Also in the news

[yorkie1999]

5 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Here they come, the climate lockdowns. Entirely predictable.

 

Well, considering there ain't no police on the roads these days, how about just swapping the number plates.

[Parafox]

28 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Yep, regularly! When my missus used to live in Bristol, Oxford used to be a regular spot to meet each other and we'd use the park and ride. During Covid, the park and ride was free. 

Those top deck back seats...

[Fazzer 7]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

I live in Oxford and I can tell you that, whatever its environmental merits may be, the council's transport plan is deeply unpopular with local residents. I understand where the council is coming from - the traffic in the city centre is horrendous at times - but most people I've spoken to are furious about the planned restrictions. The council is aware that most people hate the idea, but they're going to go ahead with it anyway. In parts of the city where low traffic measures have been put in place, local residents have destroyed bollards by setting fire to them and ripping them out. I expect a lot more of the same when the citywide plan is introduced.

Same as Khan's ulez the majority of people were opposed but he's doing it anyway. Oxford is a labour run Council isn't it?

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, samlcfc said:

This really is pretty horrendous. 

 

I almost turned it off after hearing all the buzz-words and pandering he managed to cram into the first 5 minutes.

 

The reason it feels entirely predictable, is because these same people tell you what to expect before delivering on that promise with these sorts of reports. Ignoring points that are inconvenient to their message, and drawing the sorts of desperate connections you used to find on 3 hour conspiracy videos in the depths of YouTube.

 

These shameless reporters do their best to sell society down the river for money and I really hope they get some form of Karma.

 

There are a lot of people out there without the time/capacity, to wrangle the truth out of the endless stream of content they can deliver using modern methods. 

Yep.

 

Now imagine working in science communication and having to spend so much time on dealing with stuff like this just so that at least some humans don't make decisions that absolutely fvck over the future for the sake of a few peoples comfy lives in the present.

[Jon the Hat]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I see he intends to seek "new ways to communicate with people", "new ways to reach people" and to "engage with the public in new ways".

 

Could he not consider the alternative of seeking new ways NOT to communicate with, reach or engage with anybody ever again as long as he lives? 

Deselected by his constituency I understand.  Twat.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Same as Khan's ulez the majority of people were opposed but he's doing it anyway. Oxford is a labour run Council isn't it?

The problem with Khan's ULEZ seems to be that it only really impacts the low paid who need a car, like carers and NHS workers, hospitality who already can't get staff.  Nuts.

[Daggers]

8 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The problem with Khan's ULEZ seems to be that it only really impacts the low paid who need a car, like carers and NHS workers, hospitality who already can't get staff.  Nuts.

Alternatively, poor air quality holds a greater impact the more socially disadvantage you are. To its credit, the government has addressed this by making city accommodation completely unaffordable to CDEs. Maybe the solution is to address all of these issues in a holistic manner?

 

The future is vehicle/emission free cities. I get that loom smashers don’t like that.

[kingkisnorbo]

Not particularly arsed about Harry or Meghan Markle but I’m delighted to see it getting Wootton, Morgan, Royalists and Daily Mail readers in a right tizzy.

[ealingfox]

9 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The problem with Khan's ULEZ seems to be that it only really impacts the low paid who need a car, like carers and NHS workers, hospitality who already can't get staff.  Nuts.

 

The low paid in London don't have cars.

[leicsmac]

40 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Alternatively, poor air quality holds a greater impact the more socially disadvantage you are. To its credit, the government has addressed this by making city accommodation completely unaffordable to CDEs. Maybe the solution is to address all of these issues in a holistic manner?

 

The future is vehicle/emission free cities. I get that loom smashers don’t like that.

Wouldn't call them that personally, I think most folks against this are perfectly fine with tech advancement... just so long as it benefits them right now, the future and people out of their line of sight be damned.

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Wouldn't call them that personally, I think most folks against this are perfectly fine with tech advancement... just so long as it benefits them right now, the future and people out of their line of sight be damned.

Arguments against emissions zones are just based out of selfishness and a desire to retain the present. What it needs is for central government to appreciate the need for a comprehensive, free for all mass transit network. That gets you improvements in air quality and delivers people to jobs to boost economies. Combined with a comprehensive house building program, it also raises the quality of life for all.

[Daggers]

Damn. That was political, eh. Apologies. It won’t happen again.

[bovril]

3 hours ago, kingkisnorbo said:

Not particularly arsed about Harry or Meghan Markle but I’m delighted to see it getting Wootton, Morgan, Royalists and Daily Mail readers in a right tizzy.

Absolutely the worst time when these two pop up, as you get idiot Brit commentators in thrall to the royals and idiot Yank commentators explaining that actually colonialism and slavery were personally invented by the British Royal Family.