Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[HeHasRisen]

1 hour ago, mike1961 said:

Not helpful 

Dont think he is here to tell people how to get from Pitsmoor to Eccy Rd, mate.

[mike1961]

31 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Dont think he is here to tell people how to get from Pitsmoor to Eccy Rd, mate.

I get that mate ,I was more referring to him saying people we're talking nonsense and using diversion tactics which is not the case 

[Longcol]

13 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Well it’s pretty obvious that they need to collect number plate data and keep it for as long as necessary for the CAZ charging.   I don’t know the details of how they are doing that. 
 

 

Not answering my question which was originally  regarding  change in use of personal data collected and possible Data Protection Act implications.

 

see https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/481245-sheffield-congestion-charge-from-feb-27th-2023/page/20/?tab=comments#comment-8616450

 

 #231 immediately following clarifies your "Not sure what you mean comment".

 

[Planner1]

4 hours ago, mike1961 said:

I get that mate ,I was more referring to him saying people we're talking nonsense and using diversion tactics which is not the case 

Erm, they were called out for saying that owner operators couldn’t afford compliant vehicles, when they admit that they had no proof that was the case. Their response was to call me “a joke” and trot out a load of cliche’s like “ivory towers etc”.

 

That is indeed a clear tactic to divert attention from the fact that they are spouting a load of twaddle that they can’t back up.

[Planner1]

4 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not answering my question which was originally  regarding  change in use of personal data collected and possible Data Protection Act implications.

 

see https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/481245-sheffield-congestion-charge-from-feb-27th-2023/page/20/?tab=comments#comment-8616450

 

 #231 immediately following clarifies your "Not sure what you mean comment".

 

The council already have an ANPR system that’s used for traffic monitoring, which they have been using for a good number of years and complies with data protection requirements.

 

I don’t know whether the CAZ utilises this system or it has its own  separate system. Neither do you by the look of it.

 

ANPR systems for charging motorists have been around for quite a few years elsewhere in the uk and there don’t appear to have been any data protection issues that I’m aware of.

 

So, I’m not sure what your issue is?

[fools]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Erm, they were called out for saying that owner operators couldn’t afford compliant vehicles, when they admit that they had no proof that was the case. Their response was to call me “a joke” and trot out a load of cliche’s like “ivory towers etc”.

 

That is indeed a clear tactic to divert attention from the fact that they are spouting a load of twaddle that they can’t back up.

Hypocrisy: where is the evidence to backup your assertion that all owner operators can afford to upgrade their vehicles, with or without a piddling grant (more spaffing of public money)

 

Unlike the public sector, the private sector has to justify their expenditure, disposing a working vehicle before it's time is a ridiculous waste of money.

Edited January 15, 2023 by fools

[fools]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The council already have an ANPR system that’s used for traffic monitoring, which they have been using for a good number of years and complies with data protection requirements.

 

I don’t know whether the CAZ utilises this system or it has its own  separate system. Neither do you by the look of it.

 

ANPR systems for charging motorists have been around for quite a few years elsewhere in the uk and there don’t appear to have been any data protection issues that I’m aware of.

Oh really?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-52469992

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by fools

[Anna B]

I always thought the ring road was a way of reducing congestiion in the inner city.

To include it in the congestion zone is mental and counter productive.

[Resident]

5 hours ago, fools said:

Oh really?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-52469992

 

Please delete this. Planner1 will have a coronary trying to blame anyone else but the council. 

You're simply not allowed to provide evidence that the shower of sh*** known as Sheffield City Council is, on the whole, grossly incompetant, self-serving or corrupt. 

Just remember though, he definitely doesn't work for them

[ab6262]

7 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Erm, they were called out for saying that owner operators couldn’t afford compliant vehicles, when they admit that they had no proof that was the case. Their response was to call me “a joke” and trot out a load of cliche’s like “ivory towers etc”.

 

That is indeed a clear tactic to divert attention from the fact that they are spouting a load of twaddle that they can’t back up.

you are the one avoiding a question, i hardly called you any names i said a joke? is that a name? i am a member of the general public who doesn't have access to your information  (hence the ivory towers of scc or wherever)really cant understand the logic behind this CAZ its literally moving the problem elsewhere. the majority of small businesses cant afford compliant vehicles necessarily which is why i asked the best route from ecclesall road to pitsmoor ??? sat nav at the moment directs into caz.

 

12 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Dont think he is here to tell people how to get from Pitsmoor to Eccy Rd, mate.

wind your neck in it was a perfectly reasonable question!