Diesel users to pay £20 to enter London

[skyrover]

In other words the american's were right...

Big petrol V8's = good for the environment (but bad co2's)

Small eco-diesel = bad for the environment (but good c02's)

[ORD]

Pan Pan said:

ORD said:

Pan Pan said:

leigh1050 said:

Pan Pan said:

leigh1050 said:

I'd make it £200.00 a day nasty smelly fking things.

Edited by leigh1050 on Tuesday 29th July 19:41

Yes motor vehicles are regarded by some as evil nasty, smelly f**cking things regardless of whether
they are petrol or diesel, Thats why the Nazis used PETROL powered trucks to provide the gas they used to commit mass murder in the concentration camps (before they discovered Zyklon B)
Anyone who thinks the exhaust from any vehicle, petrol or diesel engined is harmless, are just kidding themselves.

I'm not anti car,but centralLondon stinks of diesel fumes.
There are some bus's that run on Hydrogen cells.But as all the other bus's taxis vans lorrys and a lot of cars use diesel we're on a loser in London.

Any congested city is going to suffer from fumes, whether from cars, buses, taxis, motor bikes, diesel electric locomotives, jet aircraft, helicopters, and yes even from thousands of homes and businesses, (and also from the millions of humans) tightly packed into the same relatively small space together. Worrying about which one is worst, is equivalent to worrying about which is going to kill you more, a bullet, arrow, bomb, or knife. the end result is the same.
When flying outside of any largish city on a clear day, it is notable how a bubble of emissions forms over all of them. But the one over London is the worst I have ever seen, easily visible from as far away as Suffolk or Southampton. This is what happens with cities, which is why I am pleased that I don't live in, or near one. The best advice I could give is, if at all possible, don't, live, work, go into London (and similar conurbations) any more than is absolutely necessary.

Yep. But I assume you would also advise people to be grateful to those who do live and work in London, because without them and the tax they pay you wouldn't have public services or roads on which to drive around the pleasant parts of the country.

London is not the only part of the country which generates tax revenues. that is done all over the country, its just that the cash tends to get funneled into London, as that is where teh government resides.
Going into London and then complaining about the fumes, is the equivalent of jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about smelling of sh*t.

Money is "funnelled into London"? I don't even know what you can mean by that.

Look up the figures for tax revenues and public spending across the UK. You'll notice that, apart from London, there are a few small areas that generate more tax revenue than is spent on public services; the rest of the country is, in effect, subsidised by London-based taxpayers.

[Pan Pan]

ORD said:

Pan Pan said:

ORD said:

Pan Pan said:

leigh1050 said:

Pan Pan said:

leigh1050 said:

I'd make it £200.00 a day nasty smelly fking things.

Edited by leigh1050 on Tuesday 29th July 19:41

Yes motor vehicles are regarded by some as evil nasty, smelly f**cking things regardless of whether
they are petrol or diesel, Thats why the Nazis used PETROL powered trucks to provide the gas they used to commit mass murder in the concentration camps (before they discovered Zyklon B)
Anyone who thinks the exhaust from any vehicle, petrol or diesel engined is harmless, are just kidding themselves.

I'm not anti car,but centralLondon stinks of diesel fumes.
There are some bus's that run on Hydrogen cells.But as all the other bus's taxis vans lorrys and a lot of cars use diesel we're on a loser in London.

Any congested city is going to suffer from fumes, whether from cars, buses, taxis, motor bikes, diesel electric locomotives, jet aircraft, helicopters, and yes even from thousands of homes and businesses, (and also from the millions of humans) tightly packed into the same relatively small space together. Worrying about which one is worst, is equivalent to worrying about which is going to kill you more, a bullet, arrow, bomb, or knife. the end result is the same.
When flying outside of any largish city on a clear day, it is notable how a bubble of emissions forms over all of them. But the one over London is the worst I have ever seen, easily visible from as far away as Suffolk or Southampton. This is what happens with cities, which is why I am pleased that I don't live in, or near one. The best advice I could give is, if at all possible, don't, live, work, go into London (and similar conurbations) any more than is absolutely necessary.

Yep. But I assume you would also advise people to be grateful to those who do live and work in London, because without them and the tax they pay you wouldn't have public services or roads on which to drive around the pleasant parts of the country.

London is not the only part of the country which generates tax revenues. that is done all over the country, its just that the cash tends to get funneled into London, as that is where teh government resides.
Going into London and then complaining about the fumes, is the equivalent of jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about smelling of sh*t.

Money is "funnelled into London"? I don't even know what you can mean by that.

Look up the figures for tax revenues and public spending across the UK. You'll notice that, apart from London, there are a few small areas that generate more tax revenue than is spent on public services; the rest of the country is, in effect, subsidised by London-based taxpayers.

OK so what money generating industries are located specifically in London? Please don't state the banks, we all know what they have done to the UK economy.

[ORD]

Pan Pan said:

OK so what money generating industries are located specifically in London? Please don't state the banks, we all know what they have done to the UK economy.

I would be amazed if you do know, unless you mean to imply that without the financial sector, this country would have been a 2nd rate economy for the last 30 years. Check out how much of UK taxation came from the financial sector throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The last government, and its NHS spending in particular, was bankrolled by the financial sector (which, for the most part, is located in London).

As for other money generating industries, how about the following?

Insurance
Accountancy
Management consultancy
Media
Law

You might not like London, but without it this country would be pretty much down the pan.

[Pan Pan]

ORD said:

Pan Pan said:

OK so what money generating industries are located specifically in London? Please don't state the banks, we all know what they have done to the UK economy.

I would be amazed if you do know, unless you mean to imply that without the financial sector, this country would have been a 2nd rate economy for the last 30 years. Check out how much of UK taxation came from the financial sector throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The last government, and its NHS spending in particular, was bankrolled by the financial sector (which, for the most part, is located in London).

As for other money generating industries, how about the following?

Insurance
Accountancy
Management consultancy
Media
Law

You might not like London, but without it this country would be pretty much down the pan.

London just plays with the wealth that the rest of this country and others countries have generated.
It is like a shady second hand car dealers lot, in the it could be gone over night, because it does not actually make anything. It is making things that creates wealth in the first place.

[ORD]

Pan Pan said:

London just plays with the wealth that the rest of this country and others countries have generated.
It is like a shady second hand car dealers lot, in the it could be gone over night, because it does not actually make anything. It is making things that creates wealth in the first place.

You have such a 19th century understanding of productivity that you probably wont understand this, but bankers, lawyers and accountants do "make things". A financial product is a product; legal advice is a service that generates gains for the buyer and the provider (so makes both wealthier); accountancy creates wealth in essentially the same way as does building a car (the cost of the inputs is less than the value of the output).

I despair at the idea that bankers and other professionals in London "play with wealth" when they work roughly twice as hard as the average person in the rest of the country. Working 80 hours per week in a thoroughly unpleasant working environment so that you can pay 50% tax is not "playing".

[B3MX5]

I've no problem with the introduction of the charge, London air is disgusting and needed sorting years ago. I can't understand why they can justify an emissions threshold for diesels and an age-related one for petrol, surely both should be determined by emissions?

[ORD]

B3MX5 said:

I've no problem with the introduction of the charge, London air is disgusting and needed sorting years ago. I can't understand why they can justify an emissions threshold for diesels and an age-related one for petrol, surely both should be determined by emissions?

I think the idea is that the age restrictions act as a proxy for emissions - the older cars will have been subject to less stringent emissions requirements.

[Fastdruid]

ORD said:

B3MX5 said:

I've no problem with the introduction of the charge, London air is disgusting and needed sorting years ago. I can't understand why they can justify an emissions threshold for diesels and an age-related one for petrol, surely both should be determined by emissions?

I think the idea is that the age restrictions act as a proxy for emissions - the older cars will have been subject to less stringent emissions requirements.

Would be bl**dy annoying in the case of our Mazda 6 MPS. It is a 2005 registered 2006 car (registered Dec 28th or something stupid). So it conforms with everything a 2006+ car would. Still not likely to take that anywhere near London and unlikely to still have it in 6 years so not the end of the world.

[V88Dicky]

skyrover said:

In other words the american's were right...

Big petrol V8's = good for the environment (but bad co2's)

Small eco-diesel = bad for the environment (but good c02's)

I agree.

Here's the emissions printout from a recent MOT I had done;




5.7 litre V8

[Pan Pan]

ORD said:

Pan Pan said:

London just plays with the wealth that the rest of this country and others countries have generated.
It is like a shady second hand car dealers lot, in the it could be gone over night, because it does not actually make anything. It is making things that creates wealth in the first place.

You have such a 19th century understanding of productivity that you probably wont understand this, but bankers, lawyers and accountants do "make things". A financial product is a product; legal advice is a service that generates gains for the buyer and the provider (so makes both wealthier); accountancy creates wealth in essentially the same way as does building a car (the cost of the inputs is less than the value of the output).

I despair at the idea that bankers and other professionals in London "play with wealth" when they work roughly twice as hard as the average person in the rest of the country. Working 80 hours per week in a thoroughly unpleasant working environment so that you can pay 50% tax is not "playing".

Twice as hard as anyone in the rest of the country?? do you really believe that?? it must be so tough working in those air conditioned offices, where you could not survive if it was not for someone who makes things, like the person who built the building you work in, in the first place, or even take a dump, if it was not for the person who built and cleans the drainage systems for them, and who would typically be paid a fraction of what the parasite industries charge for their `services' £39 for solicitors letter, where the hell does that price come from??
As soon as there is a legal problem the only ones who really cash in on it, are the legal profession.
As soon as there is the sniff of some cash to be made from what others have done or produced, they turn up looking for their often disproportionate cut.
How can one justify paying bonuses to those in these`industries' which have patently and drastically failed (and continue to fail the county and the small business they are `supposed' to be supporting?)
Please don't tell me it is to retain the `right' staff, because if their recent performance (and STILL paying themselves huge bonuses) is anything to go by, they are patently NOT up to the job.
In almost any other industry, those who have made the sort of cock up we have seen recently from these `industries' would be kicked up the road, and without any bonuses, or golden handshakes.

[NomduJour]

Pan Pan said:

In almost any other industry, those who have made the sort of cock up we have seen recently from these `industries' would be kicked up the road, and without any bonuses, or golden handshakes.

Not this st again. Do you even understand the difference between retail and investment banking? What does the legal profession have to do with retail banks failing?

[gizlaroc]

Bloody northerners coming down to London in their 'I can't afford a petrol' cars and polluting the place.

[edward1]

Whilst I don't care much for London it is about time someone started taxing Diesel more for its emissions. There has been too much focus on CO2 at the expense of everything else. As for certain comments earlier in this thread regarding the carcinogenic properties of petrol and its additives, not many people come into contact with the fluid itself. With Lead removed the exhaust emissions of petrol are cleaner than diesel even with DPF's etc fitted.

As for diesel being used underground I'd think that the reasons behind this are more to do with the flammability risks associated with petrol and its vapour and nothing to do with the exhaust emissions.

Re: the comment about nazis using petrol engines to gas people, they could have used any combustion product as asphyxiation would due to the CO2 displacing the oxygen!

Ignoring electric for now, if you want clean exhaust emissions but want to maintain the internal combustion engine then we should be running on propane or butane (LPG). You may notice that most vehicles that operate in enclosed spaces (fork lifts etc) already do this. This is also why you used to be congenstion charge exempt if you had LPG in London. Probably the cleanest normal car would be a LPG converted hybrid if you really wanted to keep both CO2 and other emissions low.

In any city as a pedestrian or cyclist it is the diesel engined vehicles (mainly buses) that make you choke

[NomduJour]

edward1 said:

if you want clean exhaust emissions but want to maintain the internal combustion engine then we should be running on propane or butane (LPG)

Or hydrogen.

[Fastdruid]

gizlaroc said:

Bloody northerners coming down to London in their 'I can't afford a petrol' cars and polluting the place.

*like*

Those bloody poor people with their common unrefined engines.
Everyone knows the minimum acceptable engine in polite society is a Petrol V8.

[heebeegeetee]

edward1 said:

1. As for certain comments earlier in this thread regarding the carcinogenic properties of petrol and its additives, not many people come into contact with the fluid itself. With Lead removed the exhaust emissions of petrol are cleaner than diesel even with DPF's etc fitted.

2. As for diesel being used underground I'd think that the reasons behind this are more to do with the flammability risks associated with petrol and its vapour and nothing to do with the exhaust emissions.

1. You have to be breathing the stuff in, and I can only say that i can always smell petrol when filling up. We work on a certain type of car and one of the issues with the older models is the seal on the fuel cap splitting. We can often tell when this has happened because we smell petrol when we get in the cars. Its something that an MOT should pick up but I know that the garage we use never does. It's possibly no huge deal, but I just find it ironic that people love the fuel that simply won't work unless it has something really nast y added to it but hates the fuel that doesn't need adding anything to it.

The health scares may be true, but I just know that I've been reading them for 25 years or more. The first diesel health care story that I heard came from the USA, a country that doesn't use diesel cars.

2. It's that and tail pipe emissions - notably carbon monoxide. Of course nowadays catalytic converters clean that up but not until they're warm. I imagine the dangers of using petrol engines underground are just too great - the moment the cats or whatever systems are in place to combat CO fail, you've suddenly got CO production plants operating underground.

[leigh1050]

skyrover said:

In other words the american's were right...

Big petrol V8's = good for the environment (but bad co2's)

Small eco-diesel = bad for the environment (but good c02's)

I like your thinking, that's why i drive a 6.2 liter V8. I'm looking after the enviroment

[Lucas Ayde]

ORD said:

You have such a 19th century understanding of productivity that you probably wont understand this, but bankers, lawyers and accountants do "make things". A financial product is a product; legal advice is a service that generates gains for the buyer and the provider (so makes both wealthier); accountancy creates wealth in essentially the same way as does building a car (the cost of the inputs is less than the value of the output).

I despair at the idea that bankers and other professionals in London "play with wealth" when they work roughly twice as hard as the average person in the rest of the country. Working 80 hours per week in a thoroughly unpleasant working environment so that you can pay 50% tax is not "playing".

Ah yes, the brilliant financial system that needed massive taxpayer bailouts plus ongoing 'stimulus' and interest rate repression that is reaming savers and causing cost of living inflation, in order to avoid total implosion.

As for the '50% taxpaying bankers' I'd be very surprised if any high income earners in the financial sector are even paying standard 40% higher rate tax by the time all is said and done with their tax returns. There are plenty of ways to make sure you pay only the basic 20% rate. Tax is for the plebs on PAYE, not those able to form a shell company and employ decent accountants.

[ORD]

Lucas Ayde said:

Ah yes, the brilliant financial system that needed massive taxpayer bailouts plus ongoing 'stimulus' and interest rate repression that is reaming savers and causing cost of living inflation, in order to avoid total implosion.

As for the '50% taxpaying bankers' I'd be very surprised if any high income earners in the financial sector are even paying standard 40% higher rate tax by the time all is said and done with their tax returns. There are plenty of ways to make sure you pay only the basic 20% rate. Tax is for the plebs on PAYE, not those able to form a shell company and employ decent accountants.

You are kidding, right? You seriously think employees earning hundred of thousands are paying 20% tax? Look up how much of UK tax comes from the top 1% of earners. Doesn't fit with your theory, does it? Check out the figure for how much comes from the top 10%. That doesn't fit either, does it?

We are a country of miserable and envious people, sadly. We despise success and jump on every opportunity to attack the few people who can genuinely compete for business with other major economies.

The financial sector is still, notwithstanding the bailouts etc, easily the biggest net contributor to the UK economy for the last several decades. You can read the Daily Mail nonsense or actually take a sensible view about how a 21st century economy has to function.