It's (once again) all down to slavish obedience to yet another EU directive, so at least we can be consoled that all other EU countries are facing the same problem.
/sarcasm
|
Other EU countries,especially the new ones, do not slavishly obey EU directives. This is a peculiarly German and British obsession. My question remains, why do we pay civil servants vast amounts of money to do a job when they don't do it? Sack the entire department for gross incompetence and start again.
HJ
|
My question remains, why do we pay civil servants vast amounts of money to do a job when they don't do it? Sack the entire department for gross incompetence and start again.
>>
couldn't agree more. without wishing to drag this thread into a political discussion, all i can say in short is that the action hj advocates cannot be implemented becasue of the sandwich & beer friends of no.10 no.11 and two-jags.
i have dealings with the state sector and it is utterly demoralising. you can get a project agreed and implemented with the private sector in x days for y pence. the same project takes x weeks and y pounds to be implemented in the state sector. why? because of bureacracy, dithering, fear of decision-making, paranoia about health & safety, etc.
yours sincerely, victor meldrew's reincarnation.
|
Doubtless, this will also mean that our brief return to the happy days when a scrappy actually paid you something are over!
Nothing in it for HMG of course - but when you pay the scrappy, HMG get their 17.5%.
|
Best way to scrap a car now is to leave it on a dodgy estate with the doors unlocked. A box of matches and a can of lighter fuel lying on the passenger seat would help to ensure that it will no longer be your problem.
You can even put that old fridge in the boot.
|
|
Perhaps parking it up in central London with the number plates detached and saying goodbye to it is the easiest way.
|
First remove the VIN plate, grind off the engine number and then the chassis number from where a cunning manufacturer has hidden it !
Roger. (in Spain).
|
|
EU directives are written in Brussels, read in Luxembourg, laughed at in Rome, totally ignored in Paris and ruthlessly observed in London.
|
Pathetic responses to a real problem.
Can I suggest that all of you who want potentially toxic waste stored in your back garden do so.
We could always wind things back to good old London pea soup smog as well, after all health and safety is not really important is it?
|
Pathetic responses to a real problem. Can I suggest that all of you who want potentially toxic waste stored in your back garden do so. We could always wind things back to good old London pea soup smog as well, after all health and safety is not really important is it?
Granted, H&S is important and the recycling industry should not be exempt. But that is not the problem. The problem is that inert civil servants cannot answer their mail and as a result the recycling industry cannot operate because they do not know what their waste is classed as.
It is important that this industry operates under close regulation. But it is even more important that it operates, full stop. If, as seems likely, it grinds to a complete halt, there will be little option but to dump stuff here there and everywhere. Even a dirty recycling industry would be better than than.
We should not pursue perfection if in the process we create chaos.
|
Hi,
I agree with hxj on this one. No point harping on about the EU, its a problem that has been ignored, by many, for far too long.
However, car manufacturers have being doing most of the work so far, by introducing more recycled parts, making 95%+ of other parts marked to make recycling easier and some manufacturers (VAG) will take old cars back off you for dismantling (only in Germany though)
Roberson
|
I'd agree with hxj that toxic waste is a serious problem, and it's a pity that some folks don't seem too enthusiastic about finding better ways of handling it. I haven't followed all the details of this dispute, but I do recall that govt previously accused the waste disposal industry of dragging its feet and exaggerating the dificulties of implementing the new rules.
The DEFRA press release on the waste disposal changes is at www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2004/160704waste.htm and more details of the govt's Hazardous Waste Forum are at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/hazforum/
|
|
I worked in Rome for a while, at least ten years ago. At that time the Italian government had the ruling that car owners had to pay the dismantlers. There were cars littering the roadsides even around the most prominent tourist sites in the centre of Rome. If they were so far ahead of us then, what is it like now? Anyone been there recently?
|
HXI, please use the link to read the news item.
And why is is that the few bits of a car left over after the recycling process are vastly more hazardous than the 20 tons of disposable nappies filled with toxic waste by every baby before it can learn to use the Rebecca?
HJ
|
You can hardy call disposbale nappies TOXIC. They just don't degrade. Car parts might degrade slowly too, but as they do, reactions may take place giving off gasses into the atmosphere and fluids in to the water courses of the surrounding areas. (maybe)
Roberson
|
Okay, if your car fails its MOT and isn\'t worth repairing, what do you do? Please would one of her majesty\'s civil servants or a backroom greenie step forward and explain. Because the way the news item puts it you have no legal means of disposing of your MOT failed car. You cannot legally keep it. You cannot legally dispose of it. So what do you do? No Wheels links don\'t explain.
HJ
|
HJ, as the Telegraph article says, at the moment you can't scrap a car because the scrap car industry is effectively on strike. Sounds like a good time for who who repair old cars rather than scrapping them!
The problem here is that some 25% of car scrap is dumped in landfill rather than being recycled. The option of cheap landfill (by labelling it as "non-toxic") is being closed off, and the scrap industry has had a long time to prepare for this, but apparently prefers to try to pressure govt into keeping cheap landfill as an option.
As the article says, there are 11 sites which do take toxic waste, but it doesn't mention the govt's point that the reduced from 200 sites is a red herring, because most of the toxic waste sites are smaller ones which never took toxic waste anyway.
There would be enough toxic landfill capacity to take some of the waste while the industry catches up ... but it apprently prefers not to catch up. So while the scrappies prefer easy profits, we're all stuffed: it'll be interesting to see who blinks first.
I'm inclined to think that as a previous poster suggested, the problem may only be resolved by govt covering the extra cost of recycling all these thousands of tons of dead cars. The logical way to do that would be by a levy on new car sales, but unfortunately pressure from the manufacturers delayed that option -- I can't remember what happened to the idea of a levy.
(BTW, I'm not a civil servant!)
|
I watched the TV interview with Lady Young who blamed the recycling industry for not adapting to the new rules.
Then saw the head of the recycling trade industry saying basically what the DT article said.
Since recycling scrap cars is a part of everyday life, I would have assumed the Gov't would ensure it can continue to operate and prevent scrap cars lying around.
For a Gov't Minister to blame the industry and to effectively imply that if scrap cars lie around it's not her fault is just sheer abrogation of responsibility.
I thought Gov't was elected on our behalf to ensure the country was governed effectively.It would appear Gov't thinks otherwise.
She (Lady Young) can't make an industry do something that is uneconomic: see the mess the NHS dental system is in after trying that. To set impossible conditions (from what I have read) and then to duck responsibility is just total incompetence.
If there are conflicting rules - which it appears there are- it is not beyond the ability of any sensible Gov't to make a compromise on how those laws are implemented.
(After all the EC leaves implementation of its laws to local Governments).
Best thing for protestors to do is abandon cars in central London.. not that I would suggest such a reprehensible course of action. But it might make some politicians think of the consequences of their actions..
madf
|
As HJ says and as the news item informs the waste disposal industry have no way of knowing what is 'toxic' waste and what is not as the government won't tell them what it classifies as which. HOWEVER what they do know is that if they go ahead and take the decision themselves and the government eventually gets its finger out and classifies matters differently then a whole army of beaurocrats will decent on them handing out fines left right and centre. So they are STOPPING the industry until government gets off its a*** and does something.
As for us ordinary mortals we will all sell our cars To Mr. M Mouse of Cheese Lane, Never Never Land and register the transfer with DVLA. If Mr. Mouse then dumps the car its nothing to do with us...
|
The scrappies do have a way of knowing: get each batch tested. As the Telegraph article says:
He said two conflicting pieces of legislation were at the heart of the problem; the EU End of Life Vehicles directive, under which shredder residue is classified as "inert", and the hazardous waste regulations, which require all materials to be tested each time they are sent for landfill.
So, far from the industry being stopped, they have chosen not to use a viable means to continue disposal (presumably because testing would be more expensive). The scrappies apparently prefer instead to push for the "inert" classification to cover all their shredder residue, even if it is toxic.
The End Of Life directive requires in any case that "(b) hazardous materials and components shall be removed and segregated in a selective way so as not to contaminate subsequent shredder waste from end-of life vehicles" (Directive 2000/53/EC, Atrtivle 6(3)(b), europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_269/l_2...f ). It seems to me that the testing requirement could be regarded as simply being a verification step.
It's not unusual for one rule to be stricter than another, and the solution used by most reasonable folks is simply to observe the stricter rule.
|
"shredder residue"
Why do they have to be shredded? I seem to remember that cars used to be crushed (whole) and then dropped into a blast furnace somewhere near Port Talbot, which neatly incinerated the hydrocarbons and turned the rest into steel ingots. I suppose too much aluminium might be a problem, but apart from that...?
|
ageed with thommo and others.
nowheels, hxi, and roberson are missing the point completely.
we may agree or disagree with the new rules - that is not the point.
the point is that there is now an incentive for owners of scrap cars to dump them illegally rather than dispose of them legally.
an example - my local dump used to provide facilities for disposing of asbestos. that was withdrawn. so now the asbestos is fly-tipped and the worst case was it being dumped in a charity-shop's bin. the charity had to pay for specialist disposal company to handle the waste because the council did not want to know!
the mandarins think that just because they have passed a law, everything will be sorted.
|
the point is that there is now an incentive for owners of scrap cars to dump them illegally rather than dispose of them legally
I agree, up to a point ... though it's a separate issue, and it's not why the scrappies are on strike.
A disposal method which costs money is going to provide some incentive for illegal dumping, unless the cost is covered by someone else. The "producer pays" principle would point to the car-makers paying, but they have used all their political muscle to avoid that historical obligation.
That leaves govt as the only backstop to pay for cars which are dumped. Given the lack of enthusiasm for taxes, I don't blame them for preferring to choose enforcement rather than forking out.
the mandarins think that just because they have passed a law, everything will be sorted
hmm, I suspect that they are well used to the old problem of one part of a solution increasing the pressure to find the rest of the solution
|
the 20 tons of disposable nappies filled with toxic waste by every baby before it can learn to use the Rebecca?
We do have an alternative, just as we do with car scrapping, if we choose:
www.bambo.com/diapers_environment_sites.html
|
And why is is that the few bits of a car left over after the recycling process are vastly more hazardous than the 20 tons of disposable nappies filled with toxic waste by every baby before it can learn to use the Rebecca?
Rebecca to toilet - please explain the cockney slang
|
Mare,
Rebecca Loos, aledgedly a footballers "extra ciricular activity", not that this issue needs recycling! :-)
Loos = Toilets
John R
|
Loos = Toilets
A recent addition then - you're most kind!
|
|
|
Best way to scrap a car now is to leave it on a dodgy estate with the doors unlocked.
Or just apply "Police Aware" on the window. Someone else will then scrap it for you.
|
No Wheels, who do you work for? I defended you against the moderators recently because it\'s good to have a proper debate, but now I\'m beginning to wonder what your motives are. If you want to answer this privately, that\'s fine. I better add that my problem over this thread\'s issue comes from legislators and civil servants making life unnecessarily difficult for the people who have to earn a living in order to earn the tax revenue that pays the legislators and civil servants.
HJ
|
HJ, fair question, and better I think for me to answer publicly in case anyone else is asking the same question!
I work for a small human rights campaign, focusing on issues which have nothing whatsoever to do with transport. Before that, I was involved in arms control and disarmament campaigning.
However, in the course of twenty years work on public policy issues, I have learnt how to find my way around govt information, and have a lot of dealings with govt oficials (tho not in any areas related to transport) ... so I know a fair bit about how they operate and how govt policies are developed, having seen a lot of it up close. Knowing how govt works is the core skill of my business, just as knowing about cars is yours ... and I try to apply that approach to other areas of interest, such as transport.
This thread caught my eye, because I felt that the Telegraph article you linked to was unbalanced: it seems to me that it was slanted unfairly towards the scrappies, and told a rather different story to what I'd heard on a Radio 4 item some months back.
Knowing the way govt officials work these days, with endless consultations and public position papers, I would be astounded if they hadn't done their best to get a workable solution. I often disagree with the oficials I deal with, but all of the ones I encounter work very hard and (usually) pretty effectively.
My interest in this one is that it seems to me that it's very good thing to reduce the amount of toxic waste generated (and to control the safe disposal of what remains), but that it's a horribly complicated thing to achieve. Sometimes the answers questions come down to who blinks first, and there appears to me to plenty of room for both sides to maneouvre. It sure won't suit govt to have piles of scrap cars on the roadside, but nor will it suit scrappies to stay out of business.
The problem, it seems to me, is not any intentional making-life-dificult (tho I wouldn't rule out a screw-up, they do often happen in govt as well as elsewhere) ... but that there is a real clash betwen the govt's desire for a safer means of waste disposal, and the scrappies' desire to continue with cheaper disposal methods. Those clashes are usually sorted by negotiation to reach some sort of a workable compromise, but sometimes I've seen govt hold firm and say "no, you gotta change how you do things".
In this case, things are complicated by the EU legislation ... which is probably a necessary step to prevent any country becoming a dumping-ground for other nation's waste, but limits both sides' options.
PS I should argue that one of my friends is married to a very nice scrappie, so I'm not out to do em down ... but on this occasion, I think they have got it wrong.
|
Over the lest 15 years new environmental legislation has made life increasingly difficult for breakers. Their yards are now supposed to be concreted so that nothing from the scrap can seep into the land. All fluids have to be drained off and correctly disposed of, including R34 CFC refrigerant from old a/c systems. The various bits of the car have to be separated so that recyclable plastics can be recycled. And all this was forced upon them at a time when the price of scrap metal fell. That was why breakers had to start charging to dispose of old cars. And why the streets became festooned with abandoned cars. This year, the price of scrap metal rose sharply so scrappings cars became profitable again and is why the scrap cars on the streets have mostly vanished. But, according to the news report that begins this thread, the new requirement prevents breakers disposing of the non-recyclable bits of the car thus preventing them from breaking cars at all, and gives no answers as to what owners of cars with failed MOTs are supposed to do with them. No Wheels quotes an alternative view expressed of Radio 4. I have never heard Radio 4 take anything but an anti-car stance. But at least the BBC uses our licence fee money to balance this by also broadcasting Top Gear.
HJ
|
HJ, I think it'd be a pity for this issue to be polarised on a pro-car/anti-car lines. I'd hope that the most diehard greenies would want a viable means of dismantling, and I wouldn't see anything inconsistent in a committed car enthusiast wanting to make sure that toxic residues don't end up being dumped where the contamination might leak out.
From what I have read since this thread started yesterday, it does seem to me that there is a way in which scrappies can still dispose of the non-recyclable bits, by separating the toxic and non-toxic residue. Isn't the issue here that the scrappies don't want do either that separation or to follow the requirement for "all materials to be tested each time they are sent for landfill", as the Telegraph reports it?
Separation and testing is probably a more expensive procedure, but it doesn't seem to me to be unworkable.
|
CRIKEY!! This is too heavy for me!!
We always used to 'do our bit', by keeping an old trade-in van, in the corner of the yard. Never took long for it to become full of all the scrap metal we created, bits of wire, wings & body parts (not customers that hadn't paid their bill!!) brake discs & stuff. The lads even bothered to put their Coke cans in it!! When it was full, it'd be collected - cost us £20, to a proper scrappy, everyone was happy!
Guess we'd be breaking dozens of rules by doing it now.Storing hazerdous waste without form EEC 123456789, section B, filled in & so on!!
Still, I'm obviously talking YEARS ago - yes, 2 ACTUALLY, when we sold the yard!!
The good old days!!
VB
|
In order to conform to the new rules breakers will have to do things which make it uneconomic to dismantle cars at all, unless everyone with an MOT failed car is compelled by law to pay a licensed breaker maybe £500 to break it according to the new rules. So just at the point where the rise in the price of scrap metal made the process viable at no cost to car owners the legislators are finding ways to make it expensive again. The result will be a mixture of cars abandoned with their identities removed and 'travelling' illegal scrappies of no fixed abode who will simply set up on any patch of land where they can camp until the police move them on, leaving the patch where they have camped in a terrible state. Once again, the legislators and civil servants have taken things to far again without thinking through the consequences.
HJ
|
I am with HJ on this one. My view is that our friends in large caravans are unlikely to miss this business oppertunity. It will be £50 cash for your car to disappear. It will be broken on whatever ground they are camped on with no regard to enviromental legislation.
When they move on I hope it is the local council that gets stuck with the bill for cleaning up but if it is private land whats the odds they will try to stick the landowner with the bill?
The law of unintended consequences...
|
From what I have read since this thread started yesterday, it does seem to me that there is a way in which scrappies can still dispose of the non-recyclable bits, by separating the toxic and non-toxic residue. Isn't the issue here that the scrappies don't want do either that separation or to follow the requirement for "all materials to be tested each time they are sent for landfill", as the Telegraph reports it? Separation and testing is probably a more expensive procedure, but it doesn't seem to me to be unworkable.
The problem seems to stem from the limited capacity of the sites authorised to accept the waste that gets categorised as toxic. That leaves the scrap yards having to store increasing quantities of these materials on site, with no clear idea on when the disposal sites will have the capacity or desire to accept this waste.
Would you want to be a manufacturer where you suddenly found you were unable to transport your goods to the customer but were expected to keep producing regardless? That's the situation the scrap yards are currently facing.
|
The problem seems to stem from the limited capacity of the sites authorised to accept the waste that gets categorised as toxic.
The scrapyards claim there ain't enough capacity, but the govt claims there is. I dunno either way: I suspect that the scrappies are trying it on, 'cos they have a business interest in avoiding the higher standards they will have to adopt, tho govt could be chancing its arm too ... but I can't see it being in their interest to do so. If govt has got this wrong, it's major egg-on-face time, posibly ministerial resignation stuff, and few ministers walk out of a job if they can avoid. I guess we'll see soon enough which side is right.
Whether any available capacity is enough to meet demand seems to depend in part on whether the scrappies are prepared to separate out the hazardous content. Some smaller yards may not have the space/facilities for that, but others will ... so that may lead to some getting back in business before others, and others may just go out of business.
The problem of it costing money to dispose of cars is an inevitable consequence of making the scrapyards dump less stuff, and recycle more ... but I don't see that even the scrapyards are arguing directly against the principle of more recycling and more waste separation. There simply isn't infinite landfill capacity, and the question is who pays for more sophisticated solutions.
Fly dumping is a problem everywhere, but as far as I know it's not as bad a problem as it could have been as costs rose -- better enforcement has helped offset the higher cost of landfill. I guess we'll have to see how bad the abandoned-car problem becomes once the scrapyards are working again, but it won't necessarily become a nightmare. Talk of £500 scrappage cost seems pretty unlikely in the short term, and a lot of folks would pay (say) £50, which is what it costs to hire a skip.
In the long-term, I don't see any alternative to govt-funded disposal, which would probably have to be backed-up by some sort of special levy. The sad thing is that efforts to develop a fund have been opposed by the manufacturers, and it may take a cars-dumped-on-streets crisis before govt has the courage to face them down.
|
No Wheels, HJ and others.
A great debate here about a potentially explosive issue.
I have to say, until NW mentioned who she worked for and gave an account of her knowledge and experiences, I was on the side of HJ and co. Now I'm not so sure.
It seems to me that this has been a long time in coming. Although this is the first I have heard of the number of toxic waste landfill sites falling to 11, I'm sure the government haven't just sprung this on the industry, in fact I know a scrappie who has been preparing for the EU directive for years. It's cost him about £50K and he employs about 4 people (to give some idea about the size of his business)
However, it does seem to me that there is little investment in recycling and treating hazardous waste in the UK. Tyres for example can be reused and reprocessed in a number of profitable ways. Cement works even incinarate them in their furnaces, apparently as well as the high energy conted they have, the steel webbing provides a valuable oxidisation that helps with the process. Tyres can also be recycled into heavy duty bollards, rubber chippings etc.
Does anyone know how the 75% recyclable content of a vehicle is calculated? Does it include all recyclable monomers etc or just the scrap metal content? If it is the latter then someone should point out that the washer bottles for example, may be melted and reformed for use in a brand new car! I know because I saw this process in the Valeo line in Wales about 11 years ago.
I am in favour of clean incinaration methods that could reduce the problem of both inert and toxic waste, and be used to assist the national grid as well. If every area was within say an hour's drive to an incinaration site then this would make disposal of virtually all non recyclable waste from motor vehicles not only feasable but probably cheaper.
In actual fact, it would not be totally stupid to suggest that large ELV recyclers should consider having furnaces for Combined Heat and Power purposes (generating their own power and heat and feeding some power back to the National Grid). After stripping the car of all resaleable and recyclable items, they could then put the whole vehicle in this furnace, remove it after 30 mins when it is nothing but a twisted shell, then crush it!
It's the Japanese philosophy that looks at the cost to society rather than the cost to an individaul. From a society point of view, if the investment took place 20 or 30 years from now we would be looking at having paid off the investment and reaping the rewards in terms of cost and environment.
If the government and the scrappies got together, made the right requests for the EU money that is there and then researched and funded this properly, rather than just argue, we would have now completed about 10 years more work. I have to say that this seems a typically British way of working.
Hugo
|
NW wrote (paraphrased) 'this is an opportunity for those who like to do up old cars'
Well not really. Because the cheaper old cars get, the more of them you're offered, so you can afford to be pickier with the ones you get.
Now, so far as I am aware, I can still give cars to my local council to be disposed of, for free. Oh the joys of central London. So, any BRer wishing to give me £30 & dump a car near my front door... The last one I scrapped went full to the brim with concrete slabs, garden waste etc, as well.
|
Since my last post, I have seen my friend who owns a scrapyard.
He and the vast majorety of scrap metal association members are refusing point blank to accept cars and other items with a waste content from today due to the high costs of removing the 'toxic' waste. Apparently there is some emergency meeting in London among ministers to try to sort the problem.
He hopes that the government will see sense within a few weeks and review the situation. He admits that with the high cost of steel at the moment, this is an opportunity to make a killing, as when the problem is resolved, he would have a huge quantity of scrap that he would have paid nothing for. But he feels that he should stand firm with the association and force a rethink. He was asked to take 100 cars today but had to refuse. I don't think this is the behaviour of a greedy man.
He seems to share my idea for clean incineration. He currently pays for his tyres to be taken by Blue Circle and incinerated.
Apparently the government have known about this EU legislation for 5 years and have only recently sprung it on the industry. I eat some of my words in my last post.
H
|
This is being discussed on Radio 4 now.
If you can't get to a radio this instant, the programme should be available later at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/
|
Just to make it all even sillier.....
This will rapidly result in what's left of our steel industry having to import the raw materials that will soon be filling the streets.
|
I will repeat what I said before (and effectively what HJ said)
The Government can legislate until it is blue in the face but it CANNOT force anyone to be in business if they don't want to make a loss.
So if it sets conditions that scrapyards don't like and they stop work, it is hypocritical and stupid of the Government to then complain that scrapyards are not working.
Whilts I fully support a greener Britain etc, if you make the last user of a car pay £250 or so (say) to dispose of it, then you should not be surprised if old cars are dumped.
Politics is the art of the possible. Trying to make people run businesses at a loss is not possible (unless it's a nationalised industry like the railways).
So the problem is political. Remember the fridge mountain, foot and mouth and BSE? The same institutions are involved again.
Organise drinking parties in breweries anyone?
madf
|
"Isn't the issue here that the scrappies don't want to..."
I don't know if it's a case of "not wanting". Surely it's more likely a case that if they charge the amount it would take them to want to do the work, then people will simply dump the car. After all, if a car cost you £50 in a pub, would you even consider paying another £50 (let alone the £300 the industry quotes) to scrap it?
Scrap merchants have to make a profit. They won't stand the extra charge, their customers won't, so who IS going to pay?
V
|
Seems to me just another example (as if any were needed) that very little works properly any more in this country. When it took 10 hours to remove an overturned lorry from the M20 last week we have to ask - are the lunatics now in charge of the assylum??
CG
|
Since my last post, I have seen my friend who owns a ..... ...... ...... for 5 years and have only recently sprung it on the industry. >> I eat some of my words in my last post.
hugo - errr, isn't what you learnt from your friend exactly what is in the link hj posted right at the beginning of the thread? ??
|
According to todays Daily Telegraph a 'compromise' has been reached whereby the non-recyclable elements can be disposed of in normal landfill sites after the oil has been removed. Which is exactly what the industry was asking for.
So according to the government the scrap industry was WRONG WRONG WRONG AND THEY WILL DO WHAT WE SAY, oh ok then they won't.
Why is it that anyone has to take this government to the edge and show them the drop before they agree to anything even half way sensible?
|
>> Since my last post, I have seen my friend who owns a >> ..... ...... ...... >> for 5 years and have only recently sprung it on the industry. >> I eat some of my words in my last post. hugo - errr, isn't what you learnt from your friend exactly what is in the link hj posted right at the beginning of the thread? ??
Err - no, actually.
My Friend mentioned the 5 years, the link mentioned a 'Long Time'
Also, the link made no explicit mention of this being a surprise for the industry. It leaves the reader to make up one's own mind as to why the scrap yards are not prepared for it. I have since heard this from my friend.
Granted, the link does imply that the industry were caught out by this, but does not explain how.
And anyway why should we all agree what journalists say?:)
H
|
"..balance this by also broadcasting Top Gear"
On the face of it, true, but TG is now so asinine that it plays directly into the hands of the anti-car lobby. Not that I would expect the Beeb to appreciate that... :-(
|
|
Good word, "asinine", JBJ. I'd add puerile to that. Oops, this should be on the Top Gear thread . . . but I won't repeat there what I've said so many times before.
|
Thank you, Roger - I was beginning to feel a bit outnumbered on the other thread!
I was wondering if Thommo's suggestion above that "we will all sell our cars To Mr. M Mouse of Cheese Lane, Never Never Land and register the transfer with DVLA" could be amended to "Mr J Clarkson, Etc" - the thought of all those V5's hitting his mat, announcing new ownership of assorted old Toyotas and Datsuns certainly hits my schadenfreude button!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, HJ, if they pay civil servants these vast amounts, you could do all of us a service by taking one of those overpaid jobs and showing them how it should be done?
|
|
|
|
|
