Congestion Charge

[DuFFmAn]

Okay. Can I just clarify to some of you who may be confused about the CC.

If your vehicle is parked on a public road during the CC period then you are liable to pay it. Arriving the night before and parking your car through the day and leaving the following evening will still require a CC payment.

I understand TFL use mobile cameras to capture these vehicles. There is a document on the TFL website which explains this.

If you want further clarification, contact the call centre.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Possibly it is but my intuition is that Livingstone's head stretches at least as far as the M25 and I believe that Red Ken won't be happy until every road user is paying £100 per day to drive anywhere for any distance in the UK.

I don't like the poles with 8 CCTV camera perched on them, ostensibly to collect and police the congestion charge. This taxation could have been levied at the petrol pump without the enormous quango required to administer it. Red Ken... secure beneath the watchful eyes

Yeah, Right.

Orwell was precient...

How would an extra fuel tax have addressed the issues of congestion and air quality in a specific area (whether that be central or greater London)? Before road pricing is rolled out any further in London (if, indeed, it ever is), the system will change to one operated by satellites and car-mounted black boxes, which will also be used for general identification and tracking, so there will be no proliferation of extra post-mounted cameras. London's present mayor is actually going out of his way to reduce streetside clutter, and more power to his elbow on that one.

Have to say I think people are far too ready to give Orwell credit for uncanny prescience in all manner of areas, and I find many of these claims to be at best tenuous. He didn't predict road pricing, and the cameras in use for it at the moment are merely a means to an end. Yes, there is a generally high level of surveillance in urban areas, but not for the reasons Orwell imagined. That poster was obviously inspired by Orwellian thinking (not the other way round), but is aiming to show how it can be a force for good. Won't keep the conspiracy theorists happy, though (or maybe it will...).

Having lived in London all my life, both before and since the coming of the cameras, I can quite honestly say they have had no impact on my freedom whatsoever. Yes, I have been fined as a result of having been snapped on a few occasions - twice for speeding, once for unintentionally stopping in a yellow box - but that is merely a form of detection of something that is deeemed to be unlawful. I can live with that, and do not regard it as sinister.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Okay. Can I just clarify to some of you who may be confused about the CC.

If your vehicle is parked on a public road during the CC period then you are liable to pay it. Arriving the night before and parking your car through the day and leaving the following evening will still require a CC payment.

I understand TFL use mobile cameras to capture these vehicles. There is a document on the TFL website which explains this.

If you want further clarification, contact the call centre.

Don't waste your money on the phone call. If your vehicle doesn't move during the operational hours, you're not liable for the congestion charge, regardless of where it is parked.

 

[DuFFmAn]

Don't waste your money on the phone call. If your vehicle doesn't move during the operational hours, you're not liable for the congestion charge, regardless of where it is parked.

Hi Mocas.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/CC-Cameras.pdf

Page 2 paragraph 6 should explain it.

I don't agree with it but unfortunately that's how it works. I just don't want users here being misinformed and incurring additional charges which can be avoided.

Kind regards.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Hi Mocas.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/CC-Cameras.pdf

Page 2 paragraph 6 should explain it.

I don't agree with it but unfortunately that's how it works. I just don't want users here being misinformed and incurring additional charges which can be avoided.

Kind regards.

OK, thanks for that; I stand corrected. It seems it works differently for residents and visitors. From elsewhere on the TfL website: "If you park in a registered resident's parking space or off-road inside the Congestion Charging Zone, and don’t move your car 7.00a.m. to 6.00p.m., Monday to Friday, you don’t need to pay."

On reflection, I can understand why they might charge commuters who try to beat the scheme by driving in early and bagging all the available parking spaces (not that it would make economic sense to do that); it would mean those who had paid the charge would spend longer driving around looking for a parking space, so in that sense all-day parkers would be contributing to congestion/pollution.

NB: I think the wording of the paragraph in the document you linked to is rather poor, and I can see some ardent people challenging it. It says "You will incur a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) if you drive or park on public roads in the Congestion Charging zone during operating hours...". One could argue that as it does not say "or are parked" during the operating hours, it should not apply if the act of parking took place outside of those hours, though I accept that's not what it's meant to convey.

 

[markjay]

So the 'park' only applies to non-permit-holders...

But under what circumstances could a non-permit-holder park his/her car inside the CC zone on a public road from 7am to 6pm without moving it?

 

[jepho]

You want everyone to pay more for fuel because London city council created a congested city?

Yeah, right

Hmmm... I am not aware of the age which the old part of your handle refers to but how and ever...

You read far too much into what I said. A levy at the pumps (In London) would penalise the London drivers without the need to have a massive administration deciding on who to charge and how. To pretend that that the congestion charge is anything other than Livingstone's hatred of the car and his thinly veiled personal vendetta against motorists, which suited Livingstone's election agenda, is to be in denial.

As it happens, you almost used the correct initials for the creators or the mess that is public and private transportation in London. The LCC was abolished in 1965 and became the GLC. It is my recall that Livingstone lead the GLC from 1981 until 1986 and he was also Mayor of the GLA from 2000 until 2008. By my reckoning that is 16 years of power over transportation in London.

For what it is worth, I think of Livingstone as a deeply unpleasant species of vermin. Review his cronyism when he was el supremo and his edifying views about jews and Nazis, where the jew in question was a reporter. He is fairly typical of rabid socialists everywhere. They have no desire to improve the lot of the proletariat... they just desire to swap their bunch of cretins for the cretins whose viewpoints they oppose.

Livingstone managed to significantly adjust the living earned by traders but it is noteworthy that TfL deny any such impact of the congestion charge. Who would have a vested interest in promoting the notion that congestion charging does not affect local businesses?



Transport for London. While the jury must remain out on the issue, it is disingenuous to claim such far-reaching changes in traffic pattern have had no effect or a neutral effect. Would you buy a used car from Livingstone?

 

[Charles Morgan]

So the 'park' only applies to non-permit-holders...

But under what circumstances could a non-permit-holder park his/her car inside the CC zone on a public road from 7am to 6pm without moving it?

Where there isn't a residents permit requirement.

Are you playing exhaust every feasible scenario?

 

[jepho]

How would an extra fuel tax have addressed the issues of congestion and air quality in a specific area (whether that be central or greater London)? Before road pricing is rolled out any further in London (if, indeed, it ever is), the system will change to one operated by satellites and car-mounted black boxes, which will also be used for general identification and tracking, so there will be no proliferation of extra post-mounted cameras. London's present mayor is actually going out of his way to reduce streetside clutter, and more power to his elbow on that one.

It's a fair question.
The aim of reducing traffic in London is, on its face, a reasonable objective. Charging London motorists at the pumps would have had an element of fairness built into it. Driving all day in London ought to merit a heavier penalty than driving a car say... a round trip of two miles to a shop (which happens to be inside the charging zone) and back. Notwithstanding, taxis, buses and the like, it does seem unfair that usage which is charged for is unlimited for the twenty for hour period when the journey requirement may be short and, relatively speaking, poor value.

I understand that the notion of using personal transport for trivial journeys is the one that is apparently being addressed by the congestion charge but it cannot be that simple. Londoners had no control or say in how public transport was developed/neglected and finally sold to the profit-takers who have no more interest in you getting to work than flying to the moon.

Public transport has always been a dirty phrase in the English language. Contrast and compare with cheap train journeys in Germany or regular buses in Switzerland. The consequence is that many people voted with their feet and at some cost to themselves they invested in private transportation. Post the Kings X fire, the willingness of the Underground service to suspend and delay services at the drop of a hat renders the system almost unusable in any reliable manner. DLR? Toytown railway system that was constantly breaking down when I relied on it to get me to Canary Wharf every day. Gargantuan buses that block the roads? Yes, very helpful they are too.

Are there restrictions on HGVs using London during the working day? Why is everyone trying to get to work at 8am in the morning? It cannot be beyond the wit of the people in charge of these matters to design a clean, reliable and cheap public transportation system. While in San Franscisco, I commuted by travelling a particular cable car from one end of the line to the other for 50 cents each way! No one in their right mind wants to sit in a car at Blackwall tunnel or any of the other notorious black spots such as Hanger Lane.

Public transport is an expensive failure in London and that is fundamentally why people are using their own transportation. Travelling like cattle for exorbitant rates in unreliable and dirty public transportation is not a choice that any would willingly make. As a Londoner (born and bred) I would always use the tube to get wherever I wanted to go, efficiently and cheaply.

One could ride the buses from the starting bus garage to the terminus, for next to nothing. Each time I have the misfortune to be working in London (I moved out 20 years ago and would never move back) I am amazed at how badly the transportation infrastructure appear to have deteriorated and just how unreliable a once reliable service has become.

Have to say I think people are far too ready to give Orwell credit for uncanny prescience in all manner of areas, and I find many of these claims to be at best tenuous. He didn't predict road pricing, and the cameras in use for it at the moment are merely a means to an end. Yes, there is a generally high level of surveillance in urban areas, but not for the reasons Orwell imagined. That poster was obviously inspired by Orwellian thinking (not the other way round), but is aiming to show how it can be a force for good. Won't keep the conspiracy theorists happy, though (or maybe it will...).

I think Orwell's prescience was that he envisioned a society that was very restrictive (possibly an inevitability given the increase in pollution) and rather malign; as exemplified and typified by the Blair years and the ever present ministry of newspeak spin, ( Alistair Campbell) so beloved of that government.

Having lived in London all my life, both before and since the coming of the cameras, I can quite honestly say they have had no impact on my freedom whatsoever. Yes, I have been fined as a result of having been snapped on a few occasions - twice for speeding, once for unintentionally stopping in a yellow box - but that is merely a form of detection of something that is deeemed to be unlawful. I can live with that, and do not regard it as sinister.

It is when one takes that position and follows it to its logical conclusion... not to push the argument to an extreme but just to say this: If the citizenry can only be regarded as law-abiding by the authorities while they are being constantly surveilled, then I want no part of that society. CCTV is now quite visible in residential areas and I am concerned by the trend.

 

[markjay]

Where there isn't a residents permit requirement....

Have you been to London recently?

Such a place does not exist.

 

[Charles Morgan]

I know. But not having verified that it remains a theoretical possibility.

 

[markjay]

OK... so here's a challenge to our London forum members... find a place within the Congestion Charge zone where you can legally park a car on a public road continuously from 7am to 6pm without needing a residents permit...

 

[MOCAŠ]

OK... so here's a challenge to our London forum members... find a place within the Congestion Charge zone where you can legally park a car on a public road continuously from 7am to 6pm without needing a residents permit...

If I told you, I'd have to kill you...

 

[Charles Morgan]

go on, go on, tell him...

 

[moonloops]

Hint, it is in Mayfair

If it is the same road I am thinking of..

 

[MOCAŠ]

It's a fair question.
The aim of reducing traffic in London is, on its face, a reasonable objective. Charging London motorists at the pumps would have had an element of fairness built into it. Driving all day in London ought to merit a heavier penalty than driving a car say... a round trip of two miles to a shop (which happens to be inside the charging zone) and back.

Sorry, but this is a daft idea. People who wanted to avoid the levy could just fill up at a station outside the affected area, yet continue to drive within it, while those heading out of London but needing to fill up before doing so would be unfairly penalised.

Notwithstanding, taxis, buses and the like, it does seem unfair that usage which is charged for is unlimited for the twenty for hour period when the journey requirement may be short and, relatively speaking, poor value.

Agreed, but that's a limitation of the current system. Full road pricing involves continous monitoring of the car's position, and can be adjusted to reflect the time spent on each type of road, and the actual level of congestion being experienced at the time. But that requires far more of the surveillance that you find unacceptable.

Public transport has always been a dirty phrase in the English language. Contrast and compare with cheap train journeys in Germany or regular buses in Switzerland. The consequence is that many people voted with their feet and at some cost to themselves they invested in private transportation. Post the Kings X fire, the willingness of the Underground service to suspend and delay services at the drop of a hat renders the system almost unusable in any reliable manner. DLR? Toytown railway system that was constantly breaking down when I relied on it to get me to Canary Wharf every day. Gargantuan buses that block the roads? Yes, very helpful they are too.

The Underground is nowhere near as dysfunctional as you make out. Of course they had to take safety more seriously following the King's Cross fire, but they do not suspend services or close stations at the drop of a hat. Millions of people rely on the Tube to travel each day, and while some may do so under sufferance, the fact is that the capital could not function without it. What cannot be denied is that it has gone for years (and in some cases decades) without the necessary investment to keep it operating at optimum efficiency, but that is now being addressed.

I'm not sure how transport is planned or funded in other cities/countries, but it is quite likely that it relies heavily on public subsidy. So does ours, but this is offset by a fare structure that reflects (if not covers) running costs and distance travelled. It may be attractive to some to be able to travel across London for a flat fare, but there are just as many, if not more, that would question why they should pay the same to travel three stops as twenty.

Are there restrictions on HGVs using London during the working day? Why is everyone trying to get to work at 8am in the morning? It cannot be beyond the wit of the people in charge of these matters to design a clean, reliable and cheap public transportation system. While in San Franscisco, I commuted by travelling a particular cable car from one end of the line to the other for 50 cents each way! No one in their right mind wants to sit in a car at Blackwall tunnel or any of the other notorious black spots such as Hanger Lane.

Yes, HGVs are restricted based on their emissions, but it is also recognised that London has to function as business centre, and roadside deliveries are an essential part of that. Many companies time these deliveries to take place overnight as a matter of course.

People have a choice to make about how they travel into and around London. Personally, I very rarely use my car, preferring to walk or cycle most of the time. Occasionally I'll use a bus if I happen to know of one that's going where I want to go, and I'll use the Tube when time is limited or the weather makes walking or cycling unattractive. The car is generally last resort unless I'm going to collect something I'd rather not carry back, and I generally only use it when I know I have somewhere to park at the other end, but I primarily use it when heading out of London, or at the weekends.

It's up to comnpanies to allow employees to stagger their working hours or to work from home where viable, to try to alleviate the rush hour congestion (both on roads and public transport). There will always be those who choose to commute by car, regardless of how long it takes, simply because they prefer to be delayed in their own space and comfort than to share that space with other human beings. That is their choice, for as long as they can afford to pay for the privilege.

Public transport is an expensive failure in London and that is fundamentally why people are using their own transportation. Travelling like cattle for exorbitant rates in unreliable and dirty public transportation is not a choice that any would willingly make. As a Londoner (born and bred) I would always use the tube to get wherever I wanted to go, efficiently and cheaply.

One could ride the buses from the starting bus garage to the terminus, for next to nothing. Each time I have the misfortune to be working in London (I moved out 20 years ago and would never move back) I am amazed at how badly the transportation infrastructure appear to have deteriorated and just how unreliable a once reliable service has become.

It's telling that you moved out 20 years ago. That means that your memories of cheap travel on the buses probably date back to Ken Livingstone's era in charge of the GLC, when he introduced his "Fares Fair" policy - using ratepayers' money to subsidise public transport, because it was felt that car users were getting an undue level of subsidy at the time (not sure how that was worked out - I'd have to read up on it). However, you're clearly no fan of Ken's, so it's odd to hear you lamenting the passing of one of his more questionable initiatives.

I think Orwell's prescience was that he envisioned a society that was very restrictive (possibly an inevitability given the increase in pollution) and rather malign; as exemplified and typified by the Blair years and the ever present ministry of newspeak spin, ( Alistair Campbell) so beloved of that government.

I don't think he was being prescient at all; more likely he was reflecting what he had seen around him durng wartime Britiain - propaganda; veiled messages; curfews and other curtailment of freedom; restrictions on what you could say, do and even buy - and imagining a society where that became the norm rather than a way of coping with an emergency. It doesn't follow that he saw it coming, though people love to jump to that conclusion. Spin has always been there, it's just that in the Thatcher, Major and Blair eras we became more aware of it - ironically due to greater openness in the way government is conducted, and greater scrutiny of the process. And I don't accept that the motives of the UK government can be justifiably described as "malign"; that's a big claim and requires substantiation.

It is when one takes that position and follows it to its logical conclusion... not to push the argument to an extreme but just to say this: If the citizenry can only be regarded as law-abiding by the authorities while they are being constantly surveilled, then I want no part of that society. CCTV is now quite visible in residential areas and I am concerned by the trend.

The "thin end of the wedge" argument. It doesn't necessarily follow that the further the wedge is driven in, the worse life becomes. I don't have a massive problem with the presence of cameras, and have never had cause to wish they weren't there. I'd love to think they weren't necessary, but that's a different matter.

 

[oldcro]

Hmmm... I am not aware of the age which the old part of your handle refers to but how and ever...

You read far too much into what I said. A levy at the pumps (In London) would penalise the London drivers without the need to have a massive administration deciding on who to charge and how.

The biggest penalty would be against the petrol stations in the city, when the majority of drives go out or fill up before entering.

To pretend that that the congestion charge is anything other than Livingstone's hatred of the car and his thinly veiled personal vendetta against motorists, which suited Livingstone's election agenda, is to be in denial.

I never even mentioned Ken Livingstone or any of his policies so can hardly be in denial.

As it happens, you almost used the correct initials for the creators or the mess that is public and private transportation in London. The LCC was abolished in 1965 and became the GLC.

Sorry for my lack of interest or knowledge of how London City is governed but it was the LCC the last time I was there.

It is my recall that Livingstone lead the GLC from 1981 until 1986 and he was also Mayor of the GLA from 2000 until 2008. By my reckoning that is 16 years of power over transportation in London.

For what it is worth, I think of Livingstone as a deeply unpleasant species of vermin. Review his cronyism when he was el supremo and his edifying views about jews and Nazis, where the jew in question was a reporter. He is fairly typical of rabid socialists everywhere. They have no desire to improve the lot of the proletariat... they just desire to swap their bunch of cretins for the cretins whose viewpoints they oppose.

Livingstone managed to significantly adjust the living earned by traders but it is noteworthy that TfL deny any such impact of the congestion charge. Who would have a vested interest in promoting the notion that congestion charging does not affect local businesses?



Transport for London. While the jury must remain out on the issue, it is disingenuous to claim such far-reaching changes in traffic pattern have had no effect or a neutral effect. Would you buy a used car from Livingstone?

The rest of the post is just a personal opinion on London politics as far as I can tell, and completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Nothing to do with London Transport problems, but the LCC and the GLC have encouraged the building of huge office blocks housing thousands of workers. Then seem surprised when workers actually travel by various means to get to their place of work. That is the impression I get anyway, so feel free pick it to pieces.

An interesting fact is that exports from Shetland over the past 30 years have resulted in over £100 billion being paid to the treasury in taxes.

 

[oldcro]

Hmmm... I am not aware of the age which the old part of your handle refers to but how and ever...

I have no idea what that sentence means, or what age has to do with my post. Please do not make comments that can misinterpreted as getting personal, especially when it is because someone disagrees with your opinion.

 

[jepho]

Sorry, but this is a daft idea. People who wanted to avoid the levy could just fill up at a station outside the affected area, yet continue to drive within it, while those heading out of London but needing to fill up before doing so would be unfairly penalised.

On reflection... Agreed.

Agreed, but that's a limitation of the current system. Full road pricing involves continous monitoring of the car's position, and can be adjusted to reflect the time spent on each type of road, and the actual level of congestion being experienced at the time. But that requires far more of the surveillance that you find unacceptable.

I guess that we will see the black box technology coming to all road vehicles within the next five to ten years. My primary objection to the surfeit of surveillance is this: It treats all as if they are children that need the supervision of an authority. I was a child at a time when that level of supervision seemed absent from the lives of adults and it was something to look forward to.

The Underground is nowhere near as dysfunctional as you make out. Of course they had to take safety more seriously following the King's Cross fire, but they do not suspend services or close stations at the drop of a hat. Millions of people rely on the Tube to travel each day, and while some may do so under sufferance, the fact is that the capital could not function without it. What cannot be denied is that it has gone for years (and in some cases decades) without the necessary investment to keep it operating at optimum efficiency, but that is now being addressed.

Living in London, you probably see a much larger slice of the Underground than I would, these days. My work takes me all over the country and whenever I have had to use the Underground (say... around 40 occasions in the last 9 months) I have been caught up in some unplanned delay to the service. My recall is that when I lived in London and used the tube daily, it never appeared to be dysfunctional. The worst line to travel on was the Northern line and the Jubilee, Victoria and DLR lines were not built. The Metropolitan line had no Hammersmith and City segment (It was all the Metropolitan Line) and I don't recall a Waterloo and City segment.

It is not an especially pleasant commute to work on the tube, during rush hour times. Maybe it never was but there seem to be more people, less frequent trains and far more unplanned stops than I can recall.

I'm not sure how transport is planned or funded in other cities/countries, but it is quite likely that it relies heavily on public subsidy. So does ours, but this is offset by a fare structure that reflects (if not covers) running costs and distance travelled. It may be attractive to some to be able to travel across London for a flat fare, but there are just as many, if not more, that would question why they should pay the same to travel three stops as twenty.

My view is that public transport should be very cheap, clean, efficient and reliable, if it is to entice people away from private transportation. I was in Köln recently and the €2 return ticket took me at least 20 kilometres along the track. I recall that Reading was a place that wanted to increase bus use. To encourage more bus use, the fares were made lower. More usually, the fares go up and the usage declines.

Yes, HGVs are restricted based on their emissions, but it is also recognised that London has to function as business centre, and roadside deliveries are an essential part of that. Many companies time these deliveries to take place overnight as a matter of course.

People have a choice to make about how they travel into and around London. Personally, I very rarely use my car, preferring to walk or cycle most of the time. Occasionally I'll use a bus if I happen to know of one that's going where I want to go, and I'll use the Tube when time is limited or the weather makes walking or cycling unattractive. The car is generally last resort unless I'm going to collect something I'd rather not carry back, and I generally only use it when I know I have somewhere to park at the other end, but I primarily use it when heading out of London, or at the weekends.

Do you now whether your use case general for the population of London or specific to you?

It's up to comnpanies to allow employees to stagger their working hours or to work from home where viable, to try to alleviate the rush hour congestion (both on roads and public transport). There will always be those who choose to commute by car, regardless of how long it takes, simply because they prefer to be delayed in their own space and comfort than to share that space with other human beings. That is their choice, for as long as they can afford to pay for the privilege.

I agree up to a point. I will always prefer to travel in my own private transport, where I can relax, listen to music, have a coffee with me, because it eases the drudgery of commuting. With the miles I travel, I could not face having to do it in some manner which leaves me without options to plan my journey as I see fit.

It's telling that you moved out 20 years ago. That means that your memories of cheap travel on the buses probably date back to Ken Livingstone's era in charge of the GLC, when he introduced his "Fares Fair" policy - using ratepayers' money to subsidise public transport, because it was felt that car users were getting an undue level of subsidy at the time (not sure how that was worked out - I'd have to read up on it). However, you're clearly no fan of Ken's, so it's odd to hear you lamenting the passing of one of his more questionable initiatives.

My travel to work by bus or tube predated Livingstone, Thatcher and the selling off of London Transport. My leaving London was precipitated by my work. I don't believe that much that was implemented during Livingstone's reign was of any real value but that is my personal opinion. He was just another strutting politico, without any moral compass, and a penchant for change only when it suited his personal agenda.

I don't think he was being prescient at all; more likely he was reflecting what he had seen around him durng wartime Britiain - propaganda; veiled messages; curfews and other curtailment of freedom; restrictions on what you could say, do and even buy - and imagining a society where that became the norm rather than a way of coping with an emergency. It doesn't follow that he saw it coming, though people love to jump to that conclusion. Spin has always been there, it's just that in the Thatcher, Major and Blair eras we became more aware of it - ironically due to greater openness in the way government is conducted, and greater scrutiny of the process. And I don't accept that the motives of the UK government can be justifiably described as "malign"; that's a big claim and requires substantiation.

Like all tales of a similar ilk, Orwell took a proposition and considered what the world would look like if it was extended to an extreme. Whether its similarity to some governments (Blair's especially) was intentional or accidental is somewhat irrelevant... it was the construct that was telling. I am sure that governments have always kept information from the people and that black ops have always been carried out. It appears to be a national characteristic... that we Brits appear to be quite secretive. Interestingly, your potted history of Prime ministers does not include any politicians who might be accurately labelled as 'statesmanlike'... politicians who were imbued with the qualities of honour and integrity.

The "thin end of the wedge" argument. It doesn't necessarily follow that the further the wedge is driven in, the worse life becomes. I don't have a massive problem with the presence of cameras, and have never had cause to wish they weren't there. I'd love to think they weren't necessary, but that's a different matter.

Agreed... but the erosion of personal liberty is a difficult thing to put right. We may yet come to accept that our understanding of personal freedom (as a nation) will change as we see more cameras being installed and erected. It does seem less likely that people will want to fight against the creeping adoption of permanent surveillance institutions throughout the country as we drift inexorably towards becoming the first sovereign state with twenty four hour surveillance.

Any country that must spy on its citizenry to keep order has already lost its way rather badly... in my view. Increasingly and by small degrees, the UK feels more akin to a tinpot dictatorship in a banana republic than the country which gave the world the mother of all parliaments.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Increasingly and by small degrees, the UK feels more akin to a tinpot dictatorship in a banana republic than the country which gave the world the mother of all parliaments.

jepho, I'll respond in full to your post when time permits, but I have to say that posting comments such as the above seriously threatens to undermine your credibility.

Have you ever lived under a dictatorship, or in a so-called banana republic? If so, why not share with us the reality of that situation. If not, please avoid making such facile comparisons. Democracy does not mean - and has never meant - freedom for all; quite the reverse, if fact. It only works if the vast majority comply; how this compliance is achieved will vary, but ignore it and you have anarchy.