Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, sheffbag said:

and the information she gave out was false as proven by the foi response

Assuming the person who compiled the FoI consulted all parties, of course. Just playing devils advocate here.

 

I sent an FoI to SCC once, the reply came back with responses cobbled together from four different departments I hadnt explicitly named in the request.

[sheffbag]

19 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Assuming the person who compiled the FoI consulted all parties, of course. Just playing devils advocate here.

 

I sent an FoI to SCC once, the reply came back with responses cobbled together from four different departments I hadnt explicitly named in the request.

I know and i would agree with you, but, its an official response from SCC so it stands .  Like i said im waiting for a couple more as i asked the same question but specifically referencing the interview to ask for evidence. See what they say

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by sheffbag

[mike1961]

23 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Snigger all you like, but the common interpretation of lying involves there being an intention to deceive.

 

We don’t know that there was. 

Liars just don't like being caught out at the end of the day.

She lied on air ,end of 

[Chekhov]

So they introduce a "vital" public health measure (it must be to cause all that huge disruption) and it has no effect. In fact pollution gets worse. They say the weather is to blame, but if their ULEZ scheme has such a marginal effect then surely it is not worth the pain it is causing to so many people. And Glasgow's scheme really is draconian (and very unpopular), it applies to all "older" cars, and they are actually "banned", there is no fee, just a big fine. 

 

Glasgow’s strict Ulez-style scheme under fire after air pollution rises 10 per cent
Environmental restrictions called ‘a failure’ after jump in nitrogen dioxide levels, though city council claims weather may be to blame

Pollution levels of gases linked to traffic rose by about 10 per cent in the centre of Glasgow after the SNP set up a “draconian” Ulez-style scheme, official figures show.

Nitrogen dioxide levels in the city’s Hope Street, which has repeatedly had the country’s worst air quality, were measured at an average of 34 micrograms per cubic metre between June and August this year.

This compared with a figure of 31mg in the same period last year, before the city’s low emission zone (Lez) was introduced – a rise of 9.7 per cent. The legal limit is 40mg.

Levels of another pollutant from motor vehicles, known as fine particulate matter, surged by 11.5 per cent over the same period, from 5.2mg to 5.8mg per cubic metre.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/03/glasgow-lez-low-emission-zone-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution/

[Planner1]

13 hours ago, mike1961 said:

Liars just don't like being caught out at the end of the day.

She lied on air ,end of 

Unless you know something that everyone else doesn’t, you don’t have any proof that the councillor intended to deceive, so saying she lied is inaccurate.

There could be many reasons for the discrepancy between her statement and the response to the FOI request. The responses to the other ones should tell us more.

 

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

So they introduce a "vital" public health measure (it must be to cause all that huge disruption) and it has no effect. In fact pollution gets worse. They say the weather is to blame, but if their ULEZ scheme has such a marginal effect then surely it is not worth the pain it is causing to so many people. And Glasgow's scheme really is draconian (and very unpopular), it applies to all "older" cars, and they are actually "banned", there is no fee, just a big fine. 

I don’t think you can deny that weather is a significant factor in air quality at any particular location. You need to look at longer term trends to decide whether something is effective in improving it.

[mike1961]

12 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Unless you know something that everyone else doesn’t, you don’t have any proof that the councillor intended to deceive, so saying she lied is inaccurate.

There could be many reasons for the discrepancy between her statement and the response to the FOI request. The responses to the other ones should tell us more.

 

Okay let's just say she made totally inaccurate misleading statements which could be interpreted as lies.

But she didn't mean to deceive anyone so that's okay.

[mike1961]

13 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t think you can deny that weather is a significant factor in air quality at any particular location. You need to look at longer term trends to decide whether something is effective in improving it.

The longer term trends are that people will naturally replace their vehicles over time with ones that are more enviromently friendly without the need to introduce these types of revenue raising schemes.

[Planner1]

3 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

The longer term trends are that people will naturally replace their vehicles over time with ones that are more enviromently friendly without the need to introduce these types of revenue raising schemes.

I do not for one minute think that the government have mandated cities to introduce CAZ’s so they and the local councils can raise money.

 

They did it because they had to, to avoid further court action and enormous fines. 
 

They were obviously of the same view as yourself, that the issue would have remedied itself over time as vehicles and other emitters improved performance.

 

So, if you want someone to blame, point it at the environmental activists who took the government to court and won.

[mike1961]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I do not for one minute think that the government have mandated cities to introduce CAZ’s so they and the local councils can raise money.

 

They did it because they had to, to avoid further court action and enormous fines. 
 

They were obviously of the same view as yourself, that the issue would have remedied itself over time as vehicles and other emitters improved performance.

 

So, if you want someone to blame, point it at the environmental activists who took the government to court and won.

So it's all the lentil eating tree huggers fault then?