Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!!!!!!

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.

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.

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:))

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!

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

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!



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.

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...:))

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;-)

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.

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

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?

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:))

"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.

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?

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

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...;-)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The SE22 Evri delivery family are lovely, and always say hello wherever we spot them in the area. We gave them a box of chocolates during Covid as they were working their socks off at Christmas
    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...