You can help Porsche in its fight
- Thread starter C240Sport97
- Start date
Dave Lewis
Active Member
*flame suit on*
Well I've read the whole site, and frankly, I'm appalled and disgusted at Porsches dishonesty and cynicism. They claim that they are concerned about the future of London as a viable business centre, and that citizens with people carriers will be discriminated against. This is a highly profitable company which only has two products that fall outside of the proposed band G, and sells a lot of cars to workers in the financial and banking sectors, many of whom live and work within the charging zone. Anyone spot an agenda here? It's not rocket science.
The implementation of road charging in London is none of their damn business, any more than it is in all the other cities in the world with road charging (Stockholm, Durham, Oslo, Singapore, etc), or the business of any other car manufacturer.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the proposed increase in charges, I find Porsche's arrogance and dishonesty deeply offensive, especially in labelling the proposed increases as a political 'stunt'. The only stunt here is Porsche's.
If people disagree with the proposed charges, there is a democratic election in May, before the proposals are scheduled to come into effect. That is the correct avenue for people to voice their disapproval.
The only thing Porsche really care about is Porsche.
Well I've read the whole site, and frankly, I'm appalled and disgusted at Porsches dishonesty and cynicism. They claim that they are concerned about the future of London as a viable business centre, and that citizens with people carriers will be discriminated against. This is a highly profitable company which only has two products that fall outside of the proposed band G, and sells a lot of cars to workers in the financial and banking sectors, many of whom live and work within the charging zone. Anyone spot an agenda here? It's not rocket science.
The implementation of road charging in London is none of their damn business, any more than it is in all the other cities in the world with road charging (Stockholm, Durham, Oslo, Singapore, etc), or the business of any other car manufacturer.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the proposed increase in charges, I find Porsche's arrogance and dishonesty deeply offensive, especially in labelling the proposed increases as a political 'stunt'. The only stunt here is Porsche's.
If people disagree with the proposed charges, there is a democratic election in May, before the proposals are scheduled to come into effect. That is the correct avenue for people to voice their disapproval.
The only thing Porsche really care about is Porsche.
gbjeppm
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,782
- Location
- Surrey
- Car
- C207 E Coupe 350cdi, W166 ML 250 Cdi Sport, R171 SLK 350, Suzuki V Strom DL650
Dave I don't disagree with your analysis, just seems to me that Porsche are using the same tactics as Ken and the rest of TFL, and a lot of people will support them.
Dave Lewis
Active Member
Yes, a lot of people will support them, whether they live and/or work in London or not.
It's bad enough having multi-national corporations interfering in national and international politics, we really don't need private companies like Porsche interfering in local government issues as well.
The main point I am trying to make is that the election in May is the appropriate avenue to express disapproval of policies, not judicial reviews instigated by interested parties. It's a slippery slope.....
Gucci
MB Enthusiast
Of course Porsche are looking after Porsche...it's a business. I don't care what their agenda is because people can CHOOSE to buy their products. However, those who live IN the affected zone are being punished for a decision they made way before Ken even stood for Mayor!!
Fair?
Fair?
Ade B
MB Enthusiast
I think its a valid point irrespective of the actual circumstances, we'd be mightily concerned if BAE started petitioning regarding foreign policy.
Ade
Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,199
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
Why would we want to help Porsche in it's sales fight? A significant quantity of their sales probably come from London and they are just protecting their product line.
They could simply invest a bit more and produce cars that pollute less whilst still giving the same level of performance.
They could simply invest a bit more and produce cars that pollute less whilst still giving the same level of performance.
Dave Lewis
Active Member
No, not fair. Moving the goal posts never is. It's not Porsche's business though.
Gucci
MB Enthusiast
Agreed it's not their battle to fight, but at least there is an effort to do it. I appreciate we live in a democratic society, but I believe as a nation we don't kick up a fuss enough! I'm as guilty as anyone else, so I appreciate Porsche giving me a lift on their Band G Wagon.
OP
OP
Because Porsche has been brave enough to stand up and be counted.
Because there is now at least a focal point for those who object to the £25 charge and the 'thinking' behind it.
Because this is also an issue about whether Ken Livingstone has exceeded his powers.
Because we are democracy, and companies and individuals operating and living under it have the right to be protected by its laws.
Because Porsche and its dealers in the UK pay UK corporate taxation -- of course they are entitled to take steps to protect their business.
Personally, I heartily applaud Porsche for having the guts to highlight the other side of the debate. Granted, it is self serving, but where has there ever been a truly selfless corporation?
Because there is now at least a focal point for those who object to the £25 charge and the 'thinking' behind it.
Because this is also an issue about whether Ken Livingstone has exceeded his powers.
Because we are democracy, and companies and individuals operating and living under it have the right to be protected by its laws.
Because Porsche and its dealers in the UK pay UK corporate taxation -- of course they are entitled to take steps to protect their business.
Personally, I heartily applaud Porsche for having the guts to highlight the other side of the debate. Granted, it is self serving, but where has there ever been a truly selfless corporation?
Ditto.
Porsche has just as much of a right to do this as anyone else, sure the site is all marketing BS but then they couldn't just put we are doing this for ourselves up on it could they.
If they want to fight this for sales reasons great it means that all of the people who are against this tax but don't have the guts/money to stand up to Ken get a voice with serious clout standing behind them.
Frankly i don't see how you can't support them
Unless your a mis-guided greenie of course
Suppose I must be mis-guided greenie then.....
Let's consider the "lies, damned lies and statistics" included in Porsche's claim. For example, they link Heathrow's emissions with London's vehicle transport and how insignificant the impact of vehicle emissions in London is. Of course it is - because it's two different measurement basis!!
The consistent measure should be emissions per passenger mile - the numbers work out very differently them
You could go on... it's as good as the MD's performance on the radio earlier this week.
Both sides will pick and choose whatever suits their argument and spin it accordingly - hence why plucking quotes without checking the detail is not a good idea.
That's why I won't support Porsche's plan - unless they tell me why continuing to pollute is a good idea and why attempts to change this are not. This change may not be the best way to do it, but considering that it has to work within an infrastructure that's already in place there doesn't seem to be that many alternatives.
It's a pity, because there are better basis for arguing against the charge: on the other hand there are better arguments for supporting it too.
I wait to be convinced that trying to do something is not a good idea.
Let's consider the "lies, damned lies and statistics" included in Porsche's claim. For example, they link Heathrow's emissions with London's vehicle transport and how insignificant the impact of vehicle emissions in London is. Of course it is - because it's two different measurement basis!!
The consistent measure should be emissions per passenger mile - the numbers work out very differently them
You could go on... it's as good as the MD's performance on the radio earlier this week.
Both sides will pick and choose whatever suits their argument and spin it accordingly - hence why plucking quotes without checking the detail is not a good idea.
That's why I won't support Porsche's plan - unless they tell me why continuing to pollute is a good idea and why attempts to change this are not. This change may not be the best way to do it, but considering that it has to work within an infrastructure that's already in place there doesn't seem to be that many alternatives.
It's a pity, because there are better basis for arguing against the charge: on the other hand there are better arguments for supporting it too.
I wait to be convinced that trying to do something is not a good idea.
I did say it was all marketing BS and i didn't have a huge problem with Ken's plans before it's just the latest changes he is making that are frankly ludicrous in my view.
For the record i don't buy into the figures quoted by either side, like you said they will choose whatever suits the argument.
For the record i don't buy into the figures quoted by either side, like you said they will choose whatever suits the argument.
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,450
- Location
- Surrey/Cotswolds
- Car
- W169 A, W205 C, R172 SLC, W447 vantastic
Thanks. Have registered
Me too.
Aoraki
Active Member
We "may" be contributing to the greenhouse gas problem somewhat, BUT, remember the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold over many millennia.
Cheddar Gorge was made by a glacier, when we were in New Zealand we went to Milford Sound, that's had FOUR glacier's produce that epic landscape, southern England was once desert.
Who shall we blame for that? Was it all the dinosaurs’ f#arting or the cave man and his inefficient log burning fires?
Red Ken et al are only in it for the money!!
Cheddar Gorge was made by a glacier, when we were in New Zealand we went to Milford Sound, that's had FOUR glacier's produce that epic landscape, southern England was once desert.
Who shall we blame for that? Was it all the dinosaurs’ f#arting or the cave man and his inefficient log burning fires?
Red Ken et al are only in it for the money!!
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,450
- Location
- Surrey/Cotswolds
- Car
- W169 A, W205 C, R172 SLC, W447 vantastic
Suppose I must be mis-guided greenie then.....
Let's consider the "lies, damned lies and statistics" included in Porsche's claim. For example, they link Heathrow's emissions with London's vehicle transport and how insignificant the impact of vehicle emissions in London is. Of course it is - because it's two different measurement basis!!
The consistent measure should be emissions per passenger mile - the numbers work out very differently them
You could go on... it's as good as the MD's performance on the radio earlier this week.
Both sides will pick and choose whatever suits their argument and spin it accordingly - hence why plucking quotes without checking the detail is not a good idea.
That's why I won't support Porsche's plan - unless they tell me why continuing to pollute is a good idea and why attempts to change this are not. This change may not be the best way to do it, but considering that it has to work within an infrastructure that's already in place there doesn't seem to be that many alternatives.
It's a pity, because there are better basis for arguing against the charge: on the other hand there are better arguments for supporting it too.
I wait to be convinced that trying to do something is not a good idea.
Other posts have detailed this but to summarise what someone else has already posted;
"carbon dioxide in the atmosphere = 0.039% by volume
carbon cycle proportion of carbon dixoide contributed by mankind 3.4% (IPCC)
UK contribution to global emissions 2% (DEFRA)
Proportion of this due to cars = 16% (DEFRA again)
So cars in the UK are responsible for 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is precisely bugger all. Globally - just take out the 2% and it increases from bugger all to naff all.
If you go further, and consider the devil's chariot (the 4x4) then as these make up 8% of UK car sales (SMMT) then they are responsible for 8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is the square root of bugger all !
If you factor into this Porsches contribution then its bugger all of bugger all!
This is why attempts to change the 'so called pollution' are a waste of time and effort. That effort and time that could be put to a good use instead of this stupid victimisation of the motorist by someone who simply hates car drivers.
I reckon the statement is almost right - we ARE contributing to the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere.
Yes, the planet goes through many cycles but the debate should be around how much impact we are having, not whether we are or not.
I'm yet to be convinced of the amount of impact that man is having (so-called AGW) but we would be foolish to think that because we don't know, we shouldn't do anything about it.
Even if the waste we pumped out didn't affect the climate, does that mean we should be happy to pollute as much as we want?
On a slightly different tack - London smog eventually led to the Clean Air Act, smokeless zones, etc. This was considered draconian in some quarters (even arguments that "working class" people couldn't afford smokeless fuel or to heat their homes by gas or electicity) but it accelerated the clean-up of city and town air in this country during the 50's and 60's. Who knows, 50 years down the line our children and grandchildren might think the same about these changes today...just a thought.
