Hundreds of ULEZ cameras being disabled

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hundreds of ULEZ cameras being disabled

Cameras across London have had wires cut and have been removed

1696649178263207984

1696484192891134088


Tory MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith has said he backs the 'blade runners' who are vandalising ULEZ cameras.

Usually he prides himself on being tough on crime, but the former cabinet minister said today he was 'happy' for the residents of his Chingford and Woodford Green constituency to destroy cameras because they have been 'lied to'.

Sir Iain said: 'A lot of people in my constituency have been cementing up the cameras or putting plastic bags over them.

'I am happy for them to do it because they are facing an imposition that no-one wants and they have been lied to about it.

'The actions you are seeing show how angry people are at what is being imposed on therm. Sadiq Khan has gerrymandered all the information ? people have had enough.'

I'm in complete agreement with Sir IDS. The government are lying through their teeth when they say legal advice said they cannot stop Khan's scheme, they can but just do not want to do it because in reality the useless Tories are just the other cheek of the same arse. An 80 seat majority and like everything else they sit back as the country goes to rack and ruin.

Basically for those unaware, the ULEZ scheme charges motorists for moving within certain zones of London basically meaning the working classes and the poorest in society are essentially prohibited from travel and going about their business. It's appalling, regressive and is just another excuse for another arm of devolved government that has gotten out of control to exercise its control and milk the taxpayer dry for every last penny.

Let us hope the cameras keep ending up smashed, set on fire, filled with cement and slashed. People have had enough.

[dbgtz]

"Khan's scheme"
the LEZ was started by Boris Johnson in 2008, expansion enforced by Government in exchange for TFL loans over covid. Oh and https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/ultra-low-emission-zone.

"ULEZ Scheme charges motorists" if their vehicle is a non-compliant diesel, which doesn't impact 9/10 cars

"working classes and the poorest in society are essentially prohibited from travel" these people are likely already using public transport, which London has a significant network so not prohibited in the slightest

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Khan's scheme"
the LEZ was started by Boris Johnson in 2008, expansion enforced by Government in exchange for TFL loans over covid. Oh and https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/ultra-low-emission-zone.

I agree, hence why I said they were two cheeks of the same arse.


"ULEZ Scheme charges motorists" if their vehicle is a non-compliant diesel, which doesn't impact 9/10 cars

"working classes and the poorest in society are essentially prohibited from travel" these people are likely already using public transport, which London has a significant network so not prohibited in the slightest

If you really believe the scheme won't be extended further to include more vechicles (and more areas) then I have a bridge to sell you.

[FlyingJesus]

If it does expand and cause actual damage to the masses then that is cause for concern, but slippery slope fallacies aren't going to do anyone any favours - other than in this case the Conservatives, who are pushing this story as though it's a national outrage because they have so much to cover up. Don't do their work for them!

[Seatherny]

basically meaning the working classes and the poorest in society are essentially prohibited from travel and going about their business.



I am lucky enouh not to struggle with money, and have a EV, and I would still never drive in London. Every time I go, I use public transport. Why? Who wants the headache of being stuck in London traffic and then paying a fortune for parking. Anyone who has actually been in London or lives in London knows, people avoid driving in the city, rich or working class. I know many millionaires in the city and they don't drive! They all use public transport.

This is the problem when people like Dan who don't live in London or like causing chaos make up crap to stir violence.

[dbgtz]

pretty sure new ICE car sales will be banned before ULEZ is expanded again

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am lucky enouh not to struggle with money, and have a EV, and I would still never drive in London. Every time I go, I use public transport. Why? Who wants the headache of being stuck in London traffic and then paying a fortune for parking. Anyone who has actually been in London or lives in London knows, people avoid driving in the city, rich or working class. I know many millionaires in the city and they don't drive! They all use public transport.

This is the problem when people like Dan who don't live in London or like causing chaos make up crap to stir violence.

The millionaires who you know in central London can ferry themselves around with excellent transport links, as well as taxis - but the working classes on the outer London areas cannot. If my Grandfather who is 88 and still drives lived in London or the outskirts, he would be unable to see family members or go about his business because of this. Similarly what about working class people who rely on a car to drop off kids at school and use it for work? Not everyone is childless and spends their existence in Canary Wharf.


pretty sure new ICE car sales will be banned before ULEZ is expanded again


The idea that electric cars are going to replace combustion cars is fanciful. You've been listening to Ed Miliband and Elon Musk too much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is the problem when people like Dan who don't live in London or like causing chaos make up crap to stir violence.

I always pride myself on my intuition in terms of what the public are thinking and a poll has just come out confirming that.

Quite clear that despite the Tories being nationally unpopular, ULEZ is even more unpopular with outer London and might cost Khan the mayoralty.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5fKy8RWUAAtaU4?format=jpg&name=small

[FlyingJesus]

Have we still not learned after many years of them being consistently wrong that polls of tiny numbers of people (which are of course made up solely of people who are not working at the time of the poll and who actively want to give their opinion) are not actually indicative of... well, anything? 1100 people out of 9 million (0.012%) is an insanely small number to base any stats on, and the poll you've posted isn't even about ULEZ anyway. You're priding yourself on something that you're time and time again wrong about lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have we still not learned after many years of them being consistently wrong that polls of tiny numbers of people (which are of course made up solely of people who are not working at the time of the poll and who actively want to give their opinion) are not actually indicative of... well, anything? 1100 people out of 9 million (0.012%) is an insanely small number to base any stats on, and the poll you've posted isn't even about ULEZ anyway. You're priding yourself on something that you're time and time again wrong about lol

You're ignorant of how polling works.

Every General Election, European Election and referendum within the last decade (or two) has been more or less accurately predicted/trend observed by pollsters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_genera l_election#Poll_results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_genera l_election#Poll_results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_genera l_election#Poll_results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_genera l_election#National_poll_results

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum#Po lling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2014_Scottish_independence _referendum#Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Un ion_membership_referendum#Standard_polling_on_EU_m embership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Ki ngdom#Opinion_polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Ki ngdom#Opinion_polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Ki ngdom#Opinion_polls

A multi-million pound industry with political parties, groups and businesses using it to gauge public opinion... or Tom on HxF saying it's tosh.

London polls are bucking the national trend and it's likely because of ULEZ. Why argue the toss over the bleeding obvious.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah weirdly when the sample size is massive or the polling is done right before the election, the results are closer, what a shock :o :o :o : o:o

Imagine absolutely everyone's surprise when you scroll down a bit and see major discrepancies when polling is much lower or further away instead of just cherrypicking the results you like and pretending that's the same thing for every poll ever made. Sunday Times, who you've quoted as being the full truth and nothing but the truth because it fits your narrow view, consistently polled results for the last GE at wiiiiiiiiildly different figures to the end numbers, often even predicting Labour wins and sometimes even by the same margins that they eventually lost by. When hundreds of groups undertake these surveys, of course you can find ones that fit what you want them to, and if you do them a few days before it happens then yeah people aren't so likely to change their minds. Considering the elections for London Mayor aren't going to happen until May, polls right now are totally entirely absolutely pointless.

To claim that EVERY poll has been more or less right is not only untrue, but DANGEROUSLY untrue. Your own links disprove you, and it's very important for people to not be sucked into the hatred and nonsense that you spout under the guise of intelligence

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah weirdly when the sample size is massive or the polling is done right before the election, the results are closer, what a shock :o :o :o : o:o

Imagine absolutely everyone's surprise when you scroll down a bit and see major discrepancies when polling is much lower or further away instead of just cherrypicking the results you like and pretending that's the same thing for every poll ever made.

You're starting to realise that polls are a snapshot of opinion at any given time and are not intended to be a prediction 3 weeks before an election? Good.


Sunday Times, who you've quoted as being the full truth and nothing but the truth because it fits your narrow view, consistently polled results for the last GE at wiiiiiiiiildly different figures to the end numbers

The Sunday Times is behind a paywall so I can't and don't read it, you're literally making it up as you go along.

The Sunday Times also isn't a pollster, it only commissions polls which again shows you have no idea what you're even talking about. It commissioned pollster YouGov 6 days before the 2019 General Election and it came back with: CON 43% LAB 33% LDEM 13%

The actual election results 6 days later were: CON 44% LAB 33% LDEM 11% which is a good indicator 6 days out from an election and within the MoE.


..often even predicting Labour wins and sometimes even by the same margins that they eventually lost by. When hundreds of groups undertake these surveys, of course you can find ones that fit what you want them to, and if you do them a few days before it happens then yeah people aren't so likely to change their minds. Considering the elections for London Mayor aren't going to happen until May, polls right now are totally entirely absolutely pointless.

To claim that EVERY poll has been more or less right is not only untrue, but DANGEROUSLY untrue. Your own links disprove you, and it's very important for people to not be sucked into the hatred and nonsense that you spout under the guise of intelligence

Anyone reading this can literally click on the links I provided showing various polls all correlated around the eventual result and see that you are a dirty liar.

[FlyingJesus]

You're not comparing like for like, you're bending results to fit your narrative. We're nowhere near the mayoral election, so the polling at the moment isn't indicative of what will actually happen - as is clear by how drastically different the poll results are when done long before the elections on your very own links. If you can't properly read the content of what you're posting and instead choose to change what the argument is, that's not my fault.

And no I'm not making anything up by mentioning the Sunday Times, again you're just failing to read THINGS THAT YOU'VE POSTED YOURSELF.
https://i.imgur.com/FzsLvS2.png

Imagine being so hell bent on being abusive and fauxtellectual that you don't even look at your own sources as long as the numbers fit what you want to claim.

Don't you dare call me a "dirty liar" for being correct just because you've moved the goalposts. If you want to spread nonsense hatred and fear you can do that somewhere else, had more than enough of it from you here and that's not what we're about.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Worth remembering that the drop in Khan's re-election chances comes after Labour failed to win the Uxbridge constituency by-election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264893


London Mayor Sadiq Khan has defended expanding a tax on polluting vehicles, despite his party leader blaming it for a disappointing by-election result.

Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) had cost Labour victory in Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

He called on Mr Khan to "reflect" on his plan to expand it to outer London.

Even the leader of the Labour Party can see the damage it's causing in the capital, particularly outer London.


You're not comparing like for like, you're bending results to fit your narrative. We're nowhere near the mayoral election, so the polling at the moment isn't indicative of what will actually happen - as is clear by how drastically different the poll results are when done long before the elections on your very own links. If you can't properly read the content of what you're posting and instead choose to change what the argument is, that's not my fault.

So you've worked out that - as I said earlier - polls are a snapshot of opinion at any one time and are used to observe trends. Glad you've learnt something today.


And no I'm not making anything up by mentioning the Sunday Times, again you're just failing to read THINGS THAT YOU'VE POSTED YOURSELF.

Imagine being so hell bent on being abusive and fauxtellectual that you don't even look at your own sources as long as the numbers fit what you want to claim.

You claimed I go by The Sunday Times as some kind of scripture when I don't even read it given it's behind a paywall lol. You don't have the decency to admit you made it up.


Don't you dare call me a "dirty liar" for being correct just because you've moved the goalposts. If you want to spread nonsense hatred and fear you can do that somewhere else, had more than enough of it from you here and that's not what we're about.

No you don't get to threaten people into submission Tom just because you can't handle disagreement. You have a reputation as a bully on here for instances like that stretching back over the years and rounding on people for daring to cross you, even if no one other than myself is prepared to say it to your face.

[FlyingJesus]

So you've worked out that - as I said earlier - polls are a snapshot of opinion at any one time and are used to observe trends. Glad you've learnt something today.

Moving the goalposts. You tried to claim that polls are totally correct when you absolutely cannot prove such a thing for events where a poll and a vote are so far apart - in these cases, it's almost always NOT close to the end result. Your own links show that. Thank you for your sad attempt at talking down to me, but no.


You claimed I go by The Sunday Times as some kind of scripture when I don't even read it given it's behind a paywall lol. You don't have the decency to admit you made it up.

Straw man. I claimed absolutely nothing of the sort, you're flat out lying here... again. You posted a picture, as above, that was using them as the source of your claim, which I quite rightly pointed out. Twice. Nowhere did I ever at any point say that you always use them, or even that you read that paper - it's pretty clear that you don't read your own sources. I made up nothing, and that claim is ironic since you're putting words in my mouth.


No you don't get to threaten people into submission Tom just because you can't handle disagreement. You have a reputation as a bully on here for instances like that stretching back over the years and rounding on people for daring to cross you, even if no one other than myself is prepared to say it to your face.

Ad hominem. This is not about disagreeing, this is about you constantly pushing negativity and hatred with personal attacks in a place that's intended to be a safe and caring community - you have the whole rest of the internet to spew nonsense if you choose to. You absolutely cannot just insult people (while being wrong) and then claim that you're some hero of the people for doing it.


We're so far away from the original points now that it's laughable. Congratulations on, as usual, derailing massively in order to obfuscate the actual point of a discussion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Moving the goalposts. You tried to claim that polls are totally correct when you absolutely cannot prove such a thing for events where a poll and a vote are so far apart - in these cases, it's almost always NOT close to the end result. Your own links show that. Thank you for your sad attempt at talking down to me, but no.

I've never claimed polls are totally correct, indeed if you had any ability within you to see nuance in a discussion instead of jumping down my throat I would quite happily point out circumstances where the polls were completely off, such as the 1992 General Election. In most of the examples I quoted from the last two decades, the polls were pretty close and within the 3% +/- margin of error which is completely standard for the normal sample size of 1,000 people.


Straw man. I claimed absolutely nothing of the sort, you're flat out lying here... again. You posted a picture, as above, that was using them as the source of your claim, which I quite rightly pointed out. Twice. Nowhere did I ever at any point say that you always use them, or even that you read that paper - it's pretty clear that you don't read your own sources. I made up nothing, and that claim is ironic since you're putting words in my mouth.

And like I said The Sunday Times don't do polls but you tried bashing me over the head as if I am committed to one particular paper. "UH DAILY MAIL" type argument.

The YouGov commissioned by The Sunday Times for the last election (which you brought up) was pretty much spot on.


Ad hominem. This is not about disagreeing, this is about you constantly pushing negativity and hatred with personal attacks in a place that's intended to be a safe and caring community - you have the whole rest of the internet to spew nonsense if you choose to. You absolutely cannot just insult people (while being wrong) and then claim that you're some hero of the people for doing it.

We're so far away from the original points now that it's laughable. Congratulations on, as usual, derailing massively in order to obfuscate the actual point of a discussion.

No that's your typical trick though Tom. Someone is debating with you, you're losing it and so you somehow jump from discussing political polling to claiming that I'm spewing hatred when all I am doing is saying that political polling is pretty accurate as a tool to measure public opinion.

Anyway I agree it has gone off topic and I would suggest if you don't like polls then don't pay attention to them. Simple as that really.

[Seatherny]

The millionaires who you know in central London can ferry themselves around with excellent transport links

Great, so people don't need to drive.

Anyone who lives in or has been in London will tell you, it is usually quicker to use public transport!