True, but for a young driver in the UK, faced with car insurance that costs more per year than his car cost to buy, it might be an acceptable compromise.
Also, when the golden 4 years of No-Claims years kicks in (and you start to get decent discounts), you can stop using it.
Government must not have the power to force people to buy anything, to participate in anything, to pay any income taxes (see my sig if you care to understand my POV)
They arent. If you dont have a car, you are not forced to buy insurance. Similarly, you are not forced to buy a car. You want to drive a car, you get insurance. It isnt some grand company-funding conspiracy. It's so if you hit someone, they get their car repaired/replaced without having to pay for it themselves or lawyer up and sue.A lawsuit is much more expensive than an insurance policy.
If a person doesn't have insurance it does not mean he cannot pay for the problems if he causes the problems on the road. What if you don't want to give up your income to an insurance company, instead you have your savings that you can tap into in case of an emergency?
Because the cost of insurance is far lower than the cost of repairs, replacement car hire and injury payments to the people involved. I dunno about the USA, but here car insurance is not expensive unless you are young (which is what the scheme in the article is about). My own insurance costs £240 a year. A lot cheaper than paying several thousand for a new car if I totalled someone elses in a crash.
There is nothing that PREVENTS you from buying insurance, but government mandates for all of it just makes it more expensive, year to year.
When was the last time everybody's premiums went DOWN rather than up? The last time (in USA at least) was before the Federal reserve and various other government schemes were set up.
Premiums go down every year as you prove you are a safe driver (called a No Claims Discount - it can be as much as 75% off a premium). Also, there are a LOT of insurance companies here which helps to keep the market competitive and prices down.
Picture the following: 30-40 British officers of some branch of law enforcement arrive at the embassy. Perhaps they knock and ask or demand to be let in so that they can take Assange into custody. It is the duty of the Ecuadorians to defend Assange because their country has promised him political asylum. They are honorable men and they cannot allow this to happen without at least trying to stop it. They physically block the British officers. Perhaps they are armed. Perhaps, like the Brits, they are fully body armored with at least Class III-A or Class IV vests. I would predict some violence. Perhaps you mean that there will be no violence if Ecuador simply gives up Assange whose protection they have promised. But that would result in utter humiliation for Ecuador. So I think there is a good chance that there will be some violence, not just against Assange, but against some Ecuadorians. If there are deaths would it qualify as an actual war if government agents are fighting and killing each other under orders from their government? That's what I'm wondering. Whatever happens we can only hope that a video, perhaps from security cameras, will eventually be posted to youtube.
Your imagined version of events is laughable. Mostly because with the exception of an Armed Response Unit, UK police are not equipped with firearms. Police here do not just go in guns blazing like they do in the US.
This is no longer about Assage; the UK has become militant, committed an act of terrorism, and is a threat to the national security of over a hundred countries.
Do tell us what this "act of terrorism" is, exactly, and how does this pose a "threat to the national security of over a hundred countries"? I realise from your other posts you are militantly anti-UK, but you need to back this accusation up with some evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
sort of reminds me of the quote:
SOAP Box -> Ballot Box -> Ammo Box
In reality, it goes:
Soap Box -> Ballot Box -> Idiot Box (because American Idol is on)
True, but for a young driver in the UK, faced with car insurance that costs more per year than his car cost to buy, it might be an acceptable compromise.
Also, when the golden 4 years of No-Claims years kicks in (and you start to get decent discounts), you can stop using it.
Government must not have the power to force people to buy anything, to participate in anything, to pay any income taxes (see my sig if you care to understand my POV)
They arent. If you dont have a car, you are not forced to buy insurance. Similarly, you are not forced to buy a car. You want to drive a car, you get insurance. It isnt some grand company-funding conspiracy. It's so if you hit someone, they get their car repaired/replaced without having to pay for it themselves or lawyer up and sue.A lawsuit is much more expensive than an insurance policy.
If a person doesn't have insurance it does not mean he cannot pay for the problems if he causes the problems on the road. What if you don't want to give up your income to an insurance company, instead you have your savings that you can tap into in case of an emergency?
Because the cost of insurance is far lower than the cost of repairs, replacement car hire and injury payments to the people involved. I dunno about the USA, but here car insurance is not expensive unless you are young (which is what the scheme in the article is about). My own insurance costs £240 a year. A lot cheaper than paying several thousand for a new car if I totalled someone elses in a crash.
There is nothing that PREVENTS you from buying insurance, but government mandates for all of it just makes it more expensive, year to year.
When was the last time everybody's premiums went DOWN rather than up? The last time (in USA at least) was before the Federal reserve and various other government schemes were set up.
Premiums go down every year as you prove you are a safe driver (called a No Claims Discount - it can be as much as 75% off a premium). Also, there are a LOT of insurance companies here which helps to keep the market competitive and prices down.
Several dozen families a year escape from the UK using an underground network (of which I am part).
You work for Eurostar?
The US wants him and unfortunately the UK doesn't have the balls to stand up to the US.
Then you havent been paying attention - there have been several appeals against extradition. Why do you think he's been in the UK for so long?
What utter nonsense. What violence ?
Picture the following: 30-40 British officers of some branch of law enforcement arrive at the embassy. Perhaps they knock and ask or demand to be let in so that they can take Assange into custody. It is the duty of the Ecuadorians to defend Assange because their country has promised him political asylum. They are honorable men and they cannot allow this to happen without at least trying to stop it. They physically block the British officers. Perhaps they are armed. Perhaps, like the Brits, they are fully body armored with at least Class III-A or Class IV vests. I would predict some violence. Perhaps you mean that there will be no violence if Ecuador simply gives up Assange whose protection they have promised. But that would result in utter humiliation for Ecuador. So I think there is a good chance that there will be some violence, not just against Assange, but against some Ecuadorians. If there are deaths would it qualify as an actual war if government agents are fighting and killing each other under orders from their government? That's what I'm wondering. Whatever happens we can only hope that a video, perhaps from security cameras, will eventually be posted to youtube.
Your imagined version of events is laughable. Mostly because with the exception of an Armed Response Unit, UK police are not equipped with firearms. Police here do not just go in guns blazing like they do in the US.
This is no longer about Assage; the UK has become militant, committed an act of terrorism, and is a threat to the national security of over a hundred countries.
Do tell us what this "act of terrorism" is, exactly, and how does this pose a "threat to the national security of over a hundred countries"? I realise from your other posts you are militantly anti-UK, but you need to back this accusation up with some evidence.