not be posting to uk.legal either.

I am posting to uk.rec.driving.  I don't care where crossposts go.

My immediate thought is that legislation should be written in clear
and concise English, not in legalese.  Whatever happened to the
"Clarity in English" campaign - or whatever it was called?

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:39:51 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:31:52 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>  wrote:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:01:47 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>>>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a
>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle which is covered under a security rather than an
>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance policy?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> know if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>>>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary
>>>>>>>>> pressures caught up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>>>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But
>>>>>>>>> the lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand
>>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be
>>>>>>> easily beaten elsewhere?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
>>>>>> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
>>>>>> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
>>>>>> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
>>>>>> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
>>>>> 144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or
>>>>> security (1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle
>>>>> owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the
>>>>> Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a
>>>>> time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.
>>>>
>>>> My mistake, a security is defined by section 146 of the Act.  The
>>>> above is an exemption from it and would have been better in the
>>>> right order.
>>>
>>> Maybe you have given Graz enough of a clue but last time I pointed
>>> him to a section of that Act he asked "Is there an English
>>> translation available?", so probably not.
>>>
>>> News:48dbcc56.135456187@news.motzarella.org
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>> My immediate thought is that anyone who cannot cope with the English 
>> language should not be posting to uk.legal, but then numerous 
>> counter-examples spring to mind; however, my personal opinion is that, er, 
>> they should not be posting to uk.legal either.
>
> I am posting to uk.rec.driving.  I don't care where crossposts go.

You may be reading this thread in uk.rec.driving but you are also posting
to uk.legal.  Maybe you are as clueless about Internet News and how to use
a news reader as you are about the Road Traffic Act.  If you need help in
removing from your posts newsgroups in which you are out of your depth and
merely making a fool of yourself, then ask for that help.

> My immediate thought is that legislation should be written in clear
> and concise English, not in legalese.  Whatever happened to the
> "Clarity in English" campaign - or whatever it was called?

If you know this truth, that the language of the Act is too complicated for
you to understand, then stop contradicting posts by people who can read it.

Tony

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:37:26 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:45:20 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
>>>>>>>> covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
>>>>>>> still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
>>>>>> few years back 
>>>>>
>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
>>>>> caught up.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
>>>>>> rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>
>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the system.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
>>> beaten elsewhere?
>>
>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky investment,
>> but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost interest" versus
>> their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to misunderstand what "lost" means.
>
> To hold all one's funds in Treasuries is being excessively cautious.
>
>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is required?
>> You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>
> "Bond" is a generic term for the funds kept aside for self-insurance.

The generic term is Security and if you don't even know what kinds of
securities are permitted, on what basis did you make your claim that £100K
of interest would be lost?  Your calculation that £100K of interest would
be lost by applying £2 million in security demonstrates that you believed
the security would earn zero interest and is yet more proof that you post
total bollocks and then waffle, duck and weave when caught out.

Tony

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:44:58 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:39:51 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:31:52 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:01:47 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>>>>>> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle which is covered under a security rather than an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance policy?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> know if they still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply
>>>>>>>>>>> increased a few years back
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary
>>>>>>>>>> pressures caught up.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver
>>>>>>>>>>> and rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But
>>>>>>>>>> the lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand
>>>>>>>>> the system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be
>>>>>>>> easily beaten elsewhere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky
>>>>>>> investment, but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost
>>>>>>> interest" versus their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to
>>>>>>> misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is
>>>>>>> required? You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bond" isn't the right word; "security" is:
>>>>>> 144. Exceptions from requirements of third-party insurance or
>>>>>> security (1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle
>>>>>> owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the
>>>>>> Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £500,000, at a
>>>>>> time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.
>>>>>
>>>>> My mistake, a security is defined by section 146 of the Act.  The
>>>>> above is an exemption from it and would have been better in the
>>>>> right order.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you have given Graz enough of a clue but last time I pointed
>>>> him to a section of that Act he asked "Is there an English
>>>> translation available?", so probably not.
>>>>
>>>> News:48dbcc56.135456187@news.motzarella.org
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>
>>> My immediate thought is that anyone who cannot cope with the English 
>>> language should not be posting to uk.legal, but then numerous 
>>> counter-examples spring to mind; however, my personal opinion is that, er, 
>>> they should not be posting to uk.legal either.
>>
>> I am posting to uk.rec.driving.  I don't care where crossposts go.
>
>You may be reading this thread in uk.rec.driving but you are also posting
>to uk.legal.  Maybe you are as clueless about Internet News and how to use
>a news reader as you are about the Road Traffic Act.  If you need help in
>removing from your posts newsgroups in which you are out of your depth and
>merely making a fool of yourself, then ask for that help.

You may be reading this thread in uk.legal but I don't follow uk.legal
and am reading it in uk.rec.driving.  I only follow uk.rec.driving.
Maybe you are as clueless about Usenet as you are about everything
else.  If you can't post in standard English that people in
uk.rec.driving can understand, then remove yourself from that group
when crossposting.

>> My immediate thought is that legislation should be written in clear
>> and concise English, not in legalese.  Whatever happened to the
>> "Clarity in English" campaign - or whatever it was called?
>
>If you know this truth, that the language of the Act is too complicated for
>you to understand, then stop contradicting posts by people who can read it.

The "language of the Act" isn't English.  It's legalese.  If you can
read it, you should be able to translate it.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:38:43 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:37:26 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:45:20 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:44:49 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:17:37 +0200, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:42:31 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:56 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28 Sep, 18:40, "mert1639"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As an interesting aside, has anyone ever come across a vehicle which is
>>>>>>>>> covered under a security rather than an insurance policy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't British Rail used to insure their vehicle?  I don't know if they
>>>>>>>> still do, but it is possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I recall, the amount which had to be posted was sharply increased a
>>>>>>> few years back 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was stable for a number of years and then inflationary pressures
>>>>>> caught up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... it had reached the point where the lost interest on
>>>>>>> that amount was similar to the cost of insuring a  young driver and
>>>>>>> rich city type were starting to take advantage of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that, of course, if you can afford it.  But the
>>>>>> lost interest on £2 million is at least £100K.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think there is any "lost interest" you don't understand the system.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that the rates earned on the bond can't be easily
>>>> beaten elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Virtually any interest rate can be "beaten" in some more risky investment,
>>> but to allege that investors who held Treasuries "lost interest" versus
>>> their holding Lehman Brothers debt is to misunderstand what "lost" means.
>>
>> To hold all one's funds in Treasuries is being excessively cautious.
>>
>>> But in particular to the RTA, what is "the bond" you believe is required?
>>> You're shooting in the dark and you are not even close.
>>
>> "Bond" is a generic term for the funds kept aside for self-insurance.
>
>The generic term is Security 

They mean exactly the same.

>and if you don't even know what kinds of
>securities are permitted, on what basis did you make your claim that £100K
>of interest would be lost?  Your calculation that £100K of interest would
>be lost by applying £2 million in security demonstrates that you believed
>the security would earn zero interest and is yet more proof that you post
>total bollocks and then waffle, duck and weave when caught out.

You're happy with a return of 5% on £2 million???  Are you retarded?