• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Porsche Challenges Congestion Charge Hike

Anything published in the Evening Standard also needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Re. the 20mph limits, it may be worth considering a lot of Lewisham is made up of residential streets with parking on both sides, people tend to bomb around near me at 40mph+ in similar circumstances - not very safe.


I agree that the 'Standard' is not always up to standard, however this snippet was more of a presentation of fact rather than an opinion piece and so I would say the validity of comment stands.

Personally I can accept that in some cases where the nature of the environment dictates that variable speed limits should be applied. I can also accept that in some instances where the environment dictates that speed humps are required to reduce the incidences of accidents and fatalities. The same can be said of speed cameras.

However what I cannot accept is a ‘blanket’ adoption of these devices without cause or reason. This is simply a dictatorial approach to the management of peoples lives.

If you are ever driving through the borough of Lewisham you will note that all side roads and the majority of what one would consider main thoroughfares have speed humps. OK, so the rat–runs need sleeping policemen to ensure the safety of the locals, and given the ‘Kwality’ of driving of some people in the area justifiably so.

But why do we need speed humps/20 mph limits on the main roads?
All it does is slow progress, create congestion and engender stress. In so doing it erodes the quality of life for a substantial portion of the law abiding, tax paying, 'silent' population.

By adopting a ‘blanket’ approach you reduce the effectiveness of the deterrent and you lose the consensus of the populous.



The timing of traffic lights is certainly another issue as are un-used 24 hr bus lanes and unnecessary road-narrowing measures that further add to congestion and the social ills that emerge as a consequence.
 
.

Hence I no longer vote and though I sympathise re emigrating ( I'd probably if I were younger ) the grass is'nt necessarily greener on the other side if you don't mind living in a police state worse than here and willing to have id card on your person all the time or face a fine.

That is very true, and it is not easy to up sticks. But we too are heading towards a 'police state' with id cards, cameras everywhere and the gradual erosion of society in the name of 'correctness' (whose correctness I wonder sometimes - its not mine - must be somebodys?).

There must be somewhere that is willing to accept a hard working, law abiding, intelligent!?! (well with 2 degrees - I like to kid myself!) 35 year old with a bit of entrepreneurial flair?
 
There must be somewhere that is willing to accept a hard working, law abiding, intelligent!?! (well with 2 degrees - I like to kid myself!) 35 year old with a bit of entrepreneurial flair?

America.australia.new zealand.all of asia.eastern europe...all these countries have more get up and go than us.

We have grown complacent in our prosperity..take it from me who has travelled alot with business all over the show the UK is still pretty damn hard to beat..the countries I have listed above will reward hard work but boy you will find it difficult to just walk into a good job unless you have the skills missing in those countries at present. If thats the case then you will need to carve out a niche for yourself and thats hard to do. think how we react in this country to people who come here to mprove their life!

Much as we have bemoaned our rubbish politicians you should see/read/experience some of the things that go on in other places.:(
 
We have grown complacent in our prosperity..

That hits the nail on the head - we're in for some 'adjustment' across the board I think...

Ade
 
America.australia.new zealand.all of asia.eastern europe...all these countries have more get up and go than us.

We have grown complacent in our prosperity..take it from me who has travelled alot with business all over the show the UK is still pretty damn hard to beat..the countries I have listed above will reward hard work but boy you will find it difficult to just walk into a good job unless you have the skills missing in those countries at present. If thats the case then you will need to carve out a niche for yourself and thats hard to do. think how we react in this country to people who come here to mprove their life!

Much as we have bemoaned our rubbish politicians you should see/read/experience some of the things that go on in other places.:(

And along with that complacency we have abused social trust and respect.
 
I didn't see this posted earlier in this thread - from the Mayor of London website:

Press Release

Statement on Porsche challenge to CO2 charge
19-2-2008 112

A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: "Porsche's threatened legal action is a double attack on Londoners. First Porsche are trying to deprive Londoners of their democratic right to decide in the Mayoral election on 1 May whether they want gas guzzling and polluting cars to drive in London when there is absolutely no need for them to do so. Second they are trying to impose on all Londoners unnecessary levels of pollution and greenhouse gases by a tiny minority. No one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Porsche should not be allowed to impose gas guzzling polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them."


This is a wonderful example of weasel words. There is a clear implication that some sort of referendum has taken place and the citizens of London have voted by clear majority in favour of this charge. I must have missed it...

That's what's so irritating about Ken Livingstone, he openly uses tactics such as abuse, scorn, sarcasm and blatent lies to further his political ends. We have a pretty shabby bunch for our political leaders in this country, but he is in another league.
 
Imagine if we read this:
Press Release

Statement on Vauxhall challenge to CO2 charge
19-2-2008 112

A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: "Vauxhall's threatened legal action is a double attack on Londoners. First Vauxhall are trying to deprive Londoners of their democratic right to decide in the Mayoral election on 1 May whether they want gas guzzling and polluting cars to drive in London when there is absolutely no need for them to do so. Second they are trying to impose on all Londoners unnecessary levels of pollution and greenhouse gases by a tiny minority. No one is allowed to throw their rubbish in the street and Vauxhall should not be allowed to impose gas guzzling polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them."
I'm sure if you asked the average person if they thought a Zafira was a gas-guzzler they'd tell you it's not. This statement only works because Porsche makes cars that the average person believes is out of their reach and as such those with them should be punished for owning.

It's more than envy, it's actually something that has been brewing in the UK for a long time: as a nation we hate people that succeed. If someone has done well for themselves then they are hated for it.

No-one was ever jealous of a Zafira owner but in the CO2 stakes they are no different to any other gas-guzzler.

Additionally electric vehicles produce zero local emissions (hardly even any carbon brake dust due to regen-braking!). If everyone drove vehicles that produced zero local CO2 (what the new charges reflect) then you can bet the charges/taxes would be instantly turned around to measure something else! Perhaps vehicle weight (electric vehicles are usually heavier than their i-c-e counterparts).
 
That's what's so irritating about Ken Livingstone, he openly uses tactics such as abuse, scorn, sarcasm and blatent lies to further his political ends. We have a pretty shabby bunch for our political leaders in this country, but he is in another league.

Very old school unionised labour type communistic anti-wealthist. You should all be happy giving all your money away to those who don't have it. You don't have a God given right to earn it anyway. Why should only you benefit from your amassed wealth?

Why does anyone need to earn more than £8 an hour? And if we did do just that, we would not be able to afford new eco friendly cars and thus solving all of our problems in one go.

Mind you, you wont get Ken dealing with latin american presidents will you?;)

this will never happen, not in my lifetime
 
Last edited:
This is a wonderful example of weasel words. There is a clear implication that some sort of referendum has taken place and the citizens of London have voted by clear majority in favour of this charge. I must have missed it...

That's what's so irritating about Ken Livingstone, he openly uses tactics such as abuse, scorn, sarcasm and blatent lies to further his political ends. We have a pretty shabby bunch for our political leaders in this country, but he is in another league.

No, there is no implication - the tense shows that it refers to the future choice in the May election, not a past one.

The issue may be that no "credible" opposition are proposing to abolish the charges.

I do like the illustration though - why should we have an unfettered right to pollute the world we live in?
 
This statement only works because Porsche makes cars that the average person believes is out of their reach
But they are out of reach to the average person. I think the statement works the same, whatever manufacturer is referred to. It is Porsche who started this, and Porsche who are being responded to. That's the only reason that Porsche are mentioned. I'm sure that if it were Vauxhall who had threatened to take action, then the GLA's response would be the same. Circumnavigating the weasel words, I think what they are objecting to is a foreign company interfering with the business of an elected body. They have expressed it very badly, I agree. The use of emotive terms such as 'Chelsea Tractor' and 'Gas Guzzler' does nothing to the credibility of their argument, any more than 'Tree-Hugger' or 'Greenie' does to the opposition.

It's more than envy, it's actually something that has been brewing in the UK for a long time: as a nation we hate people that succeed. If someone has done well for themselves then they are hated for it.

Sadly, this has been the case in this country for a long time :(
 
.

Red Ken was elected by the people of London whom I think, were too young to remember his antics at the GLC ( and why that other dictator Thacher disbanded it) and who unfortunately have got their just desserts for re-electing him.

A bit like Thatcher and Blair he talks a good talk and they've all hoodwinked the lot of us over the years.

Hence I no longer vote and though I sympathise re emigrating ( I'd probably if I were younger ) the grass is'nt necessarily greener on the other side if you don't mind living in a police state worse than here and willing to have id card on your person all the time or face a fine.

Hear what you are saying and agree, in the main...Though I do try and understand your issue with not voting, but JMHO, that’s what got these turkey’s in power in the first place. People should vote and make an effort to understand politics, (though I'm not suggesting you don't), no matter how dull and boring it maybe. This is our opportunity to have a say, and in my view, it's nealy worse to say nothing at all by not voting.


As regards carrying ID, we all pretty well do that anyway with our picture Driving Licenses, I mean that has all my personal detail except my NI number, and having lived abroad I haven’t really any qualms of doing so again. Not only that, the type of work that I do I can do anywhere in the world anyway, provided I have internet access. So in my world it's just a question of when not if :(

It's also worth noting, we here in the UK are the most observed/watched society via CCTV in the western world, so I think maybe we're living in a police state already. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think what they are objecting to is a foreign company interfering with the business of an elected body. They have expressed it very badly, I agree. The use of emotive terms such as 'Chelsea Tractor' and 'Gas Guzzler' does nothing to the credibility of their argument, any more than 'Tree-Hugger' or 'Greenie' does to the opposition.
It is this wording that annoys me:
Porsche should not be allowed to impose gas guzzling polluting cars on Londoners who do not want them.
IMPOSE? I did not realise that porsche were forcing their cars on Londoners! I was under the impression that people had a choice of car in this country. It is the customers/drivers that are imposing their cars on Londoners.

Maybe this hasn't been mentioned yet but if every gas-guzzler was packed with people then the congestion charge could be split among the occupants thus reducing a £25 charge to £5 per person in a Porsche Cayenne or indeed ~£3.50 in a Vauxhall Zafira. I know that a car filled with passengers actually produces more CO2 but let's pretend we're just playing a game rather than using real numbers, that is after all how the charging works in the first place.
 
I'm sure if you asked the average person if they thought a Zafira was a gas-guzzler they'd tell you it's not. This statement only works because Porsche makes cars that the average person believes is out of their reach and as such those with them should be punished for owning.

And they would be right - 5 Zafiras have CO2 emissions in excess of 225g, out of a range of 69. Vx have sold less than 500 of these in the past year. Not exactly the average family model.

The best selling model emits between 159g and 165g.

Porsche have 2 models that emit less than 225g - Cayman and Boxster 2.7 manuals. Of course, Porsche are taking this action out of the kindness of their hearts and consideration of all car users, are they not? :rolleyes:
 
And they would be right - 5 Zafiras have CO2 emissions in excess of 225g, out of a range of 69. Vx have sold less than 500 of these in the past year. Not exactly the average family model.

The best selling model emits between 159g and 165g.

Porsche have 2 models that emit less than 225g - Cayman and Boxster 2.7 manuals. Of course, Porsche are taking this action out of the kindness of their hearts and consideration of all car users, are they not? :rolleyes:
Ok then smartypants what if it were a tax based on ugliness?!

Whoops, Porsche would still be complaining I feel ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom