The Medway Act 2001. discriminates against medway residents.

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

The Medway Act 2001 is an act specific to Medway residents.

 

It only came to my attention due to the local newspapers report about Peter Dolling being unable to sell his car, and being threatened with his car being towed away due to the “LITTLE KNOWN RULE” when he stuck no more than a sheet of paper inside his windscreen, advertising his ford escort for sale.

 

He was threatened with having his car forcibly removed.

 

Looking up this act on Medway councils own web page I found that the act coverers just about anything being sold second hand, especially if it is reasonably expected to be sold for £50 or more.

 

If the rest of the country, including London and other far larger city’s, can get along fine without this property grabbing rule since 2001, then I suggest we should be allowed to get on with our lives without this interfering rule, that unfairly treats us differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.

 

Here is a list copied and pasted from the Medway council website.

 

The Act can be changed

The Act allows Medway Council to amend the way that the record-keeping system works, providing the Secretary of State approves.

Goods that must be recorded

These include:

  • electrical or battery powered goods;
  • any medium on which sound, images or other data may be stored or recorded and which is intended for use with any such goods.

The following goods must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £10:

  • vehicle parts;
  • jewellery;
  • watches;
  • photographic equipment;
  • sports equipment;
  • equestrian equipment;
  • boating equipment;
  • musical equipment;
  • tools;
  • bicycles;
  • optical equipment;
  • firearms;
  • gardening equipment.

 

Goods that must be recorded if, in the reasonable opinion of the dealer at the time of the transaction, they are to be sold or offered for sale for more than £50 include:

  • all goods not previously mentioned. “

The Medway Act 2001,discriminates against the people of Medway and should be repealed.

 

Ban loud vehicle exhaust modification

Ban people modifying their cars and bikes to have louder exhausts than the ones they come with. There is no reason what so ever for these people to have loud exhausts apart from misguided vanity, yet the general public have to put up with their right to peace and quiet being removed by a few idiots. Ban this pointless modification culture now, as I'm sure it will only get worse.

Why is this idea important?

Ban people modifying their cars and bikes to have louder exhausts than the ones they come with. There is no reason what so ever for these people to have loud exhausts apart from misguided vanity, yet the general public have to put up with their right to peace and quiet being removed by a few idiots. Ban this pointless modification culture now, as I'm sure it will only get worse.

Allow people to decide whether they want to wear a seat belt or crash helmet.

It should be up to me to decide how much I want to protect myself.

To answer the argument bout the cost of treatment after accidents that could be dealt with by people opting not to wear seat belts and crash helmets having to take out insurance to cover injuries which may result.

The state could still legislate about children because they are not old enough to decide yet.

Why is this idea important?

It should be up to me to decide how much I want to protect myself.

To answer the argument bout the cost of treatment after accidents that could be dealt with by people opting not to wear seat belts and crash helmets having to take out insurance to cover injuries which may result.

The state could still legislate about children because they are not old enough to decide yet.

Repeal the law setting a limit on blood alcohol level for motorists

Blood alcohol level is a very poor indicator of driving ability.  There are plenty of people whose driving is safer, even at the current limit for blood alcohol level, than others when completely sober.  What is required is a test of safe driving – eg a reaction test.  Even the old test of asking a driver to walk along a white line is a better test of competence than the current breathalyser.  Any driver who can't pass a simple reaction test should be taken off the road, irrespective of whether or not he or she has been drinking.

Why is this idea important?

Blood alcohol level is a very poor indicator of driving ability.  There are plenty of people whose driving is safer, even at the current limit for blood alcohol level, than others when completely sober.  What is required is a test of safe driving – eg a reaction test.  Even the old test of asking a driver to walk along a white line is a better test of competence than the current breathalyser.  Any driver who can't pass a simple reaction test should be taken off the road, irrespective of whether or not he or she has been drinking.

Scrap differential speed limits for goods vehicles

Scrap the different speed limits that apply to goods vehicles over 2T and 7.5T on all classes of road. The speed limit will be harmonised for all vehicles.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the different speed limits that apply to goods vehicles over 2T and 7.5T on all classes of road. The speed limit will be harmonised for all vehicles.

Councils pay YOU fine if your parking ticket is cancelled

Tens of thousands of tickets are issued by local councils for minor parking infringments. Many of these are issued incorrectly due to errors in signage, lack of judgment, or simply the need to meet targets.

The majority of tickets which are appealed are overturned. In these instances the issuing council should pay the driver sum equivilant to the penalty they were seeking. This will cover the costs and hassle of having to go through the appeals process.

Why is this idea important?

Tens of thousands of tickets are issued by local councils for minor parking infringments. Many of these are issued incorrectly due to errors in signage, lack of judgment, or simply the need to meet targets.

The majority of tickets which are appealed are overturned. In these instances the issuing council should pay the driver sum equivilant to the penalty they were seeking. This will cover the costs and hassle of having to go through the appeals process.