- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,679
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Country
"Mr Khan shook his head while the audience shouted and then continued: 'Some of you have got good reasons to oppose Ulez "
You claimed,
You are being dishonest.
Expanded ULEZ
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
You claimed,
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
@Danny Ro - a new day, a new username? welcome back
@denso13
People who have genuine concerns about ULEZ expansion have not formed a coalition with the Nazis and idiots. So no it is not acceptable to say they have formed a coalition with them. They are not in coalition with them. He was wrong. There was no alignment of anti ULEZ protestors to form a temporary alliance with racists and idiots. Some of them may overlap, but the comment was aimed at the people in the room and it was a lie, which is why he was heckled.
noun
"you are in coalition with covid deniers... you are in collation with the far right... you are in collation with vaccine deniers".
which of course is a lie. as well as being fairly irrelevant to the argument. its pretty clear.
@denso13
People who have genuine concerns about ULEZ expansion have not formed a coalition with the Nazis and idiots. So no it is not acceptable to say they have formed a coalition with them. They are not in coalition with them. He was wrong. There was no alignment of anti ULEZ protestors to form a temporary alliance with racists and idiots. Some of them may overlap, but the comment was aimed at the people in the room and it was a lie, which is why he was heckled.
noun
- a temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government.
"you are in coalition with covid deniers... you are in collation with the far right... you are in collation with vaccine deniers".
which of course is a lie. as well as being fairly irrelevant to the argument. its pretty clear.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,679
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Country
Twist it however you want, you claimed this,
Which is just not what he claimed. Dishonest is one word for it...
Remains not true, despite your attempt at distraction.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,786
- Reaction score
- 704
- Country
BBC:
"
So far TfL and the mayor have not provided the number and percentage of vehicles registered in outer London that are compliant. However, there are clear signs it is lower than 85%.
Background documents for TfL say in "large parts of outer London" compliance is "62% to 72%" - in other words about a third of motorists will need to change their cars or pay the charge.
Lib Dem analysis of DVLA-registered vehicles suggests a quarter are non-compliant.
The BBC is waiting for further data from TfL and the mayor to verify this claim fully.
So the 85% claim of compliance for vehicles owned and driven in outer London does not seem to be supported by the available evidence."
And the lying little shít HAS tried to associate Nazi's and the rest with his opposition.
"85% of vehicles observed driving in outer London" will exclude those which are hardly used.
There is no assessment, afaik, of how much the use of non-compliant vehicles is contributing to specific pollutants in London. Let's say for the sake of argument it's 0.00001%. Does that justify ihis restrictions? No.
If "anything is too much", then we'll have Khan deported for producing CO2 when he opens his mouth. Bakhmut - not many people there.
He says there's a small improvement in pollution in central London. But how much of that was due to the restrictions on CARS there? No attempt to say, so he's trying to imply all of it. Liar.
"
'85% of vehicles are already ULEZ compliant'
Transport for London says that, averaged out, 85% of vehicles observed driving in outer London by cameras are compliant. This includes vehicles coming in from outside the capital.So far TfL and the mayor have not provided the number and percentage of vehicles registered in outer London that are compliant. However, there are clear signs it is lower than 85%.
Background documents for TfL say in "large parts of outer London" compliance is "62% to 72%" - in other words about a third of motorists will need to change their cars or pay the charge.
Lib Dem analysis of DVLA-registered vehicles suggests a quarter are non-compliant.
The BBC is waiting for further data from TfL and the mayor to verify this claim fully.
So the 85% claim of compliance for vehicles owned and driven in outer London does not seem to be supported by the available evidence."
And the lying little shít HAS tried to associate Nazi's and the rest with his opposition.
"85% of vehicles observed driving in outer London" will exclude those which are hardly used.
There is no assessment, afaik, of how much the use of non-compliant vehicles is contributing to specific pollutants in London. Let's say for the sake of argument it's 0.00001%. Does that justify ihis restrictions? No.
If "anything is too much", then we'll have Khan deported for producing CO2 when he opens his mouth. Bakhmut - not many people there.
He says there's a small improvement in pollution in central London. But how much of that was due to the restrictions on CARS there? No attempt to say, so he's trying to imply all of it. Liar.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
He was addressing his comments to the room. "You are in coalition.." did he exclude anyone?
Many shouts of liar from the audience. But the lefties only like to point out Tory fibs.
There is of course an anti ULEZ coalition. It's between the democratically elected councils of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow & Hillingdon and Surrey County Council. They should hear on their injunction application shortly. I don't have high hopes that their case is sufficient to grant an injunction.
What I find most odd, is this thing will cost £400M to roll-out and success is defined as stopping non-ULEZ compliant cars from entering the zone. This will mean a loss of another £100M on top of the almost £200M lost from the first zone.
This is the real issue. Its cost him a fortune and the only way to make up the losses is either increase the charge or catch more cars.
You could have purchased a fleet of 1000 electric busses for that.
Did you not hear them shouting and taking offence at being told they were all in coalition with the nazis and loonies?
Many shouts of liar from the audience. But the lefties only like to point out Tory fibs.
There is of course an anti ULEZ coalition. It's between the democratically elected councils of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow & Hillingdon and Surrey County Council. They should hear on their injunction application shortly. I don't have high hopes that their case is sufficient to grant an injunction.
What I find most odd, is this thing will cost £400M to roll-out and success is defined as stopping non-ULEZ compliant cars from entering the zone. This will mean a loss of another £100M on top of the almost £200M lost from the first zone.
This is the real issue. Its cost him a fortune and the only way to make up the losses is either increase the charge or catch more cars.
You could have purchased a fleet of 1000 electric busses for that.
Last edited:
I know. Don't you drive a Jag, or something similar? And I'm sure you're not a racist - but that's Khant for you.
He's saying, basically, if you want to drive a car that pollutes more than a Prius, you're a racist.
RAC's allegation is not true.
Motobikings allegation is not true.
Can't you write your own posts Himmy, rather than making up some BS collage of others?
JohnD is a Khant fan.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,679
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Country
They don't like it up 'em...
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
Khan clearly told everyone in the room they were in a coalition. That was not true.
Do you think he’s a liar?
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 16,679
- Reaction score
- 2,346
- Country
That is being dishonest.
Sponsored Links
