ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
CoolHands said:
Is going into a bus lane by accident bad? While not impeding anything? Not in my book.
It's well proven that bus lane infractions are the gateway to full global terrorism. 
Personally, I think all the CCTV stuff was miss sold just like the ULEZ stuff is being.
It was all Installed using the sales pitch that it was about safety and stopping people murdering children etc. Its purpose and benefit from the outset was to reduce costs and increase revenues.
Where was the harm in going to the people and being honest? Would most sane people have been against the network if it had been explained that it would reduce their council tax bills via a voluntary payment system? No but it's the nature of weasels to be weasels so rather than standing in front of society, treating them with respect and being honest they opt for fear mongering and deceit.
It's what we see again with ULEZ, instead of standing up and saying that it is about road charging and tax receipts and how those receipts will be used to benefit Londoners and the bulk will be paid by non Londoners and the most affluent, instead they come out gunning for the people they despise and labelling them as right wing fasciata and child murderers.
It really is third world ghastly.
The question to ask yourself regarding all the local CCTV, given that you like many, resent its presence as you were told it was all being done to make you safer yet it is abundantly clear that these environments are less safe today than before is: Wpuld you have the same resentment towards the cctv network of it had been launched as a mechanism to lower local authority costs to yourself, increase local revenues that would benefit you and where all that money raised was voluntary as it is ultimately our choice and error to end up in a bus lane without a bus or turning right at 2am when there is absolutely no risk to turning right?
We all know these systems are about revenues so why can't we just sell them as such. London is supposed to be a global hub but it's perpetually run by people who take their state craft from either the Soviet Union or Africa. It's just embarrassing.
Orpington farmers had a bit of a protest yesterday, not that I think I will do any good.
Yes you read that right farms in Orpington. Acres and acres or open farmland with the occational tractor on it. ULEZ won't do much to the air around here its clean enough as the MP for Orpington has stated and he agrees its a cash grab.
https://ukdaily.news/london/protesters-take-to-the...
Yes you read that right farms in Orpington. Acres and acres or open farmland with the occational tractor on it. ULEZ won't do much to the air around here its clean enough as the MP for Orpington has stated and he agrees its a cash grab.
https://ukdaily.news/london/protesters-take-to-the...
Cotty said:
Orpington farmers had a bit of a protest yesterday, not that I think I will do any good.
Yes you read that right farms in Orpington. Acres and acres or open farmland with the occational tractor on it. ULEZ won't do much to the air around here its clean enough as the MP for Orpington has stated and he agrees its a cash grab.
https://ukdaily.news/london/protesters-take-to-the...
When one reads 'Orpington Farmers', is it wrong that one one initially assumes a collective of hydroponics experts with Range Rover Sports? Yes you read that right farms in Orpington. Acres and acres or open farmland with the occational tractor on it. ULEZ won't do much to the air around here its clean enough as the MP for Orpington has stated and he agrees its a cash grab.
https://ukdaily.news/london/protesters-take-to-the...
From the Spectator -->
"Consider, for instance, Khan’s assertions over Ulez, London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone.
He repeats that it was brought in to prevent premature deaths and illness, though it seems more likely that it was designed to plug the £3 billion hole in Transport for London’s finances the Mayor created by freezing fares early in his tenure.
His claim that the policies in the ‘London Environment Strategy’ (including Ulez) will reduce new incidences of disease by 300,000 and prevent 4,000 pollution-related deaths a year in the capital, has been widely disputed.
In fact, nearly all of the massive fall in NOx emissions in the last 30 years happened before 2010, and recent drops are largely attributable to Covid lockdowns.
As for the idea that Ulez was directly responsible for the reduction in polluting vehicles: this was instead result of natural retirement rather than Khan’s exorbitant levies. Of the 40 million motor vehicles currently on Britain’s roads, around 5 per cent are scrapped per year.
Londoners concerned about these levies can take little solace in his scrappage scheme, given only a third of those who asked for financial help from TfL received it. Just 15,000 cars have been scrapped under the scheme in an annual total of two million, making it more of a rounding error than revolutionary measure.
As for Skidmore, next week the government will publish its response to his net zero review. The report set out ten ‘missions,’ which were mostly shopping lists for commercial and vested interests pulled together by someone who believes that only massive government intervention can down emissions. As Ross Clark wrote in The Spectator, it could not seriously be considered ‘independent,’ given Skidmore was the very minister who pushed the net zero commitment through the House of Commons four years ago.
That the former Energy and Clean Growth Minister was able to bind the UK to this arbitrary target without even a vote underscores how preposterous this new collaboration with Khan really is. Politicians aren’t equivocating on climate action, at least not in significant numbers. They’re competing to virtue signal at the public’s expense.
This is precisely why we have a heat pump fiasco, where huge subsidies have been thrown at persuading us to make the switch and another target – of 600,000 a year – has been set. That we don’t have enough plumbers to install them, and may not generate enough electricity to power them all, are secondary issues.
And it’s why we have a government banning all petrol and diesel cars from 2030, but failing to put in place the infrastructure required to support the shift."
Source https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sadiq-khans-gr...
"Consider, for instance, Khan’s assertions over Ulez, London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone.
He repeats that it was brought in to prevent premature deaths and illness, though it seems more likely that it was designed to plug the £3 billion hole in Transport for London’s finances the Mayor created by freezing fares early in his tenure.
His claim that the policies in the ‘London Environment Strategy’ (including Ulez) will reduce new incidences of disease by 300,000 and prevent 4,000 pollution-related deaths a year in the capital, has been widely disputed.
In fact, nearly all of the massive fall in NOx emissions in the last 30 years happened before 2010, and recent drops are largely attributable to Covid lockdowns.
As for the idea that Ulez was directly responsible for the reduction in polluting vehicles: this was instead result of natural retirement rather than Khan’s exorbitant levies. Of the 40 million motor vehicles currently on Britain’s roads, around 5 per cent are scrapped per year.
Londoners concerned about these levies can take little solace in his scrappage scheme, given only a third of those who asked for financial help from TfL received it. Just 15,000 cars have been scrapped under the scheme in an annual total of two million, making it more of a rounding error than revolutionary measure.
As for Skidmore, next week the government will publish its response to his net zero review. The report set out ten ‘missions,’ which were mostly shopping lists for commercial and vested interests pulled together by someone who believes that only massive government intervention can down emissions. As Ross Clark wrote in The Spectator, it could not seriously be considered ‘independent,’ given Skidmore was the very minister who pushed the net zero commitment through the House of Commons four years ago.
That the former Energy and Clean Growth Minister was able to bind the UK to this arbitrary target without even a vote underscores how preposterous this new collaboration with Khan really is. Politicians aren’t equivocating on climate action, at least not in significant numbers. They’re competing to virtue signal at the public’s expense.
This is precisely why we have a heat pump fiasco, where huge subsidies have been thrown at persuading us to make the switch and another target – of 600,000 a year – has been set. That we don’t have enough plumbers to install them, and may not generate enough electricity to power them all, are secondary issues.
And it’s why we have a government banning all petrol and diesel cars from 2030, but failing to put in place the infrastructure required to support the shift."
Source https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sadiq-khans-gr...
Cotty said:
DonkeyApple said:
When one reads 'Orpington Farmers', is it wrong that one one initially assumes a collective of hydroponics experts with Range Rover Sports?
I know you are jesting but this is from a walk in Orpington
Cotty said:
DonkeyApple said:
When one reads 'Orpington Farmers', is it wrong that one one initially assumes a collective of hydroponics experts with Range Rover Sports?
I know you are jesting but this is from a walk in OrpingtonGranadier said:
I know the Orpington and Downe areas are particularly leafy, but you can find more scenes like that in other outer parts of the proposed new ULEZ, such as the southern edge of Sutton borough.
The key is to go to the edge of the green belt and to look at it.
And then thank God it exists and that even though it means property prices are inflated it does at least mean the whole of the South East isn't Croydon or Thamesmead, some form of São Paulo hellhole.
But all that green, along with all the green of the Thames Valley and all the trees inside London are toxic and delivering heavy pollution to Londoners.
Granadier said:
I know the Orpington and Downe areas are particularly leafy, but you can find more scenes like that in other outer parts of the proposed new ULEZ, such as the southern edge of Sutton borough.
It's like that at a lot of the edges, isn't it? Less so on the SW corner because a lot of the Surrey boroughs that would have been moved into London in 1965 refused, so the green bits stayed in Surrey.Some lady (I’m afraid I didn’t catch her name, but gathered she was a london representative of some sort) on Nick Ferrari’s show this morning defending ULEZ;
To paraphrase; Cars are getting bigger and more polluting with bigger engines.
When asked about tradespeople and others dependant on a car to work struggling to fork out to replace their vehicles, this was apparently central govt’s fault for not offering better help to change.
To paraphrase; Cars are getting bigger and more polluting with bigger engines.
When asked about tradespeople and others dependant on a car to work struggling to fork out to replace their vehicles, this was apparently central govt’s fault for not offering better help to change.
swisstoni said:
Some lady (I’m afraid I didn’t catch her name, but gathered she was a london representative of some sort) on Nick Ferrari’s show this morning defending ULEZ;
To paraphrase; Cars are getting bigger and more polluting with bigger engines.
When asked about tradespeople and others dependant on a car to work struggling to fork out to replace their vehicles, this was apparently central govt’s fault for not offering better help to change.
so in other words batsTo paraphrase; Cars are getting bigger and more polluting with bigger engines.
When asked about tradespeople and others dependant on a car to work struggling to fork out to replace their vehicles, this was apparently central govt’s fault for not offering better help to change.
t crazy with no idea?DonkeyApple said:
NMNeil said:
"In 2020, a landmark coroner’s report made Ella the first person in the world to have air pollution cited as a cause of death."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/1...
That's the poor child who had something like 20 emergency trips to hospital in the last few years of her life but the local authority wouldn't House the family away from the main road and a busy junction despite knowing the heavy fumes in the locale were a serious co tributino factor. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/1...
She was killed by the utter negligence of those whose job is to protect you g children like her. Absolute scum.
And now the same type of creatures are using her corpse for their own political gains.
NMNeil said:
I understand your point, but is it more practical to move many thousands of children away from the source of pollution, or remove the source of the pollution away from the children?
It's not remotely difficult to not house at risk children in high risk locations. All it requires is care not contempt. It is also not difficult for a civilised society to not use a deceased child as a tool of manipulation for a nefarious objective. The individuals who failed her and who were wholly responsible for her death should be held directly to account and removed from their positions so they cannot kill again. Not absolved and permitted to carry on plying their trade and ruining more lives.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff