Embassies now owe ?26m on Congestion Charge!!!

[INDOMIE]

I cant believe that they owe this much money now and Boris and Ken seem useless getting this money back!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=66573624065

TOTAL NOW OWED TO LONDONERS: ?26,221,664!!!

Top 20 NON-PAYERS:

AMERICAN EMBASSY ?2,941,500

RUSSIAN FEDERATION ?2,162,460

EMBASSY OF JAPAN ?2,003,040

EMBASSY OF GERMANY ?1,837,330

NIGERIAN HIGH COMMISSION ?1,475,230

SUDAN ?989,320

INDIA ?755,500

POLAND ?665,160

KENYA HIGH COMMISSION ?657,430

GHANA ?593,540

REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA ?585,820

FRENCH EMBASSY ?563,200

SPANISH EMBASSY ?544,520

EMBASSY OF UKRAINE ?527,040

EMBASSY OF GREECE ?525,180

SOUTH AFRICA ?514,600

EMBASSY OF ROMANIA ?493,840

EMBASSY OF ALGERIA ?450,320

SIERRA LEONE ?434,780

REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA ?314,500

TfL have said "the vast majority of Embassies continue to pay the Congestion Charge as they are required to do. The Mayor and TfL are committed to engaging with the non paying Embassies in a proactive manner in order to seek a resolution to this matter." ITS BEEN OVER FIVE YEARS THOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!

[Brendan]

Fucking liberty. If you are working and living in a foreign country you should respect their laws. It?s just plain courtesy. (I realise that the British, especially their military would do well also head this advice abroad but that is not the argument here).

Perhaps it is just indicative of the amount of respect Britain has lost internationally.

[INDOMIE]

-- moved topic --

[northlondoner]

Uh, perhaps it's because the "congestion" charge is a nakedly money-grabbing illegitimate scam imposed by the former mayor. Bring on its demise. Soon. And before the inevitable onslaught, I am not some mad right wing ideologue intent on burning the planet to a crisp. Just an ordinary bloke who has the crazy subversive idea that people should be able to travel where they please in their own city, without having to pay some bogus tax. Forgive the thought-crime.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

northlondoner Wrote:

Just an ordinary bloke who has the crazy subversive idea that people should be able to travel where they please in their own city, without having to pay some bogus tax. Forgive the thought-crime.

I fear the worst for you here Sir, with that kind of attitude!

"travel where they please"-- "bogus tax"- Its that kind of free thinking that will be frowned on by a significant number My Son !:))

What are you, some kind of ageing Hippy?

p.s Red Ken never did explain how the Congestion Tax would not BLATANTLY affect the poor the most, for obvious reasons!

p.s Lucky he's a Socialist..roflmao:))

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Ken merely forced many poorer Motorists off the road who travelled INTO the Congestion AReas, whereas, the rich, "by definition". are in a much better position to pay...and he's a Socialist:)

[northlondoner]

Hey TLS - less of the ageing please!

[Jeremy]

Hey northlondoner... what exactly does the congestion charge stop you from doing? Why can't you take public transport into central London like most other people? Surely you can tell that the roads weren't designed for huge numbers of vehicles, and that there's not much space for parking.

Tony.London Suburbs - not sure how it affects the poor the most. They can't be that poor if they own a car (which is a luxury in London, not a necessity) and can afford petrol!

[SeanMacGabhann]

whilst I wouldn't call you a "mad right wing ideologue intent on burning the planet to a crisp" (yet) you haven't exactly come up with any reasonable alternative to the increasing problem of congestion in major cities. Coninually expanding LA style is clearly not a solution any more (if it ever was)

Prediction: In not too many years people will see Ken as forward-thinking on this issue and just as "the public" are berating politicians now for not doing anything about the financial crisis before it hit, people will complain about why governments didn't do anything to prevent whatever environmental horrors await

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Tony.London Suburbs - not sure how it affects the

> poor the most. They can't be that poor if they own

> a car (which is a luxury in London, not a

> necessity) and can afford petrol!

Jeremy, the objective was to remove a percentage of Motorists off the Road by financially forcing some to not take the car.

By definition, those in a lesser financial position to pay will have been the ones to have departed, leaving those in a better financial position to enjoy the extra space that the removal of these Guys gave!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

As I say. its lucky Ken's a lifelomg Socialist:)-D

[Moos]

northlondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

.......Just an ordinary

> bloke .........

Hey northlondoner, I thought you was a bird. No idea why.

Sorry, was that off topic?

[SeanMacGabhann]

A common criticism but one that doesn't stand up. The genuinely poor never drove into central London anyway - they took transport and live a fair bit away so are already paying for transport and spending a few quid a day just to get in to central London. As someone who takes the bus I can validate absolutely that the congestion charge benefited those poor directly as bus journeys improved significantly.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Moos Wrote:

Hey northlondoner, I thought you was a bird. No idea why.

Moos: Will you not "gleefully" "denigrate" (one has a Memory:))) Women by jokingly referring to them as "birds" you are not Michael (You are only supposed to blow the bleedin' doors off!) Caine....though you are very Able...:))

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> A common criticism but one that doesn't stand up.

> The genuinely poor never drove into central London

> anyway - they took transport and live a fair bit

> away so are already paying for transport and

> spending a few quid a day just to get in to

> central London. As someone who takes the bus I can

> validate absolutely that the congestion charge

> benefited those poor directly as bus journeys

> improved significantly.

Sean: Ken chose financial means to remove as many Motorists as possible.

Surely then the only people who'se choice of Transport immediately changed overnight, were those who were least in a position to afford the Charge?

...and what about the "poor" Motorist? --pun only slightly intended;-)

[Moos]

TLS, you weren't one of those of whom I spoke. However, there are contributors to that thread who remain in my mind The Unforgiven.

And I assert that 'bird' is the appropriate counterpart to 'bloke', just as 'woman' is to 'man' and 'lady' to 'gentleman'. Any questions?

See, now I'm going to have to think of something to say about the C-charge in order to avoid accusations of thread de-railing. Tschah.

OK - I am in favour. I am not in favour of the Western extension. And I think the chuffing Embassies should pay up, the arrogant so-and-so's.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Tony, you have just ignored my point to reiterate your own

Is there another way to remove cars from the road other than financial means? A fiver a day (at the time) is roughly similar to a day travelcard in London. Most poor people are already doing the latter but I don't hear the motorist lobby bleat about the poor from that perpective. But you get a fat, well paid middle-manager to give up his car and take a tube and you hear PLENTY about the cost of public transport then, oh yes indeedy

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Moos Wrote:

TLS, you weren't one of those of whom I spoke. However, there are contributors to that thread who remain in my mind The Unforgiven.

I am Madam, thoroughly remorseful..a Thousand Apologies...:)

And I assert that 'bird' is the appropriate counterpart to 'bloke', just as 'woman' is to 'man' and 'lady' to 'gentleman'. Any questions?

Nah! Not me M8 I make you right!...I should have noted that...tls slinks away head bowed in utter shame...:(

Am I forgiven Darling?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tony, you have just ignored my point to reiterate

> your own

No I ain't Guv'nor..I was comparing the "poor" Motorist to the "poor" who use LT...though I DID add that, so you may not have seen it Sean.

>

> Is there another way to remove cars from the road

> other than financial means? A fiver a day (at the

> time) is roughly similar to a day travelcard in

> London. Most poor people are already doing the

> latter but I don't hear the motorist lobby bleat

> about the poor from that perpective. But you get a

> fat, well paid middle-manager to give up his car

> and take a tube and you hear PLENTY about the cost

> of public transport then, oh yes indeedy

"fat" as in "financially2 fat, I trust...I disapproove of folk generalising on here:))

[SeanMacGabhann]

ok so you went back and edited your post - but what is with this "overnight" business? It was discussed for years, in his manifesto and voted in

And come on, let's have the TLS solution to congestion

[Jeremy]

"Poor" people never drove into central London, as genuinely poor Londoners do not own cars.

Normal/middle-income people rarely drove into central London because there's nowhere to park, and even if you find somewhere, it's ?4 an hour or something. Companies in London only usually have parking available for the top brass.

So I don't understand how it's affecting poor people, or even the likes of you and I. Why not penalise the wealthy (who choose a less socially responsible and environmentally friendly way to travel) by an amount they can afford? It's not going into anyone's pockets, it's put back into public funds and presumably put to good use.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ok so you went back and edited your post

umm..slightly begruding..but swiftly moving on...

but> what is with this "overnight" business? It was discussed for years, in his manifesto and voted in..

They may have known for yonks but they were only "affected" from Day 1, as it were

And come on, let's have the TLS solution to congestion

Its that "tone" again!....but as you ask...INCREASE PETROL!...the more you use the roads-- the more you pay!

Fair?

[SeanMacGabhann]

sorry Tone - I'll try and reign in my "tone"

;-)

Surely by that token, no democratic change can ever take place tha affects some people? When are notice and the chance to vote against something unsufficient?

Would this also not affect the poor? And more importantly, how would it affect congestion.

But also if I recall, when the government has previously increased petrol charges what happened? Oh yeah.. the innocent and responsible motorists blockaded the roads, brought the country to a standstill and endangered essential services. As a group, motorists are very much of the adolescent, aggressive teenager mentality

[Tony.London Suburbs]

As a group, most motorists are very much of the belief that if you pay for a car (and give a proportion of that to the Govt) and pay Road Tax (and give a proportion of that to the Govt) and pay for your Insurance and MOT (and give a proportion of that to the Govt) and pay some of the most exorbitant amounts for Petrol in Europe (and give a LARGE proportion of that to the Govt) and pay exorbitant Parking Charges..that they should then be able to use the roads, where and when they choose..:))...but thats just their mentality...;-)

[SeanMacGabhann]

Oh but I know they believe that Tony - the question is, given the evidence of mounting congestion around them, WHY do they believe that?