Perhaps if it goes through, the little **** will use 100% of the 'charges' raised to go towards treatment for people with stunted lungs, heart disease, cancer and dementia. Yer, right!
Expanded ULEZ
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
Sponsored Links
What would you do if you believed it and were in power?
Ulez legal challenge may proceed, High Court rules
Outer-London boroughs leading a judicial review can continue their challenge on the basis Ulez may be unlawful.www.thisislocallondon.co.uk
"This is a health emergency and the mayor is not prepared to stand by and do nothing while Londoners are growing up with stunted lungs and are more at risk of heart disease, cancer and dementia due to our toxic air.”
If that’s what the little **** believes, he should ban vehicles from entering the area and fine those that do. Don't introduce a bloody charge to enter the zone because what you are then saying is that you can carry on giving people stunted lungs, heart disease, cancer and dementia as long as you can afford to pay me for the privilege!
The little midget has no friends anymore.
Even those who voted him hate the little ****.
He's clearly suffering from some sort of egocentric syndrome and believes he can screw everyone without consequences.
So if you believed air pollution was dangerous and you were Mayor, you'd rant pointlessly on the internet and ignore the problem.
Sponsored Links
Let's not forget that the little midget is there as the people's representative, not as a dictator, despite his belief.
As irrelevant as what I would do is, I would listen to the people I represent.
He fiddled with the consultation results, made his decision before the consultation even started (he bought all necessary equipment), lied (and continues to lie) about the number of deaths attributed to pollution (there's only one on record), refused to answer many questions about the scam he's running, labelled the people he represents as fascists/no vax/conspiracy theorists, disregarded the fact that people are going through unprecedented financial difficulties at the moment and refused to even listen to alternative plans to tackle pollution.
Someone suggested to let the owners of non compliant vehicles keep them for free and only start charging when they changed hands.
That way, the number of non compliant vehicles would naturally drop in a few years.
Besides, he's not campaigning against Heathrow, even though, every plane taking off or landing is polluting as much as the average diesel car in a year.
Pure hypocrisy.
That would be a very slow way of taking action. But it would be an option for gently introducing the charge, say for the first few years. You'd have to tweak the software but the ANPR camera are already tied into more or less the right databases.
It'd still leave your car without any real retail value but that's inevitable really.
Really? I thought he was firmly against it.
Statement from Sadiq Khan on Heathrow decision
A statement from Sadiq Khan on today's Heathrow decision.
www.london.gov.uk
An increase in direct taxation is the fair way to spread the cost of tackling climate change, but people don't vote for that and none of the parties are serious about raising tax, which is why the nhs will be privatised when the tories get back in after starmer's term of office, and politics in this country are ratcheted to the right again.
Blup
Blup
Yes, but he's not doing anything about it.Really? I thought he was firmly against it.
Statement from Sadiq Khan on Heathrow decision
A statement from Sadiq Khan on today's Heathrow decision.
Instead he's punishing his voters with a tax.
The pollution caused by non compliant cars is minimal.
His own report says that the air quality improvement with ulez is negligible.
What more prove does he (and you) want???
It's like trying to get rid of a wasps nest by killing a few wasps, totally pointless.
I suppose you're not affected by ulez.
Registering the car as exempt is a facility already available (disabled for example), the technology is there, so no problem.
Giving people a few years time won't kill anybody.
I would even go to the extent of making a car non compliant if it fails an mot.
This would leave only well maintained old vehicles on the road.
The average diesel driver would probably change car in a couple of years, enough to put some money aside.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,537
- Reaction score
- 983
- Country
I thought it was good that voters have a chance to vote somebody out of office.
If he is punishing his voters, it will show. But if those votes support him, or his party, what say you then ?
You don"t think this policy is being forced from higher on ?
If he is punishing his voters, it will show. But if those votes support him, or his party, what say you then ?
You don"t think this policy is being forced from higher on ?
Apart from the fact that air pollution does kill people every day, and every year of delay is extra people dying.
For the proposed expanded area, I would phase those non-complying vehicles out naturally. He could have said all those that have cars registered inside the proposed zone at this very moment will be allowed to continue until the vehicle is sold, stolen or scrapped. No cars in the expanded zone to be allowed into the original inner zone. No new non-complying vehicles can be registered in either zone from the date of the announcement. I think that would have been a much fairer process. Yes, it would take time but no individual or company would take an immediate financial hit and be forced into getting rid of a perfectly serviceable vehicle and paying an over inflated price for a complying one.
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 5,786
- Reaction score
- 704
- Country
I don't buy that argument unless there are numbers. HOW MUCH pollution does one car-mile produce, and how does that look compared to what's there, all other sources, etc.
That's Khan's approach - even a schoolboy list of invalid arguments has that at the top.
Soon you get to "Move your patio heaters closer so you can turn them down. That'll save the planet".
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 12,537
- Reaction score
- 983
- Country
Starting with the fact that pollution is not good, and then trying to reduce it, is probably better than trying to prove or argue over how much pollution 1 car mile produces?
I don't think anybody would argue that having an exhaust running directly into the house would be good, so we accept it is polluting ?
Whether we like it or not, reducing pollution is good for us, the environment and the world. The issue is surely over the best way to reduce pollution at the same time as improving the environment.
Sponsored Links
