Climate lockdowns, controlling opposition, levers of power and the dark side.

[Brew_DD2]

You are very clearly a middle class/upper middle class urbanite Progressive or neoliberal and I find it hilarious how you guys claim to be so tolerant and democratic and free.

I'm a nurse, and I grew up in a council house. Try again.

I also live in a rural area that is fairly Right of Centre.

 

[Brew_DD2]

But the second anyone in anyway questions {insert current narrative} you start name-calling, trying to shut it down

You might want to read the line above this in your own post. Probably best to give it a few sentences before you do what you accuse others of.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I don't think you have ever seen anything by him or else you would not compare his post to the crazy stuff Alex peddles

It's exactly how he and the alt-right try to defend their wackier ideas.

 

[Erik The Anglophile]

You might want to read the line above this in your own post. Probably best to give it a few sentences before you do what you accuse others of.

You set the tone by calling me a far right nutjob, don't get salty when someone reciprocates your behaviour.

 

[Erik The Anglophile]

It's exactly how he and the alt-right try to defend their wackier ideas.

And what does this have to do with the current discussion? How have I in any way defended Alex Jones? How is he even relevant in this?

 

[samale]

I'm a nurse, and I grew up in a council house. Try again.

I also love in a rural area that is fairly Right of Centre.

Middle class nurse, very common around my part of the world

 

[Brew_DD2]

You set the tone by calling me a far right nutjob, don't get salty when someone reciprocates your behaviour.

Did I?

I'm not salty. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy. You can think what you like.

 

[Brew_DD2]

And what does this have to do with the current discussion? How have I in any way defended Alex Jones? How is he even relevant in this?

I never said you defended him. I said the post I quoted was right out of his playbook. Probably worth reading posts properly.

 

[Erik The Anglophile]

I have been trying to have a factual discussion and see why you so adamantly refuse to even entertain the idea that there may be some truth to what this discussion is about.
I lost my temper and called you a serf, that I can stand for but I still don't understand why you refuse to read up on anything I pointed at to see there actually is some substance to some of the claims made in this thread.
It is a fact Claus Scwhab and company in the WEF think-tank want to impose radical changes in how our societies function, they are completely open about this, it is a fact some of these changes are already taking place.
My problem is when you read between the lines of the flowery language some of these more radical implications can be interpreted as rather disturbing.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Middle class nurse, very common around my part of the world

I'm an upper-middle class urbanite. The Liberal Elite apparently, because I know the difference between critical thinking and accepting any old tripe because it's alternative and "sticking it to the establishment".

 

[Brew_DD2]

I have been trying to have a factual discussion and see why you so adamantly refuse to even entertain the idea that there may be some truth to what this discussion is about.
I lost my temper and called you a serf, that I can stand for but I still don't understand why you refuse to read up on anything I pointed at to see there actually is some substance to some of the claims made in this thread.
It is a fact Claus Scwhab and company in the WEF think-tank want to impose radical changes in how our societies function, they are completely open about this, it is a fact some of these changes are already taking place.
My problem is when you read between the lines of the flowery language some of these more radical implications can be interpreted

That's fair enough. I simply don't think the concerns you have are particularly valid.

In an effort to reverse climate change, we will likely see curbs on international travel in the form of prohibitive taxation, and we are already seeing the phasing out of ICE cars. Obviously this will disproportionately affect the poor. Ultimately societies will decide how they wish to be run. I am one of the first to criticise how government functions in this country, but it is still in our hands who governs us.

A more pressing concern is Sunak's obsession with creating charter cities to bypass tax rules and worker protection.

 

[Erik The Anglophile]

Thank you, we are probably quite alike politically, I don't understand what this sh1tflinging was all about...
Sorry about calling you an urbanite, I am a fairly self sufficient "hillbilly" myself and really dislike urbanite liberals trying to tell people like me what the country side is really like and what it really need, and you sort of came across as one.
I agree there are more pressing concerns right now, but I still find it troubling that a bunch if billionaires are basically stating they wish to hijack society.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Thank you, we are probably quite alike politically, I don't understand what this sh1tflinging was all about...
Sorry about calling you an urbanite, I am a fairly self sufficient "hillbilly" myself and really dislike urbanite liberals trying to tell people like me what the country side is really like and what it really need, and you sort of came across as one.
I agree there are more pressing concerns right now, but I still find it troubling that a bunch if billionaires are basically stating they wish to hijack society.

Anyone who has accrued that level of wealth is not to be trusted in my opinion.

 

[jof]

The people currently under threat are all those in outer London who will suddenly find they have to pay ULEZ costs because they can't afford a car newer built in the last 5 years.
At least the inner London zone that exists now has extensive public transport and few parking places, but you don't have to get that far out to find yourself in an area with no underground, train & buses that stop at 8pm.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I found this on another forum discussion the Oxford City Council plan -

As Canterbury and Oxford are now planning to roll this out lets look at some of the implications.

On the surface, these 15 minute neighbourhoods might sound pleasant and convenient but there is a coercive edge the council's plans to cut car use and traffic congestion by placing strict rules on car journeys under the new proposals if any of Oxfords 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year he or she could be fined £70.

Advocates like to present 15 minute cities as people centred But we should be sceptical of these claims given that they only seem to come from high-placed politicians wealthy institutions and out-of-touch academics And it was only after lockdowns that the previously unthinkable idea of confining people to their local areas for the greater good was able to gain currency.

As usual it is ordinary people who will suffer the costs of the 15 minute city Particularly urban car-owners and families who regularly travel across town to visit relatives or friends or to go to work and we shouldn't forget the needs of older citizens those with disabilities and children as well as those who so often look after them.

The many practical problems of the 15 minute city are easy to see advocates seem to have forgotten that simple bad weather can make a car indispensable And as Oxford City Council concedes while most of the city has very good accessibility to a district centre there are clearly a few areas outside of this 15 minute walk this means that residents will have to content themselves with local centres though these have a much smaller range of facilities and are often slightly less well connected by public transport, People-centred? Hardly.

What is posed as a revival of Britain's green and pleasant land is in fact a coercive drive to put motorists on a leash those homes with a car will have to count how many times they use it to cross town there will be permits penalties and almost certainly more ubiquitous surveillance all of this just so that Oxford officialdom which has declared a climate emergency can claim to be achieving the councils Net Zero .

 

[obscure]

I found this on another forum discussion the Oxford City Council plan -

As Canterbury and Oxford are now planning to roll this out lets look at some of the implications.

On the surface, these 15 minute neighbourhoods might sound pleasant and convenient but there is a coercive edge the council's plans to cut car use and traffic congestion by placing strict rules on car journeys under the new proposals if any of Oxfords 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year he or she could be fined £70.

Advocates like to present 15 minute cities as people centred But we should be sceptical of these claims given that they only seem to come from high-placed politicians wealthy institutions and out-of-touch academics And it was only after lockdowns that the previously unthinkable idea of confining people to their local areas for the greater good was able to gain currency.

As usual it is ordinary people who will suffer the costs of the 15 minute city Particularly urban car-owners and families who regularly travel across town to visit relatives or friends or to go to work and we shouldn't forget the needs of older citizens those with disabilities and children as well as those who so often look after them.

The many practical problems of the 15 minute city are easy to see advocates seem to have forgotten that simple bad weather can make a car indispensable And as Oxford City Council concedes while most of the city has very good accessibility to a district centre there are clearly a few areas outside of this 15 minute walk this means that residents will have to content themselves with local centres though these have a much smaller range of facilities and are often slightly less well connected by public transport, People-centred? Hardly.

What is posed as a revival of Britain's green and pleasant land is in fact a coercive drive to put motorists on a leash those homes with a car will have to count how many times they use it to cross town there will be permits penalties and almost certainly more ubiquitous surveillance all of this just so that Oxford officialdom which has declared a climate emergency can claim to be achieving the councils Net Zero .

The problem here is the claim that people will not be able to leave their ‘zones’. What is being planned is a number of traffic filters on six roads whereby private cars will generally not be able to drive through at certain times of day (and will be fined if they do so) but the rules will allow a number of permits for residents of Oxford and the surrounding area to bypass this a number of times a year, or for specific reasons otherwise you will instead need to travel out onto the ring road and back in, or take alternative routes. There are no physical barriers and nothing stopping people leaving their zones (the fifteen minute city idea just seems to be the latest buzz word in urban planning). A tad annoying and likely to be a major issue for both the city council elections as well as the Oxfordshire county council elections, but again I take issue when people start to try to imply that this is something it is not.

https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/arti...ford_city_council_on_oxford_s_traffic_filters

 

[Stan's Brew]

This post reeks of Alex Jones, I'm afraid. I've heard it all before.

I don't really follow the teachings of Alex Jones, which part reeks of him and you've heard before?

 

[Stan's Brew]

On the surface, these 15 minute neighbourhoods might sound pleasant and convenient but there is a coercive edge the council's plans to cut car use and traffic congestion by placing strict rules on car journeys under the new proposals if any of Oxfords 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year he or she could be fined £70.

I think this is the most worrying aspect and agree it would be the thin end of the wedge if implemented. This is akin to the pandemic lockdown restrictions of no travelling outside your local area and no exercise for more than an hour a day, amongst other ridiculous and stupid restrictions imposed by our insane leaders without a firm basis for doing so.

It's as if the meaningless number of 100 days has been plucked from the air, on what basis, are there studies to show beneficial effects at setting a limit of 100 days? What does the modelling show to support any restrictions at all, or is it really just buzzword climate change bingo? I don't see anything on the council website to support any of it using modelling or science or are we at the whimsy of our over-zealous climate lockdown fanatics and this is just the beginning, next will be 50 trips a year, 25 trips a year, 10 trips a year, who knows? All supported by hot air and the dream of higher income from fines and effectively criminalising people for going about their ordinary business.

The fact is we don't know what step on the wedge will be taken next and the council is highly unlikely to be transparent on future direction, once implemented it will never be removed and like ULEZ zones the restrictions will grow over time - history repeats.

 

[Scrattajack]

The people currently under threat are all those in outer London who will suddenly find they have to pay ULEZ costs because they can't afford a car newer built in the last 5 years.

I run a 2006 car, spouse's is a 2008 model. Both are fine with ULEZ. It's just the Dirty Diesel Owner's Club that has a problem, is it not?

 

[dad_of_jon]

This is akin to the pandemic lockdown restrictions of no travelling outside your local area and no exercise for more than an hour a day, amongst other ridiculous and stupid restrictions imposed by our insane leaders without a firm basis for doing so.

Police on the loughor bridge questioning why you were crossing from one authority to another.....

Because officer my nearest morrisons is across the bridge or should I drive further to stay within the boundaries???

I cycled outside of my local area solo on roads. less chance of catching covid than on a shared cycle path. The rules were thrown together and whilst I had sympathy for the goverment at the time, it seemed to me they were getting addicted telling people what to do and yet failing to do the right thing themselves. Most in the family have been triple jabbed but given the reduction in mortality with the current strain of covid and side effects of heart issues after a *** we've decided not to have a 4th ***. The risk / benefit for us doesn't weigh up.

Turns out the later jabs weren't much use anyways. The AZ was withdrawn last year, didn't know that... that was done quietly...

So the covid lockdown perhaps can be viewed as a template for a future (insert any topic here) lockdown. I bet whatever facts are used to coerce us to comply will be found after the event to be incorrect....

WMD in iraq
Diesel is better for the environment
Covid could kill 1 in 3

There's a pattern developing here......

We, the general population are loathed, despised or beneath contempt in the eyes of the majority of those that rule or seek to rule us.