Is this Good news?

[David Schweizer]

I have just discovered that a roadside garage near my moorings will sell me red diesel at 65p per litre providing it goes into jerry cans and not a road vehicle. I do not have to say what I am going to use it for, and when I asked about signing a usage declaration they did not know what I was talking about

 

The garage is out in the sticks, in the middle of an agricultural area where people use red diesel for all sorts of bona fide purposes, and customers bringing several jerry cans for red diesel is apparently quite common place. I realise that it would probably be illegal to use this diesel for propulsion, but who would know?

 

What would you do?

Edited April 19, 2009 by David Schweizer

[Mike Nicoll]

I have just discovered that a roadside garage near my moorings will sell me red diesel at 65p per litre providing it goes into jerry cans and not a road vehicle. I do not have to say what I am going to use it for, and when I asked about signing a usage declaration they did not know what I was talking about

 

The garage is out in the sticks, in the middle of an agricultural area where people use red diesel for all sorts of bona fide purposes, and customers bringing several jerry cans for red diesel is apparently quite common place. I realise that it would probably be illegal to use this diesel for propulsion, but who would know?

 

What would you do?

I would do the same as you!!

so where is this place?

[churchward]

I have just discovered that a roadside garage near my moorings will sell me red diesel at 65p per litre providing it goes into jerry cans and not a road vehicle. I do not have to say what I am going to use it for, and when I asked about signing a usage declaration they did not know what I was talking about

 

The garage is out in the sticks, in the middle of an agricultural area where people use red diesel for all sorts of bona fide purposes, and customers bringing several jerry cans for red diesel is apparently quite common place. I realise that it would probably be illegal to use this diesel for propulsion, but who would know?

 

What would you do?

We would all be tempted I am sure. However, it is you not they who are taking any risk with the taxman/ Don't forget that it is your declaration not the suppliers.

 

I suspect I know the garage in question too!

Edited April 19, 2009 by churchward

[Mike Nicoll]

We would all be tempted I am sure. However, it is you not they who are taking any risk with the taxman/ Don't forget that it is your declaration not the suppliers.

 

I suspect I know the garage in question too!

yes but if your not signing any declaration & you pay in cash wheres the comeback?

[furnessvale]

yes but if your not signing any declaration & you pay in cash wheres the comeback?

 

A remote possibility but.....a spot check by revenue on your vessel could see them asking where you purchased your diesel and what you paid for it. As with all things revenue, you will have to demonstrate that you have paid the correct duty.

 

Fortunately the revenue men have lots of other more important things to worry about but if they ever suspect large scale fraud a few spot checks and confiscated boats would encourage les autres:-)

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[kerching]

I would fill my boots.

 

But 65p seems a bit dear for red it is only 52 from our local garage having just gone up from 49.

[gaggle]

what i would do is keep my mouth shut , loose lips sink ships.

[Grace and Favour]

what i would do is keep my mouth shut , loose lips sink ships.

 

. . as in "Loose lips allow ingress of water"?

[Dominic M]

I would fill my boots.

Your feet will get bad dermatitis.

[carlt]

Many garages that deal with farmers and those that are lorry orientated sell red, into jerry cans.

 

I often bought a jerry can of red from the BP truckstop, on the A5, no questions asked.

 

The assumption is that you are not going to break the law.

 

When I was a smoker I was never once asked, at the point of sale, to declare that I wouldn't give my cigarettes to kids.

[Guest]

I would pay the split duty as required by the Customs and Excise (60/40 is about right for me), and I always pay my boat licence and mooring fees. I have little time for people who do not pay their way in our society.

[onthecut]

I would pay the split duty as required by the Customs and Excise (60/40 is about right for me), and I always pay my boat licence and mooring fees. I have little time for people who do not pay their way in our society.

 

 

And then our glorious leaders can give billions of it away to grasping financial institutions, consultants, schemes to impose ever more restrictions on all of us, etc. etc. etc.

OK, I know it's off topic. End of rant.

 

Mike.

[ditchcrawler]

We would all be tempted I am sure. However, it is you not they who are taking any risk with the taxman/ Don't forget that it is your declaration not the suppliers.

 

I suspect I know the garage in question too!

And if you never buy any fuel canal side how will they know you have used any. Just like a BW license, If you never license the boat they don't know you own one and cant send you a bill

[Guest]

And then our glorious leaders can give billions of it away to grasping financial institutions, consultants, schemes to impose ever more restrictions on all of us, etc. etc. etc.

OK, I know it's off topic. End of rant.

 

Mike.

Ours is not to reason why. Dishonesty is just that, no matter how you wrap it up. The UK law now requires that we pay some duty. When I had rants on here ages ago against this immoral tax, I was told I didn't know what I was banging on about. Now people are talking about dodging the duty.

[denboy]

I`m saying nothing I saw nothing (i know theres at least one taxman on the forum)

[gaggle]

I would pay the split duty as required by the Customs and Excise (60/40 is about right for me), and I always pay my boat licence and mooring fees. I have little time for people who do not pay their way in our society.

 

quite right cat , but i always find that those who are less willing to pay whats due are the ones who can afford to pay whats due.

they will always try to defend themselves for trying to hang on to every penny , and they normally carry change in a ladies purse so they have the exact amount lest they get short change or mistakenly pay an extra penny.

 

the same will be prompt in reporting others for minor offences of any kind.

[Guest]

quite right cat , but i always find that those who are less willing to pay whats due are the ones who can afford to pay whats due.

they will always try to defend themselves for trying to hang on to every penny , and they normally carry change in a ladies purse so they have the exact amount lest they get short change or mistakenly pay an extra penny.

the same will be prompt in reporting others for minor offences of any kind.

How true. I find double standards are the most difficult to understand .

[David Schweizer]

How true. I find double standards are the most difficult to understand .

I hope you are not referring to me, I merely posed the question.

[alan_fincher]

I think there is absolutely no ambiguity that you are no longer allowed to buy rebated 'red' (anywhere), and use it for propulsion of a canal boat used for leisure or living on.

 

To do so is evading the tax you should now be paying.

 

That said, it seems hard to see how you would be likely to get caught.

 

So anybody who is happy to evade tax, if they think they'll not get caught, will probably do what they should not be doing.

 

Anybody uncomfortable with such behaviour will pay more, and many will, I guess, moan about those getting it on the cheap.

 

Apart from the moral issues, I fear for the canals as more and more people ship in 'red' or 'white' by Jerry can. Even if 99% of such people transfer it spill free, at least some will inevitably pollute the canals, and I'm sure some will do so badly.

 

I will only be buying from canal-side sources, straight into our tank, unless circumstances change dramatically from what they now are.

[Guest]

I hope you are not referring to me, I merely posed the question.

No David, not having a go at anybody inparticular. I just get a bit puzzled as to why people in general assume it is OK to avoid legitimate payment of one thing, yet condemn others who are avoiding payment of something else (again no reference to your good self).

An example: A teacher in our school once asked me to load some software onto a computer for which we weren't licenced. I refused pointing out that it was theft. He reported me to the head of the school, who went off on one and insisted that I "did as I was ordered." I then asked him if he wanted to come shoplifting with me after work. He told me not to be so insolent, and did I think he would be stupid enoguh to steal? So I asked him not to order me to steal on his behalf. Rarely, it was game set and match to me.

No offence meant (to anybody)

 

I think there is absolutely no ambiguity that you are no longer allowed to buy rebated 'red' (anywhere), and use it for propulsion of a canal boat used for leisure or living on.

 

To do so is evading the tax you should now be paying.

 

That said, it seems hard to see how you would be likely to get caught.

 

So anybody who is happy to evade tax, if they think they'll not get caught, will probably do what they should not be doing.

 

Anybody uncomfortable with such behaviour will pay more, and many will, I guess, moan about those getting it on the cheap.

 

Apart from the moral issues, I fear for the canals as more and more people ship in 'red' or 'white' by Jerry can. Even if 99% of such people transfer it spill free, at least some will inevitably pollute the canals, and I'm sure some will do so badly.

 

I will only be buying from canal-side sources, straight into our tank, unless circumstances change dramatically from what they now are.

It has been proved time and time again that even the most honest of people will break the law if there is no chance of being caught. How many people could say with hand on heart that they have never infinged copyright laws? Why do they think it is OK to do that, yet would probably frown upon a pickpocket? They are both stealing a person's earnings.

[Byeckerslike]

I hope you are not referring to me, I merely posed the question.

 

feeling a little paranoid, if the cap fits........

[Guest]

feeling a little paranoid, if the cap fits........

A bit uncalled for. I was rather outspoken and was asked a question. I answered it.

[alan_fincher]

It has been proved time and time again that even the most honest of people will break the law if there is no chance of being caught. How many people could say with hand on heart that they have never infinged copyright laws? Why do they think it is OK to do that, yet would probably frown upon a pickpocket? They are both stealing a person's earnings.

I think it is the case that many people who see themselves as otherwise honest, do not have a problem if it is the government they are defrauding, rather than an individual.

 

Often such behaviour is justified by comments about money being used to prop up the banking system, or to fight wars we should not be fighting.

 

I agree with you though, most people tend to operate dual standards in some way or another - what do you do if you have pointed out to a shop that they have undercharged you, and they work it out again, and come up with an even lower figure for example! I tend to admit that I try to operate a "best endeavours" approach to honesty, but if people employ morons, it's not actually my job to try and protect their businesses revenue. My Dad, however, would never have left the shop until the correct amount was paid, (or would have sent them a long letter and a cheque as soon as possible afterwards! ).

[Guest]

I think it is the case that many people who see themselves as otherwise honest, do not have a problem if it is the government they are defrauding, rather than an individual.

 

Often such behaviour is justified by comments about money being used to prop up the banking system, or to fight wars we should not be fighting.

 

I agree with you though, most people tend to operate dual standards in some way or another - what do you do if you have pointed out to a shop that they have undercharged you, and they work it out again, and come up with an even lower figure for example! I tend to admit that I try to operate a "best endeavours" approach to honesty, but if people employ morons, it's not actually my job to try and protect their businesses revenue. My Dad, however, would never have left the shop until the correct amount was paid, (or would have sent them a long letter and a cheque as soon as possible afterwards! ).

I agree it is a bitter pill when we see how the varous elected governments mishandle our funds (and we only see what "they" want us to see; the rest is covered up). To defraud is still theft on our part though We would be very quick to complain if the taxman screwed us for a few bob?

[Guest]

I think there is absolutely no ambiguity that you are no longer allowed to buy rebated 'red' (anywhere), and use it for propulsion of a canal boat used for leisure or living on.

 

To do so is evading the tax you should now be paying.

 

That said, it seems hard to see how you would be likely to get caught.

 

So anybody who is happy to evade tax, if they think they'll not get caught, will probably do what they should not be doing.

 

Anybody uncomfortable with such behaviour will pay more, and many will, I guess, moan about those getting it on the cheap.

 

Apart from the moral issues, I fear for the canals as more and more people ship in 'red' or 'white' by Jerry can. Even if 99% of such people transfer it spill free, at least some will inevitably pollute the canals, and I'm sure some will do so badly.

I will only be buying from canal-side sources, straight into our tank, unless circumstances change dramatically from what they now are.

I missed your post earlier. I agree 100% re the pollution thing, and this was one of my main concerns when this ridiculous law was passed.