Petrol and diesel don't mix

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Here's a question

If a person buys a car on credit or HP. does DVLA still "Own" the car? Because if so then all moneys owed to the finance company would become due and payable in full with immediate effect. As the Finance company is the legal owner of the car and you can not transfer ownership of the car until you have paid off all the finance.
 
drewbhoy1 said:
Thats why its called an illusion because they made you believe its yours . There is no court action they just compound it and they have to own it to do it legally without court actions . You haven't shown me a case where some one took them to court for stealing their car and won. No one has any lawful right to touch anyones property not even the police .You need to look up the difference between Lawful and legal or Common law and Statutes .
The DVLA don't own all cars only the ones registered to them . Everything you register you give away legally to the body you register it with. Don't blame me its how they do it legally thats why you have to look up the difference between LAWFUL and LEGAL as they are two different things. Once you understand the difference between the two you will understand .
HNY Drew
Click to expand...

Simple proof that the dvla dont own any vehicles. The export of vehicles that goes on each and every day. Dvla cant claim a motor in botswanna
 
goonarmy said:
Simple proof that the dvla dont own any vehicles. The export of vehicles that goes on each and every day. Dvla cant claim a motor in botswanna
Click to expand...

If I sell my 110 does that mean I've stolen it off DVLA what about the vehicles I've scrapped over the years I've deprived DVLA of access to and the registration of those vehicles Have I obtained monies by pecuniary advantage???
 
redhand said:
UNder what circumstances Do DVLA impound a vehicle?? As far as I am aware The police or VOSA are the bodies usually involved in the impounding of a motor Vehicle??

if a vehicle is been used on a public highway without tax then an Act of Parliment (statute) allows an authorised Gov agency to impound the vehicle. The DVLA is an authorised agency. Hence why it's not TWOC by driving a car on a public highway you are deemed to have entered into a contract, you can't simply turn around and say I agreed with the contract but not with the penalty clauses.
Click to expand...

No body has any lawful right to take anyones property ,not the police , not David Cameron nor the Queen .It deosn't matter who they use to take their car back as it is theirs to take . An act of parliment (statute ) is not law it is only law when you the governed consent to it .That is taken from Blacks law dictionary and based on case law.Common law is the only law of this land all police and judges swear an oath to it (not statutes)and if you break common law (cause harm or loss to another man or woman ) then you have to go to a real court and be judged by your peers (jury) then accept the fine or punishment you get . Thats law ,an act of parliment is only that ,an Act with no contract that's the illusion to make you think its law .Contract law is different it cant be assumed it has to be verbal or two signatures . Thats why they legally have to be the owner to take it without a court or warrant or it would say REGISTERED OWNER on V5.
 
drewbhoy1 said:
No body has any lawful right to take anyones property ,not the police , not David Cameron nor the Queen .It deosn't matter who they use to take their car back as it is theirs to take . An act of parliment (statute ) is not law it is only law when you the governed consent to it .That is taken from Blacks law dictionary and based on case law.Common law is the only law of this land all police and judges swear an oath to it (not statutes)and if you break common law (cause harm or loss to another man or woman ) then you have to go to a real court and be judged by your peers (jury) then accept the fine or punishment you get . Thats law ,an act of parliment is only that ,an Act with no contract that's the illusion to make you think its law .Contract law is different it cant be assumed it has to be verbal or two signatures . Thats why they legally have to be the owner to take it without a court or warrant or it would say REGISTERED OWNER on V5.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Sorry to break up the party by bringing back the topic, but the issue with mobiles on forecourts is nothing whatever to do with signals interfering with kit. It is because when you turn phones on and off, and when you receive texts or calls, it can sometimes be accompanied by small electrical sparks. As was mentioned earlier, sparks and petroleum gas vapours mix rather too well for comfort! It' s all related to the upper and lower explosive limits of the substance in air, expressed as a percentage, which for petrol are quite far apart, meaning that there is a wide range of vapour concentrations of petrol that will explode given the TINIEST ignition source. While this is unlikely to be in the atmosphere on the forecourt, it is very likely around your filler cap while you are pouring highly flammable liquid into the tube.

I have seen a video of a tanker driver use the torch on his mobile, which produces the same size spark as receiving a text, to do a visual check of the level in his tanker, which immediately exploded. It' s called a BLEVE. check them out.

And for those of you that don't believe health & safety is important in the workplace, tell that to the families of those killed on Piper Alpha, or Deepwater Horizon, or the 200+ people who didn' t come home from work last year in the UK!

Happy New Year to you all.
 
drewbhoy1 said:
No body has any lawful right to take anyones property ,not the police , not David Cameron nor the Queen .It deosn't matter who they use to take their car back as it is theirs to take . An act of parliment (statute ) is not law it is only law when you the governed consent to it .That is taken from Blacks law dictionary and based on case law.Common law is the only law of this land all police and judges swear an oath to it (not statutes)and if you break common law (cause harm or loss to another man or woman ) then you have to go to a real court and be judged by your peers (jury) then accept the fine or punishment you get . Thats law ,an act of parliment is only that ,an Act with no contract that's the illusion to make you think its law .Contract law is different it cant be assumed it has to be verbal or two signatures . Thats why they legally have to be the owner to take it without a court or warrant or it would say REGISTERED OWNER on V5.
Click to expand...

Yep the above is great but only works if you commit an act of treason and refuse to accept the Governence and rule of Her Majesties Government. Unfortunately IF you do that? then you can not make use of any single Government service so.

No schools for the kids
No NHS
No benefits
No assistance from the Police
No access to Public funded buildings
No Use of a Public highway
No Pension

etc etc. I know the arguements you spout! But it's a 2 way system if you refuse to be part of it then that is fine But you can't pick and choose which bits you want to use.

And the whole principle of statute Law is that You "Consent." If you Consent then you have entered into a Contract. If you don't Consent then see the 1st part of my post..

A contract does not require a signature or even a verbal agreement When you buy a ticket to the cinema you have entered into a contract. when you Park in a carpark you have entered into a contract. when you buy something from a shop you have entered into a contract.
 
goonarmy said:
Simple proof that the dvla dont own any vehicles. The export of vehicles that goes on each and every day. Dvla cant claim a motor in botswanna
Click to expand...

What simple proof ? Unless DVLA have legal rights in Botswana then they cant do anything . They dont care where you send it as they don't loose a penny as we are the ones who pay the money to buy it not them. Don't you have to tell them or you receive car tax demands ?
 
IanSG19 said:
Sorry to break up the party by bringing back the topic, but the issue with mobiles on forecourts is nothing whatever to do with signals interfering with kit. It is because when you turn phones on and off, and when you receive texts or calls, it can sometimes be accompanied by small electrical sparks. As was mentioned earlier, sparks and petroleum gas vapours mix rather too well for comfort! It' s all related to the upper and lower explosive limits of the substance in air, expressed as a percentage, which for petrol are quite far apart, meaning that there is a wide range of vapour concentrations of petrol that will explode given the TINIEST ignition source. While this is unlikely to be in the atmosphere on the forecourt, it is very likely around your filler cap while you are pouring highly flammable liquid into the tube.

I have seen a video of a tanker driver use the torch on his mobile, which produces the same size spark as receiving a text, to do a visual check of the level in his tanker, which immediately exploded. It' s called a BLEVE. check them out.

And for those of you that don't believe health & safety is important in the workplace, tell that to the families of those killed on Piper Alpha, or Deepwater Horizon, or the 200+ people who didn' t come home from work last year in the UK!

Happy New Year to you all.
Click to expand...


I wonder what you do for a living :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Apologies, my previous message was also not on the original topic, which was helping someone in need because of their own carelessness. There is a whole new industry growing around these poor unfortunates, and they will charge what they can get away with. Little sympathy from me,I' m afraid!
 
IanSG19 said:
Apologies, my previous message was also not on the original topic, which was helping someone in need because of their own carelessness. There is a whole new industry growing around these poor unfortunates, and they will charge what they can get away with. Little sympathy from me,I' m afraid!
Click to expand...


Deffo H&S and a middleclass w*nker to boot. I'm sure your so perfect that you have never made a single mistake in your life. :rolleyes:
 
drewbhoy1 said:
The DVLA own your car thats why when you get the car towed away and taken to a compound you cant do them for theft as its their car but if i tow the car that you think is yours and take it to a compound then i can get done for TWOC . Legally they can take their car off you at any time unless you de register it. If any one thinks that is false then prove me wrong, the next time you have it towed to compound try and take them to court for TWOC and you will loose because they cant get done for taking their own car away.Or show me a case where some one has taken them to court and win . They dont want plebs like us knowing the law but you must know your strawman.
Click to expand...
Thats not true. The dvla don't own your car and you can't say they do own it because motoring rules can be used to take it off you. When someone like the police take your car they do so by using rules which give them the power to take it, when you do something wrong. If you didn't some anything wrong, then they wouldn't take it. Section 165 of the road traffic act is good for taking cars if your doing something wrong. It's a bit like a driving license. It's is a privilege to have one and you have to meet certain criteria to get one – pass test, correct age etc. If you break the rules then they can take your driving license off you.
 
redhand said:
I wonder what you do for a living :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

D' OH!

But I'm not the sort that is a jobsworth; I help people with common sense figure out how to do their work safely. There is too much done in the name of 'elf 'n' safety which has no basis in common sense or the law, and we're fighting against it constantly.
 
IanSG19 said:
I'd sooner you didn't resort to personal insults when you know nothing about me. And CLASS??? Please!
Click to expand...

Don't post nobbish comments then. He made a simple mistake. you don't know the guy and yet you condemned him as an idiot undeserving of your help or sympathy. That makes you a W*nker, in my book.
 
redhand said:
Don't post nobbish comments then. He made a simple mistake. you don't know the guy and yet you condemned him as an idiot undeserving of your help or sympathy. That makes you a W*nker, in my book.
Click to expand...
out of the gaylander section now if you can't behave like an adult
 
redhand said:
Yep the above is great but only works if you commit an act of treason and refuse to accept the Governence and rule of Her Majesties Government. Unfortunately IF you do that? then you can not make use of any single Government service so.

No schools for the kids
No NHS
No benefits
No assistance from the Police
No access to Public funded buildings
No Use of a Public highway
No Pension

etc etc. I know the arguements you spout! But it's a 2 way system if you refuse to be part of it then that is fine But you can't pick and choose which bits you want to use.

And the whole principle of statute Law is that You "Consent." If you Consent then you have entered into a Contract. If you don't Consent then see the 1st part of my post..

A contract does not require a signature or even a verbal agreement When you buy a ticket to the cinema you have entered into a contract. when you Park in a carpark you have entered into a contract. when you buy something from a shop you have entered into a contract.
Click to expand...

I see so you just bend over and accept any statute they they put on you no matter what and just vote the next ones in to do the same . I don't blame the Queen or her government because we just accept it.Common law covers every thing loss or harm to man and woman so thats law sorted . We all pay into the system but
schools for kids - run down
NHS - RUN DOWN
BENEFITS -CUTS
ASSISTANCE FROM POLICE- they are mostly an extension of the tax man
ACCESS TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS -ALL CLOSING
PUBLIC HIGHWAY - DROVE A LOT IN EUROPE AND OURS IS UP THERE WITH THE WORST.
PENSION- YOU CAN WRITE THAT OFF.

I am a lawful man going about my lawful business causing no harm or loss to no man or woman and don't vote as it just encourages them . I consent to somethings and not others so why should i have to pay for not wearing a seat belt etc .This is what i don't consent to but if you voted for it and consent to all they do to you then thats your choice .I make my choices and you make yours and you are not wrong to consent because thats your choice .
 
dave21478 said:
Hang on....you aren't one of these "freeman of the land" ****s are you? If so, I hope you die slowly.
Click to expand...

drewbhoy1 said:
No body has any lawful right to take anyones property ,not the police , not David Cameron nor the Queen .It deosn't matter who they use to take their car back as it is theirs to take . An act of parliment (statute ) is not law it is only law when you the governed consent to it .That is taken from Blacks law dictionary and based on case law.Common law is the only law of this land all police and judges swear an oath to it (not statutes)and if you break common law (cause harm or loss to another man or woman ) then you have to go to a real court and be judged by your peers (jury) then accept the fine or punishment you get . Thats law ,an act of parliment is only that ,an Act with no contract that's the illusion to make you think its law .Contract law is different it cant be assumed it has to be verbal or two signatures . Thats why they legally have to be the owner to take it without a court or warrant or it would say REGISTERED OWNER on V5.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you are a freeman aren't you?

Im not sure of the details, simply because it is number 174 on my list of "wacko bull**** that I cant be bothered looking further into"
Its something to do with you believing you are above the law since you never signed a contract at birth saying you would abide by them?
Typically spouted by crusties at demo rallies just before they get arrested.....you know the types, skinny white middle class mummies boys who are doing the grungy rebellion thing by growing dreadlocks, wearing dirty fairtrade clothes and having a scruffy dog - the kind of people who think they can win an argument by shouting louder than the other guy.:rolleyes: They are all well into this "us vs the state" nonsense.
The only thing that arouses my curiosity is that since the law seemingly has no power over them and the police can do nothing to them, who do they call if they get mugged or robbed? Oh thats right, they think they can pick and choose which bits of which laws apply when it suits them.
 
Hippo said:
Thats not true. The dvla don't own your car and you can't say they do own it because motoring rules can be used to take it off you. When someone like the police take your car they do so by using rules which give them the power to take it, when you do something wrong. If you didn't some anything wrong, then they wouldn't take it. Section 165 of the road traffic act is good for taking cars if your doing something wrong. It's a bit like a driving license. It's is a privilege to have one and you have to meet certain criteria to get one – pass test, correct age etc. If you break the rules then they can take your driving license off you.
Click to expand...

Rules and ACTS cant override law . Look up the difference between Lawful and Legal they are two things . Its the reason they dont teach you law at schhool .They dont want you knowing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

andrewfisher
Engine won't start immediately but needs cranking
Replies
16
Views
2K
MJI
MJI
S
Series 3 SIII Diesel won't rev
Replies
10
Views
976
series III
S
R
Freelander 1 New fuel pump, tank indicator reversed
Replies
7
Views
611
Nodge68
Nodge68
L
More Power - How far can you go?
Replies
17
Views
1K
LetsHopeItFits
L
V
P38a acting up
Replies
9
Views
846
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
Back
Top