Expanded ULEZ

[Brigadier]

Fine any one playing rap music
In there car ?

That's OK, provided it can't be heard outside of said car.

 

[Brigadier]

Vaping.

Anyone driving with their seat back at more than 20 degrees from the vertical.

Fine 'em.

 

[Ihavenojob]

- anyone driving while wearing a baseball cap

Fine them double if they wear it back to front.
Coming back from my fishing trip I was looking for ULEZ signs, my house is about 2 miles inside the boundary. From entering the zone until I reached my house, I didn't see a single sign or camera. On busier roads in there are cameras, but they are easily avoidable (not that it matters to me). Here is another anomaly I noticed on the map (sorry if it's unclear, took a pic of PC screen)

 

[Roy Bloom]

Coming back from my fishing trip I was looking for ULEZ signs, my house is about 2 miles inside the boundary. From entering the zone until I reached my house, I didn't see a single sign or camera.

It would make sense to locate the signs before you enter the zone.

 

[motorbiking]

That's going to be a hefty bill for damage for anyone caught.

The defence used at the Bristol Colston statue removal was:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/AG-Ref-Colston-Four-judgment-280922.pdf

How do you think any defence along those lines would succeed?

If you read past all the legal waffle in that judgement, you are left with the court of appeal handwringing along the lines that they are reluctant to overturn the ruling of a Jury no matter how "perverse" (legal meaning) they are. Thats pretty much what they said. So on to the alleged criminal damage of the ULEZs kit...

Let's assume plod found one of the "blade runners" and was able to pin several offences on him/her. There are several alignments of the moons that would be needed. Firstly the damage of the single act needs to be more than £5k, otherwise its summary. Guaranteed conviction at magistrates court as they are largely a rubber stamping machine. It could be an abuse of process to artificially separate the offences. So let's assume Mr Blade is nicked for Criminal damager over £5k and he is smart, so goes for trial by jury.

While the human rights act is very broad and the right to private life might give some scope, we have established common law dating back to the bill of rights, that the state has certain duties to seek the consent of the people and set taxes responsibly. I think a jury might well be persuaded by an argument given mr Sunak and the governments strong opposition to ULEZ, that mr Khan's new tax, may be a taxation without representation.

It would make sense to locate the signs before you enter the zone.

Surrey CC isn't allowing that. I think TfL are probably keeping quiet about the enforceability of their ULEZ in that area.

 

[Ihavenojob]

.

 

[Ihavenojob]

It would make sense to locate the signs before you enter the zone.

It would make sense to read my post fully.

 

[motorbiking]

You set strategic direction, and allocate as best you can the available budget to achieve those strategic objectives.
You can't operate on the day to day operation of the Police. That is down to the Chief Constable, who has to operate within the budget allocated

But 70% of the London police financing is provided by Central Government, i.e. the Home Office.
30% is from the London Assembly.

Hoiwever, the Home Office has cut the Police Budget by about £1Billion over the last four or five years, meaning any shortfall has to be met by the London Assembly, (including terror related acts and catastrophes, and subsequent infrastructre and process changes), or some 'policing' simply isn't done.
The Home Office does not release the criteria on which it bases its funding for London police.
Police wage increases are not funded by the Home Office.

The only source of income for the London police via the London Assembly is Council Tax. Any rises in Council Tax is strictly controlled by Central Government.
So we have a system where the London Police is mostly funded by the Home office, who do not fund extraordinary events.
They also control the way, and by how much the London Mayor is allowed to raise funds to fund their 30% of Police funding.

I'd say that puts the Home Office very frimly in control of funding for London police, and therefore the effectiveness of the operation of the London Police.

I'd be pleased to hear your rational argument, rather than your simple dismal as "Rubbish".

No need for much thought on this by me. He has accountability. It would be pretty dishonest to create a crime and policing plan if you had no power to implement it.

Building a Safer London

The Police and Crime Plan for London 2022-25

www.london.gov.uk

 

[Roy Bloom]

I think a jury might well be persuaded by an argument given mr Sunak and the governments strong opposition to ULEZ, that mr Khan's new tax, may be a taxation without representation.

It's not a tax.

Surrey CC isn't allowing that. I think TfL are probably keeping quiet about the enforceability of their ULEZ in that area.

Or maybe not.

Motorists have been warned they could still be fined, even without signage.

Ulez: Surrey County Council warns Ulez officials on signage

The council has told Transport for London it will not allow warning cameras and signs on its roads.

www.bbc.com

 

[Roy Bloom]

It would make sense to read my post fully.

I did, and you said:

From entering the zone until I reached my house, I didn't see a single sign or camera.

And I said: It would make sense to locate the signs before you enter the zone.

What's your point?

I would consider it a scam if the signs were after you'd enetered the zone.
What would the signs say: "You have entered the ULEZ and you are going to be fined"?

 

[motorbiking]

Much more effective to attack the signs

Blup

probably easier to do that in court. I think there is a tribunal argument on LEZ signage which is persuasive (not case law) that rules the fines unlawful based on signage deviation.

It's not a tax.
Motorists have been warned they could still be fined, even without signage.

Or maybe not.

Ulez: Surrey County Council warns Ulez officials on signage

The council has told Transport for London it will not allow warning cameras and signs on its roads.

www.bbc.com

No that's complete bol@x from the deputy mayor, plenty of persuasive cases on that.

She may mean a fine may still be issued, but it wont be enforceable (probably).

If its not a tax - tell me what it is.
remember no service is being provided and no laws are being broken.

 

[Roy Bloom]

No need for much thought on this by me. He has accountability. It would be pretty dishonest to create a crime and policing plan if you had no power to implement it.

Building a Safer London

The Police and Crime Plan for London 2022-25

www.london.gov.uk

He has 30% of the accountability. The government are responsible for the 70%.

It's pretty dishonest to blame the Mayor for failures that are caused by the government denying the police of sufficient funding.
It's also pretty dishonest to place the onus on the Mayor for the strategic direction, then to deny the police sufficient funding to achieve the objectives.

 

[Roy Bloom]

probably easier to do that in court. I think there is a tribunal argument on LEZ signage which is persuasive (not case law) that rules the fines unlawful based on signage deviation.

No that's complete bol@x from the deputy mayor, plenty of persuasive cases on that.

She may mean a fine may still be issued, but it wont be enforceable (probably).

It might come down to the lack of signage, and who's responsible for that lack of signage.

If its not a tax - tell me what it is.

It's a charge.

remember no service is being provided and no laws are being broken.

Same argument applies to CG, LEZ, Previous ULEZ and Dart Charge.
All perfectly legal charges.

 

[Ihavenojob]

I did, and you said:
What's your point?

I didn't see a single sign or camera. On busier roads in there are cameras, but they are easily avoidable (not that it matters to me).

 

[blup]

I think a jury might well be persuaded by an argument given mr Sunak and the governments strong opposition to ULEZ, that mr Khan's new tax, may be a taxation without representation.

The same jury that was persuaded council tax wasn’t due because the taxpayers surname wasn’t legally valid.

Lots of taxes don’t provide a service, people who exclusively educate their children privately for example. Or don’t watch the bbc.

Blup