CURACAO & EU skulduggery
Discussion
Can't see this covered on PH (looked and tried searching).
So if you haven't heard of CURACAO, check this out:
"The CURACAO User Group is a select gathering of 20 EU cities who take the lead in road pricing strategies for urban areas. The User Group has been asked by the European Commission to formulate concrete actions regarding road pricing in the follow up to the Urban Transport Green Paper."
Also this:
"The problem is that, even if technological and political innovations such as road user charging result in substantial societal benefits, failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of road user charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
Then like it says in the ABD PR:
Fifteen UK councils implicated in EU Backed Road Pricing skulduggery
The Association of British Drivers has discovered that fifteen UK councils are implicated with an EU funded organisation which advocates underhand and undemocratic means to railroad through road pricing schemes in the face of massive public opposition.
CURACAO (Coordination of urban road-user charging organizational issues)states that its aim is "to create the conditions for reaching the tipping point for the widespread adoption of road pricing in European Urban Cities," [1]
CURACAO names Bristol City Council as one of their key partners, with Notts, Derbys, Leics, and their Three Cities, Tyne and Weir, Durham, Cambridgeshire, Cardiff, Plymouth, Shropshire, Belfast and, of course, Ken Livingstone' s TfL as all involved.
CURACAO advises councils to use various tricks to push through road pricing schemes, including:
- Promising low charges then rapidly increasing them once the scheme is in place
- False "trial periods" to make people think the scheme will be re-evaluated when there is no such intention
- Avoiding referenda (like the one in Edinburgh) at all costs.
- Using a psychological trick called "Dissonance Theory" to make people believe that road pricing is inevitable and that "resistance is futile". This also induces effects like less anger, less resistance, weaker intentions to protect their freedoms. In other words their minds should be manipulated.
CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility'
ABD East Midlands Congestion Charge Coordinator Keith Peat: 'If council officials are involved in a covert mind bending exercise to manipulate public and politicians alike into accepting congestion charging then it is an extremely worrying development. '
The ABD is against road pricing in all its forms because:
- is a regressive tax which is unfair on low earners. This is now acknowledged by CURACAO officials too
- cannot work at reducing congestion without punitive charges which will harm the economy
- will incur huge collection costs which will have to be paid on top of existing motoring taxes
- uses infrastructure inefficiently as the M6 Toll shows
- involves keeping detailed records of people's movements
- distracts attention from the need to improve transport infrastructure and to plan for less need to travel in the economy.
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory added: 'Perhaps the CURACAO advice should be entitled "How to Defeat Democracy"'
ENDS
Notes for editors:
[1] www.curacaoproject. eu
The Curacao scheme draws together experience from previous European congestion charge projects including PROGRESS which featured failed attempts to introduce congestion charging in Bristol and Edinburgh.
Cities have access to;
A project Website
Database of good practices
Case Study results
A state of the art 'how to' hand book; ('SoA')
In 2006 a questionnaire was sent to 42 cities asking what were the barriers to road pricing in their city. Among the 22 cities who replied were Nottingham and Manchester who identified PUBLIC OPPOSITION as the biggest barrier.
The advice to local UK officials to overcome public opposition includes:
1) To make people feel that they must bow to the inescapable by a psychological effect they call the Dissonance Theory. This also induces effects like less anger, less resistance, weaker intentions to protect their freedoms. In other words their minds should be manipulated. (SoA 10.3.1.4 and acceptability paper graph)
Quote: 'They show that persons with a strong convictions that road pricing will be introduced indeed developed more positive attitudes than persons who were less convinced of an early introduction. However, the authors explain the results on the basis of the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) which predicts that people increase the attractiveness of an unavoidable event in order to maintain a consistent cognitive belief system. Once, RUC is decided or looks likely to happen and citizens can no longer avoid it, their attitudes towards charging become more positive (needs to be further validated)'.
'According to dissonance theory the introduction of road pricing evokes feelings of cognitive dissonance. However, this is only the case, if the introduction is (perceived as) inescapable'. 'Persons who got the impression that the introduction of road pricing is almost inescapable report:
- weaker social norms against the toll
- less negative emotions like anger
- a lower importance of toll free use of infrastructure.
- a weaker infringement of freedom.
- weaker motivations (intentions) to defend or restore personal freedom e.g. by taking action against the toll.
2) These politicians have all claimed that road pricing is inevitable and that 'doing nothing is not an option'
Ruth Kelly 24th September 2007
Douglas Alexander, Telegraph 16 Feb. 2007
Sir Richard Leese, 2007
Alasdair Darling, June 2003.
3) To get the media and other key stakeholders on side at an early stage. What inducements are to be offered is left to the imagination.
4) Officials are advised of the risk of holding a referendum because Referenda risks are too high and gives the public an option to escape. In addition a negative result could impair the prospects of other schemes elsewhere in
Europe' 'Referenda are still a game with very high stakes (people have the chance "to escape" ..)'
'a referendum just before the last steps of the scheme introduction is very likely to hit the lowest level of support, and therefore runs the greatest risk of failure.' (SoA 10.3.2)
5) European experience suggests that the charge should start low and be increased over time if necessary
In a similar vein experiences from the PRIMA case cities indicate that rather low starting levels are needed and that the charges can be increased successively to meet financial requirements' (Harsman, 2003) (SoA 10.3.1.3).
To have a Champion or figure head leader of the politicians to take ownership of the scheme. And to preserve the politicians by having a trial period then a referendum when it is most likely to succeed. 'They (politicians) may avoid a clear commitment to the scheme, especially if they are not sure about the outcome of the political process. But a lacking strong political commitment acts as a benchmark for other stakeholders. Their attitude may become more negative as well. This also contributed to a slower or even stopped introduction. In this situation a political champion or figurehead, who takes ownership of the congestion charging concept clearly facilitates the implementation process. However, unlike the officials involved in the preparation of any scheme, politicians depend on re-election, and the fear of losing elections by promoting road user charging holds many politicians back.' (SoA 10.3.2).
To 'Consider how to implement the scheme against the majority of voters and car drivers: Considering the social dilemma situation, 'how to implement RUC against the initial majority of voters and car drivers?' (Acceptability paper. ((3)) Plans for future research).
The authors acknowledge that the biggest impact of Congestion Charging is on the poor. 'Firstly it is likely that the wealthy experience greater costs than the poor; since wealthy people are more likely to drive cars than the poor, they pay more under road pricing. However, one could also equally and validly argue that the poor experience greater costs than the wealthy; since the toll is a flat rate tax, a disproportionate share of their income is required to pay road pricing fees. This technically makes the flat road pricing charge "regressive" . In addition, the poor are less able to alter their driving times to avoid peak period travel to incur the highest charges. A general conclusion from various studies is that low-income car users or less-flexible car users (e.g. based on gender or flexibility of working schedule) are likely to be the worst-off groups as a result of road pricing. In addition, it is possible to argue that the wealthy experience greater benefits than the poor since by definition, the wealthy possess a higher value of time and will be less likely to be "tolled off". Equally valid though is the counter-argument that the poor experience greater benefits than the wealthy because the poor are more likely to use public transport and therefore less affected by the cost of road pricing…….’ (SoA 9.3.1)
6) Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage. (ITSS April 2007)
[2] European list:
Edinburgh
Bristol
Rome
Stockholm
Oslo
Belfast
Dublin
Tyne and Wear
Durham
Notts/Derby/ Leic
Shropshire
Cardiff
Plymouth
Cambridgeshire
London TFL
Barcelona
Genoa
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Emilia Romagna region
German Cities Association
Warsaw
Helsinki
Riga
Vilnius
So if you haven't heard of CURACAO, check this out:
"The CURACAO User Group is a select gathering of 20 EU cities who take the lead in road pricing strategies for urban areas. The User Group has been asked by the European Commission to formulate concrete actions regarding road pricing in the follow up to the Urban Transport Green Paper."
Also this:
"The problem is that, even if technological and political innovations such as road user charging result in substantial societal benefits, failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of road user charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
Then like it says in the ABD PR:
Fifteen UK councils implicated in EU Backed Road Pricing skulduggery
The Association of British Drivers has discovered that fifteen UK councils are implicated with an EU funded organisation which advocates underhand and undemocratic means to railroad through road pricing schemes in the face of massive public opposition.
CURACAO (Coordination of urban road-user charging organizational issues)states that its aim is "to create the conditions for reaching the tipping point for the widespread adoption of road pricing in European Urban Cities," [1]
CURACAO names Bristol City Council as one of their key partners, with Notts, Derbys, Leics, and their Three Cities, Tyne and Weir, Durham, Cambridgeshire, Cardiff, Plymouth, Shropshire, Belfast and, of course, Ken Livingstone' s TfL as all involved.
CURACAO advises councils to use various tricks to push through road pricing schemes, including:
- Promising low charges then rapidly increasing them once the scheme is in place
- False "trial periods" to make people think the scheme will be re-evaluated when there is no such intention
- Avoiding referenda (like the one in Edinburgh) at all costs.
- Using a psychological trick called "Dissonance Theory" to make people believe that road pricing is inevitable and that "resistance is futile". This also induces effects like less anger, less resistance, weaker intentions to protect their freedoms. In other words their minds should be manipulated.
CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility'
ABD East Midlands Congestion Charge Coordinator Keith Peat: 'If council officials are involved in a covert mind bending exercise to manipulate public and politicians alike into accepting congestion charging then it is an extremely worrying development. '
The ABD is against road pricing in all its forms because:
- is a regressive tax which is unfair on low earners. This is now acknowledged by CURACAO officials too
- cannot work at reducing congestion without punitive charges which will harm the economy
- will incur huge collection costs which will have to be paid on top of existing motoring taxes
- uses infrastructure inefficiently as the M6 Toll shows
- involves keeping detailed records of people's movements
- distracts attention from the need to improve transport infrastructure and to plan for less need to travel in the economy.
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory added: 'Perhaps the CURACAO advice should be entitled "How to Defeat Democracy"'
ENDS
Notes for editors:
[1] www.curacaoproject. eu
The Curacao scheme draws together experience from previous European congestion charge projects including PROGRESS which featured failed attempts to introduce congestion charging in Bristol and Edinburgh.
Cities have access to;
A project Website
Database of good practices
Case Study results
A state of the art 'how to' hand book; ('SoA')
In 2006 a questionnaire was sent to 42 cities asking what were the barriers to road pricing in their city. Among the 22 cities who replied were Nottingham and Manchester who identified PUBLIC OPPOSITION as the biggest barrier.
The advice to local UK officials to overcome public opposition includes:
1) To make people feel that they must bow to the inescapable by a psychological effect they call the Dissonance Theory. This also induces effects like less anger, less resistance, weaker intentions to protect their freedoms. In other words their minds should be manipulated. (SoA 10.3.1.4 and acceptability paper graph)
Quote: 'They show that persons with a strong convictions that road pricing will be introduced indeed developed more positive attitudes than persons who were less convinced of an early introduction. However, the authors explain the results on the basis of the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) which predicts that people increase the attractiveness of an unavoidable event in order to maintain a consistent cognitive belief system. Once, RUC is decided or looks likely to happen and citizens can no longer avoid it, their attitudes towards charging become more positive (needs to be further validated)'.
'According to dissonance theory the introduction of road pricing evokes feelings of cognitive dissonance. However, this is only the case, if the introduction is (perceived as) inescapable'. 'Persons who got the impression that the introduction of road pricing is almost inescapable report:
- weaker social norms against the toll
- less negative emotions like anger
- a lower importance of toll free use of infrastructure.
- a weaker infringement of freedom.
- weaker motivations (intentions) to defend or restore personal freedom e.g. by taking action against the toll.
2) These politicians have all claimed that road pricing is inevitable and that 'doing nothing is not an option'
Ruth Kelly 24th September 2007
Douglas Alexander, Telegraph 16 Feb. 2007
Sir Richard Leese, 2007
Alasdair Darling, June 2003.
3) To get the media and other key stakeholders on side at an early stage. What inducements are to be offered is left to the imagination.
4) Officials are advised of the risk of holding a referendum because Referenda risks are too high and gives the public an option to escape. In addition a negative result could impair the prospects of other schemes elsewhere in
Europe' 'Referenda are still a game with very high stakes (people have the chance "to escape" ..)'
'a referendum just before the last steps of the scheme introduction is very likely to hit the lowest level of support, and therefore runs the greatest risk of failure.' (SoA 10.3.2)
5) European experience suggests that the charge should start low and be increased over time if necessary
In a similar vein experiences from the PRIMA case cities indicate that rather low starting levels are needed and that the charges can be increased successively to meet financial requirements' (Harsman, 2003) (SoA 10.3.1.3).
To have a Champion or figure head leader of the politicians to take ownership of the scheme. And to preserve the politicians by having a trial period then a referendum when it is most likely to succeed. 'They (politicians) may avoid a clear commitment to the scheme, especially if they are not sure about the outcome of the political process. But a lacking strong political commitment acts as a benchmark for other stakeholders. Their attitude may become more negative as well. This also contributed to a slower or even stopped introduction. In this situation a political champion or figurehead, who takes ownership of the congestion charging concept clearly facilitates the implementation process. However, unlike the officials involved in the preparation of any scheme, politicians depend on re-election, and the fear of losing elections by promoting road user charging holds many politicians back.' (SoA 10.3.2).
To 'Consider how to implement the scheme against the majority of voters and car drivers: Considering the social dilemma situation, 'how to implement RUC against the initial majority of voters and car drivers?' (Acceptability paper. ((3)) Plans for future research).
The authors acknowledge that the biggest impact of Congestion Charging is on the poor. 'Firstly it is likely that the wealthy experience greater costs than the poor; since wealthy people are more likely to drive cars than the poor, they pay more under road pricing. However, one could also equally and validly argue that the poor experience greater costs than the wealthy; since the toll is a flat rate tax, a disproportionate share of their income is required to pay road pricing fees. This technically makes the flat road pricing charge "regressive" . In addition, the poor are less able to alter their driving times to avoid peak period travel to incur the highest charges. A general conclusion from various studies is that low-income car users or less-flexible car users (e.g. based on gender or flexibility of working schedule) are likely to be the worst-off groups as a result of road pricing. In addition, it is possible to argue that the wealthy experience greater benefits than the poor since by definition, the wealthy possess a higher value of time and will be less likely to be "tolled off". Equally valid though is the counter-argument that the poor experience greater benefits than the wealthy because the poor are more likely to use public transport and therefore less affected by the cost of road pricing…….’ (SoA 9.3.1)
6) Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage. (ITSS April 2007)
[2] European list:
Edinburgh
Bristol
Rome
Stockholm
Oslo
Belfast
Dublin
Tyne and Wear
Durham
Notts/Derby/ Leic
Shropshire
Cardiff
Plymouth
Cambridgeshire
London TFL
Barcelona
Genoa
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Emilia Romagna region
German Cities Association
Warsaw
Helsinki
Riga
Vilnius
turbobloke said:
article said:
CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational'
rs. Blinkered, sociopathic, control-freak wrs!!!"We're right and we're going to discredit anyone who disagrees with us because we don't want reasoned debate, we want our pet project to go through as our fevered egos won't let us consider any alternatives!"
w
rs!!!
havoc said:
turbobloke said:
article said:
CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational'
rs. Blinkered, sociopathic, control-freak wrs!!!"We're right and we're going to discredit anyone who disagrees with us because we don't want reasoned debate, we want our pet project to go through as our fevered egos won't let us consider any alternatives!"
w
rs!!!The open abuse of the democractic process is sinister and breathtaking:
CURACAO advises councils to use various tricks to push through road pricing schemes, including:
- Promising low charges then rapidly increasing them once the scheme is in place
- False "trial periods" to make people think the scheme will be re-evaluated when there is no such intention
- Avoiding referenda (like the one in Edinburgh) at all costs
- Using a psychological trick called "Dissonance Theory" to make people believe that road pricing is inevitable and that "resistance is futile"
What the hell is going on with these people?!
Then there's that wonderful phrase we see more and more in these contexts
societal change
Anti-car social re-engineering through carefully and deliberately orchestrated undemocratic conspiracy, collusion, and misrepresentation - nobody wants or needs it except them, to tick another box in the control freakery list of the transport fascism manual.
They can f
k right off.Do you mean this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shami_Chakrabarti
She only seems to be in favour of certain types of liberty...
She only seems to be in favour of certain types of liberty...
http://www.curacaoproject.eu/objectives.php
Note who they define as the end user...surely it should be the Jeffing drivers and cyclists etc?
This is a bloody disgrace and I've contacted my local MP about it. I can only assume that the EC is funding a similar group charged with going against Urban Road Charging? No? What a Jeffing surprise.
Winkers the lot of 'em
Note who they define as the end user...surely it should be the Jeffing drivers and cyclists etc?
This is a bloody disgrace and I've contacted my local MP about it. I can only assume that the EC is funding a similar group charged with going against Urban Road Charging? No? What a Jeffing surprise.
Winkers the lot of 'em
havoc said:
turbobloke said:
article said:
CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational'
rs. Blinkered, sociopathic, control-freak wrs!!!"We're right and we're going to discredit anyone who disagrees with us because we don't want reasoned debate, we want our pet project to go through as our fevered egos won't let us consider any alternatives!"
w
rs!!!From what I can see, the document says that it may lead to irrational resistance such as sabotage - not that any resistance is irrational.
There's nothing quite like twisting people's words....
grumbledoak said:
Do you mean this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shami_Chakrabarti
She only seems to be in favour of certain types of liberty...
Ok, I've emailed her, another civil liberties group, 4 national papers, all my EMPs and my MP. I bet the UKIP are the only people who replyShe only seems to be in favour of certain types of liberty...
_James said:
From what I can see, the document says that it may lead to irrational resistance such as sabotage - not that any resistance is irrational.
There's nothing quite like twisting people's words....
Eh?There's nothing quite like twisting people's words....
If it does lead to resistance, then they say that such resistance is...erm...let's see...irrational.
Does it say anywhere in the PR that the resistance being described isn't future, of the type described by the EU? Nope. Does the EU gibberish say that past or current resistance is rational? Thought not. There's nothing like twisting your own words until they show that you protest too much and have, in fact, no point to make except to try (and fail) to defend the indefensible.
Next.
Rising above your rather childish reaction, and undeterred, the press release said:
"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
_James said:
Rising above your rather childish reaction, and undeterred, the press release said:
"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
Whats irrational about not wanting to be bent over yet again by the great unelected in Euroscumland then?"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
_James said:
Rising above your rather childish reaction, and undeterred, the press release said:
"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
You are drawing a distinction that is not present. It states that there may be resistance to the schemes, which they consider to be irrational. It does not state what form that resistance must take in order for it to be irrational."CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
Christ. All I was doing was pointing that the press release from the ABD was perhaps distorting what CURACAO's statement (or whatever it was) had actually said. I am not throwing myself down in support of it, simply pointing out an inconsistency.
This was not directed at Turbobloke, who appears to have taken it rather personally, or anyone else. I do not think road pricing should be introduced without proper referenda etc.
This was not directed at Turbobloke, who appears to have taken it rather personally, or anyone else. I do not think road pricing should be introduced without proper referenda etc.
_James said:
Rising above your rather childish reaction, and undeterred, the press release said:
"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
Rising above your pointless nitpicking, it doesn't say 'labels ALL opposition'. The opposition referred to is that in the EU gobbledigook i.e. future. You try to make out it's more, or less, or different, or god knows what or why. "CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
If that's the only comment you have to make on this EU scheming, when there is a clear attempt to subvert democracy by several underhand means yet all you can do is look at one minor and irrelevant aspect of the wording of a PR doe that mean you're in favour of undemocratic coercive collusion like this?
By ignoring the substance and focusing as you have, this shows more about your reasons for posting on this thread than anything you could type.
So to clarify, are you in any way undertaking appeasement or possibly even supporting the undemocratic tendencies of the EU as revealed in this PR, and elsehere?
_James said:
Rising above your rather childish reaction, and undeterred, the press release said:
"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
I don't see it that way, if that was how it was to be understood then it should have read "Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ levels of resistance" surely?"CURACAO labels opposition to Road Pricing as 'Irrational' and warns of civil disobedience over the loss of 'personal mobility' "
The bit at the bottom said:
"Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of those most concerned can lead to ‘irrational’ resistance. On such a sensitive topic as peoples’ right to personal mobility, the introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage."
You are taking the first sentence in isolation. Which, as is the way with paragraphs, is not the best way to actually understand the meaning being conveyed. Effectively, the irrationality of the resistance is to do with acts such as sabotage etc. - not the act of resistance itself.
Edited by Apache on Monday 12th May 19:09
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff