This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 20 Aug 23 7.28am | |
---|---|
Sadiq Khan’s office tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) policy had little impact on pollution, The Telegraph can disclose. In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez. Prof Kelly, a director of Imperial’s Environmental Research Group, which has been paid more than £800,000 by Mr Khan’s office since 2021, agreed to issue a statement – partly written by Ms Rodrigues – saying Ulez had helped to “dramatically reduce air pollution”. London Conservatives said the correspondence revealed an “alarmingly cosy relationship” between the Mayor’s office and the scientists it was funding, as well as a desire to “silence scientists who question the effectiveness of Khan’s policies”.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 20 Aug 23 8.23am | |
---|---|
Not a good day for Khan Now I'm not going to get into the racial stuff because Khan says this was done by an underling and doesn't represent his views, fair enough. There will always be a junior who manages to embarrass the boss. What is more pertinent to me is why this document was produced in the first place. Khan has spent a fortune of public money increasing the number of people in his personal press office / PR I wondered what they did all day well now you have the answer. That is the real story here.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Aug 23 10.20am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Not a good day for Khan Now I'm not going to get into the racial stuff because Khan says this was done by an underling and doesn't represent his views, fair enough. There will always be a junior who manages to embarrass the boss. What is more pertinent to me is why this document was produced in the first place. Khan has spent a fortune of public money increasing the number of people in his personal press office / PR I wondered what they did all day well now you have the answer. That is the real story here. Everyone's used to this rubbish now. It's no longer shocking, it's par for the course. White English people are inappropriate in their own country, particularly London. Of what benefit that is to anyone - who knows. Really, White people should block vote against Khan, just like Muslims vote for him. Obviously, white people wouldn't vote in someone who finds photos of a black family inappropriate - so there's no actual need to constantly promote diversity. Most people can see things as quite diverse enough already without any racism required.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Matov 20 Aug 23 1.03pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Not a good day for Khan Now I'm not going to get into the racial stuff because Khan says this was done by an underling and doesn't represent his views, fair enough. No. Not in this case. These things do not happen by accident. They are proposed and signed off. This is pure dog whistle. What politicians like Khan do. His regular reminder just to let people know whose side he is really on.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 21 Aug 23 4.48pm | |
---|---|
A handy way to get about London using a useful loophole.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Aug 23 5.33pm | |
---|---|
I met a lady friend today she has a 2CV that is 23 years old. She is upset that as of the end of the month she will have to mothball it for 2 years to avoid paying the charge. In 2 years it becomes a classic car so is then ULEZ compliant. Of course it will still be polluting but that's the idiotic scheme.
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
eagle52 Shirley,Croydon 21 Aug 23 6.01pm | |
---|---|
To get classic status the vehicle needs to be 40 years old, so she’s got a bit of a wait.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Badger11 Beckenham 21 Aug 23 6.08pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by eagle52
To get classic status the vehicle needs to be 40 years old, so she’s got a bit of a wait. Oh boy she's in trouble. Still a stupid scheme, if a car pollutes it pollutes why should it matter if it's 25 or 40 years old. Edited by Badger11 (21 Aug 2023 6.10pm)
One more point |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 21 Aug 23 6.11pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Oh boy she's in trouble. Unless she gets all of her savings and buys an electric vehicle. Like all of us can obs
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 22 Aug 23 12.13am | |
---|---|
I'm thinking T72s count as classic cars. Russians could just drive around in them. A Bobby in his helmet could make sure the weapons are deactivated. I feel railway crossings could perhaps suffer.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 22 Aug 23 12.32am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
I'm thinking T72s count as classic cars. Russians could just drive around in them. A Bobby in his helmet could make sure the weapons are deactivated. I feel railway crossings could perhaps suffer. It'd be worth it just to see the cyclists' reactions.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Eden Eagle Kent 22 Aug 23 9.17am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by eagle52
To get classic status the vehicle needs to be 40 years old, so she’s got a bit of a wait. I think they ceased production in 1990 so it will be at least 33 years old..
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.