We’ve been taking at length about EVs the clean air zone charges. You set your stall out by categorising those facing the charges as failures. You’ve back it up with other rambles about how people are failures.
You’re a bigot and an idiot, and I don’t need to be any arbiter of morality to spot that. It’s crystal clear. Thats my opinion and I’m not wavering from it no matter how many more rambles you post and no matter how many more times you try to wriggle out of what you said.
Some other poster said your comments were offensive or words to that affect. But you countered to say you were being playful. Yeah right.
You sneer and patronise and you’re an absolute bigot. There’s no other way to describe it.
Deary me.... As Bob Mortimer used to say "He wouldn't let it lie"...
I've literally written half a ** book on my thoughts and been over and over the same ground. If you want to focus on your straw-man version of a one comment (which wasn't even the main thrust of my argument) then I really can't do much about it. If you want to advance the discussion, beyond the scope of "You said, she said" and name calling, and take some time to comprehend what I've said properly, then I'm certainly up for that.
I'm not going to get sucked in to a childish exchange though and I sense that would suit you, so instead, I'll do you the courtesy of politely reaffirming myself and my stance on this one last time... If you want to respond and tackle the points, feel free, If you prefer to call me names and continue to try and undermine me by repeating the same thing...Well I can't stop you, so Feel free
Firstly, I do not view Poverty / being poor or whatever as a reason not to implement Clean Air Zones (or whatever the Buzz Phrase may be). To my mind, it's just a convenient argument / excuse and an attempt to grab the moral high ground through an appearance of compassion, that in my view is a) misplaced and b) not relevant.
The fact is that 'The Poor' are also disproportionately affected by air pollution and the associated Health Problems... In many cases 'The Poor' don't even have access to a vehicle and there isn't any conclusive evidence to suggest that they are the primary issue here in any case. Historic reports have suggested that the issue may well be more associated with 'The Rich' or at least 'The Richer' and multiple car households.
What I did above, was throw a bit of Right Wing Rhetoric in your general direction.... And gave you a sample of the kind of arguments that the people who are now "Oh so concerned' about 'The Poor' all to frequently bandy about when it suits. However,take them whichever way you want, it makes no odds to me.
For me, in this instance you (and others) are conflating two completely separate issues.... 1) Poverty and 2) The need for Clean Air... I see them as separate issues that need to be addressed independently of each other.
As I view it (and I'm interested to hear a rational argument to the contrary) neither of these issues was being resolved prior to ULEZ....Neither issue is likely to be resolved by the avoidance of the £12.50 charge either.
So whatever we do here (whether we have ULEZ or we don't have ULEZ) There's going to be an impact that disproportionately affects the poor. In fact there's rarely an occasion where the poor aren't more negatively affected than the rich... (without trying to be flippant) That's kind of what being poor is all about. And whether we have ULEZ or we don't have ULEZ, we are still going to have Poverty.
So my point (with regards to Poverty) is that the Solution to that issue (the issue of Poverty) which is a wholly separate issue to resolving the Clean Air problem, is to Educate People and to Enable People the Opportunity to help themselves. It's no different than bringing up a child.... As a parent, you don't help your child by continually picking up the pieces and failing to allow them to suffer the consequences of their own actions.... Your job is not to Love them to the point where they become incompetent, but instead to provide them with the education and the foundation and competency to be able to look after themselves. .And of course, that doesn't mean there won't be occasions or individuals who need more support for a whole variety of reasons and that's why we have the safety net of a benefits system etc...
In relation to Poverty, there are also additional arguments about the distribution of Wealth and taxation and a whole series of other measures.... None of which are (in my opinion at least) relevant to Clean Air... So if we want to tackle Poverty, then that needs to be addressed through Taxation, Education, Job Opportunity, Minimum Wage standards etc etc... So the solutions to poverty and whether those solutions are even desirable is a completely separate debate / topic.
In the case of Clean Air then the whole point of the exercise is to stop people from driving Heavy Polluters.... So I'm struggling to grasp how actually achieving that objective could be seen as an issue. Yes it will have an impact on 'The Poor' like most things (including polluted air), but then its supposed to, because we need the poor to change their habits as well. There are measures in place to support the poor through the process, there's always a limited amount that can be done, but the proposals are not unreasonable and (as I have already said) perhaps we may need to view car ownership / use differently in future and focus on better Public Transport options and maybe actually walking / cycling like we all used to with no issue whatsoever.
I realise that it's unfortunate that the 'options' for the poorer members of society might not be quite as convenient, comfortable, desirable as the options available to the rich, but that's a societal issue... First Class Rail / Air Travel isn't as comfortable as economy class, A Reliant Robin isn't as comfortable as a Bentley Continental...... And for every individual who might struggle to work around the issue of replacing their vehicle, there are plenty less fortunate people who never had a vehicle to replace in the first place (many of whom are forced to pound the pavements and breath in the polluted air)...
So to my mind It's just an excuse... It's an excuse to grab the moral high ground and to try and stifle progress to justify inaction. And that is the primary thrust of my argument, when it comes to the reference to the impact in the poor.
