The point that you haven't addressed is this:

Someone driving a small-engined car a lot will be using up more fuel than someone driving a gas-guzzler a little.

So that particular small-engined car is doing your objectives more harm than that particular gas-guzzler.

So why do you still seek to penalise the owner of the gas-guzzler?

Why is it not more logical to penalise consumption of fuel, rather than the thing that may not be using it?

It was - the politics of envy have dictated much of what's gone on in the last 10 years. But of course, it doesn't escape them that the politics of envy appeals to the envious.

If they were serious about reducing fuel use, they would target the taxes at those that use most of it - which is obviously those that buy most of it.

But they don't. They pay lip service to all this environmental stuff, claiming it's to do with the environment, but actually it isn't. It's to do with penalising those who appear to indulge in extravagant consumption, regardless of whether they actually do or not.

Likewise

Quite so, and often smack more of the politics of envy, than any practical desire to achieve the stated objectives.

Well, very subjective, and not at all ridiculous if the large car is transporting several children. Two or three small cars would take up more space on the roads, and use more fuel, than one large one.

If you really want to reduce total fuel usage, and not just its use by a particular group of people, then it's fairer to tax use of the consumable, rather than ownership of the device that uses it, since the two are not necessarily related.

I happen to agree with taxing fuel use - but only if doing so is effective and fair.

Basing road tax on engine size is ridiculous, as a so-called 'green' measure.

I could own an old Rolls Royce, with its huge engine and single-digit miles per gallon... and if I only got it out a couple of times a year it would have a smaller carbon footprint than a little 1 litre Fiesta that was driven every day.

The only fair way of taxing people's carbon footprint is to tax their use of fuel - the more they use, the more they pay.

However, I don't see any proposals to abolish road tax altogether and put petrol and diesel up by enough to make it a tax-neutral change.

I only drive about 3000 miles a year. I wouldn't mind being taxed more if I consumed more, but being taxed more despite the fact that I consume less is quite offensive.

Extraordinary though. They say they'll refund any VAT/import duties charged.

Presumably this is perfectly legal - since I imagine HMRC doesn't care who pays the tax. Assuming they follow through on their promises, I guess they take the chance that only in a minority of cases will they have to do this.

Warranty and associated hassle factors aside (a very big 'if'), this does seem to be a good way of getting the low prices... I'm quite tempted by the 77mm Hoya circular polariser at a mere £52.

Just checking... you never know these days.

That face had better not have been Photoshopped in, Dan, else I'll have to biff you with a clone stamp.

Here's a thought.

Soon there will be no new K10Ds left.

Nevertheless the K10D has a number of features that will appeal to some over the K200D - the Li battery, and two e-dials for instance.

So do you suppose the 2nd hand value of the K10D will go up, rather than down, once there are no new ones left?

Here's an illustration that might help.

I bought my K10D for £700 in Jan 2007, so 16 months ago.

New they're now approx £350, so mine with its 9000-odd shots on the clock might just about fetch £250 at the absolute outside.

So it's depreciated £450 in 16 months.

In other words, I've spent £28 quid a month, having more photographic fun than ever before.

Does that put it in context for you?

Of course, I've spent a ton more on lenses too, in that time, mostly second hand. But hopefully they'll more or less hold their value.