I doubt that there will be any reversal as some had hoped. Looks like ULEZ might become popular.
Strange that Khan says it’s harmful but allows it to go ahead as long as you pay £12.50 a day to him to be allowed to do it. If it’s harmful, it should be banned, not made chargeable. Can you pay him to be allowed to smoke in public places? What’s the difference?I doubt that there will be any reversal as some had hoped. Looks like ULEZ might become popular.
UK tobacco smokers are now taxed to the tune of 82%.Strange that Khan says it’s harmful but allows it to go ahead as long as you pay £12.50 a day to him to be allowed to do it. If it’s harmful, it should be banned, not made chargeable. Can you pay him to be allowed to smoke in public places? What’s the difference?
Motorists in London don’t exactly get away tax free though, do they?UK tobacco smokers are now taxed to the tune of 82%.![]()
No, but irrelevant to the targeted penalty costs of polluting cities.Motorists in London don’t exactly get away tax free though, do they?
Its a balance of course, banning the most polluting cars and vehicles entirely would be more effective, but how much more and how much more disruption would it cause?Strange that Khan says it’s harmful but allows it to go ahead as long as you pay £12.50 a day to him to be allowed to do it. If it’s harmful, it should be banned, not made chargeable. Can you pay him to be allowed to smoke in public places? What’s the difference?
The difference is people can smoke in private, they’ve got little alternative to gallows corner. The charge raises revenue, of course it does, but it is principally used as an economic incentive and has worked.Strange that Khan says it’s harmful but allows it to go ahead as long as you pay £12.50 a day to him to be allowed to do it. If it’s harmful, it should be banned, not made chargeable. Can you pay him to be allowed to smoke in public places? What’s the difference?
But if you can afford to carry on with the pollution thats fine?Its a balance of course, banning the most polluting cars and vehicles entirely would be more effective, but how much more wan how much more disruption would it cause?
The amount of screaming and tearing of clothes ULEZ unleashed was bad enough without having a complete ban. Its smart business/policy to aim for the 80/20 option.
…..to Far rage’s bank account so he can be advised his image it at risk if he is photographed with an intergalactic bin.Millions must go.
It was never going to drive pollutants to zero even if all vehicles were banned. It didn't need to.But if you can afford to carry on with the pollution thats fine?
So should be allowed to smoke then…UK tobacco smokers are now taxed to the tune of 82%.![]()
It's an outrage!UK tobacco smokers are now taxed to the tune of 82%.![]()
Just looked and it’s £46.50. I’ve not smoked for 16 years, but I can’t believe people still do at that price!!It's an outrage!
Over £4o for a 50g pack these days!!
Bloody motorists should cough up.
Just agree with meIt was never going to drive pollutants to zero even if all vehicles were banned. It didn't need to.
It just needed to reduce pollutants enough to allow children's lungs to recover more and to reduce, not eliminate but reduce, deaths through air pollution.
And it seems like it has.
If you want to write to the mayor and demand a total ban on ULEZ non-compliant vehicles I'm not going to stop you.