Chekhov Posted September 22, 2023 Author Share Posted September 22, 2023 (edited) On 10/09/2023 at 09:39, gaz 786 said: M6 toll is a nightmare after a long shift travelling home around 3am I accidentally took the m6 toll realising what I done I got off at next junction payed the toll no change 1st con then had to get back on it 2nd con and pay again at next junction to get off it was my fault entirely but be careful! We once did that by accident too. As you go North on the M42 the M6 Toll is technically turning off, which you would normally get in the left hand lane for. But no, at the M42/M6Toll junction the M6Toll is in the right hand lane.... Did you go wrong for the same reason ? As usual, when I mentioned it on A N Other forum, all the usual troll types came out and said "what are you moaning it's obvious which lane you should be in" (even though it's the opposite of what one would normally expect), it will be interesting to see if any of the resident Trolls on here make an appearance.... Edited September 22, 2023 by Chekhov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted September 22, 2023 Share Posted September 22, 2023 Totally in his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delbow Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 Interesting article about a Belgian health insurer collecting data on the correlation between poor air quality and excess use of health services https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/22/why-health-insurer-studies-impact-air-pollution-on-health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz 786 Posted September 23, 2023 Share Posted September 23, 2023 17 hours ago, HeHasRisen said: Totally in his head. Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffbag Posted October 2, 2023 Share Posted October 2, 2023 FOI results are in. 1. On 02 Feb 2023 Julie Grocutt claimed on Radio Sheffield that the govt imposed the ring road within the CAZ. Is there evidence to support this? The Government have, by ministerial direction, directed the Council to implement the local plan for NO2 compliance measures set out in that direction. The Council is under a legal duty to comply with that direction. The plan set out in the direction is the detailed scheme that was supplanted by the Full Business Case (FBC) documents provided to the Secretary of State by the Council. The FBC included a set of compliance measures designed following ongoing discussions with the Government’s Joint Air Quality Unit and in accordance with the applicable legislation and guidance. These measures are designed to achieve compliance with the direction. The FBC and supporting technical documents can be found on the Council website - More information about the Clean Air Zone | Sheffield City Council 2. On 02 Feb 2023 Julie Grocutt claimed on Radio Sheffield that the govt would "come into the city come in and implement the CAZ" if SCC didnt implement the scheme. Is there evidence to support this as govt paperwork states it is the responsibility of the local authority to implement the scheme, not the govt. If the Council fails to comply with the aforementioned legal duty to comply with the ministerial direction, it may be subject to an environmental review initiated by the Government’s Office for Environmental Protection, as well as judicial review. The result of such actions would be a matter for the courts and not direct intervention by the Government. 3. On 02 Feb 2023 Julie Grocutt claimed on Radio Sheffield that "my offices have put time and time and time again to the govt" about not implementing the CAZ. A FOI request requested on 11 May 2023 asking "Has Sheffield City Council ever appealed to have the CAZ mandate withdrawn" was responded to with " Sheffield City Council has not appealed to have the CAZ mandate withdrawn" (ref EIR/853371). Which statement is correct and can evidence be provided to prove SCC contacted the govt to appeal. The Council has not appealed in respect of “the CAZ mandate” as there is no process of appeal. The Government’s decision to issue the ministerial direction was potentially subject to judicial review but the Council did not pursue one. to summarise 1. Julie lied as the FBC was created by the council not the govt. 2. Julie lied as it would be up to the courts and not direct intervention by the govt 3. Julie lied as SCC did nothing when it had the opportunity to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted October 2, 2023 Share Posted October 2, 2023 OK, what are you now going to do with this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted October 2, 2023 Share Posted October 2, 2023 (edited) 43 minutes ago, sheffbag said: to summarise 1. Julie lied as the FBC was created by the council not the govt. The government required them to produce an FBC and gave them the money to do it, same for all the councils who were mandated. The FBC has to show how they will achieve compliance. They have told you in the response that the content of the FBC was the product of ongoing discussion with the government’s joint air quality unit, so it’s pretty clear to me from the response that the government ( ie the joint air quality unit) told them what had to be included in the scheme to achieve compliance. Edited October 2, 2023 by Planner1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheffbag Posted October 2, 2023 Share Posted October 2, 2023 2 hours ago, Planner1 said: The government required them to produce an FBC and gave them the money to do it, same for all the councils who were mandated. The FBC has to show how they will achieve compliance. They have told you in the response that the content of the FBC was the product of ongoing discussion with the government’s joint air quality unit, so it’s pretty clear to me from the response that the government ( ie the joint air quality unit) told them what had to be included in the scheme to achieve compliance. Planner, im not going to argue with you on this as its been shown few times in this thread that the ring road was included by SCC under the plans drawn up by SCC and signed off by SCC. The govt never said that the ring road had to go in. It instructed SCC to bring down the levels in the area. There is nowhere in any documentation that says that the govt has told SCC to include the ring road. i note you havent commented on the other two points or do you agree with me now that she lied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted October 3, 2023 Share Posted October 3, 2023 18 hours ago, sheffbag said: i note you havent commented on the other two points or do you agree with me now that she lied? As previously discussed, for there to be a lie, there has to be an intention to deceive. I’d suggest that we don’t know the councillors motivation, but she appears to have said things which were incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted October 3, 2023 Share Posted October 3, 2023 She probably just wanted to say something that people wanted to hear, because its better than the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now