NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2108413,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2180708,00.html

It would be arrogance for British diplomats in New York to decide that they would no longer pay US bridge or road tolls because they had decided that they are taxes. Equally, it is a display of arrogance for the US Ambassador in London to try to arrogate to himself the decision as to what is, and what is not, a tax or a charge, in this country.

The US ambassador to Great Britian now owes the Greater London Authority £270,000 in unpaid congestion charge. The congestion charge is not a tax, so would the US please live up to the reputation of respect for the rule of law and pay the charges you owe.

270,000 Pounds?

http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Crickey, this is old.

I think he is following the fine American tradition of ignoring stupid laws.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2108413,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2180708,00.html



The US ambassador to Great Britian now owes the Greater London Authority £270,000 in unpaid congestion charge. The congestion charge is not a tax, so would the US please live up to the reputation of respect for the rule of law and pay the charges you owe.


Yeah we had Red Ken railing about this the other week, I was shouting at the telly, 'go'on Ken go on!'

I like Ken he deffiantly get my vote.

What makes this even MORE ammusing is that Americans have been screaming for years about parking fines in New York that are not being paid by UN diplomats.

The US ambassador to Great Britian now owes the Greater London Authority £270,000 in unpaid congestion charge. The congestion charge is not a tax, so would the US please live up to the reputation of respect for the rule of law and pay the charges you owe.
Incidently, the figure must be utter rubbish. The charge has been in force for what, two, maybe three years now? Actually, let's say five years, and assume that for the whole time that it was at the higher charge of £8 a day.

5 years = 1825 days, give or take a leap year.

1825 x 8 = £14,600.

This is also ignoring the fact that the charge isn't payable on Sundays, if I remember correctly.

Did The Times just pluck the figure out of thin air? Perhaps a quarter of a million is a better sounding story?

I think he is following the fine American tradition of ignoring stupid laws.
Or the fine American tradition of not giving money to the British crown when demanded...

I wonder whether he's gonna drop his car in the Thames.

Or the fine American tradition of not giving money to the British crown when demanded...
Heh. :p

Mind you, I'm not sure that Red Ken would find anything more offensive than being called the British Crown.

Incidently, the figure must be utter rubbish. The charge has been in force for what, two, maybe three years now? Actually, let's say five years, and assume that for the whole time that it was at the higher charge of £8 a day.

5 years = 1825 days, give or take a leap year.

1825 x 8 = £14,600.

This is also ignoring the fact that the charge isn't payable on Sundays, if I remember correctly.

Did The Times just pluck the figure out of thin air? Perhaps a quarter of a million is a better sounding story?

Yeah and you are forgetting that the charge is per vechile per day, unless of course the US embasy only has one car?

Incidently, the figure must be utter rubbish. The charge has been in force for what, two, maybe three years now? Actually, let's say five years, and assume that for the whole time that it was at the higher charge of £8 a day.

5 years = 1825 days, give or take a leap year.

1825 x 8 = £14,600.

This is also ignoring the fact that the charge isn't payable on Sundays, if I remember correctly.

Did The Times just pluck the figure out of thin air? Perhaps a quarter of a million is a better sounding story?
I'd imagine that the figure refers to the whole embassy, eg multiple cars.

Yeah and you are forgetting that the charge is per vechile per day, unless of course the US embasy only has one car?
Well, in that case they must have about 30 cars, and the story would correctly be about the Embassy, not the Ambassador.

What's the betting that they've included everyone they can think of in that figure, up to and including Doris who comes in once a week on a Wednesday to clean the stairs? It's quite normal for the media to 'assume' truth; look at how many people work at the Embassy, and then assume that they all drive in and they all don't pay. Figures like that are generally very wide of the mark.

That we reciprocate by showing contempt for the US ambassador.

Oh.

We already do.

That's all.

Well, in that case they must have about 30 cars, and the story would correctly be about the Embassy, not the Ambassador.

What's the betting that they've included everyone they can think of in that figure, up to and including Doris who comes in once a week on a Wednesday to clean the stairs? It's quite normal for the media to 'assume' truth; look at how many people work at the Embassy, and then assume that they all drive in and they all don't pay. Figures like that are generally very wide of the mark.


When I first heard of this a few weeks ago, it was the US Embassy they where talking about, not just an ambasador, and I belive the figure comes from the office of the Mayor rather than the papers pulling a figure out of the hat. Still It don't really matter though does it, the story is about how the US Embassy refuse to pay the congestion charge.

Incidently, the figure must be utter rubbish. The charge has been in force for what, two, maybe three years now? Actually, let's say five years, and assume that for the whole time that it was at the higher charge of £8 a day.

5 years = 1825 days, give or take a leap year.

1825 x 8 = £14,600.

This is also ignoring the fact that the charge isn't payable on Sundays, if I remember correctly.

Did The Times just pluck the figure out of thin air? Perhaps a quarter of a million is a better sounding story?

I think you must also consider that the US embassy to the UK (one of its closest allies) probably owns/drives more than one automobile. By refering to the Ambassador personally they are using the collective responsibility that a head-of-mission has over his embassy.

When I first heard of this a few weeks ago, it was the US Embassy they where talking about, not just an ambasador, and I belive the figure comes from the office of the Mayor rather than the papers pulling a figure out of the hat. Still It don't really matter though does it, the story is about how the US Embassy refuse to pay the congestion charge.
True, the figure is perhaps not that relevant, but I still feel the need to pull up people on figures like that because I know how inaccuarte they usually are. You should never trust things you read in the papers because they all have their own spin and political angle and are just as willing to stretch the truth to its limits as politicians are.

But, that aside, I still say hats off to him for ignoring a stupid law. It's a sad irony that 'Red' Ken's biggest policy has been to introduce a tax on the poor.

I think you must also consider that the US embassy to the UK (one of its closest allies) probably owns/drives more than one automobile. By refering to the Ambassador personally they are using the collective responsibility that a head-of-mission has over his embassy.

Ah, I was beaten to the point... several times. Never mind.

By refering to the Ambassador personally they are using the collective responsibility that a head-of-mission has over his embassy.
Especially considering it sounds like it's specifically the decision of the new ambassador to stop paying the charge.
That there is no real issue of principle here is shown by the US Embassy does paying similar tolls in Oslo and Singapore — and also paid in London until the new ambassador arrived.

True, the figure is perhaps not that relevant, but I still feel the need to pull up people on figures like that because I know how inaccuarte they usually are. You should never trust things you read in the papers because they all have their own spin and political angle and are just as willing to stretch the truth to its limits as politicians are.

But, that aside, I still say hats off to him for ignoring a stupid law. It's a sad irony that 'Red' Ken's biggest policy has been to introduce a tax on the poor.

I disagree I think the congestion charge is very good thing, as for taxing the poor, shit we all pay taxes, and if you don't want to pay the congestion charge, don't drive into London.

I disagree I think the congestion charge is very good thing, as for taxing the poor, shit we all pay taxes, and if you don't want to pay the congestion charge, don't drive into London.
Exactly - who won't drive into London because they don't want to pay the congestion charge? Or scrap together just enough for the charge, or for the ridiculous train fares?

I'll give you a clue; it's not the City Bankers and executives in their Porche's and Jag's.

But, that aside, I still say hats off to him for ignoring a stupid law. It's a sad irony that 'Red' Ken's biggest policy has been to introduce a tax on the poor.

It's not a tax.

Exactly - who won't drive into London because they don't want to pay the congestion charge? Or scrap together just enough for the charge, or for the ridiculous train fares?

I'll give you a clue; it's not the City Bankers and executives in their Porche's and Jag's.


:p Well, us Yorkshire Puddings don't drive anywhere near London at all!

Exactly - who won't drive into London because they don't want to pay the congestion charge? Or scrap together just enough for the charge, or for the ridiculous train fares?


You make it sound like trains are the only form of public transportation.

Exactly - who won't drive into London because they don't want to pay the congestion charge? Or scrap together just enough for the charge, or for the ridiculous train fares?

I'll give you a clue; it's not the City Bankers and executives in their Porche's and Jag's.
Buses to London are cheap.

Fuck it, typical American diplomatic arrogance. Maybe they're worried it'll drive their national debt still deeper... :P Just give them all bikes, then they don't have to pay it!

Buses to London are cheap.
Yep, and again, who is going to be forced onto these buses? Who is going to be forced to spend longer getting into London, and more money doing so?

This is why it is a poor tax; the rich can just ignore it, while the poorest ones who relied on their cars to get to work are the ones forced to work out alternatives.

Umm... the poorest couldn't afford the cars anyway. Why do you think commuter trains and so on have always been so packed into London, and why have I seen those on them wearing nice expensive suits?

Incidently, the figure must be utter rubbish. The charge has been in force for what, two, maybe three years now? Actually, let's say five years, and assume that for the whole time that it was at the higher charge of £8 a day.

5 years = 1825 days, give or take a leap year.

1825 x 8 = £14,600.

This is also ignoring the fact that the charge isn't payable on Sundays, if I remember correctly.

Did The Times just pluck the figure out of thin air? Perhaps a quarter of a million is a better sounding story?

You forget, the fine goes up the longer you neglect to pay it. As well as the fact that there are criminal fines then for not paying it etc. I think we're looking at a pretty hefty sum of money

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4770293.stm

Yep, and again, who is going to be forced onto these buses? Who is going to be forced to spend longer getting into London, and more money doing so?

This is why it is a poor tax; the rich can just ignore it, while the poorest ones who relied on their cars to get to work are the ones forced to work out alternatives.



as a person who uses buses almost exclusively, I don't quite understand why you think they are so bad.



The rich can swan along as normal. I'm not sure why you are acting so incredulous about this. It is always the way. Do you also disagree with speeding fines because they inversely affect the poor?

Umm... the poorest couldn't afford the cars anyway. Why do you think commuter trains and so on have always been so packed into London, and why have I seen those on them wearing nice expensive suits?
Cars are far cheaper to run and maintain than a train season ticket. It's not compulsory to spend £20,000 on a brand new car, after all.

Trains are for people who dislike traffic jams. I use the train, I understand why people do it; but it is for those people who can afford to not use the car, not those people trying to save money.

Umm... the poorest couldn't afford the cars anyway. Why do you think commuter trains and so on have always been so packed into London, and why have I seen those on them wearing nice expensive suits?

I thought parking was expensive enough in London to disuade most people from owning a car anyway.

Cars are far cheaper to run and maintain than a train season ticket. It's not compulsory to spend £20,000 on a brand new car, after all.

Trains are for people who dislike traffic jams. I use the train, I understand why people do it; but it is for those people who can afford to not use the car, not those people trying to save money.

Buses are far cheeper than either trains or cars and they have special lanes just for them to make travelling in London easier and faster.

Buses are far cheeper than either trains or cars and they have special lanes just for them to make travelling in London easier and faster.

Philosophy seems to have some instintive fear of buses though.

as a person who uses buses almost exclusively, I don't quite understand why you think they are so bad.

The rich can swan along as normal. I'm not sure why you are acting so incredulous about this. It is always the way. Do you also disagree with speeding fines because they inversely affect the poor?
A fine is a punishment for doing something wrong. What is the congestion charge?

As a person who has used buses extensively and still has the displeasure of having to use them quite often, I can't understand why anyone would want to inflict it on anyone. If the Americans wanted to perfect non-torture methods of extracting information they should screw Guantanamo and just shove the detainees on British public transport. After two hours of break downs, heaters on boiling days and no heating on freezing days, weirdos and drunks on the bus, and sitting next to the guy with the really unhealthy sounding cough, they'd confess to anything.

Philosophy seems to have some instintive fear of buses though.


Possibly of his fellow passengers in those buses.
Which does make sense.
It's not like buses are a completely chav-and-yobbie-free zone, is it?

I thought parking was expensive enough in London to disuade most people from owning a car anyway.
Only public parking. Many schools, hospitals and other businesses will offer private spaces for employees.

Philosophy seems to have some instintive fear of buses though.
The step from 'buses are complete crap and a waste of time, money and effort' to 'is afraid of buses' is as far fetched as it is absurd.

A fine is a punishment for doing something wrong. What is the congestion charge?

But if you are rich then it isn't really a punishment is it.

As a person who has used buses extensively and still has the displeasure of having to use them quite often, I can't understand why anyone would want to inflict it on anyone. If the Americans wanted to perfect non-torture methods of extracting information they should screw Guantanamo and just shove the detainees on British public transport. After two hours of break downs, heaters on boiling days and no heating on freezing days, weirdos and drunks on the bus, and sitting next to the guy with the really unhealthy sounding cough, they'd confess to anything.

What bus route are you on?

I've usd buses in many different places and they are nowhere near as bad a you describe. You'll occasionally get a nutter. But it is hardly the rule.

Possibly of his fellow passengers in those buses.
Which does make sense.
It's not like buses are a completely chav-and-yobbie-free zone, is it?
Few places are. I like buses, British public transport isn't nearly as bad as its portrayed.

The step from 'buses are complete crap and a waste of time, money and effort' to 'is afraid of buses' is as far fetched as it is absurd.

Meh, I thought it was obvious I was going for absurd anyway.

I've usd buses in many different places and they are nowhere near as bad a you describe. You'll occasionally get a nutter. But it is hardly the rule.
Then you must live in a Greenpeace Utopia where the buses aren't dirty, smelly, noisy, uncomfortable, expensive and full of weirdos. It's not like that in most places, and it's certainly not like that on commuter buses into London.

Yep, and again, who is going to be forced onto these buses? Who is going to be forced to spend longer getting into London, and more money doing so?

This is why it is a poor tax; the rich can just ignore it, while the poorest ones who relied on their cars to get to work are the ones forced to work out alternatives.
Funny, I managed four years in London (at University and associated work placements, so I was hardly rich) without having a car... There's plenty of public transport down there, and even if that's a bit inconvenient you can always use a bicycle.

I never had a problem not having a car down there; never mind whether it was a quick mile-and-a-half each-way wander (later a five-mile each-way cycle) to Uni, a nine-and-a-half mile each-way cycle from my rented room in Lower Morden to my job in South Kensington, or from Earl's Court to Oxford every day on the Underground and train for a summer job.

When I go to visit my girlfriend (who lives in Camden, well away from the charge zone) I do so by train (with one exception so far; carrying a rather large box), which is both cheaper and faster, when you take into account both petrol and parking charges. Even in the Renault 5 I was driving at the time.

If I can manage it then so can anybody else. The congestion charge was the best thing that happened whilst I was in London, other than the protests that caused all the petrol to run out... That was bliss.

Few places are. I like buses, British public transport isn't nearly as bad as its portrayed.

*shrug*
Let's say I'm happy I'm a pretty good walker.

It's not like buses are a completely chav-and-yobbie-free zone, is it?

Why are people so scared of "chavs" (a word I personally cannot stand)?

Crickey, this is old.

I think he is following the fine American tradition of ignoring stupid laws.

...and replacing them with a stupid Government - another fine American tradition.

Why are people so scared of "chavs" (a word I personally cannot stand)?


I guess it must be the aggressive, lewd, troublesome, vile, swearing, disgusting behaviour.

Philosophy seems to have some instintive fear of buses though.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. They're evil.

Then you must live in a Greenpeace Utopia where the buses aren't dirty, smelly, noisy, uncomfortable, expensive and full of weirdos. It's not like that in most places, and it's certainly not like that on commuter buses into London.

No I just happen to live outside the South-East.

Which I have found to be much nicer.

Funny, I managed four years in London (at University and associated work placements, so I was hardly rich) without having a car... There's plenty of public transport down there, and even if that's a bit inconvenient you can always use a bicycle.
Yep, there is plenty of public transport, that, if you've ever had the misfortune of trying to use it at rush hour, is full to capacity already without forcing all the people in the cars onto it as well.

A season ticket from my home town into London, 30 miles away, costs just under £3,000 on the train. I could buy, maintain and fuel a car for far less than that. If I couldn't afford to spend £3,000 a year of my salary on a train fare and relied on the car, the Congestion Tax forces me to do so.

No I just happen to live outside the South-East.

Which I have found to be much nicer.
Actually, I wasn't confining my experiences to the South East at all. I assure you that the worst buses and public transport I have ever come across was outside of the South East, and I was unfortunate enough to have to rely on them for several years.

I guess it must be the aggressive, lewd, troublesome, vile, swearing, disgusting behaviour.

But largely it is all an act.

But largely it is all an act.


*snarls*
Even ONE single act of vileness is one act too many!

Actually, I wasn't confining my experiences to the South East at all. I assure you that the worst buses and public transport I have ever come across was outside of the South East, and I was unfortunate enough to have to rely on them for several years.

Well I use the bus ever day and have never had a problem.

The only annoyance I have had was when I was working an early shift and the bus didn't go all the way and I had to walk an extra bit.

Yep, there is plenty of public transport, that, if you've ever had the misfortune of trying to use it at rush hour, is full to capacity already without forcing all the people in the cars onto it as well.

A season ticket from my home town into London, 30 miles away, costs just under £3,000 on the train. I could buy, maintain and fuel a car for far less than that. If I couldn't afford to spend £3,000 a year of my salary on a train fare and relied on the car, the Congestion Tax forces me to do so.

Why not find a new job if you current one causes you so much agro?

Why not find a new job if you current one causes you so much agro?

You mean: why not let that tax force you to change jobs, instead of letting that tax force you to get skint?

Well I use the bus ever day and have never had a problem.

The only annoyance I have had was when I was working an early shift and the bus didn't go all the way and I had to walk an extra bit.
It is next to impossible to catch a bus that a) comes on time and doesn't leave you waiting in the rain for half an hour first b) is clean and tidy c) goes from where you want to go from to where you want to go to, and when you want to do it d) isn't full of weirdo's and e) isn't actually less environmentally friendly than a car.

I don't see why people should be forced to endure these simply because they can't afford Red Ken's tax.

Why not find a new job if you current one causes you so much agro?
Because I'm a student speaking hypothetically. :p

Because I'm a student speaking hypothetically. :p


Uh-huh... it does make your statement about your income slightly misleading.
..

Uh-huh... it does make your statement about your income slightly misleading.
..
Not really, the statement is just as true, and I do commute for my course.

Not really, the statement is just as true, and I do commute for my course.


Let me clarify that.
I got the impression you had a job for a living.

Yep, there is plenty of public transport, that, if you've ever had the misfortune of trying to use it at rush hour, is full to capacity already without forcing all the people in the cars onto it as well.

A season ticket from my home town into London, 30 miles away, costs just under £3,000 on the train. I could buy, maintain and fuel a car for far less than that. If I couldn't afford to spend £3,000 a year of my salary on a train fare and relied on the car, the Congestion Tax forces me to do so.
I've used the tube in rush-hour and commuter trains. Not really my cup of tea, but hey... That's why I got a bike. Much easier and quicker. I also decided never to commute again. Woo, eh?

Sounds like you're too busy moaning about how much you dislike Red Ken's attempt at pacifying London's roads to do anything about it. If you don't like commuting, then living 30 miles from your job/university is not so bright.
Of course, you could always drive to the outskirts (Brent Cross or similar in the South) and hop on the tube. Or park outside the (fairly tiny - it's only a couple of miles across) congestion charging zone and walk.
Edit: Or get a motorbike. See? Easy when you think about it.

Let me clarify that.
I got the impression you had a job for a living.
lol, sorry, perhaps I should clarify a little.

I graduated from University last summer.
I have spent the last year on a gap year, with a mixture of employment, unemployment, voluntary work and political activism.
I am returning to a different University this summer for a Post-Grad course.

I have extensive knowledge of London travelling, and public transport. However, my points weren't meant to be specifically about me, just a general 'person x'.

Hope that's a bit clearer. :p

ISounds like you're too busy moaning about how much you dislike Red Ken's attempt at pacifying London's roads to do anything about it.
I'm sorry, what more would you like me to do? I'm not the bleeding Prime Minister.

If you don't like commuting, then living 30 miles from your job/university is not so bright.
Of course, because the Government has done such a good job of providing affordable housing in London.

Of course, you could always drive to the outskirts (Brent Cross or similar in the South) and hop on the tube. Or park outside the (fairly tiny - it's only a couple of miles across) congestion charging zone and walk.
Edit: Or get a motorbike. See? Easy when you think about it.
Motorbikes are massively dangerous. I would prefer to be packed on a bus with weirdos than killed.

lol, sorry, perhaps I should clarify a little.

I graduated from University last summer.
I have spent the last year on a gap year, with a mixture of employment, unemployment, voluntary work and political activism.
I am returning to a different University this summer for a Post-Grad course.

I have extensive knowledge of London travelling, and public transport. However, my points weren't meant to be specifically about me, just a general 'person x'.

Hope that's a bit clearer. :p


Er, okay. I suppose.
*Yorkshire-accented grumblin's 'boot Students bein' lazy an doing owt* :p

( And Red Ken is a piece of slime. )

I'm sorry, what more would you like me to do? I'm not the bleeding Prime Minister.
Quit moaning that Red Ken's out to get you and devise a solution to your problem? :P
Of course, because the Government has done such a good job of providing affordable housing in London.
No sympathy there, I can't yet afford to rent a house in Corby, let alone buy one.
I also had to privately rent flats in London for three years whilst I was at university, so I know 1) the prices are stupid and 2) it's still possible.
Motorbikes are massively dangerous. I would prefer to be packed on a bus with weirdos than killed.
That's your answer, then :P

I didn't vote for Red Ken when I had the chance; given it again I would happily. Despite even his renewed connection with the Labour party.

Quit moaning that Red Ken's out to get you and devise a solution to your problem? :P
I have...get rid of the Congestion Tax. I think that's what I've been arguing throughout the thread...

No sympathy there, I can't yet afford to rent a house in Corby, let alone buy one.
I also had to privately rent flats in London for three years whilst I was at university, so I know 1) the prices are stupid and 2) it's still possible.
Possible, perhaps, but only if you're prepared to live in a tiny room in a nasty area of the City. And people should be forced to move house and do this simply because Red Ken has decided that cars are evil?

I didn't vote for Red Ken when I had the chance; given it again I would happily. Despite even his renewed connection with the Labour party.
He's a character, I'll give him that.

Is it really the congestion charge that's shoving London house prices up. London's been consistently higher than the rest of the country for years, decades probably, and house prices have been rising everywhere.

Possible, perhaps, but only if you're prepared to live in a tiny room in a nasty area of the City. And people should be forced to move house and do this simply because Red Ken has decided that cars are evil?
Actually, two of us shared a nice two-bedroom flat in Southfields for a year. The three-bedroomed place that three of us inhabited in West Ken wasn't so bad, either. All of these were less than £500pcm each; silly, I know, but hey! You don't want silly? Live in the real world instead! Or just rent a room (£400pcm for a double room, inc. all bills and occasional food; I was lucky there).
All of these rooms were much bigger than the one I currently inhabit.

Nobody's forcing anything. I've pointed out several alternatives; you pick the one you like best, or think of your own. Central Londinivm doesn't have an infinite capacity for traffic, and the congestion charge was the limiting method selected. It's not like the thing covers very much of London anyway (http://www.cclondon.com/infosearch/dynamicPages/WF_ZoneCheck_W.aspx).

Actually, two of us shared a nice two-bedroom flat in Southfields for a year. The three-bedroomed place that three of us inhabited in West Ken wasn't so bad, either. All of these were less than £500pcm each; silly, I know, but hey! You don't want silly? Live in the real world instead! Or just rent a room (£400pcm for a double room, inc. all bills and occasional food; I was lucky there).
All of these rooms were much bigger than the one I currently inhabit.
Yes, exactly - you are talking about renting a room. Families require a house.

Nobody's forcing anything. I've pointed out several alternatives; you pick the one you like best, or think of your own.
It is being forced. Person X could drive into work before. Now Person X can't. I'm missing the bit where they chose this outcome.

Central Londinivm doesn't have an infinite capacity for traffic, and the congestion charge was the limiting method selected.
Far better to get rid of the bus lanes that have one bus an hour with one person on board, and actually improve an integrated transport system, rather than make out as if one aspect of transport is Satan on earth.

It's not like the thing covers very much of London anyway (http://www.cclondon.com/infosearch/dynamicPages/WF_ZoneCheck_W.aspx).
It covers the important bits, where people want to go. It wouldn't be raising that much money if it didn't, and besides, it is planned to be extended again in the not too distant future.

This is my favorite part of the article:

That there is no real issue of principle here is shown by the US Embassy does paying similar tolls in Oslo and Singapore — and also paid in London until the new ambassador arrived.

So basically, the new ambassador is just being an ass. Brilliant way to help generate build further cooperation between our countries that.

Far better to get rid of the bus lanes that have one bus an hour with one person on board,
Yep, there is plenty of public transport, that, if you've ever had the misfortune of trying to use it at rush hour, is full to capacity already without forcing all the people in the cars onto it as well.
Motorbikes are massively dangerous. I would prefer to be packed on a bus with weirdos than killed.
contradiction?

contradiction?
Heh. :p

I was referring to the Tubes and trains earlier, although I realise that wasn't all that clear.

Yes, exactly - you are talking about renting a room. Families require a house.
Two of us sharing was a flat, three of us sharing was a flat. It doesn't matter whether the people sharing the rent are friends or family; the rent's still split n ways. My girlfriend and her mother share the rent of their flat in Camden; they have no problems. That's a secretary and someone who works part time in a charity shop; I'll leave the wages to your imagination.
It is being forced. Person X could drive into work before. Now Person X can't. I'm missing the bit where they chose this outcome.
If they're unwilling to park half a mile from work and walk for maybe ten minutes, that's their problem.
Far better to get rid of the bus lanes that have one bus an hour with one person on board, and actually improve an integrated transport system, rather than make out as if one aspect of transport is Satan on earth. .
I'd love to know where these one-user-one-bus areas are!
Remember that bus lanes are also used by taxis, motorcycles, mopeds and bicycles. All of which are exempt from the congestion charge.
It covers the important bits, where people want to go. It wouldn't be raising that much money if it didn't, and besides, it is planned to be extended again in the not too distant future.
Hmm, maybe I'm abnormal, but I've never *needed* to go to those bits. Occasionally chosen to, but never needed to. And I'd be rather chuffed if they extended it to the bits I *do* have to go to; it would make things easier. Even if I were driving.

There are plenty of ways to get around London, many of them cheaper than driving. None of my friends who live there have had any complaints about the congestion charge.

Oh, and go check the exemptions; if you're so unhappy about not being able to drive there, get your car converted to LPG, or get a hybrid that meets the emissions spec.

Oh, and go check the exemptions; if you're so unhappy about not being able to drive there, get your car converted to LPG, or get a hybrid that meets the emissions spec.
Oh yes, because those people who are hardest hit by this and can't afford the Congestion Tax can really afford to just go out and buy a Prius. :rolleyes:

What makes this even MORE ammusing is that Americans have been screaming for years about parking fines in New York that are not being paid by UN diplomats.

And they should pay just like we should pay this to.

Or the fine American tradition of not giving money to the British crown when demanded...

I wonder whether he's gonna drop his car in the Thames.

As opposed to unpaid parking tickets? I wonder when their cars are going to get towed.

Oh yes, because those people who are hardest hit by this and can't afford the Congestion Tax can really afford to just go out and buy a Prius. :rolleyes:
LPG?
Conversion might cost a bit, but then the fuel costs less. I just got an insta-quote for my 1992 Fiat Uno from www.greenfuel.org.uk (http://www.greenfuel.org.uk/) (the first place thrown up by Google, hardly shopping around) of just under £2,000 for the conversion. That's 250 days congestion charge, less the fuel savings. Not worth it for me; I hardly drive anywhere, and do so in disposable cars. But if you drove a considerable distance - especially into the CC zone in London - it'd be very worthwhile.

LPG?
Conversion might cost a bit, but then the fuel costs less. I just got an insta-quote for my 1992 Fiat Uno from www.greenfuel.org.uk (http://www.greenfuel.org.uk/) (the first place thrown up by Google, hardly shopping around) of just under £2,000 for the conversion. That's 250 days congestion charge, less the fuel savings. Not worth it for me; I hardly drive anywhere, and do so in disposable cars. But if you drove a considerable distance - especially into the CC zone in London - it'd be very worthwhile.
So again, it's a tax on those who can't afford it, and the best solution is to pay a lot of money trying to avoid it.

We pay road tax, insurance, fuel tax; charging people more to use roads they have already paid for is unfair, and hits those who have no choice hardest.

But I doubt we'll ever going to agree on this point. :p

Incidently, the figure must be utter rubbish. The charge has been in force for what, two, maybe three years now? Actually, let's say five years, and assume that for the whole time that it was at the higher charge of £8 a day.

5 years = 1825 days, give or take a leap year.

"If payment is made within 2 weeks the fine is reduced to £40, if after 2 weeks payment is not made the fine reverts to £80, if payment is still not made within 28 calendar days the fine increases to £120."

1825 x 120 = 219,000

That would be just for one vehicle which never paid the charge.

Yep, and again, who is going to be forced onto these buses? Who is going to be forced to spend longer getting into London, and more money doing so?

This is why it is a poor tax; the rich can just ignore it, while the poorest ones who relied on their cars to get to work are the ones forced to work out alternatives.


It is not a tax it is there to try to stop the amount of tarffic and thus pollution coming into London.

Regardsless of being rich or poor, it help to make driving into London more expensive than train, tube, or bus. So seen that way if it stops the poor from driving into London, then that saves us money huh!? And if the rich continue to drive, then it takes more money from them.

So again, it's a tax on those who can't afford it, and the best solution is to pay a lot of money trying to avoid it.

We pay road tax, insurance, fuel tax; charging people more to use roads they have already paid for is unfair, and hits those who have no choice hardest.

But I doubt we'll ever going to agree on this point. :p
In the long run gas conversion's a saving for those who use their cars a lot.

But I do agree that we're unlikely to agree about the congestion charge, so maybe we should just shake hands and leave it?
This's been the best discussion I've had here yet, so I'd hate to spoil it :)

In the long run gas conversion's a saving for those who use their cars a lot.

But I do agree that we're unlikely to agree about the congestion charge, so maybe we should just shake hands and leave it?
This's been the best discussion I've had here yet, so I'd hate to spoil it :)
*Shakes Compulsive Depression's hand and leaves an interesting, engaging and surprisingly civil thread*

Cars are far cheaper to run and maintain than a train season ticket. It's not compulsory to spend £20,000 on a brand new car, after all.

Trains are for people who dislike traffic jams. I use the train, I understand why people do it; but it is for those people who can afford to not use the car, not those people trying to save money.


Thats just plain rubbish, I don't even have a car because I cannot aford to buy and run one, it is far cheaper by public transport, and where the hell did you get the figure £20,000 a year from? Even a year seaon tickek cost at most £2,500.

Yep, and again, who is going to be forced onto these buses? Who is going to be forced to spend longer getting into London, and more money doing so?

This is why it is a poor tax; the rich can just ignore it, while the poorest ones who relied on their cars to get to work are the ones forced to work out alternatives.

I'm not going to read the whole thread but I'd like to make this guy aware that public transportation in London is both the cheapest and the quickest way of getting around. I don't have a car at the moment - I've no use for it.

Uh-huh... it does make your statement about your income slightly misleading.
..


And that loverly man Red Ken you know he that brought us free bus travel for all those under 16 and free train and tube travel for all those under 16 acompanied by an adult, has just anounced plans to give all school leavers that go into full time eduaction free travel as well, up till 18 years of age. So we can see that Ken realy wants to scam money out of us poor and education of these poor kids is furthest from his mind.

The truth about Ken is he is a born and bred Solicialist he would not tax the poor, well not unless there was a greater good in mind.

This is my favorite part of the article:

That there is no real issue of principle here is shown by the US Embassy does paying similar tolls in Oslo and Singapore — and also paid in London until the new ambassador arrived.

So basically, the new ambassador is just being an ass. Brilliant way to help generate build further cooperation between our countries that.


Heh yeah specialy given the amount of anti American feeling around the globe at the mo, you'd think all US ambaseders would have been warned to be on their best behaviour and told to try to promote a positive view of the States.

Oh yes, because those people who are hardest hit by this and can't afford the Congestion Tax can really afford to just go out and buy a Prius. :rolleyes:


Whats wrong qwith you man, you just like to moan huh!?!? alternative after alternative has been provided to you but you poo poo all of them. Fine some people are really like that, would rather throw blame about for their misfoutunes than find a way out or through things. Nobody owes you a life, you have to make one yourself, and if you can't do nowt but moan about your problems then you have lost right there.

The Congestion charge I belive is good, for London, for Londoners, Ken is good for both too, this is of course my subjective point of view and you don't have to agree, but if you don't them, find away to not pay the congestion charge, and if you have to move to a cheaper part of the country(eveybody that lives in the UK knows that London is not cheap) then do that, but don't say things like' ohh Ken made me move out of London' when you mean you can't afford to live here.

-snip-
Nice argument. "I like Ken and don't believe he could do anything wrong. Anyone who disagrees with me has no right to be complaining about an unfair tax that hits the poorest the hardest."

:rolleyes:

You're clearly very good at selectively picking what you want to hear. If you disagree with my points then fine, but please don't make out as if I didn't make them.

philosiphy clearly doesn't understand poverty. real poverty means not owning a car, so those who are really disidvantage benefit from being able to provide their kids with free public transportation.

doesn't matter eitherway, public transport is quicker and cheaper and so using a car is simply the selfish way

using a car is simply the selfish way
Precisely the attitude that leads to an unfair tax on the poor. Make out as if something is the most evil thing ever invented and you'll be amazed at what gullible people let you get away with in 'dealing' with it.

Precisely the attitude that leads to an unfair tax on the poor. Make out as if something is the most evil thing ever invented and you'll be amazed at what gullible people let you get away with in 'dealing' with it.

If it's cheaper & quicker to use public transport than I'd expect you to be charged if you want to pullote and drive a dangerous machine simply for your own selfish convenience.

Mind responding to my other points by the way?

If it's cheaper & quicker to use public transport than I'd expect you to be charged if you want to pullote and drive a dangerous machine simply for your own selfish convenience.

Mind responding to my other points by the way?
You didn't make any points that haven't already been answered. If you don't like the answers that is not because they aren't there.

It isn't cheaper and quicker to use public transport. It isn't selfish to try and reduce costs because you struggle financially. It is selfish to listen to a lot of foolish scare stories about how we're all going to hell purely because Mrs Higgins is driving her car. It is selfish to force people to change their lives to fit your views.

What makes this even MORE ammusing is that Americans have been screaming for years about parking fines in New York that are not being paid by UN diplomats.


I dont know of any Americans "screaming for years" about this- I think its more like the way the OP put up this thread- every so often, the news churns this up like its some issue of national security.

Probably once a year, the local NY ten oclock news will report that there are unpaid millions in traffic/parking fines by whatever diplomats. Then a diplomat will be driving drunk and kill a pedestrian.

So-no screaming. The news will continue to re-hash this issue,as well as others, when things are slow. And some views may get the sense there is some international incident about to occur.

I feel the local laws and penaltys should be honored if violated, regardless of status.

I want to get to oxford circus from where I am (ealing broadway) right now? It'd take me 24 minutes. There is no way I could drive that in less than an hour. Paddington? more like six minutes. And with an oyster card I could cover miles and miles and miles all over london for about a fiver.

It's not a tax on the poor because someone in poverty can't afford a car (but their kids can go free on the transport system)

You didn't make any points that haven't already been answered. If you don't like the answers that is not because they aren't there.

It isn't cheaper and quicker to use public transport. It isn't selfish to try and reduce costs because you struggle financially. It is selfish to listen to a lot of foolish scare stories about how we're all going to hell purely because Mrs Higgins is driving her car. It is selfish to force people to change their lives to fit your views.

It is cheaper to use public transport in London than it is to use a car, and it was so before the congestion charge.
You have stated that an annual season ticket will cost you some 3000. SO I assume that you live some 30 miles or more from the centre of the city.

Now that means that you are going to use nearly 3 gallons of petrol a day in commuting (even in a small eficient engined car) as the fuel consumption in the stop start driving in London is going to be in the order of 20mpg. (I am sorry but I think in mpg and gallons when I think of London). So 3 gallons is 13 and a half litres. Let us be generous and call this 12 litres a day at around a minimum of 90p a litre. So that is 10.80 a day, in fuel. Assuming you travel five days a week, that makes a fuel bill of 2808 pounds a year. Then there is your vehicle licence fee, depreciation, oil, anti-freeze, tyres, cleaning etc. It costs more to use a car without including the congestion charge.

So philosopy, your argument here simply has no basis.

Assuming you travel five days a week, that makes a fuel bill of 2808 pounds a year.
So, even taking your pessimistic figures and ignoring holidays etc, we are still at a lower bill than public transport?

Then there is your vehicle licence fee, depreciation, oil, anti-freeze, tyres, cleaning etc.
All things that you would pay anyway simply for having a car. You are therefore either having a car and paying for both it and public transport, or you are saying that people who can't afford the extortionate cost of this public transport or the Congestion Tax shouldn't be allowed to have a car.

It costs more to use a car without including the congestion charge.
Nope, it costs less. Sorry, I realise that the envio-nonsense lobby doesn't like the fact that no public transport will ever touch the care for ease, convenience, price and comfort, but that's just the way it is.

woah season ticket? what sort of nonsense are you spouting? never heard of an oyster card?

Nope, it costs less. Sorry, I realise that the envio-nonsense lobby doesn't like the fact that no public transport will ever touch the care for ease, convenience, price and comfort, but that's just the way it is.

Ease, convenience and comfort simply aren't pressing concerns and so if you expect to enjoy those three things at the expense of others you can cough up a little extra for it.

So, even taking your pessimistic figures and ignoring holidays etc, we are still at a lower bill than public transport?
First, my figures are highly optimistic, not pessimistic at all. It would be more realistic to estimate a consumption of closer to 15 mpg (I know I have been there and done it but it would have given you room to wriggle, so I was generous). Fuel also only accounts for about 60% of the cost of running a car. I have not included parking charges for example.

All things that you would pay anyway simply for having a car. You are therefore either having a car and paying for both it and public transport, or you are saying that people who can't afford the extortionate cost of this public transport or the Congestion Tax shouldn't be allowed to have a car.
If you can afford a car you can have one. If yopu want to drive it into central London every day then you can. You just have to pay for the privelege. You have picked a figure out of the air (3000) for public transport costs. I have shown that the car costs are equivalent to this value, just for communting. If you do not consider paying this amount to be reasonable to commute to work then find a job near where you live. You are faced with paying out this type of money whatever method you choose to commute (other than horse, bicycle, or foot - all of which I have used when necessary). Now if the cost is equivalent, then what is the advantage of using a car?


Nope, it costs less. Sorry, I realise that the envio-nonsense lobby doesn't like the fact that no public transport will ever touch the care for ease, convenience, price and comfort, but that's just the way it is.
Prove your public transport costs first. And as for ease and convenience and comfort, I guess you have never driven in a crowded city centre. On the bus, train or tube you can read, do the crossword etc., if you are driving you arrive at work stressed and tired, whereas using public transport you arrive no worse than when you left home. Unless you are afraid of people that is.

Do you live in London Philosiphy? I find it hard to believe you do

It is next to impossible to catch a bus that a) comes on time and doesn't leave you waiting in the rain for half an hour first b) is clean and tidy c) goes from where you want to go from to where you want to go to, and when you want to do it d) isn't full of weirdo's and e) isn't actually less environmentally friendly than a car.

I don't see why people should be forced to endure these simply because they can't afford Red Ken's tax.

All the buses where I live (Croydon) do all of those things.

Do you live in London Philosiphy? I find it hard to believe you do

I guess that he lives in one of the outer suburbs. Romford seems likely for some reason.

You didn't make any points that haven't already been answered. If you don't like the answers that is not because they aren't there.

It isn't cheaper and quicker to use public transport. It isn't selfish to try and reduce costs because you struggle financially. It is selfish to listen to a lot of foolish scare stories about how we're all going to hell purely because Mrs Higgins is driving her car. It is selfish to force people to change their lives to fit your views.

It is not cheeper to use a car in a city such as London. Let me just give you a list of things you will have to pay for
- The car itself
- The car's maintainence
- The materials for the cars maintainece (either/or depending on if you do the maintainence yourself or not)
- The car's insurance
- The car's tax
- The parking place in London (which can be extremly expensive)
- The car's petrol
- The materials to wash the car
- The petrol station car wash (again either/or)

With Public transport you only have to pay for the fare, and that is greatly reduced if you use reugalrly with an oyster card or saver scheme

Furthermore, it is not selfish to ask others to change their life to fit the facts. It is a fact that london is heveyly congested. It is a fact that polution is an issue. It is a fact that more people need to either use public transport or walk.

Nice argument. "I like Ken and don't believe he could do anything wrong. Anyone who disagrees with me has no right to be complaining about an unfair tax that hits the poorest the hardest."

:rolleyes:

You're clearly very good at selectively picking what you want to hear. If you disagree with my points then fine, but please don't make out as if I didn't make them.


I guess I can only take that as a compliment, cheers muchly :p

i don't recall seeing scenes of angry Londoners burning the US flag in protest at this disrespect.

i don't recall seeing scenes of angry Londoners burning the US flag in protest at this disrespect.
How do you expect them to afford flags to burn? They have to pay the congestion charge!




Sorry, couldn't help it, I'll leave again now ;)

i don't recall seeing scenes of angry Londoners burning the US flag in protest at this disrespect.


Heh we aint the flag burin' type, we'd rather grummble about it over a nice cup of tea, whilst doin nowt about it!

or possibly a pint

or possibly a pint


Aagghhh beer, man I aint had beer for days, I really really want one.

The Brits should get revenge by making that great ranting windbag Red Ken Ambassador to the U.S. They could still hear his blusters for giggles but wouldnt have to suffer his legislation.

A season ticket from my home town into London, 30 miles away, costs just under £3,000 on the train.

How long is this season you are talking about. And how far and in which direction are you from London. Because I think if your outside greater London the kind of pass you would want not only entiles you to go to London, but also a great many other places, which is why it would be so pricey. Could we have some refernce for this so called £3000 season ticket?

I'm going to be generous here: say you have an oyster card and say you used it up to it's limit everyday (we'll call the limit £6 and even include christmas day etc etc). It's still way short of £3000, about a thousand pounds short in fact. So I'd say that the figure provided was somewhat misleading especially given that the real figure is more likely to be a mere eighteen hundred or so.

I'm going to be generous here: say you have an oyster card and say you used it up to it's limit everyday (we'll call the limit £6 and even include christmas day etc etc). It's still way short of £3000, about a thousand pounds short in fact. So I'd say that the figure provided was somewhat misleading especially given that the real figure is more likely to be a mere eighteen hundred or so.
Philosophy was talking about a season ticket from a (main-line) station outside of London to a station inside London. Not the Underground, although that may also be included; he didn't specify.

Incidentally, that works out £12.50 per day, for 5 days per week, 48 weeks per year*, so not outlandish (I paid about £10 per day for London Paddington to Oxford [excluding Underground] six years ago, with a YP Railcard so returns on the first off-peak trains were cheaper than a season ticket).

*Most people get 20 days (four weeks) holiday per year, most work 5 days per week. I've ignored bank holidays.

The US ambassador to Great Britian now owes the Greater London Authority £270,000 in unpaid congestion charge. The congestion charge is not a tax, so would the US please live up to the reputation of respect for the rule of law and pay the charges you owe.
Arguably it is a tax. There is no service directly rendered from the charge. Rather it allows you to drive in central london. It is not a toll, as the congestion charge does not actually go towards keeping up the roads. Tolls and parking tickets are different animals entirely, and if he wasn't paying those, there would be a problem. Instead this congestion charge is the same exact thing as a vehicle tax would be. It's just dressed up prettier.

Arguably it is a tax. There is no service directly rendered from the charge. Rather it allows you to drive in central london. It is not a toll, as the congestion charge does not actually go towards keeping up the roads. Tolls and parking tickets are different animals entirely, and if he wasn't paying those, there would be a problem. Instead this congestion charge is the same exact thing as a vehicle tax would be. It's just dressed up prettier.

It is equally arguable that it is not a tax and it is a toll. It is only chargeable to those that wish to use certain streets and thoroughfares with certain types of vehicles. As such it is not taxation, as it is applied only on usage of these public ways, which makes it a toll. There is no requirement for the monies collected from a toll to be used for the maintenance of the highways concerned. All that is required for a charge to be a toll is that it is levied against the users of particular highways.
If it were the same thing as a vehicle tax, then everyone that owned a vehicle would have to pay it whether they entered the charging zone or not.

It is equally arguable that it is not a tax and it is a toll. It is only chargeable to those that wish to use certain streets and thoroughfares with certain types of vehicles. As such it is not taxation, as it is applied only on usage of these public ways, which makes it a toll. There is no requirement for the monies collected from a toll to be used for the maintenance of the highways concerned. All that is required for a charge to be a toll is that it is levied against the users of particular highways.
If it were the same thing as a vehicle tax, then everyone that owned a vehicle would have to pay it whether they entered the charging zone or not.

Does it really matter if its a toll or a tax? The point is, the buggers still haven't paid it.

But, that aside, I still say hats off to him for ignoring a stupid law. It's a sad irony that 'Red' Ken's biggest policy has been to introduce a tax on the poor.

Hey. Having read that I feel obliged to respond more sensibly. A tax on the poor? That's an incredibly asinine comment. I guess you are suggesting that because it's a flat rate charge, rather than being income-related. However, you fail to take into account that the people who (used to) drive their cars around central London is not exactly a representative slice of the population. Normal people take the tube, which has always been much faster anyway.

The fact is that the majority of people who have been affected by this are high earners who have the incomes to support living near the centre of town in the first place. A few small businesses have been hit too but, to be fair, anybody with a small business in the centre of London should be able to absorb the extra cost of the charge, given the massively higher prices they can charge from doing business there.

Suggesting that running a car in central London is a sensible alternative to using buses and tubes for a low-income person is ludicrous, despite all the haggling over spurious figures. It just clearly isn't a practical option, and was even less so prior to the introduction of the charge as it took forever to drive anyplace.

If the US ambassador doesn't want to pay the charge then deport him. And if you don't want to then don't drive your car into the centre of London, which is a vastly more pleasant place than it used to be.

On the other hand, way to go Mr Philosophy for keeping your argument going against the masses of opinion over all those pages. I feel like joining your cause out of principle.

But, that aside, I still say hats off to him for ignoring a stupid law. It's a sad irony that 'Red' Ken's biggest policy has been to introduce a tax on the poor.

Its not a tax on the poor. Its a tax more on the rich because it costs much more to own a car and use it than it does to use public transport, and you still havent provided any independent verification of this £3000 figure and I suspect (as I have said before) that if you live 30 miles outside London you are proberbly outside of greater London and hence you would be paying for a ticket that would not only go to London, but a myriad of other places, which is why it is so pricey.

if this £3000 pound figure is for coming from outside london why should you pullote our streets, wear out our roads and generally make the place uglier? If you live in London take the (quicker and cheaper) public transport and if you live outside london you can bloody well pay to mess up our city.

if this £3000 pound figure is for coming from outside london why should you pullote our streets, wear out our roads and generally make the place uglier? If you live in London take the (quicker and cheaper) public transport and if you live outside london you can bloody well pay to mess up our city.

But, ew!

Public transport is for peasants! :rolleyes:

Well, in that case they must have about 30 cars, and the story would correctly be about the Embassy, not the Ambassador.

What's the betting that they've included everyone they can think of in that figure, up to and including Doris who comes in once a week on a Wednesday to clean the stairs? It's quite normal for the media to 'assume' truth; look at how many people work at the Embassy, and then assume that they all drive in and they all don't pay. Figures like that are generally very wide of the mark.
No, Doris has to use the bus because of the low wages the Ambassador pays her, she can't afford to buy a car. It was the Ambassor who instructed his (American) staff not to pay the congestion charge. This was after having paid it for a year or so.:headbang: