Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, bmt said:

it is a poor tax which isn't proven to work

 

So a pretty standard Boris Johnson idea then. 

 

[Fox92]

On 30/08/2023 at 14:43, iniesta said:

Self-service checkout at supermarket is a ritual humiliation as every item has some issue; human dignity is stripped away; you are made to feel small, a mass man, a cog in a machine, reduced to pure consumer.

Self-service is basically doing someone's job. Should get paid to do it. I need to start the movement.

[Daggers]

Completely bored by the whole Ukraine thing now. It’s a financial millstone around our necks. I don’t care who wins. 

[Dahnsouff]

8 hours ago, bmt said:

Seems quite popular!

 

My opinion is that it is a poor tax which isn't proven to work and is massively unequitable.

Thought it only effected about 5% of drivers? On checking, it seems more like 7%-8%

 

Headlines like could effect 2.3 million drivers sounds like brainless tabloids click bait

Edited 13 September 2023 by Dahnsouff

[Bellend Sebastian]

9 hours ago, bmt said:

Seems quite popular!

 

My opinion is that it is a poor tax which isn't proven to work and is massively unequitable.

 

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Thought it only effected about 5% of drivers? On checking, it seems more like 7%-8%

 

Headlines like could effect 2.3 million drivers sounds like brainless tabloids click bait

Funnily enough I was looking at this today. Obviously, the media stories are focusing on the extremes - enforcement cameras and vans vandalised, Andrew Tate type twats protesting in their supercars, some old duffer being fined hundreds for driving around London for hours when he didn't mean to be there, etc etc. It's not clear at all what extent this is actually effecting regular folk, mind.

 

The data suggests that most vehicles are compliant anyway. For skint people driving non ULEZ qualifying vehicles all around London the terms of the scrappage scheme look pretty good to me - bearing in mind my 14 year old Mazda was OK, and the scrappage scheme doesn't oblige you to buy a brand new vehicle, just one that complies, switching to a compliant vehicle probably isn't likely to cost loads. If anyone has spent a ton of money recently on a non complying vehicle with the intention of regularly driving it around a city I've not got a lot of sympathy anyway because surely you'd see what was coming?

 

As for the impact on the poor specifically, I understand that the context of all this is that in London, lower income groups have really low levels of car ownership relative to the rest of the population but suffer the effects of air pollution disproportionally as they generally live closest to the busy main roads rather than the leafy suburbs, so they're not exactly doing great out of the status quo.

 

I don't live in London so I'm really poorly qualified to be commenting on this, but as with most issues these days, this has been turned into a culture war with a ton of noise around it, and I suspect a lot of folk furious about it because they're being told they should be without really understanding why

Edited 13 September 2023 by Bellend Sebastian

[Wortho]

27 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

 

Funnily enough I was looking at this today. Obviously, the media stories are focusing on the extremes - enforcement cameras and vans vandalised, Andrew Tate type twats protesting in their supercars, some old duffer being fined hundreds for driving around London for hours when he didn't mean to be there, etc etc. It's not clear at all what extent this is actually effecting regular folk, mind.

 

The data suggests that most vehicles are compliant anyway. For skint people driving non ULEZ qualifying vehicles all around London the terms of the scrappage scheme look pretty good to me - bearing in mind my 14 year old Mazda was OK, and the scrappage scheme doesn't oblige you to buy a brand new vehicle, just one that complies, switching to a compliant vehicle probably isn't likely to cost loads. If anyone has spent a ton of money recently on a non complying vehicle with the intention of regularly driving it around a city I've not got a lot of sympathy anyway because surely you'd see what was coming?

 

As for the impact on the poor specifically, I understand that the context of all this is that in London, lower income groups have really low levels of car ownership relative to the rest of the population but suffer the effects of air pollution disproportionally as they generally live closest to the busy main roads rather than the leafy suburbs, so they're not exactly doing great out of the status quo.

 

I don't live in London so I'm really poorly qualified to be commenting on this, but as with most issues these days, this has been turned into a culture war with a ton of noise around it, and I suspect a lot of folk furious about it because they're being told they should be without really understanding why

You make some valid points. But if you lived around London you might have a different opinion.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Wortho said:

You make some valid points. But if you lived around London you might have a different opinion.

May I ask what that opinion would be exactly and why?

[Bellend Sebastian]

11 minutes ago, Wortho said:

You make some valid points. But if you lived around London you might have a different opinion.

Well I might. And if I was the father of that kid who was the first that a coroner concluded had died as a direct result of the polluted air where she lived in London I'd probably feel stronger about it.

 

4000 premature deaths attributed to air pollution in London in 2019.

 

The ULEZ is never going to please everyone but surely the crappiest outcome for Londoners is to keep being poisoned?

 

 

[Dahnsouff]

Hate cars me, stupid poisonous new age jewellery

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Well I might. And if I was the father of that kid who was the first that a coroner concluded had died as a direct result of the polluted air where she lived in London I'd probably feel stronger about it.

 

4000 premature deaths attributed to air pollution in London in 2019.

 

The ULEZ is never going to please everyone but surely the crappiest outcome for Londoners is to keep being poisoned?

 

 

Some people genuinely and simply don't give a shit about such things unless they directly affect them, and sometimes not even then.

 

Deeply frustrating flaw.

[Wortho]

7 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Well I might. And if I was the father of that kid who was the first that a coroner concluded had died as a direct result of the polluted air where she lived in London I'd probably feel stronger about it.

 

4000 premature deaths attributed to air pollution in London in 2019.

 

The ULEZ is never going to please everyone but surely the crappiest outcome for Londoners is to keep being poisoned?

 

 

If you check the facts there has only been one death caused by “pollution”. But this has not be been directly proved as it could be several other factors.

The “science “ paid for by Mayor Khan, In otherwise the taxpayers has been manipulated. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

7 minutes ago, Wortho said:

If you check the facts there has only been one death caused by “pollution”. But this has not be been directly proved as it could be several other factors.

The “science “ paid for by Mayor Khan, In otherwise the taxpayers has been manipulated. 

I'll be honest, not the counter argument I was expecting. Was Boris Johnson doing this as well?

 

I think we may struggle to find common ground on this one so let's respectfully disagree and leave it there

[Wortho]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Some people genuinely and simply don't give a shit about such things unless they directly affect them, and sometimes not even then.

 

Deeply frustrating flaw.

This whole scheme is just a cash grab on the poorer people in London. Like people going to work, dropping their kids at school or going to see their family. If you think that’s fair it’s up to you.

[Wortho]

4 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I'll be honest, not the counter argument I was expecting. Was Boris Johnson doing this as well?

 

I think we may struggle to find common ground on this one so let's respectfully disagree and leave it there

Thank you for your opinion and I respect your point of view. I think if you lived here you might have a different view. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Wortho said:

This whole scheme is just a cash grab on the poorer people in London. Like people going to work, dropping their kids at school or going to see their family. If you think that’s fair it’s up to you.

I think that's a fair opinion but I'd like to actually see proof that this scheme would be ineffective and/or not required environmentally before taking it as anywhere near valid or factual.

 

I think it is a fact that people, in this case and others, place short term material gain over the long term environmental and health concerns of themselves, much less other human beings, and that's not good for the future.

[Jimothy]

The issue with ULEZ is that they sell it it as only affecting 10% of the cars currently driving in London whilst also telling people it will drastically improve the air quality in the capital. I don't think both can be true. There are two types of people affected by the ULEZ, those who can afford to pay £12 every time the drive in the zone in their expensive gas guzzling cars and those who can't afford to pay it to drive around in their old banger. Neither will change their vehicle because group one don't want to and group two can't afford to. Sadly group two won't be able to get around, get to work, get to family etc, whilst group one will continue to pollute the air and pay for the privilege.

 

If 90% of cars are unaffected, the money would have been better spent helping poorer people upgrade their vehicle not pricing them out of using what they currently have.

Edited 13 September 2023 by Facecloth

[Wortho]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

The issue with ULEZ is that they sell it it as only affecting 10% of the cars currently driving in London whilst also telling people it will drastically improve the air quality in the capital. I don't think both can be true. There are two types of people affected by the ULEZ, those who can afford to pay £12 every time the drive in the zone in their expensive gas guzzling cars and those who can't afford to pay it to drive around in their old banger. Neither will change their vehicle because group one don't want to and group two can't afford to. Sadly group two won't be able to get around, get to work, get to family etc, whilst group one will continue to pollute the air and pay for the privilege.

 

If 90% of cars are unaffected, the money would have been better spent helping poorer people upgrade their vehicle not pricing them out of using what they currently have.

And what if every non compliant car enters the Ulez zone? TFL collects the money but that doesn’t improve the ‘toxic’ air. It’s all about the money and it will affect the poorer people not the wealthy.

 

If chairman Khan wants to improve the air he should be doing something about the London Underground. The pollution down there is poor. But he won’t because it will cost billions in compensation to the TFL staff alone. He’s bankrupted London that’s why he wants to tax the poor.

[bmt]

6 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Thought it only effected about 5% of drivers? On checking, it seems more like 7%-8%

 

Headlines like could effect 2.3 million drivers sounds like brainless tabloids click bait

Right so my opinion is based on myself, as a sustainability consultant. I have a 2005 diesel car and drive twice a month (four times a month maximum) and have no idea why I have to pay a fee when I drove through knightsbridge this weekend and went past loads of ulez compliant cars that shit carbon and don't have to pay the ulez. The principle is fine but it's done so badly

[bmt]

6 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Thought it only effected about 5% of drivers? On checking, it seems more like 7%-8%

 

Headlines like could effect 2.3 million drivers sounds like brainless tabloids click bait

Surely it should be based on how much carbon it stops being emitted?

[Dahnsouff]

5 hours ago, bmt said:

Right so my opinion is based on myself, as a sustainability consultant. I have a 2005 diesel car and drive twice a month (four times a month maximum) and have no idea why I have to pay a fee when I drove through knightsbridge this weekend and went past loads of ulez compliant cars that shit carbon and don't have to pay the ulez. The principle is fine but it's done so badly

 

5 hours ago, bmt said:

Surely it should be based on how much carbon it stops being emitted?

100% right, I agree, it’s blunt, it’s targeted badly, but the principle is sound - it’s a 1/10 for execution,  6/10 for effort I reckon

[Wortho]

6 hours ago, bmt said:

Right so my opinion is based on myself, as a sustainability consultant. I have a 2005 diesel car and drive twice a month (four times a month maximum) and have no idea why I have to pay a fee when I drove through knightsbridge this weekend and went past loads of ulez compliant cars that shit carbon and don't have to pay the ulez. The principle is fine but it's done so badly

The signage only says Ulez zone, but it doesn’t say that non compliant cars will have to pay £12.50 per day.

Khan has bankrupted London so he is relying on people paying these fines. It’s not about the air quality whatsoever. 
If the air is so toxic why is he pleading for tourists to visit London. Khan spouts so much drivel about people or children dying, which are just lies.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Wortho said:

The signage only says Ulez zone, but it doesn’t say that non compliant cars will have to pay £12.50 per day.

Khan has bankrupted London so he is relying on people paying these fines. It’s not about the air quality whatsoever. 
If the air is so toxic why is he pleading for tourists to visit London. Khan spouts so much drivel about people or children dying, which are just lies.

If I might ask a question here for the sake of clarity:

 

Is the point being made here that the environmental issue exists but the solution to help solve it is being executed badly, or is it that the environmental issue doesn't exist at all?

 

I'd like to know which it is, please.

[Nalis]

13 minutes ago, Wortho said:

The signage only says Ulez zone, but it doesn’t say that non compliant cars will have to pay £12.50 per day.

Khan has bankrupted London so he is relying on people paying these fines. It’s not about the air quality whatsoever. 
If the air is so toxic why is he pleading for tourists to visit London. Khan spouts so much drivel about people or children dying, which are just lies.

Only speaking from experience and no idea if its coincidence but I lived less than half a mile from to where that girl was said to live off the south circular road and since moved and my asthma is heaps better now, so I wouldnt be surprised at all if one of the main contributions to her death was air pollution. 

Edited 14 September 2023 by Nalis

[Jon the Hat]

This is nothing to do with Carbon emissions as I understand it, plenty of other shit in car exhaust, especially diesel, which is terrible for your lungs.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Some light reading:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution