FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Sadiq Khan New Money Maker
Sadiq Khan New Money Maker
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-face-new-charges-to-use-two-tunnels-under-transport-for-london-plans-13176029
Drivers face new charges to use two tunnels under Transport for London plans |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's all for air quality  "
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021"
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles..."
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles...
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles"
Actually. When I re-read it it only says: "zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt"
So that must mean that if you drive and electric 'private car' then you will pay. So NOT about air-quality then, but just about charging another tax for rpad use under the banner of congestion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles...
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles
Actually. When I re-read it it only says: "zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt"
So that must mean that if you drive and electric 'private car' then you will pay. So NOT about air-quality then, but just about charging another tax for rpad use under the banner of congestion. "
That's exactly how I read it too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles...
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles
Actually. When I re-read it it only says: "zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt"
So that must mean that if you drive and electric 'private car' then you will pay. So NOT about air-quality then, but just about charging another tax for rpad use under the banner of congestion.
That's exactly how I read it too. "
Quite the **** with Londoners money isn't he? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles...
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles
Actually. When I re-read it it only says: "zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt"
So that must mean that if you drive and electric 'private car' then you will pay. So NOT about air-quality then, but just about charging another tax for rpad use under the banner of congestion.
That's exactly how I read it too.
Quite the **** with Londoners money isn't he?"
They knew what they were voting for |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It's all for air quality
Yup. Nothing to do with money at all. He should use what has been taken so far to offset buying electric cars for those who need help to do so . . . And let's face it, Londoners who have the most polluting cars are usually those who couldn't afford a new one, never mind and electric one.
'Transport for London (TfL) forecasts show that the expected net budgeted revenue for the Congestion Charge as a whole is £232 million for this financial year ' Year 2021
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles...
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles
Actually. When I re-read it it only says: "zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt"
So that must mean that if you drive and electric 'private car' then you will pay. So NOT about air-quality then, but just about charging another tax for rpad use under the banner of congestion.
That's exactly how I read it too.
Quite the **** with Londoners money isn't he?
They knew what they were voting for "
That is true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
They agreed 250 million from central government for tfl over the complete network for 2024.
With central government having already provided nearly £6.4 billion since 2020 to support transport in London.
Now Londoners are being asked to pay a bucket load more. Makes you ask what the frip they did with the 6.4 billion, doesn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Presumably it costs money to maintain these tunnels?"
"Paid out of Road Fund Licence as part of the highway."
There is no such thing as Road Fund Licence. The Road Tax was abolished in 1939. Since then we've all been paying Car Tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty to be exact), which is not hypothecated, meaning that it's a general tax that isn't reserved for roads.
Tunnel maintenance comes out of general taxation if it's a national highway, and out of council tax if it's a local road. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 20 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"They agreed 250 million from central government for tfl over the complete network for 2024.
With central government having already provided nearly £6.4 billion since 2020 to support transport in London.
Now Londoners are being asked to pay a bucket load more. Makes you ask what the frip they did with the 6.4 billion, doesn't it?"
Yea. Said that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I live near Tower Bridge. For the last few weeks, whenever the Blackwall Tunnel has been closed as part of the Silvertown tunnel construction, the traffic has been unbearable.
When they introduce the charge, I feel it will bring gridlock to central east London, because of the people who don't wish to pay the price.
Nobody thinks shit through anymore.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply)."
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?"
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable. "
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable.
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though?"
Nope.
The savings are down to not having to pay the ULEZ charge and the spectre of pay per mile which is the last straw.
....and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace.
It is not an 'excuse' as you say.
It is assumed that you have never been responsible for maintaining a business, with all of the obligations that entails to remain viable, or am I wrong?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable.
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though?
Nope.
The savings are down to not having to pay the ULEZ charge and the spectre of pay per mile which is the last straw.
....and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace.
It is not an 'excuse' as you say.
It is assumed that you have never been responsible for maintaining a business, with all of the obligations that entails to remain viable, or am I wrong?
"
I thought you said the that the reduction in commercial rates had financed the move? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable.
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though?
Nope.
The savings are down to not having to pay the ULEZ charge and the spectre of pay per mile which is the last straw.
....and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace.
It is not an 'excuse' as you say.
It is assumed that you have never been responsible for maintaining a business, with all of the obligations that entails to remain viable, or am I wrong?
I thought you said the that the reduction in commercial rates had financed the move?"
I was right. You don't know anything about business.
Properties that are empty are exempt from Commercial Rates for 3 months with the possibility of extending to 6 months. That is effectively financing the move even though slightly lower Rates will be payable on the new premises. The savings on Rates are not the reason for moving.
Joke alert.
....and your phrase about making more profit for the owners? Is any profit so objectionable to you that it should be criminalised? Is your view of profit simply illicit earnings?
I'm sure that if you believe that, those who benefit from taxes on profit are also living off immoral earnings.
(Actually,that was a joke. Please consider it as such)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable.
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though?
Nope.
The savings are down to not having to pay the ULEZ charge and the spectre of pay per mile which is the last straw.
....and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace.
It is not an 'excuse' as you say.
It is assumed that you have never been responsible for maintaining a business, with all of the obligations that entails to remain viable, or am I wrong?
I thought you said the that the reduction in commercial rates had financed the move?
I was right. You don't know anything about business.
Properties that are empty are exempt from Commercial Rates for 3 months with the possibility of extending to 6 months. That is effectively financing the move even though slightly lower Rates will be payable on the new premises. The savings on Rates are not the reason for moving.
Joke alert.
....and your phrase about making more profit for the owners? Is any profit so objectionable to you that it should be criminalised? Is your view of profit simply illicit earnings?
I'm sure that if you believe that, those who benefit from taxes on profit are also living off immoral earnings.
(Actually,that was a joke. Please consider it as such)
"
I didn’t say anything about profits.
What i would say is that if London is so expensive then it’s been remiss of the owners not to have moved the business out of London earlier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable.
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though?
Nope.
The savings are down to not having to pay the ULEZ charge and the spectre of pay per mile which is the last straw.
....and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace.
It is not an 'excuse' as you say.
It is assumed that you have never been responsible for maintaining a business, with all of the obligations that entails to remain viable, or am I wrong?
I thought you said the that the reduction in commercial rates had financed the move?
I was right. You don't know anything about business.
Properties that are empty are exempt from Commercial Rates for 3 months with the possibility of extending to 6 months. That is effectively financing the move even though slightly lower Rates will be payable on the new premises. The savings on Rates are not the reason for moving.
Joke alert.
....and your phrase about making more profit for the owners? Is any profit so objectionable to you that it should be criminalised? Is your view of profit simply illicit earnings?
I'm sure that if you believe that, those who benefit from taxes on profit are also living off immoral earnings.
(Actually,that was a joke. Please consider it as such)
I didn’t say anything about profits.
What i would say is that if London is so expensive then it’s been remiss of the owners not to have moved the business out of London earlier."
Want? Why should they have moved earlier? If they committed to 4 branches that’s a lot of planning and upset, this extra tax is the final straw by the sounds of things.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My company is relocating it's 4 branches (80 employees) out of London. The 4 premises are being mothballed to save on potential payments of pay per mile as most of our workinvolvesdriving out of the capital. The savings for 6 months on Commercial Rates have financed the move and the long term plan is to redevelop each site into domestic residential.
I don't know the full economic consequences but I believe that the local taxes and rates paid will be somewhat less than if we remained located inside the M25.
Added to that is the loss of employment opportunities for locals in London.
Either hats off to Khan for putting political principle before economics or a foolish move to pay for principles with economic madness (you can choose which is the right analysis to apply).
So your company is moving the four branches because Sadiq Khan might bring in pay per mile at some point, and not because the saving on business rates is so large that not only is it financing the move, but it will presumably continue to provide such large savings in future?
you took from the above, it is an excuse to save on business rates and make more profit for the owners?
I understand business and economics is not everyones cup of tea, but surely you can see that the rates are too high, the journey the 80 employees are taking, is across London and out and presumably back every day, an added expense the customer needs to pick up or the business goes under.
It would be far easier to relocate than take the extra costs of the travel as most customers are out of London, losing business to price hikes that other companies don't need to add outside of London and so on.
It is not always about greedy employers, it is about trying to keep a business and jobs viable.
No, I took it that the business owners are making the perfectly sensible decision to leave London because it saves them a fortune in business rates, I think it’s got bugger all to do with a pay per mile scheme that Sadiq Khan ruled out last year.
I wonder which London mayor did have it as part of his transport plan though?
Nope.
The savings are down to not having to pay the ULEZ charge and the spectre of pay per mile which is the last straw.
....and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace.
It is not an 'excuse' as you say.
It is assumed that you have never been responsible for maintaining a business, with all of the obligations that entails to remain viable, or am I wrong?
I thought you said the that the reduction in commercial rates had financed the move?
I was right. You don't know anything about business.
Properties that are empty are exempt from Commercial Rates for 3 months with the possibility of extending to 6 months. That is effectively financing the move even though slightly lower Rates will be payable on the new premises. The savings on Rates are not the reason for moving.
Joke alert.
....and your phrase about making more profit for the owners? Is any profit so objectionable to you that it should be criminalised? Is your view of profit simply illicit earnings?
I'm sure that if you believe that, those who benefit from taxes on profit are also living off immoral earnings.
(Actually,that was a joke. Please consider it as such)
I didn’t say anything about profits.
What i would say is that if London is so expensive then it’s been remiss of the owners not to have moved the business out of London earlier.
Want? Why should they have moved earlier? If they committed to 4 branches that’s a lot of planning and upset, this extra tax is the final straw by the sounds of things.
"
Or it is just sensible because the market has made London too expensive to operate in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think he stated that it was the added cost of Ulez and the potential for pay per mile.
The market for their services or products wasn't mentioned. "
Sadiq Khan has ruled out introducing pay per mile though, it was in fact Boris Johnson who had it as part of his plan for London.
It would seem foolish to move an entire business on the strength of some internet chat about a policy the mayor has ruled out. It seems more likely that it was as a result of the ‘London premium’ which of course is driven by the almighty ‘market’. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The same Sadiq Khan also said he had no plans to expand ULEZ to the whole of London to then do it 8 months later back in 2023 after he claims it was "the hardest decision" he had to make. So dont trust what his says |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The same Sadiq Khan also said he had no plans to expand ULEZ to the whole of London to then do it 8 months later back in 2023 after he claims it was "the hardest decision" he had to make. So dont trust what his says"
Was expanding ULEZ a condition placed upon him by the government, in return for bailing TfL out and stopping them going bust due to Covid? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The same Sadiq Khan also said he had no plans to expand ULEZ to the whole of London to then do it 8 months later back in 2023 after he claims it was "the hardest decision" he had to make. So dont trust what his says
Was expanding ULEZ a condition placed upon him by the government, in return for bailing TfL out and stopping them going bust due to Covid?"
TfL are allowed to use Covid as a reason for bailing our but others aren't??
From fullfact:
While a funding agreement between the government and Transport for London in 2020 did state that proposals to expand ULEZ should be brought forward, the Department for Transport says this referred to existing plans to extend the boundary as far as the North and South Circular Roads, not the expansion across all of Greater London which is set to take place later this month. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think he stated that it was the added cost of Ulez and the potential for pay per mile.
The market for their services or products wasn't mentioned.
Sadiq Khan has ruled out introducing pay per mile though, it was in fact Boris Johnson who had it as part of his plan for London.
It would seem foolish to move an entire business on the strength of some internet chat about a policy the mayor has ruled out. It seems more likely that it was as a result of the ‘London premium’ which of course is driven by the almighty ‘market’."
Aren't people missing the bigger picture here in relation to business?
Businesses are choosing to move out of the capital as the conditions laid down do not encourage some small and medium businesses to remain.
Is that a positive or a negative for London (ie the removal of wealth creation and the local taxes/rates that go with it)?
You call it foolish but as a previous poster stated,have you any experience of running a business to be qualified to call it as such?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The same Sadiq Khan also said he had no plans to expand ULEZ to the whole of London to then do it 8 months later back in 2023 after he claims it was "the hardest decision" he had to make. So dont trust what his says
Was expanding ULEZ a condition placed upon him by the government, in return for bailing TfL out and stopping them going bust due to Covid?"
I dont about that because the Tories were looking to reverse the expantion had they been in power again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"just get a compliant vehicle .... job done  "
Didn't you read the thread...the poster who raised this said
"..and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace."
I assume that the cost of £2million is a drop in the ocean to you?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"just get a compliant vehicle .... job done
Didn't you read the thread...the poster who raised this said
"..and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace."
I assume that the cost of £2million is a drop in the ocean to you?
"
tuff |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"just get a compliant vehicle .... job done
Didn't you read the thread...the poster who raised this said
"..and before anyone says that we 'can just change our vehicles', we run a fleet of 20 specialist vehicles with equipment which would cost over £100k to replace."
I assume that the cost of £2million is a drop in the ocean to you?
tuff"
Clearly somebody without any idea of how business works.
You amuse us all  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 19 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making"
Exactly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making"
ok ... that's not money making  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Meanwhile TFL plans to spend £2.5M on diversity training. For an organisation that is billions in debt and keeps complaining about lack of funding, with all the issues from salaries to cancellations/delays in trains, they randomly decided to spend such a huge sum on diversity training. You can't make it up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Meanwhile TFL plans to spend £2.5M on diversity training. For an organisation that is billions in debt and keeps complaining about lack of funding, with all the issues from salaries to cancellations/delays in trains, they randomly decided to spend such a huge sum on diversity training. You can't make it up "
Doesnt that tell you how looney Labour are? But some people dont see it that way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making"
Who is making the money? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 19 weeks ago
NW London |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Who is making the money?"
Something has to bail out TFL after years of mismanagement and the collapse of revenue during covid.
Sadly as someone from a working class background, Sadiq seems to have forgotten his roots. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Had to read it myself to believe it
“Sadiq Khan is extending London's congestion charge to all zero-emission vehicles from the end of next year. The move, which will extend the £15-a-day tax on motoring to battery-powered electric vehicles from Christmas Day 2025, was widely condemned on Tuesday.2 Jul 2024”
And the govt stopped the incentives to buy EV
Wait for £1000 annual VED on older vehicles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Who is making the money?
Something has to bail out TFL after years of mismanagement and the collapse of revenue during covid.
Sadly as someone from a working class background, Sadiq seems to have forgotten his roots."
That, but where is incentive to buy EV now, 41.8% the countries electric is renewable anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Meanwhile TFL plans to spend £2.5M on diversity training. For an organisation that is billions in debt and keeps complaining about lack of funding, with all the issues from salaries to cancellations/delays in trains, they randomly decided to spend such a huge sum on diversity training. You can't make it up Doesnt that tell you how looney Labour are? But some people dont see it that way"
They are indeed. It's going to be fun watching Sadiq though. All these years, he managed to blame his own failings on Tories. He won't have them as scapegoats from now on. Let's see who he blames next. He obviously can't complain about lack of funding but go on to waste 2.5M on diversity training. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 19 weeks ago
NW London |
"The people of London had there chance to vote him out and you did not so what ever he does not there’s only you to blame "
Sadly the Tories had no interest in having a Mayor otherwise they would of fielded a much better candidate than Susan Hall.
It just goes to show that politicians don't care about London, they just want our money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The people of London had there chance to vote him out and you did not so what ever he does not there’s only you to blame "
The Muslim population in this country has increased 44% in a decade. 15% of London is Muslim.
Hard not to miss Khans voter base |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly. "
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
"
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution. "
Free for all EV powered by renewable electricity |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution. "
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
Free for all EV powered by renewable electricity "
Sounds very sensible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars."
What about trades people in vans? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution. "
The only problem hear is when everyone is in an EV the roads will be grid locked as as the greens pointed out EV's being hever do more damage to roads. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
The only problem hear is when everyone is in an EV the roads will be grid locked as as the greens pointed out EV's being hever do more damage to roads. "
I liked 50Shades idea of free for EV's powered from renewable energy, that would sort a few things out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not sorry but public transport in London not only isn't reliable most of the time but also it isnt safe. So Labour need to stop thinking of schemes to get people out their cars and let people decide what is best for them to travel by |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars."
....and businesses requiring vehicles to either deliver items or carry equipment?
What's your solution (apart from repeating flippant or virtue signalling replies)? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The nonsense of all of this is that tyre wear pollutant emissions are up to 1000 times more than exhaust emissions, irrespective of power/fuel source
1000 EV’s cause the same tyre pollution as one petrol/diesel vehicles exhaust emissions
Up to 2000 times more, for heavier vehicles.
Data on emission analytics website. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?"
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies."
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 19 weeks ago
NW London |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades."
Amsterdam is a lot lot smaller than London |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Amsterdam is a lot lot smaller than London "
central amsterdam is a lot larger than the london congestion zone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades."
Amsterdam allow vehicles providing they're complaint. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Amsterdam allow vehicles providing they're complaint. "
so does london |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere."
yep, and they're all electric |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Amsterdam allow vehicles providing they're complaint.
so does london"
Yes but we're talking about EVs which London now want to charge for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric"
No they aren't. Diesel and Petrol are allowed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Amsterdam allow vehicles providing they're complaint.
so does london
Yes but we're talking about EVs which London now want to charge for. "
so does amsterdam from spring next year .... and still the sofas are delivered by hand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
No they aren't. Diesel and Petrol are allowed. "
if they are compliant .... just like london
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Amsterdam allow vehicles providing they're complaint.
so does london
Yes but we're talking about EVs which London now want to charge for.
so does amsterdam from spring next year .... and still the sofas are delivered by hand"
Sources? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
No they aren't. Diesel and Petrol are allowed.
if they are compliant .... just like london
"
So they aren't all electric then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric"
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
No they aren't. Diesel and Petrol are allowed.
if they are compliant .... just like london
So they aren't all electric then "
yep ... they are |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
No they aren't. Diesel and Petrol are allowed.
if they are compliant .... just like london
So they aren't all electric then
yep ... they are "
Where, exactly? Certainly not the historical centre of Amsterdam, in 2024. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
No they aren't. Diesel and Petrol are allowed.
if they are compliant .... just like london
So they aren't all electric then
yep ... they are "
I can't say this is a more polite way but you're chatting shit mate. I'll send you some pics when I'm there next month |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing."
so you drove there in a delivery vehicle ... yeah ok |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing.
so you drove there in a delivery vehicle ... yeah ok "
Um... No. Went by Eurostar, actually.
Try here:
https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/netherlands-mainmenu-88/amsterdam |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing.
so you drove there in a delivery vehicle ... yeah ok
Um... No. Went by Eurostar, actually.
Try here:
https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/netherlands-mainmenu-88/amsterdam"
... says 180 euro fine for driving into the zero emission zone in a delivery van |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing.
so you drove there in a delivery vehicle ... yeah ok
Um... No. Went by Eurostar, actually.
Try here:
https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/netherlands-mainmenu-88/amsterdam
... says 180 euro fine for driving into the zero emission zone in a delivery van "
Where are you looking?! There is no 180 euro fine mentioned at all.
Quoted from the page linked:
Since 1 January 2022 is the minimum standard:
o Diesel cars, delivery vans Euro 4
o Diesel for lorries, buses and coaches Euro 6
Check here if you are allowed to enter the LEZ.
Day pass: There is the possibility to buy a day exemption for delivery vehicles and trucks if they don't meet the Euro 4/6 standard. For further details see 'Exemptions'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing.
so you drove there in a delivery vehicle ... yeah ok
Um... No. Went by Eurostar, actually.
Try here:
https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/netherlands-mainmenu-88/amsterdam
... says 180 euro fine for driving into the zero emission zone in a delivery van
Where are you looking?! There is no 180 euro fine mentioned at all.
Quoted from the page linked:
Since 1 January 2022 is the minimum standard:
o Diesel cars, delivery vans Euro 4
o Diesel for lorries, buses and coaches Euro 6
Check here if you are allowed to enter the LEZ.
Day pass: There is the possibility to buy a day exemption for delivery vehicles and trucks if they don't meet the Euro 4/6 standard. For further details see 'Exemptions'."
120 then .... anyway
quoted ..
Fines for diesel vehicles
The fine for violating the low emission zone rules is €80 for mopeds/motorised bikes, €120 for cars, taxis, delivery vans and coaches and €300 for lorries.
The A10 ring road is the boundary of the low emission zone, except for mopeds and scooters, which have the built-up area as their boundary.
The built-up area is also the boundary of the emission-free zone for mopeds and scooters.
The extent of the emission-free zone for vans and lorries is the S100
The extent of the emission-free zone for pleasure craft is the centre area.
..... the zone includes canal boats too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
why not? they've managed sofa delivery without a vehicle in central amsterdam for decades.
Have you ever been to Central Amsterdam? There are plenty of commercial vehicles everywhere.
yep, and they're all electric
They most definitely are not.
https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/travel-stay/travel-to-amsterdam/arrival-by-car
Having been there recently and being in a related field of business at the moment, that assertion will take some justification and convincing.
so you drove there in a delivery vehicle ... yeah ok
Um... No. Went by Eurostar, actually.
Try here:
https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/netherlands-mainmenu-88/amsterdam
... says 180 euro fine for driving into the zero emission zone in a delivery van
Where are you looking?! There is no 180 euro fine mentioned at all.
Quoted from the page linked:
Since 1 January 2022 is the minimum standard:
o Diesel cars, delivery vans Euro 4
o Diesel for lorries, buses and coaches Euro 6
Check here if you are allowed to enter the LEZ.
Day pass: There is the possibility to buy a day exemption for delivery vehicles and trucks if they don't meet the Euro 4/6 standard. For further details see 'Exemptions'.
120 then .... anyway
quoted ..
Fines for diesel vehicles
The fine for violating the low emission zone rules is €80 for mopeds/motorised bikes, €120 for cars, taxis, delivery vans and coaches and €300 for lorries.
The A10 ring road is the boundary of the low emission zone, except for mopeds and scooters, which have the built-up area as their boundary.
The built-up area is also the boundary of the emission-free zone for mopeds and scooters.
The extent of the emission-free zone for vans and lorries is the S100
The extent of the emission-free zone for pleasure craft is the centre area.
..... the zone includes canal boats too "
Exactly. So compliant diesel and petrol vehicles, including delivery vans, are permitted into Central Amsterdam, at least until 2030, but non-compliant vehicles are subject to a fine. We're finally agreed!
So sofas are still delivered by van, not even an EV, necessarily. We got there in the end |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We're finally agreed!
So sofas are still delivered by van, not even an EV, necessarily. We got there in the end "
no we're not agreed, principally because you're so utterly wrong on this. trying living there and seeing for yourself before proclaiming to know a thing or two ... which you blatently don't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We're finally agreed!
So sofas are still delivered by van, not even an EV, necessarily. We got there in the end
no we're not agreed, principally because you're so utterly wrong on this. trying living there and seeing for yourself before proclaiming to know a thing or two ... which you blatently don't.
"
What, factually, is wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We're finally agreed!
So sofas are still delivered by van, not even an EV, necessarily. We got there in the end
no we're not agreed, principally because you're so utterly wrong on this. trying living there and seeing for yourself before proclaiming to know a thing or two ... which you blatently don't.
What, factually, is wrong?"
tot ziens!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We're finally agreed!
So sofas are still delivered by van, not even an EV, necessarily. We got there in the end
no we're not agreed, principally because you're so utterly wrong on this. trying living there and seeing for yourself before proclaiming to know a thing or two ... which you blatently don't.
What, factually, is wrong?
tot ziens!
"
Just went through photos from a trip there. On Monday, 25 March 2024 (17:40), there was a Nissan petrol delivery van (white panel van, assumed for delivery) in Central Amsterdam, on Staalstraat/Groenburgwal. Personally witnessed and photographed.
Perhaps even delivering a sofa...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Just went through photos from a trip there. On Monday, 25 March 2024 (17:40), there was a Nissan petrol delivery van (white panel van, assumed for delivery) in Central Amsterdam, on Staalstraat/Groenburgwal. Personally witnessed and photographed.
"
Hahaha... Also there is a UK vehicle. Just did a check on it... SORN, expired MOT (2023):
Vehicle make
BMW
Date of first registration
December 2008
Year of manufacture
2008
Cylinder capacity
2993 cc
CO2 emissions
216 g/km
Fuel type
DIESEL
Euro status
Not available
Real Driving Emissions (RDE)
Not available
Export marker
No
Vehicle status
SORN
Vehicle colour
GREY
Vehicle type approval
M1
Wheelplan
2 AXLE RIGID BODY
Revenue weight
Not available
Date of last V5C (logbook) issued
5 October 2021
----------
Very interesting!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?"
You’re being silly with this example.
Deliveries need to be made but it’s the firms that send multiple vehicles into the zone when one would do.
An example is a concrete cutting company that sent several vans in and all sat in the car park all day. One van loaded with kit needed and staff come in by public transport
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I live near Tower Bridge. For the last few weeks, whenever the Blackwall Tunnel has been closed as part of the Silvertown tunnel construction, the traffic has been unbearable.
When they introduce the charge, I feel it will bring gridlock to central east London, because of the people who don't wish to pay the price.
Nobody thinks shit through anymore. "
Totally |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have a vehicle thats compliant but now he wants to charge people who drive electric cars into the congestion zone next year when its exempt at the moment. Now tell me thats not money making
Exactly.
No its fair as its a congestion charge,hence why they are going to be charged.Cheap parking has already been or about to be withdrawn due to the number of EVs in the zone.Just because they are EVs they don't suddenly not contribute to the congestion
do you think it should be a lower tariff for EV's considering the congestions charge has 2 purposes, reduce traffic and prevent pollution.
no ... people need to get off the road in central london and use public transport instead, which will achieve quicker journey when people stop trying to selfishly use their cars.
What about trades people in vans?
The vast majority can and should.If work is organised correctly but it comes down to laziness of companies.
Can and should what? Deliver a sofa on humanback?
You’re being silly with this example.
Deliveries need to be made but it’s the firms that send multiple vehicles into the zone when one would do.
An example is a concrete cutting company that sent several vans in and all sat in the car park all day. One van loaded with kit needed and staff come in by public transport
"
I was being silly but apparently we can actually deliver sofas via humanback, our friend said they do this in Amsterdam.
I'd love to see staff carry all their tools (of which they may not know which ones they need) on public transport. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
About 45% of London households don't own a car. The figure per London adult is lower at 0.3 cars per adult, less than one in three adults.
Perhaps Sadiq Khan, unprecendent third term mayor, is more in tune with the majority of his citizens' views, than those who seem to believe they should be able to drive their car wherever they like, whenever they like, at minimal cost to themselves, but at the expense of everyone else in terms of safety. noise pollution and congestion.
There needs to be a balance and it's far too much in favour of vehicle owners in my view. Private vehicles which have grown in size and weight to beyond what is reasonable for narrow London Streets.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Sadiq Khan won't have to pay the ULEZ charge: London mayor's taxpayer-funded luxury 2020 Range Rover is exempt from the £12.50-a-day fee!
ULEZ charge is set to apply to all of London's boroughs from August 29
Mr Khan's Range Rover Sentinel is bulletproof and has a five-litre engine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And who actually needs a 5 litre engine - other than a daimler bus to get around london?"
Bullet proof glass, and the associated metal shielding are extremely heavy, and you need to upgrade the engine of any vehicle to which they are fitted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"And who actually needs a 5 litre engine - other than a daimler bus to get around london?
Bullet proof glass, and the associated metal shielding are extremely heavy, and you need to upgrade the engine of any vehicle to which they are fitted."
Mini-buses carry 17 people plus luggage and have 1.9 litre engines |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways - he really is out of control !!! 3 Terms has given him a Putin Mentality of I can do whatever I like."
Your views are supported by David Icke, the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Are you the one who is actually out of control?
(And for the record it is a suggestion, along with many others how to mitigate the flooding in London in 2021/2022. No decisions taken as the review came out four days ago). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways - he really is out of control !!! 3 Terms has given him a Putin Mentality of I can do whatever I like.
Your views are supported by David Icke, the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Are you the one who is actually out of control?
(And for the record it is a suggestion, along with many others how to mitigate the flooding in London in 2021/2022. No decisions taken as the review came out four days ago). "
LMAO you say only supported by david icke et-all then you agree in your next paragraph that it HAS been proposed by the Mayor !!! hahaha funny.
And his spokesman was on TV saying that it is indeed a proposal - so do keep up.
I said 'HE WANTS TO' I said nothing about a decision yet made |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And who actually needs a 5 litre engine - other than a daimler bus to get around london?
Bullet proof glass, and the associated metal shielding are extremely heavy, and you need to upgrade the engine of any vehicle to which they are fitted."
And the need to get out of danger quickly. Presumably these RRs are standard issue for use by high profile individuals and Royality.
But the OP clearly has a mindset that everything the London mayor does is wrong, even though Khan has won more London elections than anyone else.
Mindset or obession? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"And who actually needs a 5 litre engine - other than a daimler bus to get around london?
Bullet proof glass, and the associated metal shielding are extremely heavy, and you need to upgrade the engine of any vehicle to which they are fitted.
And the need to get out of danger quickly. Presumably these RRs are standard issue for use by high profile individuals and Royality.
But the OP clearly has a mindset that everything the London mayor does is wrong, even though Khan has won more London elections than anyone else.
Mindset or obession?"
Again . . .
it's a 2020 non ulez compliant vehicle!!! So not only is he not being charged, he's also polluting more than most. And who actually needs a 5 litre engine - other than a daimler bus to get around london?
Embarrasing!!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways - he really is out of control !!! 3 Terms has given him a Putin Mentality of I can do whatever I like.
Your views are supported by David Icke, the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Are you the one who is actually out of control?
(And for the record it is a suggestion, along with many others how to mitigate the flooding in London in 2021/2022. No decisions taken as the review came out four days ago).
LMAO you say only supported by david icke et-all then you agree in your next paragraph that it HAS been proposed by the Mayor !!! hahaha funny.
And his spokesman was on TV saying that it is indeed a proposal - so do keep up.
I said 'HE WANTS TO' I said nothing about a decision yet made"
I never mentioned the Mayor! You really are out of control. Calm down. Read what was written. Take a break. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And who actually needs a 5 litre engine - other than a daimler bus to get around london?
Bullet proof glass, and the associated metal shielding are extremely heavy, and you need to upgrade the engine of any vehicle to which they are fitted.
And the need to get out of danger quickly. Presumably these RRs are standard issue for use by high profile individuals and Royality.
But the OP clearly has a mindset that everything the London mayor does is wrong, even though Khan has won more London elections than anyone else.
Mindset or obession?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways - he really is out of control !!! 3 Terms has given him a Putin Mentality of I can do whatever I like.
Your views are supported by David Icke, the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Are you the one who is actually out of control?
(And for the record it is a suggestion, along with many others how to mitigate the flooding in London in 2021/2022. No decisions taken as the review came out four days ago). "
Is a tax on driveways gonna stop the rain? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"
I never mentioned the Mayor! You really are out of control. Calm down. Read what was written. Take a break. "
Yet you said:
"
But the OP clearly has a mindset that everything the London mayor does is wrong, even though Khan has won more London elections than anyone else.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways - he really is out of control !!! 3 Terms has given him a Putin Mentality of I can do whatever I like.
Your views are supported by David Icke, the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Are you the one who is actually out of control?
(And for the record it is a suggestion, along with many others how to mitigate the flooding in London in 2021/2022. No decisions taken as the review came out four days ago).
Is a tax on driveways gonna stop the rain?"
The issue is about run-off of rain water from private land onto the public streets.
Various mitigations have been suggested by the review. None have been acted upon because the review was only released 4 days ago.
However many London Boroughs including the City of London have been replacing concrete surfaces with gardens, trees, shrubs etc. It's common sense to most people, but not to David Icke and others on here with similar views. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways - he really is out of control !!! 3 Terms has given him a Putin Mentality of I can do whatever I like.
Your views are supported by David Icke, the Daily Mail and Daily Express. Are you the one who is actually out of control?
(And for the record it is a suggestion, along with many others how to mitigate the flooding in London in 2021/2022. No decisions taken as the review came out four days ago).
Is a tax on driveways gonna stop the rain?
The issue is about run-off of rain water from private land onto the public streets.
Various mitigations have been suggested by the review. None have been acted upon because the review was only released 4 days ago.
However many London Boroughs including the City of London have been replacing concrete surfaces with gardens, trees, shrubs etc. It's common sense to most people, but not to David Icke and others on here with similar views."
I understand the idea behind it.
I'm interested in knowing if paying this tax will stop it raining. Just like whether paying the ULEZ fee stops the pollution.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
‘The US embassy in Britain owes about £15m in unpaid congestion charge fees, according to Transport for London, which is considering legal recourse through international courts.
The unpaid fees and fines have amassed over more than a decade, making the US the worst offender among foreign diplomats, with embassies in London collectively owing £143.5m by the end of 2023’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
It is a TAX on Londoners - it's a money making scheme - and if David Icke has a concrete drive he'll get charged too. So quit with the childish nonsense.
Like I said the non-compliant tank that he gets around in pollutes more than most and that is pure unadulterated hypocrisy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"‘The US embassy in Britain owes about £15m in unpaid congestion charge fees, according to Transport for London, which is considering legal recourse through international courts.
The unpaid fees and fines have amassed over more than a decade, making the US the worst offender among foreign diplomats, with embassies in London collectively owing £143.5m by the end of 2023’"
They argued Sovereign territory - I think it's a reasonable arguement too. As TFL haven't been able to collect, then they must agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Further . . .
*** TfL continues to work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explore every avenue to recover the outstanding debts. However, due to the diplomatic status of embassy staff, it is unlikely we will be successful in pursuing this through the courts. *****
So. Clearly, TFL and .gov and Mayors Office didn't think that one through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Further . . .
*** TfL continues to work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explore every avenue to recover the outstanding debts. However, due to the diplomatic status of embassy staff, it is unlikely we will be successful in pursuing this through the courts. *****
So. Clearly, TFL and .gov and Mayors Office didn't think that one through. "
Grossly unfair that low budget London motorists are subsidising this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"Further . . .
*** TfL continues to work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explore every avenue to recover the outstanding debts. However, due to the diplomatic status of embassy staff, it is unlikely we will be successful in pursuing this through the courts. *****
So. Clearly, TFL and .gov and Mayors Office didn't think that one through.
Grossly unfair that low budget London motorists are subsidising this. "
Agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"‘The US embassy in Britain owes about £15m in unpaid congestion charge fees, according to Transport for London, which is considering legal recourse through international courts.
The unpaid fees and fines have amassed over more than a decade, making the US the worst offender among foreign diplomats, with embassies in London collectively owing £143.5m by the end of 2023’"
As has been said here many times, the US embassy staff have diplomatic immunity, and therefore do not owe any money at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is a TAX on Londoners - it's a money making scheme - and if David Icke has a concrete drive he'll get charged too. So quit with the childish nonsense.
Like I said the non-compliant tank that he gets around in pollutes more than most and that is pure unadulterated hypocrisy"
It's NOT a TAX. Stop spreading alarmist rubbish you read in the Daily Mail or on David Icke's website.
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It is a TAX on Londoners - it's a money making scheme - and if David Icke has a concrete drive he'll get charged too. So quit with the childish nonsense.
Like I said the non-compliant tank that he gets around in pollutes more than most and that is pure unadulterated hypocrisy
It's NOT a TAX. Stop spreading alarmist rubbish you read in the Daily Mail or on David Icke's website.
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel?"
Seems that you are David Ikes biggest FanBoi hahahaha. Bless. X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 18 weeks ago
NW London |
"It is a TAX on Londoners - it's a money making scheme - and if David Icke has a concrete drive he'll get charged too. So quit with the childish nonsense.
Like I said the non-compliant tank that he gets around in pollutes more than most and that is pure unadulterated hypocrisy
It's NOT a TAX. Stop spreading alarmist rubbish you read in the Daily Mail or on David Icke's website.
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel?"
Kinda ironic that it's been pushed thru just as TFL announces a massive black hole in the public transport budget and it's been pushed thru without first trying other fairer ways of reducing London's congestion and improving air quality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Tax. Charge. or Sausage freeking rolls.
It's TAXING on Londoners incomes and businesses while Mr Hypocrisy Drive around in a 5 litre non-compliant vehicle polluting more than most and pays nothing !!!
Signed: David Ike. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"It is a TAX on Londoners - it's a money making scheme - and if David Icke has a concrete drive he'll get charged too. So quit with the childish nonsense.
Like I said the non-compliant tank that he gets around in pollutes more than most and that is pure unadulterated hypocrisy
It's NOT a TAX. Stop spreading alarmist rubbish you read in the Daily Mail or on David Icke's website.
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel?
Kinda ironic that it's been pushed thru just as TFL announces a massive black hole in the public transport budget and it's been pushed thru without first trying other fairer ways of reducing London's congestion and improving air quality."
Exactly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's NOT a TAX. Stop spreading alarmist rubbish you read in the Daily Mail or on David Icke's website.
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel?
Seems that you are David Ikes biggest FanBoi hahahaha. Bless. X"
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's NOT a TAX. Stop spreading alarmist rubbish you read in the Daily Mail or on David Icke's website.
Why are you unable to debate using FACTS, instead of making up drivel?
Kinda ironic that it's been pushed thru just as TFL announces a massive black hole in the public transport budget and it's been pushed thru without first trying other fairer ways of reducing London's congestion and improving air quality."
Would fairer ways be pay per mile by any chance? What fairer ways are you thinking? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
FACT:
https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-face-new-charges-to-use-two-tunnels-under-transport-for-london-plans-13176029
Drivers face new charges to use two tunnels under Transport for London plans
FACT:
That article doesn't mention any exemption for electric vehicles...
****Buses, coaches, black taxis, blue badge holders registered in the capital, and zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt and there are discounts for those on low incomes as well as some small businesses, sole traders and charities.****
I'm sure that Zero Emission will be Electric Vehicles"
Actually. When I re-read it it only says: "zero-emission capable private hire vehicles will all be exempt"
So that must mean that if you drive and electric 'private car' then you will pay. So NOT about air-quality then, but just about charging another tax for rpad use under the banner of congestion.
FACT:
They agreed 250 million from central government for tfl over the complete network for 2024.
With central government having already provided nearly £6.4 billion since 2020 to support transport in London.
Now Londoners are being asked to pay a bucket load more. Makes you ask what the frip they did with the 6.4 billion, doesn't it?
FACT:
Oh!. In Addition.
TfL now?benefits from around £2 billion every year in retained business rates following a measure in the 2021 Spending Review
FACT:
Sadiq Khan won't have to pay the ULEZ charge: London mayor's taxpayer-funded luxury 2020 Range Rover is exempt from the £12.50-a-day fee!
ULEZ charge is set to apply to all of London's boroughs from August 29
Mr Khan's Range Rover Sentinel is bulletproof and has a five-litre engine.
FACT:
And he also wants to TAX paved over driveways.
FACT:
LMAO you say only supported by david icke et-all then you agree in your next paragraph that it HAS been proposed by the Mayor !!! hahaha funny.
And his spokesman was on TV saying that it is indeed a proposal - so do keep up.
I said 'HE WANTS TO' I said nothing about a decision yet made.
FACT:
Oh BTW EV's (you know those compliant vehicles we have these days) are very much faster in acceleration than a petrol counterpart.
FACT:
Further . . .
*** TfL continues to work with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explore every avenue to recover the outstanding debts. However, due to the diplomatic status of embassy staff, it is unlikely we will be successful in pursuing this through the courts. *****
So. Clearly, TFL and .gov and Mayors Office didn't think that one through.
FACT:
David Icke has never said a word about the Charges that I can find.
FACT:
I have never read or quoted from a Daily Mail Article in my whole life.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Some rather diverse, bonkers, and unfounded views, especially from all those not actually living in London lol.
Let's keep it simple.
The proposal charges loads of vehicles to use a tunnel, and these vehicles were not charged before.
So, they are making money they never had before. So it's a money making scheme.
IMHO congestion charge or Ulez has done nothing to reduce vehicles in London, and that's my perception from walking around London.
The biggest help to reduce congestion was Covid and the changes in working patterns.
Call it a tax, a fee, a charge, a penalty it doesn't matter. It's an additional cost that Londoners will pay which will degrade their personal incomes or business profits.
And any arsehole who says you can deliver sofas on your back clearly hasn't carried a sofa.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 18 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
"
Call it a tax, a fee, a charge, a penalty it doesn't matter. It's an additional cost that Londoners will pay which will degrade their personal incomes or business profits.
"
The whole point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sadiq Khan won't have to pay the ULEZ charge: London mayor's taxpayer-funded luxury 2020 Range Rover is exempt from the £12.50-a-day fee!
ULEZ charge is set to apply to all of London's boroughs from August 29
Mr Khan's Range Rover Sentinel is bulletproof and has a five-litre engine"
The reason for this is the absolute moronic threats and other abuse that he receives
I don’t like him but the danger posed to him is real. And he has to be protected. Long gone are the days when the likes of Ken used to use public transport |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Some rather diverse, bonkers, and unfounded views, especially from all those not actually living in London lol.
Let's keep it simple.
The proposal charges loads of vehicles to use a tunnel, and these vehicles were not charged before.
So, they are making money they never had before. So it's a money making scheme.
IMHO congestion charge or Ulez has done nothing to reduce vehicles in London, and that's my perception from walking around London.
The biggest help to reduce congestion was Covid and the changes in working patterns.
Call it a tax, a fee, a charge, a penalty it doesn't matter. It's an additional cost that Londoners will pay which will degrade their personal incomes or business profits.
And any arsehole who says you can deliver sofas on your back clearly hasn't carried a sofa.
"
I remember when the congestion charge was first introduced and it did make a bit of a difference. Company I worked for at the time made a profit from it as all calls were charged it on their bill
Covid was lovely driving round London. Roads were clear all day.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I remember when the congestion charge was first introduced and it did make a bit of a difference. Company I worked for at the time made a profit from it as all calls were charged it on their bill
Covid was lovely driving round London. Roads were clear all day.
"
Exactly. Most sensible people don't want their roads to be congested, grid-locked or breathe in exhaust fumes.
I also recall cabbies singing the praises of the Congestion Charge.
Over two-thirds of adults living in London don't own a car and are probably very happy to vote for SK everytime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Straight forward question: how good or bad is the air quality in the underground? The air quality underground is much worse but funny enough he aint doing nothing about that "
From the TFL website: "We're already planning how we will significantly reduce the production of, and exposure to, Tube dust in the long term. This includes investment in new trains and other track infrastructure. For example, the modern braking systems on new Piccadilly line trains being introduced from 2025 will create less dust."
Will people be as outraged by this as they are about the low emission zones? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man 12 weeks ago
NW London |
"Straight forward question: how good or bad is the air quality in the underground? The air quality underground is much worse but funny enough he aint doing nothing about that
From the TFL website: "We're already planning how we will significantly reduce the production of, and exposure to, Tube dust in the long term. This includes investment in new trains and other track infrastructure. For example, the modern braking systems on new Piccadilly line trains being introduced from 2025 will create less dust."
Will people be as outraged by this as they are about the low emission zones?"
I'll be outaged if I get charged an extra £12.50 a day  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Straight forward question: how good or bad is the air quality in the underground? The air quality underground is much worse but funny enough he aint doing nothing about that
From the TFL website: "We're already planning how we will significantly reduce the production of, and exposure to, Tube dust in the long term. This includes investment in new trains and other track infrastructure. For example, the modern braking systems on new Piccadilly line trains being introduced from 2025 will create less dust."
Will people be as outraged by this as they are about the low emission zones?"
Well that's only one part of the solution to the underground thats only dealing with one line. Needs to do far more than that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Straight forward question: how good or bad is the air quality in the underground? The air quality underground is much worse but funny enough he aint doing nothing about that
From the TFL website: "We're already planning how we will significantly reduce the production of, and exposure to, Tube dust in the long term. This includes investment in new trains and other track infrastructure. For example, the modern braking systems on new Piccadilly line trains being introduced from 2025 will create less dust."
Will people be as outraged by this as they are about the low emission zones? Well that's only one part of the solution to the underground thats only dealing with one line. Needs to do far more than that "
Feel free to peruse the TFL website for the details. I didn't paste in everything here. It was just an example.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
