On 14/07/2017 01:53, JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:02, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 11:54:36 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 12/07/2017 18:38, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 2:06:10 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2017 18:14, wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 2:32:54 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 05/07/2017 16:35, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 4:25:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
...you get evidence of the existence of something that was
alleged to
have been extinct for 80+ years.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/05/local-roads-government-cash-councils-motorways


QUOTE:
English councils will be given access to a multibillion-pound
fund for
local road improvements under plans unveiled by the transport
secretary,
Chris Grayling.

It was initially envisaged that the cash, held in the national
roads
fund, would be spent on the motorways and major A-roads managed by
Highways England. But Grayling announced a change of tack,
saying that
some of it should be diverted to be spent on roads run by local
authorities.
ENDQUOTE

The national WHAT?

Someone needs to tell the Guardian PDQ that there is no
"national roads
fund" and that it was all abolished long ago.

It was the road fund LICENCE that was replaced with VED.
Obviously national and local governments have a road budget that
comes from the general tax pot.
The only reference I can find for national roads fund is in
Zambia which I am fairly sure is not in the UK.

No, no... nothing to do with Zambia...

The story mentions the English national roads fund. And as you
know (but
cannot bring yourself to admit) a fund is not a budget.

Then you should have no problem pointing to where I can find this
'National Road Fund' defined in some sort of official document.

Wash your mouth out.
The Guardian IS the *only* "official document" accepted by trendies
like
yourself,

The last newspaper I remember buying was the first issue of The
European back in the early 90's.
Actually that's not true, I used to buy the Sunday Telegraph because
of the Nonogram.

That a cyclist doesn't like spending his own money comes as no surprise.

I assume you buy every newspaper in the world every day.

Not at all. But I have bought the odd one between the early 1990s and
today. And always with my on money.

I am not interested in the news especially when the editor slants it
to cater to the prejudices of the 'readers.'

It is a defining characteristic of cyclists; other peoples' money and
efforts are always the ones to use.

Oh the hypocrisy.
How much of the £10 billion spend of motorways is covered by the £6
billion collected in VED?

It doesn't matter and no-one sensible has ever said it does.

Road users are well in credit with the Exchequer as a result of the
billions of pounds paid in other taxes paid in connection with road use.


shirley?

Not me and those wrestling matches were fake.

But you can imagine my surprise on reading it, because you and
others
have been squealing for years that the road fund was abolished
back in
the Middle Ages or something.

Where?

Here (of course).

Har! Har! Har! and indeed Har!.
Now cite the relevant post.

Don't be (even more) daft.

Asking someone to supply evidence to support their claim is daft in
Nugent World?

Are you seriously claiming never to have seen a post in which it was
asserted that the road fund was abolished a long, long, time ago?


Reading the average paper will bring it up in the comments section, from
some slavering psycholist.