|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 18, 2016 14:12:58 GMT
 I am posting this because I may have to drive one of these soon... its the latest in Volvo "radar" type technology that will avoid accidents [if it can..] you guys really do run your rigs short coupled over there. over here, that would be a specialty haul rig, where it was a "that size" load that needed to be delivered someplace a regular rig wouldn't fit. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 19, 2016 7:05:53 GMT
That is a regular rig size over here....
The "Cab-over" design, that one having a reasonable night cab on the back as well, is enough to be comfortable, and has 700 horses and more, sometimes up to 900 and 1,000...
It can tow up to 44 tons gross, and in most cases, even over that, up to 100 tons gross if necessary for STGO oversize, and we dont need an acre of bonnet out front to obscure the view either.
You forget, european roads are tight, most are designed to be limited by the size of that rig, we dont need much bigger, your American cabs just wouldnt fit around most of our cities.
That particular one is the smaller 700/800horse [single axle] one by the looks of it, its still the Volvo FH series, you would enjoy driving it, its a very nice ride.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 19, 2016 14:24:09 GMT
That is a regular rig size over here.... The "Cab-over" design, that one having a reasonable night cab on the back as well, is enough to be comfortable, and has 700 horses and more, sometimes up to 900 and 1,000... It can tow up to 44 tons gross, and in most cases, even over that, up to 100 tons gross if necessary for STGO oversize, and we dont need an acre of bonnet out front to obscure the view either. You forget, european roads are tight, most are designed to be limited by the size of that rig, we dont need much bigger, your American cabs just wouldnt fit around most of our cities. That particular one is the smaller 700/800horse [single axle] one by the looks of it, its still the Volvo FH series, you would enjoy driving it, its a very nice ride. whereas we have plenty of room, so we don't have to stack it all up on top of itself. this is our "standard" single trailer rig. on long haul, they are often team drive, so not having the engine under the floor lets each driver have their own bunk and still have space for a cooker and a bog.  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 20, 2016 5:55:27 GMT
Your cabs are the size and weight of a fully loaded light delivery van on its own. Some come in at something near 15 ton and upwards on their own?.. thats heavier than the 12 tonners class two [class "C"] lower HGV "Rigid" licence.
We have had the discussion before, and I know that your upper weight limit on an "Ordinary" HGV licence, your CDL if I am right, is similar to our own 44 tons..
Having that extra few tons of cab and Detroit Iron lump of engine to lug it around is less gross weight that can be used in the load.
Our vehicles on long distance with the sleeper cab, either its 2 drivers "Hot bunk" with your own sleeping bag or park the night single driver, we do not need the extra room, and there is the law that states one night out of 14 you MUST spend away from the cab for 24hrs minimum anyway.
Yes we do have larger cabs for tramping work, its just, basic sleeper cabs, we save the weight for increased load capacity, and save the space for tighter roads.
We are never more than a week away from home on average, and much of our delivery schedules in UK are day-cabs and distribution networks where you spend half-day in one direction, swap trailers, and half day going back home... saves on night out expenses for all of us.
Longer journeys are usually on the single point deliveries that need "Extra care".
On having a Bog in there, most drivers will want to stop completely for an hour each day for lunch, and there are plenty of service stations, so why take all that extra weight again?..
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 20, 2016 9:43:00 GMT
but that tends to ding the paint on the cars around it. Probably no worse than all the dust and debris that the Sikorsky's would kick up. But nonetheless, it's a small price that many of us would be willing to pay. But a small price even more people would view as an opportunity to sue. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 20, 2016 13:34:09 GMT
Probably no worse than all the dust and debris that the Sikorsky's would kick up. But nonetheless, it's a small price that many of us would be willing to pay. But a small price even more people would view as an opportunity to sue. too true. and they won't sue the ponce who created the chase, because he don't have any money. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 20, 2016 13:56:13 GMT
Your cabs are the size and weight of a fully loaded light delivery van on its own. Some come in at something near 15 ton and upwards on their own?.. thats heavier than the 12 tonners class two [class "C"] lower HGV "Rigid" licence. We have had the discussion before, and I know that your upper weight limit on an "Ordinary" HGV licence, your CDL if I am right, is similar to our own 44 tons.. Having that extra few tons of cab and Detroit Iron lump of engine to lug it around is less gross weight that can be used in the load. Our vehicles on long distance with the sleeper cab, either its 2 drivers "Hot bunk" with your own sleeping bag or park the night single driver, we do not need the extra room, and there is the law that states one night out of 14 you MUST spend away from the cab for 24hrs minimum anyway. Yes we do have larger cabs for tramping work, its just, basic sleeper cabs, we save the weight for increased load capacity, and save the space for tighter roads. We are never more than a week away from home on average, and much of our delivery schedules in UK are day-cabs and distribution networks where you spend half-day in one direction, swap trailers, and half day going back home... saves on night out expenses for all of us. Longer journeys are usually on the single point deliveries that need "Extra care". On having a Bog in there, most drivers will want to stop completely for an hour each day for lunch, and there are plenty of service stations, so why take all that extra weight again?.. here, our long haul gang typically get paid by the mile. if you is sitting in a diner, your driving time meter is still running, but you ain't getting paid. (learned this from a Swift driver who got mired in a soft shoulder. - he was racking up hours towards his daily limit while he waited for the winch-out. fortunately for him, the trooper who checked the situation out gave him dispensation to get the half hour to his destination despite it putting him overtime.) also, we get a lot of these on long haul runs.  here is oregon's weight limit formula. n Oregon, the maximum legal gross weight limit is 80,000 pounds. The gross weight of a single axle cannot exceed 600 pounds per inch of total tire width on the axle (limited also by manufacturer's sidewall tire rating), or 20,000 pounds, whichever is less. The gross weight of a tandem axle cannot exceed 600 pounds per inch of total tire width of the wheels on tandem axle, or 34,000 pounds, whichever is less. Combinations with a total gross weight over 80,000 pounds and up to 105,500 pounds must obtain a special permit, called an Extended Weight permit. These permits are often needed, for example, by truckers operating double- and triple-trailer combinations that have legal axle, tandem and group weights, the total of which weigh between 80,001 and 105,500 pounds. so yeah, for a small fee, our long haulers typically carry 52 tons. - and my understanding is some states also use wheelbase of the rig to calculate allowable weight, too. - a longer wheelbase is allowed to carry more weight. but our short trip guys usually run without sleepers. one guy I used to talk to ran a hot-seat situation on a chip hauler - he ran the daytime run, and his partner ran the overnight run. they still usually favor the conventional cab, though. they're just more comfortable to drive, and you don't have to climb up so high to get in. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 21, 2016 10:01:56 GMT
But a small price even more people would view as an opportunity to sue. too true. and they won't sue the ponce who created the chase, because he don't have any money. The courts should have a fund ready for any "real life injury" out of criminal injury scheme, that should be topped up by seizing the assets of criminals. All Crims should have ALL their assets seized to pay for their "keep" in jail.... I cant see how when some hedge-fund manager who just swindled or lost some people entire life savings should "Do his time" and then return to a life of luxury on his assets when released. The assets should be used to compensate people who have lost out. And is the crim looses "Everything", so be it. Same with those "Crash for cash" accident scams... All assets raised by bogus insurance claims should be reclaimed by the county sheriffs, as debt collectors do, and if that includes a family home that has be paid for by criminal gains, put the family in rented accommodation and sell the bloody house, including all the furnishings and electrical goods, at auction, to reclaim insurance losses. If the family complain, remind them they have been aiding and abetting an insurance scam criminal, and they also may be liable for charges.... If this is one of those "Hide money off shore" tax evaders, seize all assets, all overpayments of tax due by the assets seized should be used to compensate those uninsured criminal injury claims. Part of your sentencing is the total loss of your whole lifestyle. If what you have done is fraud, non personal injury crimes, and you get 20 yrs, maybe do a balance thing on that, and for every year they can "pay for themselves" out of their own savings, after criminal financial compensation type injury's have been paid, they can get a six month reduction in sentence, up to half their sentence reduction, and be put on an offenders list so that upon release, they are not allowed to do any work in the financial sector, nor own, or run or manage any business. By the way... I was advised to hide some savings "off shore" by one of those finance managers?... Does anyone know how to dry out £1,000 worth of soggy tenner's?...  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 21, 2016 10:26:31 GMT
80,000 lbs is the same as 40 tons, which is around the limit for a single trailer in europe. We have combinations of Wagon-and-Drag which is a rigid wagon towing a trailer.... Kinda like this..  Some of them can get above the 44 ton articulated limit, but like yours, that depends on axle loading, number of tyres, etc. However, they are not common. One company, Eddie Stobart, has been experimenting with 80ft long trailers on Artics...
The Govt has allowed those extra long trailers because of the space, not weight, and as long as its still under 44 tons, the extra 20ft of light goods loading instead of the usual 60ft trailer length, takes one truck in four less .... three 80ft trailers is the same as four 60ft trailers.
The idea is that when hauling stuff like Toilet Rolls, Bread, and other extreme light goods, you can be towing a wagon thats full, but feels "Empty" in handling, why cant there be more space in one wagon to take more pallets, and take fewer journeys to move more goods?..
They are also investigation double stack trailers, low floor but two loading heights, heavy stuff down below and boxes of tissues up above.
[more aero-dynamic as well if it fills some of the space under the usual trailer...]
If it fits under the bridges on a motorway and is only going between certain distribution centres, as long as it fits in a lane, why shouldnt it fill the whole gap available, more space per truck, less trucks on the road....
The Govt has so far resisted calls for "road trains", because we just dont have the space to run them, the 80ft trailers are for use "Only" on suitable roads, such as long distance motorway work between distribution centres that have good access to motorways.
If that works, they may allow certain trucks to run certain routes with larger trailers, or even combo's, but no more than say 120ft (two artic trailers) of haulage space, and only between registered distribution centres.
Also as the extra long loads of multiple trailers take up more road space, it gives less gaps on the road, and the Govt are concerned "what happens in an emergency".... even our biggest STGO hauler wrecking trucks would struggle to tow a four or five trailer combination.
Its not the weight, its the going around corners...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 21, 2016 14:08:18 GMT
out chip trailers are that way (wood chips) the belly of the trailer hangs almost down to the road, to allow more volume.
the side effect is, when you're running empty with a conventional cab and no sleeper, the rig has approximately the same amount of sway as a sports car.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 21, 2016 14:15:41 GMT
too true. and they won't sue the ponce who created the chase, because he don't have any money. The courts should have a fund ready for any "real life injury" out of criminal injury scheme, that should be topped up by seizing the assets of criminals. All Crims should have ALL their assets seized to pay for their "keep" in jail.... I cant see how when some hedge-fund manager who just swindled or lost some people entire life savings should "Do his time" and then return to a life of luxury on his assets when released. The assets should be used to compensate people who have lost out. And is the crim looses "Everything", so be it. Same with those "Crash for cash" accident scams... All assets raised by bogus insurance claims should be reclaimed by the county sheriffs, as debt collectors do, and if that includes a family home that has be paid for by criminal gains, put the family in rented accommodation and sell the bloody house, including all the furnishings and electrical goods, at auction, to reclaim insurance losses. If the family complain, remind them they have been aiding and abetting an insurance scam criminal, and they also may be liable for charges.... If this is one of those "Hide money off shore" tax evaders, seize all assets, all overpayments of tax due by the assets seized should be used to compensate those uninsured criminal injury claims. Part of your sentencing is the total loss of your whole lifestyle. If what you have done is fraud, non personal injury crimes, and you get 20 yrs, maybe do a balance thing on that, and for every year they can "pay for themselves" out of their own savings, after criminal financial compensation type injury's have been paid, they can get a six month reduction in sentence, up to half their sentence reduction, and be put on an offenders list so that upon release, they are not allowed to do any work in the financial sector, nor own, or run or manage any business. By the way... I was advised to hide some savings "off shore" by one of those finance managers?... Does anyone know how to dry out £1,000 worth of soggy tenner's?... when I was younger, I came up with the idea that anyone who perpetrates a property crime should stay in jail until they have repaid the crime twice over, in addition to any fines, and earning their keep while in jail. however, I was nice and also allowed for a savings plan, so they would have some starting-off money when they get done. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Oct 21, 2016 21:07:58 GMT
the biggest rigs you see here are the wood rigs, generally not fast, not fun to drive behind and drivers tend to be very careful as they handle like a brick....  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2016 0:34:06 GMT
the biggest rigs you see here are the wood rigs, generally not fast, not fun to drive behind and drivers tend to be very careful as they handle like a brick.... son, what you have there is what we call a "logs truck"  actually, this is what our loads tend to look like nowadays.  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 22, 2016 9:45:13 GMT
Had to think "American" there, because we tend to have smaller lighter stiffer bodies on British made sports cars that have firmer suspension?... The bigger problem in light bodied empty wagons I drive is what is called axle tramp, unladen axles tend to go for a little walkabout on their own, even in a straight line, if you run over a 10pcoin you can end up going diagonal, and the whole think shakes like a wet dog in front of a pair of white trousers.... just how do they know which is the most expensive and hardest to clean trousers you have and exactly where do they get all the mud to shake all over them anyway?...If I am running a lift-axle empty, I spend the time to lift that bloody axle. I also change the way I drive, short-shift and miss out the odd numbered gears to prevent wheel spin. If you have ever tried over 900 horses aiming up hill on an empty wagon on a nice shiny wet road surface, you know what I mean, you get wheelspin in all gears, the trailer has "just enough" to hold you back, but not enough weight on the front to help with traction. You would think, "Empty equals quicker", no?.. Well, not always, weight adds traction. Its easier to stop a half full wagon with all wheels on the ground than it is an empty one when you have limited road traction... you just stand on the anchors and "dig in" That and empty wagons "sail" sideways in anything more than a light breeze. The suspension is designed to work with a load on, so, without a load, your almost towing a bouncy-castle. If your out tramping, many would rather spend the night out and get a return load than return home empty, simply because empty trailers are a right PITA to tow, and they are bloody noisy as well. Keeps you awake at nights it does... Running Solo, or Bobtail in USA, bring it on. I have a monster engine sports car thats twice /three/four times the size of your XR3-i wish-it-was and up to 40 I am going to leave you eating my dust... all the weight at the front, huge tyres, think "Dragster" acceleration without lifting the front wheels?.. It may corner only slightly better than a pig on rollerskates at an ice rink, but between the lights, your going to get very frustrated if you think your passing me. And it makes more noise. Unless its a genuine super-car built to purpose speed machine at the side of me, I am nut goina' win of course, but up to 30, I can look down in the mirror and see the fear in your eyes... [thats why we have downwards pointing mirrors over the doors... ] |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 22, 2016 9:47:21 GMT
The courts should have a fund ready for any "real life injury" out of criminal injury scheme, that should be topped up by seizing the assets of criminals. All Crims should have ALL their assets seized to pay for their "keep" in jail.... I cant see how when some hedge-fund manager who just swindled or lost some people entire life savings should "Do his time" and then return to a life of luxury on his assets when released. The assets should be used to compensate people who have lost out. And is the crim looses "Everything", so be it. Same with those "Crash for cash" accident scams... All assets raised by bogus insurance claims should be reclaimed by the county sheriffs, as debt collectors do, and if that includes a family home that has be paid for by criminal gains, put the family in rented accommodation and sell the bloody house, including all the furnishings and electrical goods, at auction, to reclaim insurance losses. If the family complain, remind them they have been aiding and abetting an insurance scam criminal, and they also may be liable for charges.... If this is one of those "Hide money off shore" tax evaders, seize all assets, all overpayments of tax due by the assets seized should be used to compensate those uninsured criminal injury claims. Part of your sentencing is the total loss of your whole lifestyle. If what you have done is fraud, non personal injury crimes, and you get 20 yrs, maybe do a balance thing on that, and for every year they can "pay for themselves" out of their own savings, after criminal financial compensation type injury's have been paid, they can get a six month reduction in sentence, up to half their sentence reduction, and be put on an offenders list so that upon release, they are not allowed to do any work in the financial sector, nor own, or run or manage any business. By the way... I was advised to hide some savings "off shore" by one of those finance managers?... Does anyone know how to dry out £1,000 worth of soggy tenner's?... when I was younger, I came up with the idea that anyone who perpetrates a property crime should stay in jail until they have repaid the crime twice over, in addition to any fines, and earning their keep while in jail. however, I was nice and also allowed for a savings plan, so they would have some starting-off money when they get done. Sounds like a better plan to me. Coming out of jail/prison to a life of complete bankruptcy doesn't exactly sound like a good deterrent to committing new crimes. Sounds more like motivation, actually. Maybe also put in an "adjust for children" clause. After all, if the perps have kids, it's not their fault their parents can't stay within the law. Why should they live in poverty because of what their parents did? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 22, 2016 10:03:42 GMT
Why should they live a life of luxury on the proceeds of crime whilst thousand of Old Age Pensioners "freeze to death" because they got defrauded out of their life savings?...
As in, put the kids on welfare, but make it clear to them why, and if the remaining parent "cant cope", well, sorry, but how are the victims of crime coping anyway?..
The balance of power has to be firmly shifted towards the Victims, if the family's of the Criminals know whats to come if they benefit from crime, maybe they will be more stringent on keeping that potential criminal on the straight and narrow in the first place?.
I am not saying that I have absolutely zero compassion for those who just found out that Granddad who bought their house for them is a Jewel thief, but as they are living on the proceeds of crime, restitution MUST be made.
Especially when its costing us all hundreds a year in insurance costs [and more] to protect ourselves from such crimes.
Be honest here, if you showed some of the kids the potions and ask, do you want thousands of people denied their life savings and them living in poverty because of that, "There but for the grace of whatever go you believe in go you", or do you want gold plated taps in the bathroom, most honest kids would give up the life of luxury.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 22, 2016 10:15:15 GMT
Why should they live a life of luxury on the proceeds of crime whilst thousand of Old Age Pensioners "freeze to death" because they got defrauded out of their life savings?... As in, put the kids on welfare, but make it clear to them why, and if the remaining parent "cant cope", well, sorry, but how are the victims of crime coping anyway?.. The balance of power has to be firmly shifted towards the Victims, if the family's of the Criminals know whats to come if they benefit from crime, maybe they will be more stringent on keeping that potential criminal on the straight and narrow in the first place?. I am not saying that I have absolutely zero compassion for those who just found out that Granddad who bought their house for them is a Jewel thief, but as they are living on the proceeds of crime, restitution MUST be made. Especially when its costing us all hundreds a year in insurance costs [and more] to protect ourselves from such crimes. Be honest here, if you showed some of the kids the potions and ask, do you want thousands of people denied their life savings and them living in poverty because of that, "There but for the grace of whatever go you believe in go you", or do you want gold plated taps in the bathroom, most honest kids would give up the life of luxury. I'm not saying they should live a life of luxury off the proceeds of their parents crimes. Just that you shouldn't take everything from them, as I got the impression you were proposing to begin with. If everything they have was gained through crime, then yes, put them on welfare. Sell their house and give them an apartment to live in. Sell their car(s) and give them a bus pass, so they can still get to school and back. But let them keep anything that was procured legally, say through mom actually having an honest job while dad - unbeknownst to her and the kids - was embezzling his company, committing insurance fraud or robbing jewelry stores. I agree that restitution must be paid, but not by putting kids who haven't done anything wrong out on the street just because they were unfortunate enough to be brought into the world by parents who don't respect the law. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2016 10:21:31 GMT
Why should they live a life of luxury on the proceeds of crime whilst thousand of Old Age Pensioners "freeze to death" because they got defrauded out of their life savings?... As in, put the kids on welfare, but make it clear to them why, and if the remaining parent "cant cope", well, sorry, but how are the victims of crime coping anyway?.. The balance of power has to be firmly shifted towards the Victims, if the family's of the Criminals know whats to come if they benefit from crime, maybe they will be more stringent on keeping that potential criminal on the straight and narrow in the first place?. I am not saying that I have absolutely zero compassion for those who just found out that Granddad who bought their house for them is a Jewel thief, but as they are living on the proceeds of crime, restitution MUST be made. Especially when its costing us all hundreds a year in insurance costs [and more] to protect ourselves from such crimes. Be honest here, if you showed some of the kids the potions and ask, do you want thousands of people denied their life savings and them living in poverty because of that, "There but for the grace of whatever go you believe in go you", or do you want gold plated taps in the bathroom, most honest kids would give up the life of luxury. we're not saying we gives the kids the life of luxury. we're saying pop's paycheck gets another split for keeping care of the kids while he's working his way out of jail. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 22, 2016 10:26:43 GMT
Had to think "American" there, because we tend to have smaller lighter stiffer bodies on British made sports cars that have firmer suspension?... The bigger problem in light bodied empty wagons I drive is what is called axle tramp, unladen axles tend to go for a little walkabout on their own, even in a straight line, if you run over a 10pcoin you can end up going diagonal, and the whole think shakes like a wet dog in front of a pair of white trousers.... just how do they know which is the most expensive and hardest to clean trousers you have and exactly where do they get all the mud to shake all over them anyway?...If I am running a lift-axle empty, I spend the time to lift that bloody axle. I also change the way I drive, short-shift and miss out the odd numbered gears to prevent wheel spin. If you have ever tried over 900 horses aiming up hill on an empty wagon on a nice shiny wet road surface, you know what I mean, you get wheelspin in all gears, the trailer has "just enough" to hold you back, but not enough weight on the front to help with traction. You would think, "Empty equals quicker", no?.. Well, not always, weight adds traction. Its easier to stop a half full wagon with all wheels on the ground than it is an empty one when you have limited road traction... you just stand on the anchors and "dig in" That and empty wagons "sail" sideways in anything more than a light breeze. The suspension is designed to work with a load on, so, without a load, your almost towing a bouncy-castle. If your out tramping, many would rather spend the night out and get a return load than return home empty, simply because empty trailers are a right PITA to tow, and they are bloody noisy as well. Keeps you awake at nights it does... Running Solo, or Bobtail in USA, bring it on. I have a monster engine sports car thats twice /three/four times the size of your XR3-i wish-it-was and up to 40 I am going to leave you eating my dust... all the weight at the front, huge tyres, think "Dragster" acceleration without lifting the front wheels?.. It may corner only slightly better than a pig on rollerskates at an ice rink, but between the lights, your going to get very frustrated if you think your passing me. And it makes more noise. Unless its a genuine super-car built to purpose speed machine at the side of me, I am nut goina' win of course, but up to 30, I can look down in the mirror and see the fear in your eyes... [thats why we have downwards pointing mirrors over the doors... ] usually they'll reduce the air ride to reduce the axle tramp, and with our style trailers, the trailer weight is usually close to 50/50 on the fifth wheel. and those chip trailers, when empty, have better than 50% of the metal lower than the axles. only real issue they have is with panic stops. brakes made to stop 50 tons are kinda touchy for stopping an empty trailer. here, they want a back haul, because coming back empty doesn't make a paycheck, unless you are a route driver. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 22, 2016 10:50:09 GMT
I do not condone forcing poverty on anyone, what I am saying is reduce the lifestyle from luxury to no more than the mean average of above poverty but by no means wealthy lifestyle.
If it is a case of a couple of thousand of embezzlement from "Petty cash" and the house is worth over half a million, I aint saying throw them out, maybe extend their mortgage to pay for what they can, and maybe sell off the car{s} etc, some of the more expensive electronics, until you have "Enough"...
Maybe empty savings accounts, thats where you start, and if they are hiding money in the Kids accounts, sorry, but cash is seized first, and if the main accounts dont stump up enough, then its seized.
If its a small claims thing and can be sorted by a payback system, then go ahead.
But in the case of the rouge dealer who took down a major bank by Billions of lost cash, he shouldnt even own the shirt on his back by the time he gets out. If he has a Multi-room house with pool cars tennis court and expensive trimmings, they should go.
If they have a family, they can be moved to "Social housing", or rented accommodation, maybe even into some kind of "Witness protection scheme" to prevent them being targeted by the families that have lost everything?..
If One parent has an honest job, we aint saying they should be thrown out of that job, nor should their wages be seized to pay off the debt, but the "Luxury" items MUST go, basic commodities like a washing machine fridge reasonable size tv etc can stay, but second third cars go, and let them drive a reasonable sized family car, a "Reasonable" life, not one of the 1% upper earnings lifestyle, gold plated yacht at the end of the garden thing.
Seize disposable assets first.
I aint saying that the family must "Suffer"....
But if I find my Parent is forced to sell their house because they now have zero savings and cant afford the mortgage because of Crime, but the kids of the criminal are still enjoying an all expenses paid £10,000 a term private school, I am going to believe that crime is being seen to "pay" for their "Luxury" lifestyle.
Poverty?... living on a basic wage in a basic above the poverty line "average home" is not forcing poverty on them.
Allowing them to stay in a multi-million mansion whilst other families ARE under the poverty line because of lost to crime assets that have not been repaid whilst the criminals family enjoy a luxury lifestyles, is beyond acceptable.
|
|
