Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
If you’re a blue badge holder and your vehicle isn’t ULEZ compliant you can get an exemption for it.0
-
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.JamesSeed said:
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.Big_Bad_World said:
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.JamesSeed said:
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.Big_Bad_World said:
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.9 -
Not just you 👍Big_Bad_World said:
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.JamesSeed said:
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.Big_Bad_World said:
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.JamesSeed said:
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.Big_Bad_World said:
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.1 -
What’s killing people (including young people) are health problems caused by, or exacerbated by pollution. (Respiratory diseases, cancer etc). Reducing pollution will save lives. Fining people £12.50 is one way of gradually reducing the number of polluting cars in London.O-Randy-Hunt said:What's so scary about telling a ulez supporter in real life that you can pay £12.50 to kill someone's children. Genuinely can't see it.You can’t ‘ban cars’, not without using draconian measures like manned roadblocks etc.
Calling people who support ULEZ ‘child killers’ is just silly, especially when many saying it would be against ULEZ, so basically happy to see the current levels of pollution maintained.2 -
But that's absolutely not what is happening. This approach of an effective tax on the polluter has been used in so many industries (Manufacturing, shipping etc.) as well as the original ULEZ in London and other cities across the country and around the world. It used price elasticities of demand to create incentives that are behavioural nudges creating changes in people behaviour. They reduce journeys into the zone or switch to other means of transport or upgrade their car depending on their circumstances. So the reduction in pollution (that can be remarkably accurately targeted with this approach) is achieved but in the most cost effective and economically efficient way.Big_Bad_World said:
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.JamesSeed said:
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.Big_Bad_World said:
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.JamesSeed said:
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.Big_Bad_World said:
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.4 -
Sadly, that’s the vast majority of people in this country. That’s why legislation is always used in the end, whether it’s to maintain speed limits, to force people to wear seat belts, or to stop people smoking in pubs and other public areas etc. None of these things that most people now accept as beneficial would have happened without legislation.Big_Bad_World said:
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.JamesSeed said:
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.Big_Bad_World said:
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.JamesSeed said:
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.Big_Bad_World said:
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
I know you’re calling me out as someone who isn’t willing to change my own habits and ‘doesn’t care enough’, but I actually changed my habits some time ago, I just didn’t want to be seen as a virtue signaller soft target tosser lol.So here the virtual signalling bit (cos you said I don’t care) - I do have a car, (I changed from diesel to petrol after it was revealed that they actually aren’t less polluting) but I cycle or walk whenever I can. When my knee was dodgy I took public transport. I haven’t driven ‘into town’ for donkey’s years. I grow my own fruit and veg, I always use a bag for life when shopping, or use my bike panniers, I recycle tons, and I’ve improved the insulation in my house. No idea if any of this makes any difference, but might as well try. I’m not telling anyone to change their habits, but I am supporting the idea that governments are right to bring in schemes like ULEZ and the congestion charge.
Sadly, the fight against climate change won’t be won through the voluntary actions of individuals, but by governments. I do a tiny bit, that’s all, less than you by the sounds of it. I was originally pointing out that I take about six flights a year, and I know it would be better if I took fewer. I suspect that a big majority are like me, and encouraging people to fly less through education might well be worthy, but it’s a bit like trying to change the direction of an oil tanker by blowing on it. It just won’t be enough.
But next time I go to to the Netherlands I’ll take the Eurostar, as someone on here suggested. Cheers for that. 👍0 -
This.cantersaddick said:
But that's absolutely not what is happening. This approach of an effective tax on the polluter has been used in so many industries (Manufacturing, shipping etc.) as well as the original ULEZ in London and other cities across the country and around the world. It used price elasticities of demand to create incentives that are behavioural nudges creating changes in people behaviour. They reduce journeys into the zone or switch to other means of transport or upgrade their car depending on their circumstances. So the reduction in pollution (that can be remarkably accurately targeted with this approach) is achieved but in the most cost effective and economically efficient way.Big_Bad_World said:
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.JamesSeed said:
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.Big_Bad_World said:
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.JamesSeed said:
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.Big_Bad_World said:
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.Canters puts it much better than I did 👍0 -
Cost effective remains to be seen obviously. We need to see the 9/10 compliant cars improved upon don't we to justify the infrastructure investment.cantersaddick said:
But that's absolutely not what is happening. This approach of an effective tax on the polluter has been used in so many industries (Manufacturing, shipping etc.) as well as the original ULEZ in London and other cities across the country and around the world. It used price elasticities of demand to create incentives that are behavioural nudges creating changes in people behaviour. They reduce journeys into the zone or switch to other means of transport or upgrade their car depending on their circumstances. So the reduction in pollution (that can be remarkably accurately targeted with this approach) is achieved but in the most cost effective and economically efficient way.Big_Bad_World said:
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.JamesSeed said:
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.Big_Bad_World said:
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.JamesSeed said:
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.Big_Bad_World said:
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
My nagging doubt is that the 9/10 pre ULEZ claim was genuine but wont much change and we have spent large sums on the scheme to stay where we already were /are.0 -
I think this was on the 4the September. London has been one of the most polluted cities anywhere during the recent hot spell. The reading today is 33 where I am, as it’s much more breezy.
0 -
Perhaps he could introduce a similar charge on bringing knifes into London.
That too, could potentially save lives.6 - Sponsored links:
-
Like quite a lot of other services up thereRothko said:
Glasgow scheme also has a ton of central government funding behind itO-Randy-Hunt said:
That's what you call a deterrent. Paying £12.50 every time you fancy polluting is a cash grab.Dansk_Red said:Glasgow scheme offers temporary exemptions (12 months) for non compliant cars owned by people living within the zone. Non compliant vehicles are charged £60.00 for the first offence, then £120 for second offence then £240 etc. I think the exemption scheme seems fairer then the London Scheme.0 -
When Boris Johnson instigated the ULEZ scheme, and the Tories instructed Sadiq Khan to implement it, they assumed cameras would assist in recording transgressors.
They didn’t have a similar camera scheme to detect those carrying knives.0 -
What's also frustrating is that the 'do-nothing' approach would probably be just as effective as ULEZ. Old cars are slowly removed from the road all the time as people upgrade them.
But no the Mayor has to go after the poors.3 -
They asked him for his proposal.seth plum said:When Boris Johnson instigated the ULEZ scheme, and the Tories instructed Sadiq Khan to implement it, they assumed cameras would assist in recording transgressors.
They didn’t have a similar camera scheme to detect those carrying knives.0 -
Sooner or later you are likely to be caught by one of the camera vans that will be patrolling the roads without fixed cameras.Lordflashheart said:kentaddick said:
"I can't believe khan would bring in this which is a cash grab and disproportionately affects working class people like me, brb gonna buy a land rover to drive around south london"Lordflashheart said:
Just checked my Land Rover on their website, and I am completely banned - not allowed in at allForeverAddickted said:
Is that not what Glasgow have done though? - I've just checked my Car on their Low Emission Zone website, and I'll pay a penalty if I drive my car in there, I wont have to pay to drive, I'm just not allowed.kentaddick said:
you really think they're going to ban a certain type of vehicle overnight? The backlash would've been even bigger.Lordflashheart said:
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do itseth plum said:If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit?
I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
It’s utter nonsense
If you think it's a cash grab, then get a compliant vehicle and avoid the cash grab. Simple.
I'd also have less issue if the London ULEZ straight up banned my car, because then I'd agree that they're trying to tackle pollution properly, instead of cashing in on it.
Am sure if it isn't a cash grab, we wont see the rules changed in the future either.
Satire is dead.
c) The only time my Land Rover ever goes into London is to go barely 200 yards across the border to walk my dogs at Hall Place0 -
If the mayor didn't offer scrappage schemes the poor would change their cars regardless?cafcnick1992 said:What's also frustrating is that the 'do-nothing' approach would probably be just as effective as ULEZ. Old cars are slowly removed from the road all the time as people upgrade them.
But no the Mayor has to go after the poors.0 -
The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.5
-
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.
1 -
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.4 - Sponsored links:
-
7 days a week actuallykentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.
Yawn0 -
Despite living in Hillingdon, I am currently just outside the Ulez zone, the cynic in me thinks it’s because the main road nearby is access to a large HS2 site.1
-
wonder why the met thought he needed an armoured 4x4 issued, wonder what that could beO-Randy-Hunt said:
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.2 -
Go on, I'm all ears?Rothko said:
wonder why the met thought he needed an armoured 4x4 issued, wonder what that could beO-Randy-Hunt said:
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.0 -
far right terrorists.O-Randy-Hunt said:
Go on, I'm all ears?Rothko said:
wonder why the met thought he needed an armoured 4x4 issued, wonder what that could beO-Randy-Hunt said:
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.1 -
O-Randy-Hunt said:
Go on, I'm all ears?Rothko said:
wonder why the met thought he needed an armoured 4x4 issued, wonder what that could beO-Randy-Hunt said:
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.
must have been some mix-up in the Mr Potato-head parts packing box that day5 -
Lolz. I thought he cycled everywhere or is that just the last 100 yards for the photo opportunity?kentaddick said:
far right terrorists.O-Randy-Hunt said:
Go on, I'm all ears?Rothko said:
wonder why the met thought he needed an armoured 4x4 issued, wonder what that could beO-Randy-Hunt said:
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.
0 -
🤣letthegoodtimesroll said:O-Randy-Hunt said:
Go on, I'm all ears?Rothko said:
wonder why the met thought he needed an armoured 4x4 issued, wonder what that could beO-Randy-Hunt said:
Sounds like something Sadiq would do.... oh hold on a minute.kentaddick said:
but i should be able to take my dogs for a walk once a week in my 4x4Rothko said:The anti-ULEZers, have no concern for the poorest Londoners, who are affected by air pollution and have the worst health outcomes.
must have been some mix-up in the Mr Potato-head parts packing box that day0 -
So the anti ulez crowd have moved on from any debate about the policy and instead are sniggering about death threats to an elected representative.3
