# BorisWatch



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

Post up examples of Boris's buffoonery here.

I'll start with his announcement of another U Turn on his promise of a permanent memorial to World War II tactical commander Sir Keith Park on the 4th plinth at Trafalgar Square.

Speaking on BBC London TV, Boris toffed: "If he had my way I'd rename Hyde Park 'Keith Park'." 

Yah. Rly.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 3, 2008)

Good set of Bojo watching blogs here to help with the research:

 - Boris Watchers
 - BorisWatch.co.uk
 - BozzaWatch
 - boriswatch.blogspot.com
 - The Tory Troll


----------



## Pieface (Jun 3, 2008)

His first appearance at whatever the mayor's equivalent of prime ministers questions was embarrassing.   Saw it on London news.  He joked the whole way through it - when councillors were trying to ask the mayor of London questions.

I hadn't really seen him in action before that


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jun 3, 2008)

PieEye said:


> His first appearance at whatever the mayor's equivalent of prime ministers questions was embarrassing.   Saw it on London news.  He joked the whole way through it - when councillors were trying to ask the mayor of London questions.
> 
> I hadn't really seen him in action before that



Is this up online anywhere? I assume it must be somewhere.


----------



## Pieface (Jun 3, 2008)

I don't know - it was on London Tonight or whatever it's called.  I just couldn't believe how much he was dicking around.  Ken was in the public gallery watching too - all stony faced.


----------



## Pieface (Jun 3, 2008)

Actually - that's a BBC programme isn't it?  Try the beeb website - maybe the London/South East region.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jun 3, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Is this up online anywhere? I assume it must be somewhere.



All the webcasts including Mayor's Question Time are here:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/webcasts.jsp

What a twat.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

So... can anyone point me to any websites that ripped apart everything that Ken Livingstone said or did?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So... can anyone point me to any websites that ripped apart everything that Ken Livingstone said or did?




http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/



I wasn't talking about a newspaper, which just reports facts.

I'm just curious there seems to be a proliferation of "anti-Boris" sites popping up when Ken Livingstone did more to damage London in his 8 years than Hitler managed.


----------



## terrythomas (Jun 3, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't talking about a newspaper, *which just reports facts.*
> 
> I'm just curious there seems to be a proliferation of "anti-Boris" sites popping up when Ken Livingstone did more to damage London in his 8 years than Hitler managed.




*points and laughs*


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

A bronx cheer in your general direction.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't talking about a newspaper, which just reports facts.
> 
> I'm just curious there seems to be a proliferation of "anti-Boris" sites popping up when Ken Livingstone did more to damage London in his 8 years than Hitler managed.



Er...does anyone feel the need to take ajdown seriously after THIS...?


----------



## baldrick (Jun 3, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> Er...does anyone feel the need to take ajdown seriously after THIS...?


nobody's taken him seriously for quite some time, I can assure you.


----------



## g force (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't talking about a newspaper, which just reports facts.
> 
> I'm just curious there seems to be a proliferation of "anti-Boris" sites popping up when Ken Livingstone did more to damage London in his 8 years than Hitler managed.



Post of the year


----------



## Crispy (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't talking about a newspaper, which just reports facts.



Ahahahaha!


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

So... everyone jumps on and disagrees with "newspaper reporting facts" ... but nobody disagrees that Red Ken did more damage to London than Hitler.

Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't talking about a newspaper, which just reports facts.
> 
> I'm just curious there seems to be a proliferation of "anti-Boris" sites popping up when Ken Livingstone did more to damage London in his 8 years than Hitler managed.





That has to be the single dumbest post I've seen since 2001.

You truly are a knob of knobs.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So... everyone jumps on and disagrees with "newspaper reporting facts" ... but nobody disagrees that Red Ken did more damage to London than Hitler.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.



It's too risible for serious comment.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 3, 2008)

Ffs this should be a great thread not an excuse for pro bojo tossers to troll.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

Why does being anti-Ken automatically make me pro-Boris?

I didn't really like any of the candidates put up for mayor, but Boris seemed the least-bad option.


----------



## zenie (Jun 3, 2008)

PieEye said:


> His first appearance at whatever the mayor's equivalent of prime ministers questions was embarrassing. Saw it on London news. He joked the whole way through it - when councillors were trying to ask the mayor of London questions.
> 
> I hadn't really seen him in action before that


 
I saw that and posted about it. He was just being a total dickheadd, laughing and joking, and waffling about nothing really. 



PieEye said:


> I don't know - it was on London Tonight or whatever it's called. I just couldn't believe how much he was dicking around. Ken was in the public gallery watching too - all stony faced.


 
i felt a bit sad when I saw Ken sat there, he looked like he was gonna cry 

What is Ken doing now? 



baldrick said:


> nobody's taken him seriously for quite some time, I can assure you.


 




ajdown said:


> So... everyone jumps on and disagrees with "newspaper reporting facts" ... but nobody disagrees that Red Ken did more damage to London than Hitler.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.


 
No the bit about Hitler was a blatant troll, your other comment was a bit more subtle. Start your own thread about Ken if you hate him that much.

Borois is an incompetent Tory cunt end of.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jun 3, 2008)

Boris Johnson's handover team costs £465,000 - nice.

So much for cutting bureaucracy. Yes Boris voters, you fell for it.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> Boris Johnson's handover team costs £465,000 - nice.
> 
> So much for cutting bureaucracy. Yes Boris voters, you fell for it.



So earlier in this thread someone laughed because I said the Standard reported facts.  You believe this story because it suits your own agenda, rather than denigrating it because it's in a newspaper?

If you thought it wouldn't take any time or effort to unravel the mess that Ken had left, you're living in a dream world.  I'd say that was probably money well invested to get this city back up on its feet and behaving like the world leader it should be sooner.

Do you honestly believe that Ken did everything he could to make the transition easy for Boris, because knowing what a weasel he is he probably went out of his way to cause havoc.  I don't know what he's doing now but he can jump under one of his beloved bendy buses for all I care.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> Boris Johnson's handover team costs £465,000 - nice.
> 
> So much for cutting bureaucracy. Yes Boris voters, you fell for it.



How on Earth is it costing so much to 'handover' power? 

Fair's fair, though - we don't know if any other new Mayor would have cost less, because this is the first change we've had. Still, I don't get where the costs are coming from.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown;7582576]So earlier in this thread someone laughed because I said the Standard reported facts.  You believe this story because it suits your own agenda said:


> Do you honestly believe that Ken did everything he could to make the transition easy for Boris, because knowing what a weasel he is he probably went out of his way to cause havoc.  I don't know what he's doing now but he can jump under one of his beloved bendy buses for all I care.


Yes, i can well imagine Ken sneaking around City Hall on his last night, removing all the light bulbs, pouring paraffin in the cisterns, pissing in the lifts, heavens-to-betsy, its a wonder that we're all still alive innit....

piss poor sonny, piss poor 0/10


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Fair's fair, though - we don't know if any other new Mayor would have cost less, because this is the first change we've had.



A critical fact that nobody else seems to want to acknowledge.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Come on then fact-boy, i want names and details of this mess. It shouldn't be difficult to source this material, given his wild propensity for causing havoc and chaos as you imply. Oh, silly me, i forgot, you don't do links to credible material or facts do you - you simply make wild unproven assertions and then refuse to engage.



Well you can have a read of this whilst I keep looking.

https://s.p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/ssl/mol/2007/09/the_bow_group_report_versus_ma.html

In all honesty, the two-legged disaster that is Ken Livingstone can be summarised in three words... "Congestion Charge, Olympics".

How much from this page: http://www.kenlivingstone.com/media/first_and_second_preferences_for_ken_solidify have people followed through after pledging support for Ken?  Arabella Weir isn't dead yet, is she?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So earlier in this thread someone laughed because I said the Standard reported facts.  You believe this story because it suits your own agenda, rather than denigrating it because it's in a newspaper?
> 
> If you thought it wouldn't take any time or effort to unravel the mess that Ken had left, you're living in a dream world.  I'd say that was probably money well invested to get this city back up on its feet and behaving like the world leader it should be sooner.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Ken did everything he could to make the transition easy for Boris, because knowing what a weasel he is he probably went out of his way to cause havoc.  I don't know what he's doing now but he can jump under one of his beloved bendy buses for all I care.



You said newspapers 'just report facts.' As if facts are all they report. Newspapers do usually include some facts in their reports, but they're hidden among opinion and propoganda (especially in the Standard). I wonder if that paper is going to start being anti-Boris as much as it was anti-Ken? I kinda hope not - such biased reporting really is tiresome. 

Really not sure what you think they're spending this money on, to 'unravel the mess Ken left.' What, exactly?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So... everyone jumps on and disagrees with "newspaper reporting facts" ... but nobody disagrees that Red Ken did more damage to London than Hitler.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.



I must totally disagree with you about Livingscum and the damage he did.  yes he did a fuck load of damage but please remember that some of us remember the London Docklands Development Corporation and they really did do more damage than the Luftwaffe.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> Boris Johnson's handover team costs £465,000 - nice.
> 
> So much for cutting bureaucracy. Yes Boris voters, you fell for it.



The problem is like it or not sorting out the KL's fuck ups is going to take money at the start of the new mayoral regime.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> The problem is like it or not sorting out the KL's fuck ups is going to take money at the start of the new mayoral regime.



How?


----------



## zenie (Jun 3, 2008)

Why can't the ken haters start their own thread instead of derailing these ones all the time? 

mods??


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> In all honesty, the two-legged disaster that is Ken Livingstone can be summarised in three words... "Congestion Charge, Olympics".


The congestion charge was hardly a disaster by anyone's reckoning and you haven't the faintest idea whether the Olympics will be a disaster or not yet.

Not that any of the above has anything to do with this thread.


----------



## rich! (Jun 3, 2008)

zenie said:


> Why can't the ken haters start their own thread instead of derailing these ones all the time?



If they built it no-one would go. I don't think any of them support Boris, but they can only validate their weird anti-Ken world view by trolling any other threads.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

editor said:


> The congestion charge was hardly a disaster by anyone's reckoning and you haven't the faintest idea whether the Olympics will be a disaster or not yet.
> 
> Not that any of the above has anything to do with this thread.



The congestion charge has been a disaster, at least for anyone who drives in London it is.  As someone whose bus journey to work goes along New Kent Road and Tower Bridge Road, everyone goes round there instead of cutting through London on any of the other bridges, so all the congestion is there instead of being spread out - and people won't divert off because of having to pay £8 for the privilege of another tax on motorists.

http://www.timeout.com/london/features/3916/Ken_Livingstone_on_trial.html?cpage=3&ccat=5
"The Congestion Charge has damaged business in central London. In 2004, John Lewis calculated that the Charge had resulted in a 5.52 per cent drop in sales at its Oxford Street store. The £16 billion needed to fund Crossrail means that at least three other major projects are likely to be put on ice, including the extension of the Croydon tram link to Crystal Palace and the proposed Docklands Light Railway route linking Barking Riverside and Dagenham. London’s fares continue to be the most expensive in the world. And, of course, many Londoners have still not forgiven Livingstone for ditching the beloved Routemaster buses in 2005.

Our jury’s verdict ‘The Mayor is no expert on transport and it is a socialist dream that does not work. His policies have failed singularly.’"


http://www.liebreich.com/LDC/HTML/Olympics/London/London01.html

"The Olympics has already been stated as way over the original budget - and Ken admitted to lying about the costs to get the thing here in the first place.

When the costs were examined by the Treasury, they had to be revised upwards. Ove Arup now claim the costs will be nearer to £3.6 billion. The Government now thinks £5.2 billion might be the right answer for the costs, and the shortfall would be £2.6 billion, to be funded from a combination of central government, a precept on London Council Tax and a special Lottery game."

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/04/24/cheek_by_jowell_undermines_gra.html

"No offence to the minister but to pick one figure that particularly incensed the PAC, the budget for the Olympic Delivery Authority was originally put at £16m. It is now running at £570m. The fact that Jowell "meant well" does not really cover it. "

What has it got to do with the discussion?  It shows that dear Ken, so beloved to some people around here, has left a terrible mess in those two things alone, never mind all the sleaze and corruption that's still being unravelled, for Boris to take over.

Ken lied about the costs of the olympics, and who's going to be the one in office whilst all this mess is sorted out?  Boris.  Who's going to get the blame for a mess he inherited when it all goes tits up in 2012?  Boris.  

There was a picture of Ken in the free paper this evening, with a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle.  He still hasn't got over the fact that he failed and there's no amount of spin he can put on it to get over the fact he lost.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

zenie said:


> Why can't the ken haters start their own thread instead of derailing these ones all the time?
> 
> mods??


I think that would be an exceptionally good idea, speaking personally.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

rich! said:


> If they built it no-one would go. I don't think any of them support Boris, but they can only validate their weird anti-Ken world view by trolling any other threads.



I think what you mean are the Ken supporters are very militant in their views, whereas the Boris supporters are not only outnumbered here due to the nature of this site and its general poster demographic, but also there would be so much insults being thrown instead of addressing the points raised that it would very soon become completely worthless because of all the distractors.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

zenie said:


> Why can't the ken haters start their own thread instead of derailing these ones all the time?
> 
> mods??



Thought this place was for debate not just a pro Ken circle jerk


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I think what you mean are the Ken supporters are very militant in their views, whereas the Boris supporters are not only outnumbered here due to the nature of this site and its general poster demographic, but also there would be so much insults being thrown instead of addressing the points raised that it would very soon become completely worthless because of all the distractors.



"I'd like my kneejerk factionalism with a side-order of persecution complex, please."


----------



## zenie (Jun 3, 2008)

rich! said:


> If they built it no-one would go. I don't think any of them support Boris, but they can only validate their weird anti-Ken world view by trolling any other threads.



quite 



FridgeMagnet said:


> I think that would be an exceptionally good idea, speaking personally.



So delete all the guff and keep this thread what the Op asked for 'boris watch' would make sense no? 



KeyboardJockey said:


> Thought this place was for debate not just a pro Ken circle jerk



This place or this thread?

I mean it clearly states boris watch in the OP, what part of that don't you understand? 

Is there anything in this opening post that's pro ken?



> Post up examples of Boris's buffoonery here.
> 
> I'll start with his announcement of another U Turn on his promise of a permanent memorial to World War II tactical commander Sir Keith Park on the 4th plinth at Trafalgar Square.
> 
> ...


No there isn't, you seem to come on all of the Boris threads and slag Ken off and I don't understand why you do it. 

No-one's saying ken's a fucking angel, but this thread and all the others aren't about him they're about Boris.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "I'd like my kneejerk factionalism with a side-order of persecution complex, please."



What did I just say?

"but also there would be so much insults being thrown instead of addressing the points raised"


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think that would be an exceptionally good idea, speaking personally.



I have started a very moderate pro Boris thread and it got totally trolled by posters just parroting the KL propaganda line.  A challenge is good but repeating 'ken good boris bad' at every opportunity isn't a challenge its the province of the desparately deluded and disruptive.  Why then should pro Boris or indeed pro change comments be banned from threads such as this when when no action at all was taken (indeed no complaint was made by myself) against several vociferous posters screaming pro ken propaganda on threads that have the temerity to question the idea that KL deserved to run London in perpetuity.


----------



## zenie (Jun 3, 2008)

But it's not Pro Boris, can't you see that, it's Anti Ken and rather tiresome and boring.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I have started a very moderate pro Boris thread and it got totally trolled by posters just parroting the KL propaganda line.  A challenge is good but repeating 'ken good boris bad' at every opportunity isn't a challenge its the province of the desparately deluded and disruptive.  Why then should pro Boris or indeed pro change comments be banned from threads such as this when when no action at all was taken (indeed no complaint was made by myself) against several vociferous posters screaming pro ken propaganda on threads that have the temerity to question the idea that KL deserved to run London in perpetuity.



Your pro-Boris stuff seems to be uniformly based on attacking Livingstone, and even when people don't say anything about Ken but attack Boris your response has been pretty much always to call them Ken supporters, and attack Ken. It really puzzles me how you don't see this.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> that have the temerity to question the idea that KL deserved to run London in perpetuity.



Ken didn't deserve to run London in Monopoly - or any other board game, for that matter.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Your pro-Boris stuff seems to be uniformly based on attacking Livingstone, and even when people don't say anything about Ken but attack Boris your response has been pretty much always to call them Ken supporters, and attack Ken. It really puzzles me how you don't see this.



There is also another fact that people are forgetting.

We have 8 years of things that Ken has done.

We've only had one month of Boris, so whether good or bad, there isn't so much to talk about.

Much of the anti-Boris stuff being peddled here is purely reactionary - such as the alcohol ban will "take away the rights of the common person to drink on the tube", or the ending of the oil deal with a well known dictator as "removing cheap travel for the unemployed"  - without the ability of hindsight to be able to look back and see how what Boris did in 4 years time has improved things for London.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Your pro-Boris stuff seems to be uniformly based on attacking Livingstone, and even when people don't say anything about Ken but attack Boris your response has been pretty much always to call them Ken supporters, and attack Ken. It really puzzles me how you don't see this.



Thats because many of us saw the need for change, saw the faults inherent in Livingstones rule and voted for a change.  Sadly, the only electable alternative was Boris Johnson.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Ken didn't deserve to run London in Monopoly - or any other board game, for that matter.



Has anyone got a Whelk stall that they want running into the ground if so Ken's yer man.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Thats because many of us saw the need for change, saw the faults inherent in Livingstones rule and voted for a change.  Sadly, the only electable alternative was Boris Johnson.



This is a bit disingenuous. You have repeatedly argued for Boris based on a tiny amount of thinking he's any good and a vast quantity of hating Ken, which is a coherent position certainly (if perhaps incorrect). However, you then typified and continue to typify everyone who says that Boris is a wanker as rabid Ken supporters, and brought and continue to bring up Ken whenever anyone criticises Boris, regardless of whether they mention Ken or not. _You're doing it right now._


----------



## zenie (Jun 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Thats because many of us saw the need for change, saw the faults inherent in Livingstones rule and voted for a change.  Sadly, the only electable alternative was Boris Johnson.



How long have you lived in KBJ, I thought you only moved here last year?


----------



## tarannau (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is a bit disingenuous. You have repeatedly argued for Boris based on a tiny amount of thinking he's any good and a vast quantity of hating Ken, which is a coherent position certainly (if perhaps incorrect). However, you then typified and continue to typify everyone who says that Boris is a wanker as rabid Ken supporters, and brought and continue to bring up Ken whenever anyone criticises Boris, regardless of whether they mention Ken or not. _You're doing it right now._



Thank gawd you said that. I started a similar post before a sudden bout of 'cantbearsedwiththis' struck. Well said.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why does being anti-Ken automatically make me pro-Boris?
> 
> I didn't really like any of the candidates put up for mayor, but Boris seemed the least-bad option.



So you concede you're a trolling tosser then?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> So you concede you're a trolling tosser then?



Not at all.  

My feelings on some issues just happen to be more in line with Boris than Ken.  It's as simple as that.  

Sure, it may be a minority round here ... but that doesn't mean I can't share my views.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> There is also another fact that people are forgetting.
> 
> We have 8 years of things that Ken has done.
> 
> We've only had one month of Boris, so whether good or bad, there isn't so much to talk about.



The latter paet is true, but this is still a thread about Boris, not Ken.



> Much of the anti-Boris stuff being peddled here is purely reactionary - such as the alcohol ban will "take away the rights of the common person to drink on the tube", or the ending of the oil deal with a well known dictator as "removing cheap travel for the unemployed"  - without the ability of hindsight to be able to look back and see how what Boris did in 4 years time has improved things for London.



You are aware that Chavez was democratically elected, yes?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

BTW, is anyone going to answer my question? What's that £450,000 changeover money actually being spent on? A solid gold name-plate for Boris's door?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> You are aware that Chavez was democratically elected, yes?



As was Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, Robert Mugabe, and probably plenty more I've forgotten about.

You have a point to make?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> BTW, is anyone going to answer my question? What's that £450,000 changeover money actually being spent on? A solid gold name-plate for Boris's door?



I would say that, compared to this little escapade that Ken had planned (April 08, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...he+real+joker+-+Boris+or+the+Mayor/article.do), a nameplate would probably be a better deal - and a lower carbon footprint.

"TfL is driving two double-decker buses overland to Beijing this summer, at a cost of £450,000, to "showcase the London transport system". How fitting that Ken's London should be " showcased" by a pointlessly extravagant PR gesture."

Boris has, thankfully, put a stop to this (http://www.thelondondailynews.com/ken’s-beijing-booted-p-702.html) but it's still going to cost about half of that because of what's already been paid out - no doubt before Boris even started.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As was Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, Robert Mugabe, and probably plenty more I've forgotten about.
> 
> You have a point to make?



Very few people would consider them democratically elected. Chavez was. 



ajdown said:


> I would say that, compared to this little escapade that Ken had planned (April 08, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...he+real+joker+-+Boris+or+the+Mayor/article.do), a nameplate would probably be a better deal - and a lower carbon footprint.
> 
> "TfL is driving two double-decker buses overland to Beijing this summer, at a cost of £450,000, to "showcase the London transport system". How fitting that Ken's London should be " showcased" by a pointlessly extravagant PR gesture."
> 
> Boris has, thankfully, put a stop to this (http://www.thelondondailynews.com/ken’s-beijing-booted-p-702.html) but it's still going to cost about half of that because of what's already been paid out - no doubt before Boris even started.



So I ask a simple question about something that's happening under Boris's regime, and you respond by taking the opportunity to slag off Ken? 

Why can't you just answer the question?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Why can't you just answer the question?



You can read it for yourself.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...son's+handover+team+costs+£465,000/article.do

Consultants fees, basically.  There aren't any more details available yet.


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So... everyone jumps on and disagrees with "newspaper reporting facts" ... but nobody disagrees that Red Ken did more damage to London than Hitler.
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation.



HEIL IN A HANDCART


----------



## the button (Jun 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> HEIL IN A HANDCART


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2008)

the button said:


>



It's like living in Nazi Germany


----------



## the button (Jun 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's like living in Nazi Germany



Worse.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> HEIL IN A HANDCART



and the claim that the Congestion Charge is going to be extended as far west as ACHTUNG is completely unfounded?


----------



## the button (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> and the claim that the Congestion Charge is going to be extended as far west as ACHTUNG is completely unfounded?



Gott im Hemel Hempstead!


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Ken didn't deserve to run London in Monopoly - or any other board game, for that matter.


Yes he did deserve to run London. He was voted in by the London public, fair and square, so shut it, whiney boy.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes he did deserve to run London. He was voted in by the London public, fair and square, so shut it, whiney boy.



Guess what?

So did Boris.


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jun 3, 2008)

I'm just waiting for my New York-style crime map to drop through my letterbox.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You can read it for yourself.
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...son's+handover+team+costs+£465,000/article.do
> 
> Consultants fees, basically.  There aren't any more details available yet.



But what are they consulting about? Honestly, what exactly can be so difficult and expensive about this changeover? I know you probably don't have actual answers to hand, but I was hoping you could make guesses, at least.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> But what are they consulting about? Honestly, what exactly can be so difficult and expensive about this changeover? I know you probably don't have actual answers to hand, but I was hoping you could make guesses, at least.



My guess is probably having to analyse every policy that Ken decided on (such as the "Bus to Beijing"), and analyse everything to see whether the cost/benefit was worth it, or whether it conflicted with Boris' own plans in whatever area, then make recommendations as to how to best proceed.

Half a million might seem a lot, but when you compare it to the full Mayoral budget for the year (http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/index.jsp) of £3,148,600,000 it's not that big an amount.  My calculator can't even work out what percentage that is, it's so small.

The government agency DEFRA, on the other hand, spent £170 million on consultancy over 4 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6159194.stm) ... anyone here complaining about that?


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jun 3, 2008)

Manifesto:

I will make City Hall more accountable. Information about Mayoral advisors will be available on the web with their contact details and their register of interests will also be available online.

Article:

In a written answer, Boris Johnson said: "There are currently a number of consultants who are being paid to support the transition process but it is not intended that the fees for these individuals will be made public."

So it's going to be more accountable, apart from the bit where fees are concerned.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> My guess is probably having to analyse every policy that Ken decided on (such as the "Bus to Beijing"), and analyse everything to see whether the cost/benefit was worth it, or whether it conflicted with Boris' own plans in whatever area, then make recommendations as to how to best proceed.



That doesn't sound like a good use of funds to me - but you're probably right that that's what they're doing. 



> Half a million might seem a lot, but when you compare it to the full Mayoral budget for the year (http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/index.jsp) of £3,148,600,000 it's not that big an amount.  My calculator can't even work out what percentage that is, it's so small.
> 
> The government agency DEFRA, on the other hand, spent £170 million on consultancy over 4 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6159194.stm) ... anyone here complaining about that?



You'll find that a lot of people here, myself included, dislike fees being wasted on pointless consultants no matter who's employing them. Though £170million for a whole agency over four years sounds like a bit of a bargain compared to £450,000 for one man for six months.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

Lazy Llama said:


> So it's going to be more accountable, apart from the bit where fees are concerned.


He's already proved himself to be a lying shithawk unable to keep what few promises he served up at the election.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> You'll find that a lot of people here, myself included, dislike fees being wasted on pointless consultants no matter who's employing them. Though £170million for a whole agency over four years sounds like a bit of a bargain compared to £450,000 for one man for six months.



Me too.  I dislike consultants greatly - the two that I have had to deal with directly during my working life, one in my first job bankrupted the company, the second with my current employment has completely screwed up my job it now takes twice as long and has no tangiable benefits but as an old school chum of the CEO, his recommendations were adopted despite my concerns, and I was proven right.

£450,000 isn't on one person though - the article states it's a 15-strong team.

_A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: "We have budgeted for a maximum of £465,000 over six months. We do not envisage all of these consultants being here for six months, some will become permanent members of staff and some will leave."_

Assuming they're all on for the whole 6 months that's £62,000 per person per year ... not that excessive when you compare them to some of the city salaries.  I know they aren't all going to be there for 6 months but it does bring the figures a bit more into perspective.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

editor said:


> He's already proved himself to be a lying shithawk unable to keep what few promises he served up at the election.



Details?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Me too.  I dislike consultants greatly - the two that I have had to deal with directly during my working life, one in my first job bankrupted the company, the second with my current employment has completely screwed up my job it now takes twice as long and has no tangiable benefits but as an old school chum of the CEO, his recommendations were adopted despite my concerns, and I was proven right.



Yup. Some consultants are good - they're just self-employed outside contractors brought in to do a specialised job - but management consultants seem to be simply money sinks.



> £450,000 isn't on one person though - the article states it's a 15-strong team.
> 
> _A spokesman for Mr Johnson said: "We have budgeted for a maximum of £465,000 over six months. We do not envisage all of these consultants being here for six months, some will become permanent members of staff and some will leave."_
> 
> Assuming they're all on for the whole 6 months that's £62,000 per person per year ... not that excessive when you compare them to some of the city salaries.  I know they aren't all going to be there for 6 months but it does bring the figures a bit more into perspective.



The 'one person' was the Mayor, not the consultants.


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2008)

Lazy Llama said:


> So it's going to be more accountable, apart from the bit where fees are concerned.



Well, quite.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> The 'one person' was the Mayor, not the consultants.



http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/index.jsp

_Salaries for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Assembly Members for the current financial year are as follows:

Mayor £137,579 
Deputy Mayor £90,954 
Chair of the Assembly £60,675 
Assembly Members £50,582 
Assembly Members who are also MPs £33,721 (from May 2008, £16,861) _


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/budget/index.jsp
> 
> _Salaries for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Assembly Members for the current financial year are as follows:
> 
> ...



The Assembly's got nothing to do with the costs of the Mayoral changeover, though. So that's two people. 

How is the deputy Mayor chosen? It's weird - you'd think the Deputy Mayor would be quite high profile, but I never heard of one under Ken (I expect there was one, but he/she must have been practically invisible).

Right, I went and looked it up. The Mayor chooses a member of the LA, so they are elected in a way - not to that post specifically, but then, neither are the cabinet. 

This is interesting (from Wiki):

After Boris Johnson became Mayor in May 2008, he appointed Richard Barnes as his "statutory" Deputy Mayor, with the specific responsibility for community cohesion and regeneration. However, he also gave the title of Deputy Mayor to several other people, each with a specific role: Ian Clement (Government Relations); Kit Malthouse (Policing); and Ray Lewis (Young People).[4]

That doesn't sound like cutting down on bureacracy.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Mayor_of_London gives you all you want to know.

All about Ken's Deputy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Gavron


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> That doesn't sound like cutting down on bureacracy.



Depends.  Money spent on people at that high a level, with specific responsibilities towards areas identified as needing special attention, is not the same as having 100 penpushers all doing pointless stuff.

As for Ken...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone#Cronyism_and_corruption_allegations

_In March 2002, while still independent, Livingstone was accused of "cronyism" by some Labour party members in the London Assembly after he had *appointed six officials as special advisers* at a salary level which seemed to them excessive, and a manoeuvre to help his chances of being re-elected. Livingstone denied the allegations and stated the appointments were a "necessary efficiency drive."[40]

In December 2007, the Evening Standard published news of an investigation into grants worth £2.5 million paid to organisations in which Ken Livingstone's adviser Lee Jasper was involved. It is confirmed that some of these grants were paid directly by the mayor's office. The independently audited and verified accounts detail grants paid with no quid pro quo, rental money paid to organisations already based in London Development Agency premises, and even threats of violence by grant recipients._


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... the ending of the oil deal *with a well known dictator*...



Source?


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Details?


Routemaster. Fourth plinth statue.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> Source?



http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm
http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/chavezcitgo.html
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/those-crazy-dictators/hugo-chavez-pc-magnate-269800.php
http://www.davidbruceallen.com/strategyoped/2007/05/hugo_chavezs_fi.html
http://alekboyd.blogspot.com/2007/02/dictator-hugo-chavez-to-give-up-to-32.html
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.c...on/Chavezs.Turn.Toward.Dictator-2700160.shtml
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/32491.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/victor_navasky/2007/06/chavez_tv.html
http://current.com/items/88857126_hugo_chavez_moves_his_tanks_to_border_as_regional_war_looms

Need more references to people calling Chavez a dictator?


----------



## snadge (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm
> http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm
> http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/chavezcitgo.html
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/those-crazy-dictators/hugo-chavez-pc-magnate-269800.php
> ...




ultra christian fundamentalist RW rags proof do not make.

Chavez IS NOT a Dictator, most of the articles do not even mention that untruth.

one that does is an ultra right wing think tank, even then they do not accuse him of that, just allude that he could be, pick your sources a little better.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm
> http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm
> http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/chavezcitgo.html
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/those-crazy-dictators/hugo-chavez-pc-magnate-269800.php
> ...



Yes. One serious site, not your bookmarked list of foamthing mouth far-right wankathons.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm
> http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm
> http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/chavezcitgo.html
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/those-crazy-dictators/hugo-chavez-pc-magnate-269800.php
> ...



do you read your own links?



			
				CiF said:
			
		

> The last time I looked, Chávez was re-elected  by a clear majority of more than 60%, most of them poor.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Routemaster. Fourth plinth statue.



So you only have two issues?

Buses

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/09/04/routemaster-boris/

"Conservative London mayoral hopeful Boris Johnson says that if elected he *will try to* bring back the Routemaster to London’s streets in a 21st-century form."

Note emphasis.


Trafalgar Square statue

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/05/will_boris_johnson_ditch_the_f.html

"London will be the poorer if the new mayor replaces Trafalgar Square's revolving display of contemporary art with a statue of war hero Sir Keith Park"

Is the 'contemporary art' that plastic monstrosity?  If so, then getting rid of that has to be a benefit.  It's not art, it's utter shite.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

snadge said:


> ultra christian fundamentalist RW rags proof do not make.



Oh I'm sorry.

I forgot a balanced view to the regular left-wing tree hugging bollocks round here wasn't appreciated.

Apologies.

Why are you calling them 'ultra christian fundamentalist'?  You do realise that could be classed as religious hatred these days.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm
> http://www.fightthebias.com/Resources/Rec_Read/Dictator_In_The_Making.htm
> http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/chavezcitgo.html
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/those-crazy-dictators/hugo-chavez-pc-magnate-269800.php
> ...



People calling him a dictator does not make him a dictator.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> People calling him a dictator does not make him a dictator.



Neither does people calling Boris a wanker ... but plenty of drunks at the weekend seemed to think that way.


----------



## snadge (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why are you calling them 'ultra christian fundamentalist'?  You do realise that could be classed as religious hatred these days.



fuck 'em, BTW I'm not a leftie.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Neither does people calling Boris a wanker ... but plenty of drunks at the weekend seemed to think that way.



Got nothing to do with whether Chavez is a dictator. He simply isn't.

And people were calling Boris a wanker because they dislike him and think he's awful. They're not making a factual accusation that can be easily proven or refuted - though, factually, he very likely is a wanker, as most people are.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Got nothing to do with whether Chavez is a dictator. He simply isn't.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7432895.stm doesn't sound a bit suspect to you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Got nothing to do with whether Chavez is a dictator. He simply isn't.
> 
> And people were calling Boris a wanker because they dislike him and think he's awful. They're not making a factual accusation that can be easily proven or refuted - though, factually, he very likely is a wanker, as most people are.



ennit. I'm sure there are a few sly ones off the wrist in between extra-marital affairs.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> ennit. I'm sure there are a few sly ones off the wrist in between extra-marital affairs.



... as, probably, there are with most people (wanking, I mean, not affairs).


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Oh I'm sorry.
> 
> I forgot a balanced view to the regular left-wing tree hugging bollocks round here wasn't appreciated.
> 
> ...



ajdown.  I'm with you that KL had to go and was dodgy.  However, the sources you have given are not a broad spectrum of sources.  

Although I dislike Livingstone I'm equally not liking christian (or any) fundamentalist sources.  IMO its a dangerous cul de sac to take the Word literally.  Both are shit.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Although I dislike Livingstone I'm equally not liking christian (or any) fundamentalist sources.



Extremism, in any form, whether it's left wing politics, right wing politics, Christian, Islamic, whatever, is dangerous.

Unfortunately, the term 'fundamentalist' does seem to end up being emphasised on the 'mental' part of the word, and not really taking into account just people that are very sure of their beliefs.

I just googled "hugo chavez dictator" and picked a random selection of sources from around the world.  I didn't really have time to check every single one fully to see what its political and/or religious stance was.  I didn't feel it was important, merely demonstrating that there are many occasions where Chavez has been called a dictator, and not just in passing by me.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown;7583580]So you only have two issues?[/quote]That's quite enough to back up my statement that he's already broken promises.[quote=ajdown said:


> "Conservative London mayoral hopeful Boris Johnson says that if elected he *will try to* bring back the Routemaster to London’s streets in a 21st-century form."


It was a promise:





> One of Boris Johnson's *key pledges* during his election campaign was his *promise* of bringing back the Routemaster bus and replacing the controversial bendy buses.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2008/05/06/boris_routemaster_feature.shtml


Note my emphasis.

His promise of a permanent statue of Sir Keith Park is also well documented ans is his u-turn.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

I dare say that someone with enough time and knowledge of Ken Livingstone's "promises" could very easily draw up a long list of things he failed to do in eight years.

Boris has had six weeks.  Is it any real surprise that the things he said he'd do haven't all happened yet? 

Come back in May 2012 - or whenever the next election is - and let's see then what Boris has 'failed to do'.

Whatever happens... I just hope Ken doesn't get re-elected.  Actually, by then, he'll be 67.  Is there an age limit on the Mayoral position, like normal people retiring at 65?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> People calling him a dictator does not make him a dictator.



No its trying to abolish presidential terms. Changing the constitution to rule by decree and heading up a police state.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I dare say that someone with enough time and knowledge of Ken Livingstone's "promises" could very easily draw up a long list of things he failed to do in eight years.
> 
> Boris has had six weeks.  Is it any real surprise that the things he said he'd do haven't all happened yet?



I think the point is that he has already conceded that he won't be able to keep those promises.



> Whatever happens... I just hope Ken doesn't get re-elected.  Actually, by then, he'll be 67.  Is there an age limit on the Mayoral position, like normal people retiring at 65?



Of course there isn't. Come on, there isn't even a rule saying that you have to give up your other elected posts, or not have jobs which can cause a conflict of interests. 

@Gixxer - links please.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> @Gixxer - links please.



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/02/content_7187447.htm


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 3, 2008)

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR53/013/2003/en/dom-AMR530132003en.html


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 3, 2008)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/01/venezuela.danglaister


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> No its trying to abolish presidential terms. Changing the constitution to rule by decree and heading up a police state.



You linked to an article about a referendum on abolishing limits to Presidential terms (which would have made it like the UK, which has no limits). If he were a dictator, then surely he wouldn't have had a referendum, or would have ignored the results? Then you linked to a story that's not about Chavez. 

To be honest, it does sound as though there are grounds for thinking he's a bit dodgy - though the same could be said for so many bloody world leaders right now, including ours  - but not a dictator.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> To be honest, it does sound as though there are grounds for thinking he's a bit dodgy - though the same could be said for so many bloody world leaders right now, including ours  - but not a dictator.



They are all dictators to varying degrees.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

There are certainly dodgy things about Chavez but _him holding a referendum to abolish term limits_ makes him out to be a particularly rubbish sort of "dictator"


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 3, 2008)

Not going to waste any more of my time.

Suggest you read up on Chavez. Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of being a traitor


----------



## exosculate (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are certainly dodgy things about Chavez but _him holding a referendum to abolish term limits_ makes him out to be a particularly rubbish sort of "dictator"



Hitler was voted in .......etc etc and so forth.....


As you were.....


----------



## exosculate (Jun 3, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Not going to waste any more of my time.
> 
> Suggest you read up on Chavez. Anyone who disagrees with him is accused of being a traitor



Sounds like Bush!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Hitler was voted in .......etc etc and so forth.....
> 
> 
> As you were.....



I think it was Chavez that the White House accused of being worse than both Hitler _and_ Stalin. I did draw a Venn diagram about it but I can't find it now


----------



## exosculate (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think it was Chavez that the White House accused of being worse than both Hitler _and_ Stalin. I did draw a Venn diagram about it but I can't find it now



You cant titillate us with stories of crazy Venn diagram type things and then just leave it there.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think it was Chavez that the White House accused of being worse than both Hitler _and_ Stalin. I did draw a Venn diagram about it but I can't find it now



Feck, it was Hitler and Lenin, and I found the Venn diagram but the previous post explaining it links to an article that doesn't exist any more  I should remember to quote these things.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Feck, it was Hitler and Lenin, and I found the Venn diagram but the previous post explaining it links to an article that doesn't exist any more  I should remember to quote these things.



Well I don't understand it, but the colours are pretty.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 3, 2008)

Its sort of cunt shaped at the intersection.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

And on the BBC news, it's been announced that "I'll be more open than Ken" Boris will not stay on to answer all press questions at briefings like his predecessor.

Avoiding legitimate press questions sure looks like another broken promise.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> And on the BBC news, it's been announced that "I'll be more open than Ken" Boris will not stay on to answer all press questions at briefings like his predecessor.
> 
> Avoiding legitimate press questions sure looks like another broken promise.



Perhaps if people didn't spend all their time asking stupid questions and attacking every move Boris makes - especially those that haven't gotten over the fact that Ken lost - perhaps he'd a) have more time to get on with the job he's paid to do, and b) wouldn't have to skip some questions because there wouldn't be so many silly ones being asked.

Were people this hard on Ken after 5 weeks?  I doubt it, especially round here.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

At least he resigned as an MP, Ken trousered two salaries and expenses for two years, principled socialist that he is.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Perhaps if people didn't spend all their time asking stupid questions


Have you ever attended a Mayor's question and answer session with the press then?


Gixxer1000 said:


> At least he resigned as an MP, Ken trousered two salaries and expenses for two years, principled socialist that he is.


So are 'principled socialists' are only allowed to do one job, then?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Have you ever attended a Mayor's question and answer session with the press then?



Val Shawcross trying to hand over a cycle helmet was excrutiatingly awful.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> So are 'principled socialists' are only allowed to do one job, then?



He did neither well and certainly wasnt worth 200K.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> So are 'principled socialists' are only allowed to do one job, then?



I'd look askance at a so-called 'principled socialist' who didn't consider a job where he was paid several times national median wage to be a full-time one.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Have you ever attended a Mayor's question and answer session with the press then?


Personally, no, but given what people round here are like attacking Boris, then I can only imagine that the media are going to be just as bad - if not worse, to be honest.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> I'd look askance at a so-called 'principled socialist' who didn't consider a job where he was paid several times national median wage to be a full-time one.



So would I!

Make no mistake Ken is just as much Labour aristocracy as Boris is Tory gentry.

Its business as usual - one elite replacing another. Its like the end scene in Animal Farm.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Personally, no, but given what people round here are like attacking Boris, then I can only imagine that the media are going to be just as bad - if not worse, to be honest.


So despite not having the  slightest clue what goes on and never having actually attended yourself, you're going to carry on blindly asserting that it's all about journos asking stupid questions, yes?

Way to go!


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> I'd look askance at a so-called 'principled socialist' who didn't consider a job where he was paid several times national median wage to be a full-time one.


So what wage should a "principled socialist" take?

And did Ken ever describe himself as a "principled socialist" when he was in office anyway?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> So despite not having the  slightest clue what goes on and never having actually attended yourself, you're going to carry on blindly asserting that it's all about journos asking stupid questions, yes?



... and how many have you been to?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> So what wage should a "principled socialist" take?



You want a figure?  National median wage, or even London median wage could be yardsticks we could discuss.  Are you saying you think such a wage has no bearing on how well-aligned his interests would be with the working class he claims to represent?  

Especially when this wage seems to be for a part-time post.

Or do you think the salary is merely a number signifying nothing?



editor said:


> And did Ken ever describe himself as a "principled socialist" when he was in office anyway?



Not sure he ever said that, though there's little doubt he tried to present himself as one.


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> Not sure he ever said that, though there's little doubt he tried to present himself as one.


Examples, please.



ajdown said:


> ... and how many have you been to?


None. And that's why - unlike you - I'm not making any clueless claims about what supposedly went on at the press briefings. 

I doubt very much that Ken would give up his precious time with journos just to answer a load of "stupid questions."


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2008)

editor said:


> Examples, please.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/communicate/archive/ken_livingstone/page1.shtml

Am I going to have to dig up something where he states he has principles in no uncertain terms, or can I throw burden of proof back to you and make you dig up something where he claims to be an 'unprincipled socialist' now?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 4, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> At least he resigned as an MP, Ken trousered two salaries and expenses for two years, principled socialist that he is.



Now that's something I didn't know. What was the other job?

But, even after resigning from his Henley post, Boris still has more than two jobs plus their salaries and expenses, so that's not a terribly good defense of him there.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 4, 2008)

scifisam said:


> But, even after resigning from his Henley post, Boris still has more than two jobs plus their salaries and expenses, so that's not a terribly good defense of him there.



Boris doesn't claim to be a socialist though, does he?


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/communicate/archive/ken_livingstone/page1.shtml
> 
> Am I going to have to dig up something where he states he has principles in no uncertain terms, or can I throw burden of proof back to you and make you dig up something where he claims to be an 'unprincipled socialist' now?


You see, I always thought that the meaning of the word socialist' was open to many, many different personal and political interpretations, but if you're insisting that Ken failed at being one, perhaps you could show me the big book that lay down all the rules?

Thanks.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2008)

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.

By the same token we can call Boris a principled socialist, then.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Boris still has more than two jobs plus their salaries and expenses, so that's not a terribly good defense of him there.



Yes youre right, he writes for GQ as a motoring correspondant (?) Hardly on a par with being an MP is it?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> or can I throw burden of proof back to you and make you dig up something where he claims to be an 'unprincipled socialist' now?



 I bow my head


----------



## scifisam (Jun 4, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Yes youre right, he writes for GQ as a motoring correspondant (?) Hardly on a par with being an MP is it?



... And a column in the Telegraph and editorship of the Spectator and directorship of several companies and so on.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 4, 2008)

Why anyone defends any of these self serving corporate arse wipes is beyond me.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

scifisam said:


> ... editorship of the Spectator



No he resigned his editorship to concentate on the campaign.



scifisam said:


> ... and so on.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Why anyone defends any of these self serving corporate arse wipes is beyond me.



I voted for Ken, 8 years ago for the same reason I voted for Boris this time round. He had something about him, unfortunately he got lost on the way
Dare say BJ will go the same way.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 4, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> No he resigned his editorship to concentate on the campaign.



To be fair, I wasn't sure about that. But you haven't disputed the other jobs, so he still has more than 2 jobs, which is what you complained about Ken having had. What was his other job, BTW? I'm not disputing it (and think it was bad that he did), but am curious.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 4, 2008)

I think Boris is being _very_ carefully handled at the moment - I doubt we'll see any major slapstick buffoonery for a few months.  

Maybe once the Tories are on the proper campaign trail and take an eye off him for a second  . .


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

scifisam said:


> What was his other job, BTW? I'm not disputing it (and think it was bad that he did), but am curious.



Remained as an MP for two years after becoming Mayor.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 4, 2008)

8ball said:


> I think Boris is being _very_ carefully handled at the moment - I doubt we'll see any major slapstick buffoonery for a few months.
> 
> Maybe once the Tories are on the proper campaign trail and take an eye off him for a second  . .



Superb then hopefully a quote as good as this;
 "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Remained as an MP for two years after becoming Mayor.




as an obligation? having been voted in for a certain term by his constituents?

Sure he could have resigned to a subordinate (or maybe a redignation of post would cause bye-election. not sure)


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Remained as an MP for two years after becoming Mayor.


Did his constituents complain?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 4, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> as an obligation? having been voted in for a certain term by his constituents?
> 
> Sure he could have resigned to a subordinate (or maybe a redignation of post would cause bye-election. not sure)



I do think it's bad that he did that, though. 

And yes, it would have caused a by-election - but it's a conflict of interests. 

Boris resigning is more about gaining political kudos for Cameron's conservatives, though, with another Tory winning a seat in a by-election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I do think it's bad that he did that, though.
> 
> And yes, it would have caused a by-election - but it's a conflict of interests.
> 
> Boris resigning is more about gaining political kudos for Cameron's conservatives, though, with another Tory winning a seat in a by-election.



Conflict of interests, perhaps. Not sure if I would be happy about the person I voted in simultaenously doing the job of London mayor. 

But did his constituents complain? if not, why not?


----------



## rich! (Jun 5, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."



Isn't there at least one person round here who admits that's why they voted Boris?


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2008)

Oh my good Gawd. Now Etonian Boris thinks da yoot should be learning ancient Greek...





> *Boris On Youth Violence: If It Works For Eton It’ll Work For Edmonton
> 
> *
> 
> ...


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 5, 2008)

http://www.boris-johnson.com/2007/10/11/children-and-violence/ 

Thats a good read.


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> http://www.boris-johnson.com/2007/10/11/children-and-violence/
> 
> Thats a good read.


It's like a posh doddery country uncle sounding off.


----------



## George & Bill (Jun 5, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why does being anti-Ken automatically make me pro-Boris?
> 
> I didn't really like any of the candidates put up for mayor, but Boris seemed the least-bad option.



worst thing about Boris supporters is they don't even have the backbone stand by their man.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 5, 2008)

There's a certain resemblance...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 5, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> worst thing about Boris supporters is they don't even have the backbone stand by their man.



I haven't heard anything yet that Boris has done that makes me regret him being elected.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 5, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I haven't heard anything yet that Boris has done that makes me regret him being elected.



He hasn't done much yet and is being watched like a hawk.

I guess for the next year or so it will be a whole lot of nothing and the odd Prince Philip-like gaffe . . .

Of course some people liked having a beer on the Tube from time to time, but that's a trifling concern compared to the twattery he'll get up to once Cameron is safely enthroned and the reins are loosened.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 5, 2008)

8ball said:


> Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
> 
> By the same token we can call Boris a principled socialist, then.



Not even I'd go that far


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2008)

For fuck's sake. Did anyone see him on BBC news just now?

The man's a fucking bumbling idiot.

(((London)))


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2008)

And now the bumbling stuck-up killjoy is apparently trying to stop people enjoying a beer on the streets of Soho (anyone got a press link for this?)
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252790


----------



## ajdown (Jun 6, 2008)

editor said:


> And now the bumbling stuck-up killjoy is apparently trying to stop people enjoying a beer on the streets of Soho (anyone got a press link for this?)
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=252790



Don't suppose it crossed your mind that if it were true it might have been in the news somewhere?

I can't find any independent proof of this supposed act.


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Don't suppose it crossed your mind that if it were true it might have been in the news somewhere?


I don't suppose it crossed your mind that petitions on the Downing Street site are vetted, so it's _highly unlikely_ that the cause is non existent.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 6, 2008)

editor said:


> I don't suppose it crossed your mind that petitions on the Downing Street site are vetted, so it's _highly unlikely_ that the cause is non existent.



Not once on the Downing Street page you link to does it blame Boris Johnson.

"This petition as been created by the licensee's of Soho. If you live, work or just visit Soho, and you are familiar with The Endurance Pub and want to support us against Westminster Councils objectice for a complete ban on outside drinking and socializing then please sign our petition. It is the councils intention to enforce a complete ban on outside drinking in all licensed premises."

Now provide something independent that says it's Boris's fault, and I'll apologise.


----------



## fjydj (Jun 7, 2008)

Bumbling Boris takes over a month to find a cupboard stuffed full of Ken's fine wine, what an idiot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...Boris-Johnson's-mischievous-side-is-back.html

One of the undiscovered parts of that office yielded a surprise. "Last night, I flung wide a cupboard that I had not opened before and found to my delight a fridge, stocked with several bottles," he says. "But then, beside it was another cupboard. I opened that and there was this astonishing collection of wine: very fine bottles left behind by Mayor Livingstone.

"Whether they are GLA bottles of wine or his own we have yet to discover. There are rows and rows of glistening Chateauneuf-du-Pape. A goodly hoard, over a hundred bottles."


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 8, 2008)

i actually think this one is a good idea.

Boris proposes drinking fountains on the streets of London.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/06/thirst-quenchin.html


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> i actually think this one is a good idea.
> 
> Boris proposes drinking fountains on the streets of London.


No doubt - like his whizzo Routemaster wheeze - he hasn't the slightest clue how and when they might be implemented, how much they might cost or if they're remotely practical.

Any fool can come up with a list of _nice_ things that people wouldn't mind having.


----------



## Sunray (Jun 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> i actually think this one is a good idea.
> 
> Boris proposes drinking fountains on the streets of London.
> 
> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/06/thirst-quenchin.html



That twat thinks he's working in a think tank.

Some where along the line he's going to get the message that he has to have achievable policies.

Not what ever comes into his vacant head.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 8, 2008)

What about the banning of feeding pigeons in Trafalgar square? Oh hang on a minute....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 8, 2008)

Surely the honourable tory gentleman wouldn't go back on his pledge to protect rural England. Would he?


----------



## Sunray (Jun 11, 2008)

It seems the words 'Boris' and 'Idiot' are becoming associated.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 11, 2008)

Sunray said:


> It seems the words 'Boris' and 'Idiot' are becoming associated.



At bit like the words 'ken' and 'dodgy funding' then.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Jun 13, 2008)

*Boris's knife arches...*

...spotted again in various places recently. Not much point o) in them though seeing as the police dont stop anyone who sets them off. Social and racial steroetyping innit...

http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2008/06/scenes-from-turnpike-lane-station.html


----------



## ajdown (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> At bit like the words 'ken' and 'dodgy funding' then.



I notice nobody mentioned seeing in the paper yesterday Ken's £400 a night hotel suite that Boris cancelled to go for a much cheaper option, or the £120,000 that was going to be wasted taking British chefs to the olympics in China to 'showcase' our skills... like sending a London bus or two over has been cancelled as well.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I notice nobody mentioned seeing in the paper yesterday Ken's £400 a night hotel suite that Boris cancelled to go for a much cheaper option, or the £120,000 that was going to be wasted taking British chefs to the olympics in China to 'showcase' our skills... like sending a London bus or two over has been cancelled as well.



Yup he's certainly going after the waste of taxpayers money you have to give him that.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 13, 2008)

How long till the first major blunder and the fall-out?


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2008)

The prick supports letting huge motorbikes roar along in bicycle lanes now.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jun 13, 2008)

editor said:


> The prick supports letting huge motorbikes roar along in bicycle lanes now.




I don't think this is the case. 

As far as I know he is in favour of letting motorbikes use bus lanes which in my opinion (as an occasional motorbike rider) is no bad thing.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 13, 2008)

editor said:


> The prick supports letting huge motorbikes roar along in bicycle lanes now.



Good idea IMO.  The  pilot scheme did reduce motorbike accidents.


----------



## Dask (Jun 13, 2008)

Badgers said:


> How long till the first major blunder and the fall-out?



He's a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 13, 2008)

Dask said:


> He's a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.



Whatever the explosion it will probably come very long after the very last dodgy KL dealing has been uncovered.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 13, 2008)

editor said:


> The prick supports letting huge motorbikes roar along in bicycle lanes now.



Na, in fairness it's bus lanes, which does make sense.

Doesn't mean he isn't one of the biggest cockhead fuck faces on the planet though.


----------



## Dask (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Whatever the explosion it will probably come very long after the very last dodgy KL dealing has been uncovered.



Yawn.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Whatever the explosion it will probably come very long after the very last dodgy KL dealing has been uncovered.



Oh shut the fuck up, are you still on about this? Boris is already looking likely to be worse at cronyism and dodginess than Ken ever was. Get over it, you're considered a polluter and rightly so.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 13, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> Oh shut the fuck up, are you still on about this? Boris is already looking likely to be worse at cronyism and dodginess than Ken ever was. Get over it, you're considered a polluter and rightly so.



Why don't you lot shut the fuck up.  Your lame arse candidate lost and lost rightly for many reasons.

Bearing in mind just how much shit us anti Livingstone voters and posters got from the Livingstone worshippers I think we've earned the right to gloat over the defeat of the appalling Livingstone.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Whatever the explosion it will probably come very long after the very last dodgy KL dealing has been uncovered.



But Boris has been in more than a month now, and they haven't "discovered" any at all, as far as I'm aware? Boris was positively licking his lips when he arrived about all the dodgy files he'd find, and nada.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Why don't you lot shut the fuck up.  Your lame arse candidate lost and lost rightly for many reasons.
> 
> Bearing in mind just how much shit us anti Livingstone voters and posters got from the Livingstone worshippers I think we've earned the right to gloat over the defeat of the appalling Livingstone.



For over a month, on a thread about Boris? This thread has got nothing to do with Ken at all. 

I agree about liking the cuts made in some of the jollies, though.


----------



## Dask (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Why don't you lot shut the fuck up.  Your lame arse candidate lost and lost rightly for many reasons.



Get over yourself.


----------



## KeyboardJockey (Jun 13, 2008)

Dask said:


> Get over yourself.



I'm just having fun watching the Livingstone worshippers squirm.  Revenge, you could say for being called a cunt so many times for questioning Livingstones right to rule over us.

Also London hasn't fallen apart overnight like what the Livingstone worshippers said it would.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I'm just having fun watching the Livingstone worshippers squirm.  Revenge, you could say for being called a cunt so many times for questioning Livingstones right to rule over us.
> 
> Also London hasn't fallen apart overnight like what the Livingstone worshippers said it would.



Nope, they didn't say that, and who the fuck is squirming? Why would they be?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 13, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Nope, they didn't say that, and who the fuck is squirming? Why would they be?



Indeed.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Why don't you lot shut the fuck up.  Your lame arse candidate lost and lost rightly for many reasons.



'Cos there's a massive proportion of selfish cunts in outer London? Besides, he wasn't my candidate so much as 'not your candidate'



KeyboardJockey said:


> Bearing in mind just how much shit us anti Livingstone voters and posters got from the Livingstone worshippers I think we've earned the right to gloat over the defeat of the appalling Livingstone.



You still don't get it, do you. Christ.

As an aside, in the face of pretty much no evidence coming out of 'dodgy' dealings, are your _claimed_ reasons for disliking Ken still just that he shook hands with that dodgy cleric?


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> Good idea IMO.  The  pilot scheme did reduce motorbike accidents.


That'll be the seriously flawed pilot scheme. We should be encouraging more bikes and less motorbikes on city streets, especially considering that some are have engines the size of small cars.


> But cyclists have questioned the results after former mayor Ken Livingstone dismissed the study, claiming it was misleading.
> 
> He was accused of ordering the report's authors to rewrite it so it was "politically acceptable" before ruling that motorcycles should not get wider access to bus lanes.
> 
> ...


And from the BBC:


> A trial allowing motorcycles in bus lanes was carried out by Transport for London to see if it would reduce the number of accidents involving bikes, without impacting on other road users.
> 
> But the limitations of the study meant it did not yield any analysis of accident rates.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2008)

KeyboardJockey said:


> I'm just having fun watching the Livingstone worshippers squirm.  Revenge, you could say for being called a cunt so many times for questioning Livingstones right to rule over us.
> 
> Also London hasn't fallen apart overnight like what the Livingstone worshippers said it would.


What the fuck are you on about? No one 'worships' Livingstone. You're obsessed man - this thread isn't even about him. He's gone. Voted out. Get over it and move on.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jun 13, 2008)

editor said:


> That'll be the seriously flawed pilot scheme. We should be encouraging more bikes and less motorbikes on city streets, especially considering that some are have engines the size of small cars.




I quite agree that encouraging more cycling is the best idea but not all people are fit or able-bodied enough, (not to mention brave enough) to cycle around London.

The whole "reducing congestion" thing is just that, why shouldn't more people ride motorbikes or mopeds, they take up little more room on plan than a pushbike. If ever car driver in London rode a powered or pushbike, congestion would be gone at a stroke.

As for the point that some bikes have engines the same size as small cars, yes, some do, but if they were an equivalent  engine size car they would be CC exempt anyway.

TBH, most bikes in the city are a lot smaller, I would say 75% are mopeds and of the remainder, nearly all are sub 600cc. It is very rare that I see a 1 litre sportsbike being ridden around London, primarily because it is a dangerous place and any collision would cost several £1,000's of damage to a sportbike fairing. 

London is a bloody difficult place to ride around, on either pedal or powered option and I for one am glad there is the opportunity to get out of the main traffic flow when on a motorbike.

Also, motorcyclists, by virtue of wanting to stay alive / not permanently crippled are probably the most vigilant of all road-users, on a par with cyclists so I would guesstimate that most collisions with pedestrians would be caused by the pedestrian stepping into the road and getting into an an unavoidable collision.  

Of course, there are the idiots and the people who fly around drawing attention to themselves which get the majority a bad name. IME they are mostly despatch riders (a couple of my friends included) and nothing will get rid of them, they're as mental on a pushbike as a motorbike.

Several other places in the UK, including Leeds and Sheffield have already adopted the motorbikes in bus lanes law and are better places for it. I would even go as far as to suggest that the study was flawed, but it was flawed by the ex-mayor who did not publicly reveal the results of the study as he did not want to introduce the bus lane allowance.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 13, 2008)

It's a tricky one, this. If people are using motorbikes instead of single occupancy cars, then on the face of it that is good. But if you are a single occupancy driver/rider with little to carry, you could be better off on PT anyway.......

EDIT to add, I'm talking about in London here, obviously.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2008)

Won't motorbikes in bus lanes make it incredibly dangerous for non-motorised bicycles to travel there?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 13, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Won't motorbikes in bus lanes make it incredibly dangerous for non-motorised bicycles to travel there?



Well that was what this experiment was meant to find out, but it doesn't appear to have been conclusive either way........


----------



## Radar (Jun 13, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Won't motorbikes in bus lanes make it incredibly dangerous for non-motorised bicycles to travel there?


Why.. When bikes and cycles share the roads, you don't tend to hear of many bike/cycle incidents. We all share a common enemy, and that's vehicles with dozy or incompetent drivers.

Perhaps the cyclists should pull their necks in on this one. They don't have a god given right to bus-lanes (the clue is in the name) so it just appears churlish to keep whingeing about the carnage that 'could' (according to the LCC) ensue if huge  bikes are also allowed in.

If the LCC is so sure they're in the right, perhaps they could fund a study to prove it ? Boris was on the record before the election that this was his intention, then was the time to make their objections heard.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 13, 2008)

Radar said:


> Why.. When bikes and cycles share the roads, you don't tend to hear of many bike/cycle incidents. We all share a common enemy, and that's vehicles with dozy or incompetent drivers.
> 
> Perhaps the cyclists should pull their necks in on this one. They don't have a god given right to bus-lanes (the clue is in the name) so it just appears churlish to keep whingeing about the carnage that 'could' (according to the LCC) ensue if huge  bikes are also allowed in.
> 
> If the LCC is so sure they're in the right, perhaps they could fund a study to prove it ? Boris was on the record before the election that this was his intention, then was the time to make their objections heard.



Roads are generally a lot wider than bus lanes, though. Motorbikes can pass cyclists easily. That won't be safe in bus lanes (it's not safe on very narrow roads, either, but there's not a lot that can be done about that). Either people on motorbikes will have to go at the speed of the cyclist - which some will do - or they'll try to overtake - which some will do. I can understand why motorbikers want to be able to use bus lanes too, but I really would not want to share that narrow space with a motorbike.


----------



## editor (Jun 13, 2008)

Radar said:


> Perhaps the cyclists should pull their necks in on this one. They don't have a god given right to bus-lanes (the clue is in the name) so it just appears churlish to keep whingeing about the carnage that 'could' (according to the LCC) ensue if huge  bikes are also allowed in.


Right. So they've no right to complain about having high powered, noisy and fast vehicles suddenly hurtling past them on their already cramped bit of road space, and they should just shut up and put up with it?

Anything that discourages people from cycling around town is a bad thing, IMO, and there's no doubting that this will put some people off.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Won't motorbikes in bus lanes make it incredibly dangerous for non-motorised bicycles to travel there?



No, not at all. I cycle and have never had trouble with scooters or motorbikes. Same space, same road awareness, same common problems.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Right. So they've no right to complain about having high powered, noisy and fast vehicles suddenly hurtling past them on their already cramped bit of road space, and they should just shut up and put up with it?
> 
> Anything that discourages people from cycling around town is a bad thing, IMO, and there's no doubting that this will put some people off.



But it's a whole road lane, big enough for a bus... as above, I cycle and can see no problem.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Right. So they've no right to complain about having high powered, noisy and fast vehicles suddenly hurtling past them on their already cramped bit of road space, and they should just shut up and put up with it?



To be honest, I reckon cyclists cause more problems with bad roadsmanship than scooterists or bikers do. Scooters or bikes tend to wait for cyclists to make their move before pulling away anyway.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Jun 14, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> To be honest, I reckon cyclists cause more problems with bad roadsmanship than scooterists or bikers do. Scooters or bikes tend to wait for cyclists to make their move before pulling away anyway.



I agree. Motorbikes are to bicycles as bicycles are to pedestrians. Motorbikes don't generally make me feel unsafe when I'm out on my bike. I know that like myself they have a much greater and more apparent vested interest in staying in control of their vehicle than car drivers.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> The prick supports letting huge motorbikes roar along in bicycle lanes now.



These will be the piecemeal cycle lanes (designed by non-cyclists) that often have obstructions placed in them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> To be honest, I reckon cyclists cause more problems with bad roadsmanship than scooterists or bikers do. Scooters or bikes tend to wait for cyclists to make their move before pulling away anyway.



It depends, there are a lot of good cyclists around. I don't think narrow cycle lanes are the place for huge motorbikes...you may as well allow small cars to use them as well. I tend to use the road anyway as most cycle lanes are travesties.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 14, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> It depends, there are a lot of good cyclists around. I don't think narrow cycle lanes are the place for huge motorbikes...



They are not 'narrow cycle lanes', they are bus lanes......


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> They are not 'narrow cycle lanes', they are bus lanes......



Well, "cycle lanes" are being mentioned by most on this thread, not "bus lanes". Some clarity would be in order.

Besides, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen motorcycles in bus lanes.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

ChrisFilter said:


> To be honest, I reckon cyclists cause more problems with bad roadsmanship than scooterists or bikers do. Scooters or bikes tend to wait for cyclists to make their move before pulling away anyway.


So how does putting them in closer proximity to motorbikes help?


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> So how does putting them in closer proximity to motorbikes help?



help what?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 14, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Well, "cycle lanes" are being mentioned by most on this thread, not "bus lanes". Some clarity would be in order.


 Yes it would

It is *Bus Lanes* (normally painted red and say 'bus/taxi/cycles only') that this affects.

 This is *not* a proposal to allow motorbikes in cycle lanes (the narrow green ones which are just for cycles)


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> help what?


Help with "cyclists causing more problems with bad roadsmanship."


----------



## pogofish (Jun 14, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Yes it would
> 
> It is *Bus Lanes* (normally painted red and say 'bus/taxi/cycles only') that this affects.
> 
> This is *not* a proposal to allow motorbikes in cycle lanes (the narrow green ones which are just for cycles)



Yes *bus lanes.* 

There is actually a recent thread on just this here.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Help with "cyclists causing more problems with bad roadsmanship."



shouldn't the cyclists lack of roadmanship be addressed instead of attacking  the sensible proposal of letting Motorcycles using bus lanes as well as cyclists, hackneys and buses?


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> shouldn't the cyclists lack of roadmanship be addressed instead of attacking  the sensible proposal of letting Motorcycles using bus lanes as well as cyclists, hackneys and buses?


I don't think it's sensible to let high powered, noisy, heavy and polluting vehicles in closer proximity to cyclists, some of whom may be nervous and new to cycling around the city.

But do tell me the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists who are by far the most vulnerable of all road users.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> I don't think it's sensible to let high powered, noisy, heavy and polluting vehicles in closer proximity to cyclists, some of whom may be nervous and new to cycling around the city.
> 
> But do tell me the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists who are by far the most vulnerable of all road users.



I agree, why let cyclists use a bus lane full of buses in the first place.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> I agree, why let cyclists use a bus lane full of buses in the first place.


So you really haven't got a grown up argument then?

*moves on.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> I don't think it's sensible to let high powered, noisy, heavy and polluting vehicles in closer proximity to cyclists, some of whom may be nervous and new to cycling around the city.



(nods) I think this is one of those percieved versus actual danger things.

If someone is a nervous cyclist I can see how having motorbikes buzzing past every few seconds could be unerving, although in practice I'm not convinced they pose anywhere near as much danger as buses or taxis.

I've usually got a definite opinion on most things transport related but here I can see both sides.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> I don't think it's sensible to let high powered, noisy, heavy and polluting vehicles in closer proximity to cyclists, some of whom may be nervous and new to cycling around the city.
> 
> But do tell me the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists who are by far the most vulnerable of all road users.




This is ridiculous, it is a bus lane, what is the problem with letting motorbikes use it?

Cuurently 3 vehicles can use them, cyclists, buses and taxis. As a cyclist, which would you rather be overtaken by in a bus lane, a bus, a taxi or a motorbike?

I think one of those choices is going to give you considerably more room to manoeuvre than the others so I really don't see where this proximity issue is coming from - it is a bus lane, wide enough for a bus plus a bit more. If a cyclist and a motorcyclist can't get side by side in that space without hassling each other then neither of them should be on the bloody road.

ETA: Why shouldn't the second most vulnerable of road users, the motorcyclist, be allowed to improve their own safety by getting out of the main traffic flow?


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

Thing is, it's supposed to be Boris's policy to encourage more cyclists on the roads. I can't think of a single thing in this proposed change that will do anything to encourage new cyclists - in fact,. I think it will have quite the opposite effect.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> So you really haven't got a grown up argument then?
> 
> *moves on.



neither have you mate, not at all, not content with bashing car drivers you are starting on motorcyclists.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Cuurently 3 vehicles can use them, cyclists, buses and taxis. As a cyclist, which would you rather be overtaken by in a bus lane, a bus, a taxi or a motorbike?


Faulty logic, I'm afraid. As a cyclist, I want the least amount of motorised vehicles sharing the lane with me. The last thing a new, nervous cyclist would want is a motorbike courier hurtling past in close proximity.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> neither have you mate, not at all, not content with bashing car drivers you are starting on motorcyclists.


How is not not wanting the rule about motorbikes in bus lanes changed 'bashing' motorcyclists? 

But I'll ask again: what are the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists who are by far the most vulnerable of all road users.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Faulty logic, I'm afraid. As a cyclist, I want the least amount of motorised vehicles sharing the lane with me. The last thing a new, nervous cyclist would want is a motorbike courier hurtling past in close proximity.



why is it not compulsory for cyclists to take some sort of road awareness test before they are allowed on their bike, going out on a pushbike in rush hour London when unused to traffic is the height of stupidity.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 14, 2008)

I'd sooner share a lane with a motorcyclist than a bus, tbh.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> How is not not wanting the rule about motorbikes in bus lanes changed 'bashing' motorcyclists?
> 
> But I'll ask again: what are the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists who are by far the most vulnerable of all road users.



The advantages to cyclists is that they have use of the bus lane, alongside buses, hackneys and motorbikes.

what is your problem with that?

If someone is nervous on a push bike, *THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON THEIR BIKE IN RUSH HOUR LONDON* fucking simple really, get some training.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> But I'll ask again: what are the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists who are by far the most vulnerable of all road users.



I don't think anyone has claimed it's beneficial to cyclists, but I don't think it's notably detrimental either. It's a whole lane of traffic, plenty of room for both. Motorbikes and scooters will happily occupy the right hand side of the lane, cyclists the left - plenty of room.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> why is it not compulsory for cyclists to take some sort of road awareness test before they are allowed on their bike, going out on a pushbike in rush hour London when unused to traffic is the height of stupidity.



It would be a nightmare to finance and police.


----------



## the button (Jun 14, 2008)

Do they still do the cycling proficiency test in schools nowadays?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Yes it would
> 
> It is *Bus Lanes* (normally painted red and say 'bus/taxi/cycles only') that this affects.
> 
> This is *not* a proposal to allow motorbikes in cycle lanes (the narrow green ones which are just for cycles)



Ta very much.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 14, 2008)

the button said:


> Do they still do the cycling proficiency test in schools nowadays?



It's now called Bikeability and it's changed somewhat since it was called the Cycling Proficiency Test, as we now train cyclists on the road rather than solely in the playground.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 14, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> It's now called Bikeability and it's changed somewhat since it was called the Cycling Proficiency Test, as we now train cyclists on the road rather than solely in the playground.



How widespread is it? I know my daughter's school doesn't do it, but then, most of the kids there don't have bikes and you have to go a long way to find a road safe enough to train kids on. 

There was road training when I was a kid too, and it was in the test.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 14, 2008)

We did some cycling proficiency stuff in school but it was a million miles away from rush hour London.


----------



## snadge (Jun 14, 2008)

8ball said:


> We did some cycling proficiency stuff in school but it was a million miles away from rush hour London.



I agree but it does give an advantage rather than just getting on a push bike and launching oneself into a nightmarish rush hour traffic scenario, there are even people I know that have passed their car test that don't feel confident doing that.

Simple fact is there are people that have been deemed worthy by an examiner to be competent driving both motorcycles and cars that will not tackle London driving and there are "nervous" cyclists that have had no training or competence examination that are willing to do it and then complain that it isn't fair because they want no traffic near them.

get over it, it's fucking shit city, move away from London and enjoy riding your bike on the roads.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> get over it, it's fucking shit city, move away from London and enjoy riding your bike on the roads.



Bollocks... I reckon you're safer cycling in central London than you are in the cemtre of most other cities. Much slower moving traffic. Birmingham, for example, is completely car dominated.


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

snadge said:


> If someone is nervous on a push bike, *THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON THEIR BIKE IN RUSH HOUR LONDON* fucking simple really, get some training.


Herr Dictator Speaks.

Anyone, back on topic, could you list the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists if this scheme goes ahead please?


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Herr Dictator Speaks.
> 
> Anyone, back on topic, could you list the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists if this scheme goes ahead please?



To be fair, I don't think anyone has claimed it will benefit cyclists. Not snadge, at least.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jun 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Herr Dictator Speaks.
> 
> Anyone, back on topic, could you list the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists if this scheme goes ahead please?




Correct me if I'm wrong, but the opening of bus lanes to motorbikes was never meant to confer any benefit to cyclists. It is meant to, and will, confer some benefit to motorbike riders.

If motorbikes were to be allowed to use a green cycle lane I would expect this debate but it simply isn't the case.

Edit: CF got in there first!!


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 14, 2008)

Isn't one of his first plans to scrap cut price travel for the poor? A dangerous precedent has been set here, get a fucking clown to stand for election (remember George Bush) and lull the public into a false sense of security...


----------



## Mitre10 (Jun 14, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> Isn't one of his first plans to scrap cut price travel for the poor? A dangerous precedent has been set here, get a fucking clown to stand for election (remember George Bush) and lull the public into a false sense of security...




Been mentioned somewhere on the boards already mate.


----------



## snadge (Jun 15, 2008)

editor said:


> Herr Dictator Speaks.
> 
> Anyone, back on topic, could you list the supposed 'benefits' to cyclists if this scheme goes ahead please?



So stating that cyclists who are nervous around traffic should get training makes me a dictator does it.

Well in that case why don't we let people just get into cars or onto motorcycles and drive without testing their aptitude on the roads?



As I said, if you are nervous around traffic either don't ride your fucking bike in traffic or get some training so you aren't nervous.


----------



## Final (Jun 17, 2008)

Boris on cycle helmets:
I find myself in agreement with him on this one, even if some of his phrases aren't the most diplomatic (no surprise):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/17/do1701.xml



> I was negotiating Knightsbridge with extreme caution when a French tourist walked across the road without looking (you could tell he was French by the noise he made on impact)


----------



## scifisam (Jun 17, 2008)

Final said:


> Boris on cycle helmets:
> I find myself in agreement with him on this one, even if some of his phrases aren't the most diplomatic (no surprise):
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/17/do1701.xml



That's a good article, actually. I like the way he phrased his opposition to the 42-day rule. 

<~~Always even-handed.


----------



## Final (Jun 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> That's a good article, actually. I like the way he phrased his opposition to the 42-day rule.
> 
> <~~Always even-handed.



Yeah, he writes well - I had a chuckle in quite a few places.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> How widespread is it? I know my daughter's school doesn't do it, but then, most of the kids there don't have bikes and you have to go a long way to find a road safe enough to train kids on.
> 
> There was road training when I was a kid too, and it was in the test.



A lot of local authorities haven't started Bikeability courses and are still operating the Cycling Proficiency Test. Most London boroughs now offer it, but I have no idea what the situation is in the rest of the country.

Whereabouts are you? PM me if you prefer.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 17, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> A lot of local authorities haven't started Bikeability courses and are still operating the Cycling Proficiency Test. Most London boroughs now offer it, but I have no idea what the situation is in the rest of the country.
> 
> Whereabouts are you? PM me if you prefer.



Her school don't do cycle proficiency either (and there's no bike storage - you're not allowed to take a bike to school unless you want to leave it outside where it'll get stolen). We're in Bethnal Green.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2008)

8ball said:


> We did some cycling proficiency stuff in school but it was a million miles away from rush hour London.



We tend to use quieter roads for the first day or so, then get the trainees to tackle slightly busier roads...but nothing heavy: just turns, passing side roads and road positioning...basic Level 2 stuff.  Trainees can take Level 3 Bikeability when they reach Year 6. Level 3 deals with filtering traffic, roundabouts and so forth.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Her school don't do cycle proficiency either (and there's no bike storage - you're not allowed to take a bike to school unless you want to leave it outside where it'll get stolen). We're in Bethnal Green.



This is going to be problem with some inner city schools: the lack of cycle storage and playground space. I know quite a few quiet roads around Bethnal Green. AFAIK, the Local Authority's Road Safety Unit should be organising Bikeability and contacting all of the schools in the borough...but, as one would expect, some councils are better at this than others.

I've just had a look at Tower Hamlets' website and there is free cycle training for all residents (so it says).
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/events/detail.cfm?frmEventID=1229

I'm not sure if it's Bikeability as it doesn't say.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 17, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> This is going to be problem with some inner city schools: the lack of cycle storage and playground space. I know quite a few quiet roads around Bethnal Green. AFAIK, the Local Authority's Road Safety Unit should be organising Bikeability and contacting all of the schools in the borough...but, as one would expect, some councils are better at this than others.



I think her school would probably say it wasn't feasible for them to take it up - it's a teeny tiny school, with only 20 kids in year 5 and 24 in year 6 (it's one-form intake), and a lot of them don't have bikes at all and probably have never learnt to ride a bike. 

The solution might be for them to team up with another school in the area and have someone walk the kids down to that school if they want to do cycle proficiency or bikeability. 



> I've just had a look at Tower Hamlets' website and there is free cycle training for all residents (so it says).
> http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/templates/events/detail.cfm?frmEventID=1229
> 
> I'm not sure if it's Bikeability as it doesn't say.



That's for adults. It's a good idea, though, especially as it would presumably deal with cycling in London.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 17, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I think her school would probably say it wasn't feasible for them to take it up - it's a teeny tiny school, with only 20 kids in year 5 and 24 in year 6 (it's one-form intake), and a lot of them don't have bikes at all and probably have never learnt to ride a bike.
> 
> The solution might be for them to team up with another school in the area and have someone walk the kids down to that school if they want to do cycle proficiency or bikeability.
> 
> ...



You're probably right, though there is a really tiny school in Kingston that has cycle training: it has no playground and the kids chain their bikes to whatever  there is in the tiny yard. I have no idea how they organised the Level 1 sessions. 

Tbh, LB Tower Hamlets needs to be more proactive about this


----------



## Sunray (Jun 18, 2008)

snadge said:


> I agree but it does give an advantage rather than just getting on a push bike and launching oneself into a nightmarish rush hour traffic scenario, there are even people I know that have passed their car test that don't feel confident doing that.
> 
> Simple fact is there are people that have been deemed worthy by an examiner to be competent driving both motorcycles and cars that will not tackle London driving and there are "nervous" cyclists that have had no training or competence examination that are willing to do it and then complain that it isn't fair because they want no traffic near them.
> 
> get over it, it's fucking shit city, move away from London and enjoy riding your bike on the roads.



Its fucked up, selfish and entirely car centric thinking like this that prevents more people getting on a bike.

The roads should be safe for cyclists to use what ever their standard, car drivers should be aware that someone isn't very good on the road and give them extra space and have some patience. This would encourage them to cycle again.  There is no training for London roads.

Instead people like you get in a car and feel they rule the road to the detriment of everyone else.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 18, 2008)

Sunray said:


> Instead people like you get in a car and feel they rule the road to the detriment of everyone else.



Car drivers pay heavily for the privilege of road use, so I think they should have priority.

When cyclists have to pay to have thier bike checked as roadworthy every year, pass a test before they're allowed on the road, and pay a hefty insurance premium annually for having a bike, then they can consider themselves to have rights.  Until then, get out of my way.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 18, 2008)

ajdown said:


> When cyclists have to pay to have thier bike checked as roadworthy every year, pass a test before they're allowed on the road, and pay a hefty insurance premium annually for having a bike, then they can consider themselves to have rights.  Until then, get out of my way.



Cars kill and maim a lot more people than bikes do. Hence tests, safety checks and insurance. Perhaps drivers should also pay for the environmental destruction from the manufacture and use of cars, too.


----------



## Structaural (Jun 18, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Cars kill and maim a lot more people than bikes do. Hence tests, safety checks and insurance. Perhaps drivers should also pay for the environmental destruction from the manufacture and use of cars, too.



I agree, road tax is far too light and the environmental damage caused by building a car should be charged to someone too. Car drivers should be instant banned for speeding in cities or jumping lights. Deaths caused by dangerous driving should be done under manslaughter. Drunk driving - instant life-time ban, same goes for car driving on the phone.
Cyclists should get a yearly payment for using a bike as they're all so lovely and hardly ever kill anyone and their environmental damage is negligible. This will also encourage people to leave their death-dealing-armchairs-on-wheels at home more often. All road building schemes to improve the experience of car drivers should be immediately stopped (Herne Hill you mo'fos) and switched to improving bike lanes.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jun 18, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Car drivers pay heavily for the privilege of road use, so I think they should have priority.
> 
> When cyclists have to pay to have thier bike checked as roadworthy every year, pass a test before they're allowed on the road, and pay a hefty insurance premium annually for having a bike, then they can consider themselves to have rights.  Until then, get out of my way.



You're going to die alone


----------



## Final (Jun 18, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Car drivers pay heavily for the privilege of road use, so I think they should have priority.



A lot of cyclists are also car drivers.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 18, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Car drivers pay heavily for the privilege of road use, so I think they should have priority.
> 
> When cyclists have to pay to have thier bike checked as roadworthy every year, pass a test before they're allowed on the road, and pay a hefty insurance premium annually for having a bike, then they can consider themselves to have rights.  Until then, get out of my way.



What a poignant message to use to reach your 1000th post.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2008)

So we can add two more blunders to the clown's ever-growing tally.

He was on BBC News today insisting that he knew nothing about ending funding to the Rise anti-racist festival, despite his own spokeswoman's comments to the media, and he also got caught out when he claimed that a memorandum of understanding about the Olympics had never been published.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7460863.stm


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Car drivers pay heavily for the privilege of road use, so I think they should have priority.
> 
> When cyclists have to pay to have thier bike checked as roadworthy every year, pass a test before they're allowed on the road, and pay a hefty insurance premium annually for having a bike, then they can consider themselves to have rights.  Until then, get out of my way.


Cyclists already contribute towards the upkeep of the roads, you blithering idiot.



> The roads we cycle on are maintained by council tax. Motor vehicles do most of the damage, but grab most of the budget – to which we all contribute, drivers or not. Anyone who's surfed the treacherous tarmac breakers of Waterloo Bridge will know how bus wheels quickly ruin the surface. The accepted international rule is that the cost of damage done by a vehicle to a road is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. In other words, repairs incurred by a car weighing say 900kg don't cost the council 10 times those of someone on a bike weighing 90kg: they cost 10x10x10x10, yes 10,000, times as much. (And a bus weighing 9,000kg does 100 million times as much damage.)
> 
> So if we were to set a fanciful 'road council tax' which fairly reflected the repair costs we incur, then if the car driver paid £200 annually, the cyclist would contribute 2p. I'd gladly pay a quid in advance for the next 50 years just to shut up those drivers who yell at me at traffic lights. Not as much as I'd pay to shut Mr Clarkson up. But there is hope yet. In a PR stunt last Christmas, the Lib Dems gave him a thoughtful present: a bike. See you at the traffic lights, Jeremy?
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/69/article18.html


----------



## El Jefe (Jun 19, 2008)

Boris has been caught in a blatant lie now too, claiming that Ken's contract re: funding the Olympics drawn up with central Government doesn't exist. 

It does.

He's a lying cunt.

Keyboard Jockey - over to you.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Boris has been caught in a blatant lie now too, claiming that Ken's contract re: funding the Olympics drawn up with central Government doesn't exist.


As reported in The Londonist:


> Boris' was affable and only slightly bumbling and maintained his position that the Olympics shouldn't go over budget but at the same time, was not at all sure about the existence of an agreement by his predecessor promising that Londoners would not be charged for any Olympic overspends via increased council tax or London transport fare rises. "I rather doubt that it exists" said he.
> 
> That was unfortunate. The DCMS immediately contacted the Today studio to confirm that said document was available on their website.
> 
> ...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Cyclists already contribute towards the upkeep of the roads, you blithering idiot.



They don't pay for the inconvenience to every other road user for the dangers they create, and the trouble they cause when they get in the way of everyone else, weaving in and out of traffic and going straight through red lights though, do they?

Police at a few random junctions issuing on the spot fines to cyclists who jump red lights would be quite the income, I think.  It's about time we had some equality.


----------



## snadge (Jun 19, 2008)

Sunray said:


> Instead people like you get in a car and feel they rule the road to the detriment of everyone else.



I am one person that is extremely accommodating to cyclists on the road, being one myself.

So take your "like you" and stick it up your arse mate.

If you are not confident in London traffic don't cycle in London, or find a cycle friendly route.


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> They don't pay for the inconvenience to every other road user for the dangers they create, and the trouble they cause when they get in the way of everyone else, weaving in and out of traffic and going straight through red lights though, do they?


Compared to the inconvenience and damage that noisy, polluting, environmentally damaging and dangerous cars create, bikes are paragons of goodness.

Then there's the drunk drivers, the dangerous drivers, the illegal drivers, the speeding drivers, the uninsured drivers and the arseholes who are so incapable of driving responsibly that streets have to be disfigured with physical calming measures like sticking-up lumps of noisy 'sleeping policeman.'


----------



## editor (Jun 19, 2008)

snadge said:


> If you are not confident in London traffic don't cycle in London, or find a cycle friendly route.


What a remarkably arrogant and selfish attitude.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 19, 2008)

ajdown said:


> They don't pay for the inconvenience to every other road user for the dangers they create, and the trouble they cause when they get in the way of everyone else, weaving in and out of traffic and going straight through red lights though, do they?
> 
> Police at a few random junctions issuing on the spot fines to cyclists who jump red lights would be quite the income, I think.  It's about time we had some equality.



It's about fucking time idiots like you used your fucking brain.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Compared to the inconvenience and damage that noisy, polluting, environmentally damaging and dangerous cars create, bikes are paragons of goodness.
> 
> '



I've seen far too many people on bikes act like utter cunts while learning to drive these last 8 weeks. I don't know if you can drive but it is very unsettling the way bike riders weave about behind you (they're in one mirror for a second, then they're gone and appear in another then suddenly they're right along side you) or ride in the cycle lane only to cross directly into your path with no indication only to drift back into the cycle lane again. I've seen it about two or three times per lesson. It's not a rare ocurance, at least in North London.

My view is *ALL* road users need to act to the same standards of safety and respect for each other because all of them can cause accidents injury and/or death by their actions if they're not careful.


----------



## George & Bill (Jun 20, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Car drivers pay heavily for the privilege of road use, so I think they should have priority.
> 
> When cyclists have to pay to have thier bike checked as roadworthy every year, pass a test before they're allowed on the road, and pay a hefty insurance premium annually for having a bike, then they can consider themselves to have rights.  Until then, get out of my way.



Can you provide a link to statistics demonstrating that car drivers really are net benefactors of our road system, and not in fact in a position of having the road construction and repair they necessitate subsidised from general taxation?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I've seen far too many people on bikes act like utter cunts while learning to drive these last 8 weeks. I don't know if you can drive but it is very unsettling the way bike riders weave about behind you (they're in one mirror for a second, then they're gone and appear in another then suddenly they're right along side you) or ride in the cycle lane only to cross directly into your path with no indication only to drift back into the cycle lane again. I've seen it about two or three times per lesson. It's not a rare ocurance, at least in North London.
> 
> My view is *ALL* road users need to act to the same standards of safety and respect for each other because all of them can cause accidents injury and/or death by their actions if they're not careful.



Have you thought that some of this "weaving" may be due to the number of potholes or other objects in the road? Tbh, I use cycle lanes only when necessary and, as the vast majority of on-road lanes are sited in the gutter, one often encounters broken glass, stones and all sorts of other detritus in them....then there are the Advisory Cycle Lanes...let's not go there, shall we?


----------



## Structaural (Jun 20, 2008)

ajdown said:


> They don't pay for the inconvenience to every other road user for the dangers they create, and the trouble they cause when they get in the way of everyone else, weaving in and out of traffic and going straight through red lights though, do they?
> 
> Police at a few random junctions issuing on the spot fines to cyclists who jump red lights would be quite the income, I think.  It's about time we had some equality.



Yeah 'cos the average 200 deaths a year on London's roads are caused by cyclists jumping lights aren't they?, you fucking moronic twat.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 20, 2008)

I do a hell of a lot of driving in and around London and I find cyclists no more of a problem than other cars, buses or pedestrians for that matter.  Driving in London is not a pleasurable thing and I have no idea why anyone would choose to do it if it wasent essentual.  London is not really designed for cars more horse and carts me thinks.

All this talk of cyclists causing problems is, IMO, a crock of shit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jun 20, 2008)

Teaboy said:


> I do a hell of a lot of driving in and around London and I find cyclists no more of a problem than other cars, buses or pedestrians for that matter.  Driving in London is not a pleasurable thing and I have no idea why anyone would choose to do it if it wasent essentual.  London is not really designed for cars more horse and carts me thinks.
> 
> All this talk of cyclists causing problems is, IMO, a crock of shit.



Without wishing to derail this thread any further, there just good and bad *road users*. 

Back on track: Johnson's allegedly pledged £50 billion for cycling but something tells me that money was already being earmarked for cycling projects. 

I'll find a link.


----------



## Final (Jun 20, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Without wishing to derail this thread any further, there just good and bad *road users*.
> 
> Back on track: Johnson's allegedly pledged £50 billion for cycling but something tells me that money was already being earmarked for cycling projects.
> 
> I'll find a link.




£50 _billion_?  

LCC page says mainly nice things:

http://www.lcc.org.uk//index.asp?PageID=1157

£55 million in total, which is up from last year.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jun 20, 2008)

Teaboy said:


> I do a hell of a lot of driving in and around London and I find cyclists no more of a problem than other cars, buses or pedestrians for that matter.  Driving in London is not a pleasurable thing and I have no idea why anyone would choose to do it if it wasent essentual.  London is not really designed for cars more horse and carts me thinks.
> 
> All this talk of cyclists causing problems is, IMO, a crock of shit.



I cycle, and I think some cyclists do cycle badly and can cause some problems.

It seems pretty obvious to me though that the twats who really get worked up about cyclists have some weird issues that aren't really anything to do with that.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 20, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Have you thought that some of this "weaving" may be due to the number of potholes or other objects in the road? Tbh, I use cycle lanes only when necessary and, as the vast majority of on-road lanes are sited in the gutter, one often encounters broken glass, stones and all sorts of other detritus in them....then there are the Advisory Cycle Lanes...let's not go there, shall we?




LOL! Maybe point is some of these fuckers can get them selves killed if they aint careful no matter carefully I try to drive (and trust me I'm one careful fucker as it is).


----------



## ymu (Jun 20, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> LOL! Maybe point is some of these fuckers can get them selves killed if they aint careful no matter carefully I try to drive (and trust me I'm one careful fucker as it is).


Some, maybe - but it looks a lot scarier from the car's perspective. For example, if I'm crossing a quiet road as a pedestrian, I'll usually start to cross while there is still a car coming on the opposite side of the road, knowing that it'll be gone by the time I reach the middle. I perceive this as very low risk, but if I'm driving a car I find it really scary when pedestrians do this (and usually fuck up their timing by slowing down  ).

Cyclists tend to be _very_ aware of the traffic around them and what various vehicles are likely to do next. If you don't do anything unexpected, they don't have much to worry about.


----------



## Melinda (Jun 23, 2008)

*Go home Niggas!*

Nice!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4193629.ece


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 23, 2008)

ymu said:


> Some, maybe - but it looks a lot scarier from the car's perspective. For example, if I'm crossing a quiet road as a pedestrian, I'll usually start to cross while there is still a car coming on the opposite side of the road, knowing that it'll be gone by the time I reach the middle. I perceive this as very low risk, but if I'm driving a car I find it really scary when pedestrians do this (and usually fuck up their timing by slowing down  ).



Very true, I've noticed this also.



> Cyclists tend to be _very_ aware of the traffic around them and what various vehicles are likely to do next. If you don't do anything unexpected, they don't have much to worry about.


Don't quite agree, seems to me most people on bikes don't realise that the slightest swerve or wobble switches them in terms of what mirror they appear in for the driver. Also, appearing alongside you while driving (which makes me slow a little) then jumping in front and staying dead center before taking a corner without any indication doesn't help either. I mean how fucking hard is it to stick your arm out to say 'driving dude I'm about to go this way'???

Not meaning to derail this thread more (just looked up and saw Boris Watch and thought er wtf I'm I writing this shit on here for?!) the basic point is all road users, car/van, bike, on foot, should exercise respect and safety when it comes to others.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jun 23, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Besides, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen motorcycles in bus lanes.



I remember when I lived in Brixton back in about 2003 there was a trial to let motorbikes use bus lanes from Streatham down Brixto Hill to Brixton.

It obviously came to nothing.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 23, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> I remember when I lived in Brixton back in about 2003 there was a trial to let motorbikes use bus lanes from Streatham down Brixto Hill to Brixton.
> 
> It obviously came to nothing.


It's still in use, Brixton to Oval IIRC. I think. Maybe they're all just being naughty.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 23, 2008)

I thought they're allowed to use bus lanes now?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 23, 2008)

The A23 was the pilot wasn't it? I think in general I'm for the idea, until I realised that its starting to encourage some motorcyclists - well scooter riders to be honest - to use it as an undertaking lane.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 23, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I thought they're allowed to use bus lanes now?


No, all bus lane signs clearly list buses, taxis and cycles as the only legal users.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 23, 2008)

Crispy said:


> No, all bus lane signs clearly list buses, taxis and cycles as the only legal users.


Apart from the ones which also allow motorcyles!


----------



## exosculate (Jun 23, 2008)

Melinda said:


> Nice!
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4193629.ece



What about this!

Are people sending out a collective _go home Melinda_ message


----------



## Melinda (Jun 23, 2008)

exosculate said:


> What about this!
> 
> Are people sending out a collective _go home Melinda_ message


If either you or Mr McGrath can point out who in my family is pro-Boris enough to stay Id really appreciate it.


----------



## exosculate (Jun 23, 2008)

Melinda said:


> If either you or Mr McGrath can point out who in my family is pro-Boris enough to stay Id really appreciate it.



Starts singing The Clash song.


----------



## ymu (Jun 23, 2008)

snowy_again said:


> The A23 was the pilot wasn't it? I think in general I'm for the idea, until I realised that its starting to encourage some motorcyclists - well scooter riders to be honest - to use it as an undertaking lane.


It's not undertaking if it's in a separate lane into which the other vehicle cannot move. It's not undertaking if traffic is moving slowly in lanes (see Highway Code). And of course, there'd be no point letting motorbikes use them if they can't undertake the traffic jams. Perhaps we should stop buses doing it too? 


Thanks for the link Melinda - I was just about to go and look for it, my partner mentioned it when I got in.



> Mr Johnson initially defended James McGrath, his senior political strategist, but last night sought his resignation, saying that the remarks would further damage his reputation on race issues. The mayor said that Mr McGrath’s comments were taken out of context, but he could not continue to work for him because it would “provide ammunition” for his opponents.



What a principled man he is ...


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 24, 2008)

Yeah, I see your point. On that occasion above, I had a scooter scoot in from the 'normal' lane into the bus lane passing a few inches away from my handlebars and then popping back in front of the car he was trying to under/overtake. More a case of slightly inconsiderate riding than anything else. I'll just have to learn to listen out to scooters a bit more.


----------



## tom_craggs (Jun 24, 2008)

ajdown said:


> They don't pay for the inconvenience to every other road user for the dangers they create, and the trouble they cause when they get in the way of everyone else, weaving in and out of traffic and going straight through red lights though, do they?
> 
> Police at a few random junctions issuing on the spot fines to cyclists who jump red lights would be quite the income, I think.  It's about time we had some equality.



Sorry but really get some perspective, I drive a car and cycle, I can assure you that in London particularly I seem to see car drivers running red lights all the time. 

I am afraid London (like many other big capital cities) has bred a unique driving culture that would not be acceptable elsewhere in the UK. I am a good cyclist, I know I am; I stop at red lights, only over take when neccesary and always on the right, properly signal, yet I have still be run over twice in 3 months by drivers who are in their own little world when commuting, who do not signal, who do not check mirrors and who run red lights.

Yes I agree that there are some inconsiderate cyclists out there, but in terms of damage and impact their effect is tiny in comparison to that of poor motorists.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 24, 2008)

tom_craggs said:


> I am afraid London (like many other big capital cities) has bred a unique driving culture that would not be acceptable elsewhere in the UK. I.



I'm afraid the rest of the UK is rapidly coming down to London's level, rather than vice-versa.........


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 24, 2008)

for shame i was reading this thread to see more expamples of boris's nonsense rather than a rehash of the fucking tiedious half of urban hates cars half urban hates cycles argument... 

any chance we can go back to the topic and the bunfight can be moved to a new permenantly stickied thread called cycles vs cars the infighting epic thread thus removing the need for it to ever destroy other threads again that way when ajdown is posting after drinking a gallon of 4 star and the editor is posting from his new fixie racer mobile interweb gps mapping system for fixies... the rest of us can blithly ignore the tiedioum of the same rehashed arguments....


----------



## editor (Jun 24, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...fucking tiedious half of urban hates cars half urban hates cycles argument... ....blithly ignore the tiedioum of the same rehashed arguments....


Seeing as you clearly find it all _oh so tedious,_ can I now assume from your comments you'll no longer be charging into any further car/bike threads in your, err, inimitably abrasive style?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 24, 2008)

editor said:


> Seeing as you clearly find it all _oh so tedious,_ can I now assume from your comments you'll no longer be charging into any further car/bike threads in your, err, inimitably abrasive style?



i shall probably be on your sticky thread of which has already been suggested mr "passive agressive - selective quoter" editah sir....


----------



## fjydj (Jul 2, 2008)

Plans to close dozens of London Underground ticket offices have been reversed by London mayor Boris Johnson.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7484924.stm



> Passenger groups and trade unions had mounted campaigns against the proposals, which had been unveiled by the former mayor Ken Livingstone.
> They argued that having staff at ticket offices increased security within the stations, especially in the evenings.
> A mayor's spokesman confirmed that the 40 offices will remain open and that Mr Johnson had made the issue a priority.
> The move was welcomed by Gerry Doherty, leader of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, who described it as a "victory for common sense".


----------



## Dhimmi (Jul 2, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> Er...does anyone feel the need to take ajdown seriously after THIS...?



Well it always worked for Ken Livingstone, he loves using the nazi label...


----------



## Final (Jul 3, 2008)

Another masterful piece of writing from our esteemed Mayor (seriously):



> No, my friends, the fault is in ourselves, and if we want to do better at sport, we should stop blaming foreigners, and we should now launch a merciless Kulturkampf against every feature of modern Britain that is inimical to our competitive success. We should summon up our courage and tell our ballooning children to put down their beastly PlayStations and go and play outside. We should encourage them to walk or cycle to school. We should stop the sale of school playing fields. We should finally abandon the ethic of "all must have prizes".



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/07/01/do0101.xml


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 8, 2008)

Been a while since this thread was near the top of the board but this should do the trick:

Boris has scrapped the £25 level of congestion charge:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7494495.stm


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Been a while since this thread was near the top of the board but this should do the trick:
> 
> Boris has scrapped the £25 level of congestion charge:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7494495.stm


A victory for Porsche! 

Cunts.


----------



## lenny101 (Jul 8, 2008)

He is 'giving' £400,000 to Porche according to the Guardian.

Johnson Drops Pollution Battle Against Porche


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

lenny101 said:


> He is 'giving' £400,000 to Porche according to the Guardian.
> 
> Johnson Drops Pollution Battle Against Porche


Indeed:


> Last night Jenny Jones, Green party assembly member, said she was appalled by the decision. "This is a mayor who is telling us he wants to see value for money, and to account for every penny, and here he is paying one of the richest car companies in the world hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money.


Nice one Boris! 

Cunt.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 8, 2008)

What a tit. What an utter shit. shit shit shit. We knew he was going to do this though didn't we. 

He is so out of touch. London was almost looking like a good example to the rest to the worlds big cities. Twat.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 8, 2008)

As I mentioned in Transport, the feeling among lawyers I know is that Porshe almost certainly had the better of the argument - they'd say this is about cutting your losses.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 8, 2008)

The people of Merseyside warmly invite Boris for a fraternal visit, among the many attractions planned is that traditional delicacy the 'Anfield Hot Leg'.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 8, 2008)

Of course, being a Tory he'd probably enjoy having 800,000 or so angry scousers pissing in his pockets. Eton affects them like that I understand.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> As I mentioned in Transport, the feeling among lawyers I know is that Porshe almost certainly had the better of the argument - they'd say this is about cutting your losses.


Maybe. But they wouldn't be privy to Ken's argument so I wouldn't put too much store amongst your laywer pals' comments.

After all, Ken didn't exactly have a habit of losing in court and he generally chose his battles wisely.


----------



## stupid kid (Jul 8, 2008)

Well the money is going to a charity which gives youngsters training in mechanical skills, so that's something.

It was quite funny watching the highlights of Ken's interview with London Today, asked what does he give Boris out of ten "2 or 3"


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2008)

So, thanks to this floppy-haired prick, we can expect more 4x4s on our streets. How is this going to tackle pollution?


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What a tit. What an utter shit. shit shit shit. We knew he was going to do this though didn't we.
> 
> He is so out of touch. London was almost looking like a good example to the rest to the worlds big cities. Twat.



yes we did.


who is he out of touch with???   he's just won an election with this as a major plank of his manifesto.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jul 9, 2008)

So let's recap Boris' record after two months:

- U-turn on Routemasters.
- Abandons Thames Water reservoir appeal.
- Scraps £25 gas guzzler charge
- Gives Porsche £400k of tax payers money.
- Appoints cronies from Westminster council.
- Has to sack advisor for being racist.
- Has to allow deputy mayor to resign for being dodgy.
- Scraps anti-racist music festival theme.

Hmmm. Only another three years and 10 months to go!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 9, 2008)

newbie said:


> yes we did.
> 
> 
> who is he out of touch with???



Yesterday he said that people who bought smaller cars were adding to the air pollution problem because now they would have two cars. What a dick, it's not like they would be driving both around London at once even if they did keep the other car. 

He is 'out of touch' with reality.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jul 9, 2008)

newbie said:


> yes we did.
> 
> 
> who is he out of touch with???   he's just won an election with this as a major plank of his manifesto.



He won zones 4-6. Those well-known London landmarks...like Bromley.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> He won zones 4-6. Those well-known London landmarks...like Bromley.



indeed so, plus a few rich bits in the middle.  Which means he won the election and is now implementing the manifesto on which he, and the Evening Standard, stood.

I don't like it, or him, any more than you do.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> Maybe. But they wouldn't be privy to Ken's argument so I wouldn't put too much store amongst your laywer pals' comments.


I don't understand. There are no secrets - nothing to be privy to, just laws to apply to given circs. Everything is disclosed in the pre-court documentation anyway (intended to reduce court time and costs)?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 9, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> He won zones 4-6. Those well-known London landmarks...like Bromley.


Bromley didn't vote until this election.

The whole point is this time Bromley did vote, so even though Ken's total vote went up, the Tory vote went up much more.


----------



## citydreams (Jul 9, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> I don't understand. There are no secrets - nothing to be privy to, just laws to apply to given circs. Everything is disclosed in the pre-court documentation anyway (intended to reduce court time and costs)?



This is Porsche's position


> "The Mayor and TfL have not provided all of the facts on their unfair £25 tax on motorists to the public. What those facts reveal is that *this new tax is predicted to increase the level of CO2 emitted in Greater London and to reduce levels of air quality*. While Porsche continues to provide Londoners with a range of vehicles with reduced CO2 emissions and other pollutants, the Mayor and *TfL pursue policies that are not evidence-based*. To change the research at this late stage calls into question the facts upon which the public was consulted and the facts upon which the mayor's decision to introduce the emissions charge is based in the first place."


http://www.porschejudicialreview.co.uk/news_04_10_08.htm

This is absolutely completely bollox.   100% fact free fallacy.    

Boris is a snivelling little toad.  His desire to bend over the bonet has cost TfL £1 million in legal fees.


----------



## g force (Jul 9, 2008)

> Porsche continues to provide Londoners with a range of vehicles with reduced CO2 emissions and other pollutants



Oh FFS


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 9, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Bromley didn't vote until this election.
> 
> The whole point is this time Bromley did vote, so even though Ken's total vote went up, the Tory vote went up much more.



Bromley has a history. It was Bromley Council who, in 1981, began a campaign to thwart Fares Fair. Bromley is full of Tory voters who drive gas guzzling vehicles. They don't have a Tube station nor do they have access to the Croydon Tramlink. One suspects that a combination of envy and bloody-mindedness is to blame.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jul 10, 2008)

citydreams said:


> This is Porsche's position
> 
> http://www.porschejudicialreview.co.uk/news_04_10_08.htm
> 
> ...



Well my experience of the congestion charge zone is horrendous traffic on the periphery of the zone.


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2008)

That's greenwash of the highest order.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 10, 2008)

Is it true that Max Moseley and Jade Goody are gonna be working with him?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2008)

citydreams said:


> This is Porsche's position
> 
> http://www.porschejudicialreview.co.uk/news_04_10_08.htm
> 
> ...




I'm afraid what you link to is three months out of date. July 07 2008:



> Upon taking up office, new London Mayor Boris Johnson’s legal team accepted that the previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, should have taken into account research from King’s College which showed that the new charge would actually increase CO2 emissions in Greater London. The research, discovered by Porsche in its legal correspondence with the previous Mayor, indicated that the new charge would see an increase in car mileage. On the basis of this, *the Mayor’s lawyers* decided that the proposed new charge *could*, in fact, *be unlawful.*


----------



## citydreams (Jul 10, 2008)

It's not out of date at all.  The research undertaken by King's College Environmental Research Group (ERG) was known to have been flawed for some time (they managed to get a decimal point in the wrong place).

TfL's lawyers don't have any say in what the new Mayor tells them to accept.

Introducing a polluter pays charge does not, in any way, reduce air quality.  The ERG models include the £0 Band A and Band B exemption.  TfL had produced its own forecasts using its own models which were reviewed by the Mayor prior to him making a decision.   This included the option of removing, or modifying the exemption where necessary.  For example, the Mayor could, under the variation order, change the level of discount from 120 g/km to 100 g/km.  

Boris was elected under a manifesto of removing the £25 charge.   He made no mention of the Band A and Band B exemption.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Jul 10, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Well my experience of the congestion charge zone is horrendous traffic on the periphery of the zone.



Where? 

Cycled around the Elephant and Castle roundabout this morning. Was the traffic horrendous - no. 

Cylceld through Kennington Cross yesterday. Was the traffic horrendous - no. 

Up through Vauxhall Cross last week. Was the traffic horrendous  - no. Perhaps I'm long in the tooth, but I recall when it truly was horrendous. Those were the days before the congestion charge.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 10, 2008)

citydreams said:


> It's not out of date at all.  *The research undertaken by King's College Environmental Research Group (ERG) was known to have been flawed for some time (they managed to get a decimal point in the wrong place)*.





Do you have a link for that please because I cannot find anything and strongly suspect it to be utter bollocks.

A multi-national company were about to use this in one of the highest profile court cases in years and knew that the main cornerstone of their evidence was flawed from the outset? 

I don't think so.


----------



## citydreams (Jul 10, 2008)

I think you've taken what I wrote the wrong way round.  

The ERG work was done for TfL.  Porsche picked up on it.   But Ken's decision wasn't based on the ERG work, it was based on TfL's models.


----------



## Mitre10 (Jul 10, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I think you've taken what I wrote the wrong way round.
> 
> The ERG work was done for TfL.  Porsche picked up on it.   But Ken's decision wasn't based on the ERG work, it was based on TfL's models.




Apologies then, it wan't too clear what you meant previously.


----------



## onthebrightside (Jul 10, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Bromley has a history. It was Bromley Council who, in 1981, began a campaign to thwart Fares Fair. Bromley is full of Tory voters who drive gas guzzling vehicles. They don't have a Tube station nor do they have access to the Croydon Tramlink. One suspects that a combination of envy and bloody-mindedness is to blame.



Despite areas like Bromley being made up of a range of potential voters the vast majority of people I know there couldn't be bothered to vote despite thinking Boris is an idiot. Apathy amongst non Tories is also to blame.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2008)

citydreams said:


> It's not out of date at all. .


It is out of date, by four three (April to July).

You linked to Porche's legal position prior to the court hearing, I linked to the position after the court hearing. Let me post the opening sentence from the latter:



> Porsche today announces a formal victory in its legal campaign to prevent the introduction of a £25 charge on larger vehicles driving in London. The Administrative Court in London has quashed the increase to the charge. Porsche has been awarded legal costs - expected to be a six figure sum


As I understand it the legal issue is Ken consulted the public with a set of data, and then some of the data was re-interpreted so the original consultation was underminded. Yet he continued with a policy based on the original data.

If you're disputing the current authenticity of the Kings College data - which says pollution will rise as a result of the CC changes Ken proposed - I'd be very happy to see them as I'd like Ken to have been right?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Bromley has a history. It was Bromley Council who, in 1981, began a campaign to thwart Fares Fair. Bromley is full of Tory voters who drive gas guzzling vehicles. They don't have a Tube station nor do they have access to the Croydon Tramlink. One suspects that a combination of envy and bloody-mindedness is to blame.


With all respect, you'll need to explain the relevance of a council membership sitting 27 years ago when London was a hugely different place.

Fwiw, there are no tube stations but Beckenham and Bromley together (yes, they're both in the borough) have 10-11 train stations between the two towns and journey time to Victoria is 17 minutes. The tram link does have around 5 stops and one terminus in the borough.

There was a strong anti-Ken vote this time when in the past people have been ambivilent, and a lot of that was to do with the re-focusing of the charge from being congestion to emission based, in my local opinion.


----------



## ovaltina (Jul 10, 2008)

*London assembly to investigate Boris Johnson's appointments*

From The Guardian: "An investigation is to be launched into Boris Johnson's appointment of key staff and advisers at City Hall, the London assembly announced today. 

The move follows the resignation of two of the mayor's most senior appointees in the space of two weeks."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/10/boris.london2


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> With all respect, you'll need to explain the relevance of a council membership sitting 27 years ago when London was a hugely different place.
> 
> Fwiw, there are no tube stations but Beckenham and Bromley together (yes, they're both in the borough) have 10-11 train stations between the two towns and journey time to Victoria is 17 minutes. The tram link does have around 5 stops and one terminus in the borough.
> 
> There was a strong anti-Ken vote this time when in the past people have been ambivilent, and a lot of that was to do with the re-focusing of the charge from being congestion to emission based, in my local opinion.



There is plenty of relevance, to suggest that there is none, rather avoids the uncomfortable truth that Tory boroughs like Bromley have consistently set their face against any changes that reduce pollution and increase access to public transport. Indeed, much of the anti-Ken vote came from boroughs like Bromley.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2008)

"the uncomfortable truth" 

It's a democracy - an 'uncomfortable truth' is the BNP gets elected council seats in East London. That a maj of the city's population don't agree with the idea of turning a congestion charge into a (proven to be) poorly-founded emissions charge isn't.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2008)

Laugh all you like. You can bleat "democracy" too but the sad fact is your idea of democracy is rooted in myth.

This mysterious "majority" of Londoners who want to see the CC scrapped and more cars on the streets. Who are they and where do they live?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 10, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> Who are they and where do they live?


According to this there were 1,168,738, how many of their names and addresses do you want me to post up? 


As before, I'm not sure what point you're making?


----------



## citydreams (Jul 10, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> It is out of date, by four three (April to July).



Porsche formally applied for the judicial review in March.. Their position is based on that application.



> As I understand it the legal issue is Ken consulted the public with a set of data, and then some of the data was re-interpreted so the original consultation was underminded. Yet he continued with a policy based on the original data.
> 
> If you're disputing the current authenticity of the Kings College data - which says pollution will rise as a result of the CC changes Ken proposed - I'd be very happy to see them as I'd like Ken to have been right?



1. The data was not re-interpreted, either by Ken or by Tfl.

2. It's no secret that ERG messed up.  But their numbers weren't used in the consultation so it's a bit of a non-story.

3.  Ken's decision was made on the basis that he could withdraw the Band AB exemption.  In so doing, all modelling work points to a reduction in CO2, an improvement in air quality and a large chunk of revenue for TfL to spend on cycling schemes.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 10, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> According to this there were 1,168,738, how many of their names and addresses do you want me to post up?
> 
> 
> As before, I'm not sure what point you're making?



Meh, nonetheless, Johnson's strongest support came from places like Bromley, where historically there has been a great deal of antipathy towards Labour-controlled London governments.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jul 10, 2008)

Bromley - the council that wanted to concrete over Crystal Palace Park for a carpark and multiplex....


----------



## teuchter (Jul 11, 2008)

Apparently Boris has shelved the plans to pedestrianise Parliament Square.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7501177.stm

That will please the motorist lobby too, no doubt.

*sigh*


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 11, 2008)

goddam it, i love these pedestrianisation projects.  damn you johnson


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 18, 2008)

Johnson dismisses his own financial report
http://financialadvice.co.uk/news/1...hnson-Dismisses-His-Own-Financial-Report.html

Notice the way the word "fare" has been spelled.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 18, 2008)

London Assembly to investigate Johnson's appointments...according to The Guardian. 



> In a statement, the assembly said its investigation would look at four key questions:
> 
> • How did Johnson pick his senior City Hall policy advisers?
> 
> ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 18, 2008)

*Johnson discusses knife crime with Lily Allen*

My question is: "Why"? 
http://www.nme.com/news/lily-allen/38248


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> According to this there were 1,168,738, how many of their names and addresses do you want me to post up?
> 
> 
> As before, I'm not sure what point you're making?



Do you think everyone who voted for Boris wants the congestion charge scrapped and more cars on the streets, then?


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jul 18, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> My question is: "Why"?
> http://www.nme.com/news/lily-allen/38248



Because his minders told him she was famous?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jul 23, 2008)

Boris wants a holiday "Some time before the end of August, I will grab a week's leave, like a half-starved sealion snatching an airborne mackerel," http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/22/do2201.xml

He hasn't long got back from Turkey. He really is finding out what hard work this job is, isn't he.....


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jul 23, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> I will grab a week's leave, like a half-starved sealion snatching an airborne mackerel," http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/22/do2201.xml



Yeah.

More like "like a guy who hasn't had a holiday since last month."


----------



## nino_savatte (Jul 24, 2008)

I see he's still trying to claim the credit for some of Ken's ideas.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 8, 2008)

possible opportunities for Boris..

Closing ceremony

1300 BST-1600 BST, Beijing National Stadium.

The closing ceremony will last three hours.

There will be a short section within it marking the official handover to London 2012.

The Mayor of Beijing will hand the Olympic flag to the *Mayor of London* - which is the moment when the UK officially becomes the next host of the Olympic Games.


----------



## ChrisSouth (Aug 12, 2008)

True colour Tories.......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/12/boris.london


----------



## scifisam (Aug 12, 2008)

ChrisSouth said:


> True colour Tories.......
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/12/boris.london



I love this bit of politicking at the end of that article:



> "A census of all council tenants in 2007 identified that 72% of people living in council housing would like to own their own homes if they could afford it. This development helps make their aspirations a reality by providing 70 homes for low-cost sale."



Well, I'd like to own a home too, if I could afford it, but if you took my HA flat away from me I wouldn't be abel to suddenly muster up the couple of hundred thousand I'd need to buy it - and that couple of hundred k is _after_ taking the 'affordable homes' reduction into account.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 12, 2008)

Yesterday was the  100th day, I believe.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 15, 2008)

that part of london will be fucked...the average joe is going to lose out big time


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 15, 2008)

"Nu-liar-bore out now! Go Boris lol!" - well that worked out nicely for you then you shitty little middle England fuckheads. 

Keyboard Jockey - come back and defend your hero's cutbacks in social housing provision if you dare.


----------



## bluestreak (Aug 15, 2008)

[KBJ]at least he wasn't giving them to democacy-hating swp fundies and using tax-payers money to buy new islamic-themed hats for his newt.  that's far worse  [/KBJ]


----------



## Xanadu (Aug 15, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "Nu-liar-bore out now! Go Boris lol!" - well that worked out nicely for you then you shitty little middle England fuckheads.
> 
> Keyboard Jockey - come back and defend your hero's cutbacks in social housing provision if you dare.



Didn't he flounce or something???


----------



## ChrisSouth (Aug 19, 2008)

*Now a third to go*

Boris waves goodbye to a third deputy mayor

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7569946.stm 

Not bad, 3 in 105 days.


----------



## untethered (Aug 19, 2008)

It was a very Tory resignation. Unlike most of the Labour lot who'll cling on for dear life once they get their snouts in the trough, this chap felt his time could be better spent elsewhere.

I hope the saving of his £1 salary isn't squandered.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:


> "Nu-liar-bore out now! Go Boris lol!" - well that worked out nicely for you then you shitty little middle England fuckheads.
> 
> Keyboard Jockey - come back and defend your hero's cutbacks in social housing provision if you dare.



He's still here, isn't he?


----------



## elbows (Aug 19, 2008)

ChrisSouth said:


> Boris waves goodbye to a third deputy mayor
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7569946.stm
> 
> Not bad, 3 in 105 days.



Ahh I was worried about what that bloke might do considering his reputation. Still as he seemed to have earned the nickname 'prince of darkness' I suppose its fitting for him to move back into the shadows as an advisor.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

untethered said:


> It was a very Tory resignation.


No, it was yet another catastrophically bad appointment by Boris.

His judgement is so appalling that Parker's the third senior official to step down from his administration in three months.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 19, 2008)

I was wondering if Parker just looked at the lunatic way City Hall is being run and thought fuck this shit, when this goes belly up I aint taking the fall for it!


----------



## ChrisSouth (Aug 20, 2008)

untethered said:


> It was a very Tory resignation. Unlike most of the Labour lot who'll cling on for dear life once they get their snouts in the trough, this chap felt his time could be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> I hope the saving of his £1 salary isn't squandered.



No it wasn't - what have you done, taken the Tory lie? He flounced out, in a hissy fit, becuase Boris wouldn't give him TFL....


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2008)

Boris's great grandfather was murdered by a Turkish mob of supporters of Kemal Ataturk. Time to say goodbye to all the kebab shops in London then.


----------



## Dhimmi (Aug 20, 2008)

Hang on though BoJo's grandfather was a Turk wasn't he?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 20, 2008)

Dhimmi said:


> Hang on though BoJo's grandfather was a Turk wasn't he?



Yep, he was the son of the Turkish politican murdered by Ataturk's deranged mob.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Sep 21, 2008)

What do we make of this idea? Brilliant, pie-in-the-sky or both??

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4795085.ece


----------



## citydreams (Sep 21, 2008)

Rehashed bonkers pie.  For lots of reasons. But mostly because the Thames Estuary is an established nature reserve.

Interesting that the Times article is quoting Kit Milhouse, Boris' police advisor, rather than Isabel Dedring, his new environmental advisor.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 21, 2008)

Too many birds flock there for it to be safe.

People from counties to to west of London will have a terrible time getting there.

Move Heathrow to Brize Norton.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Sep 21, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> People from counties to to west of London will have a terrible time getting there.



That is actually a very good point, because the M25 is (of course) already very overloaded.


----------



## corporate whore (Sep 24, 2008)

Quick bump as Bodge has nixed Lewisham's plans for 20mph driving, despite (?) Livingstone giving it full funding approval before he was chucked out.


Deputy Mayor Councillor Heidi Alexander said: “It’s a real shame that Boris isn’t willing to look at all the options for making our roads safer. “In Lewisham, we already have a number of 20mph zones and in the last year we have seen the largest reduction, of all London boroughs, in our accident rates."

http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=17537

And if that doesn't get you riled, he's been using his £250,000 a year Telegraph column to defend the indefensible. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/23/do2301.xml

and just for good measure, said it again today in case you didn't get the message first time round.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ris+in+new+attacks+on+City+critics/article.do

'neosocialist'


----------



## Mitre10 (Sep 29, 2008)

Not particularly relevant to London per se but it made me laugh:


It has taken a whole year - but London mayor Boris Johnson has finally got his own back on Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

As he was waiting to address last year's Tory conference via video link, the California Governor seemed highly amused by Mr Johnson's speaking style. 

In a a clip which became a hit on YouTube, he can be heard whispering to aides about Mr Johnson "fumbling". 

But now the London mayor has had the last the laugh, describing "Arnie" as a "monosyllabic Austrian cyborg". 

He made the quip at the start of his speech to this year's Tory conference - his first to that gathering since he beat Labour's Ken Livingstone to the London mayoral crown. 

Mr Johnson - always a favourite at Tory conferences - was given a rapturous reception by party representatives in Birmingham. 

He told them: "Thank you very much for that welcome. Much more generous than in 2006 when I was physically pelted with pork pies by the press corps or last year when my speaking style was criticised by Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

"And it was a low moment, my friends, to have my speaking style denounced by a monosyllabic Austrian cyborg. 

"But I can say now to Arnie that in spite of all his doubts and though there was a great deal of suspense until the final reel, Ken Livingstone was terminated." 

He added that he was not Mr Livingstone's Terminator but the "people in this hall who did it". 

Mr Johnson also playfully acknowledged Tory leader David Cameron's warning to the party to avoid complacency, saying: "I know this is not time for triumphalism, Dave" before going on to list some of his early achievements as mayor "in a strictly non-triumphalist way". 

Mr Cameron - said by some pundits to fear a challenge from Mr Johnson for the party leadership at some stage - was seen laughing heartily at the London mayor's jokes, as he sat in the audience



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7640815.stm


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 29, 2008)

> He added that he was not Mr Livingstone's Terminator but the "people in this hall who did it".



Oh? The Conservative voters in the shire counties voted out Livingstone? That's news to me.


----------



## salem (Oct 2, 2008)

He's got rid of Sir Ian Blair 



> The new mayor made clear, in a very pleasant and determined way, that he wished there to be a change of leadership



Quote of the week!


----------



## scifisam (Oct 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> What do we make of this idea? Brilliant, pie-in-the-sky or both??
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4795085.ece



Incomprehensible. Sure, it'd be good for the people around Heathrow who live under the flight path, but it'd be terrible for the people who'd be living under the new flight path. Though, of course, people in Sheppey are a lot poorer on average than people around Heathrow. Not sure how abandoning a building that's already built and has only recently been extended, then building a whole new structure and travel connections to it, would be a good use of money. 



salem said:


> He's got rid of Sir Ian Blair



Well, that's good. I don't see why being the police boss should depend on being buddies with the mayor, though. Does that mean we're only allowed Tory chiefs when we have Tory mayors, and so on?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2008)

Boris is scrapping the western extension of the congestion charge zone.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7752046.stm


----------



## PacificOcean (Nov 27, 2008)

Boris is good news for us in the Outer London boroughs like he promised.

He has given Enfield £2m for highway improvements.  We got zero from Ken.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 27, 2008)

> Labour's transport spokesperson Val Shawcross said: "The rolling back of the congestion charge is a foolish and backward step by Boris Johnson.
> 
> "It will lose Transport for London (TfL) £70m a year that could have been spent on improving our public transport system



Thought they said that they don't make money from the scheme and that the revenue raised goes to running the CC?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2008)

No, it's always been assumed that profit from the CC goes towards public transport.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 27, 2008)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article540150.ece

Oh no. How silly of me.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 27, 2008)

interesting. however, I still recall that the charge was sold on the idea that the money it took in would pay for all those new buses


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2008)

For anyone interested in the Parliament Square pedestrianisation project scrapped by Boris, a little bit more information here ...

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=453&storycode=3129211


----------



## salem (Dec 11, 2008)

Just saw an advert in the paper about the 18 month trial starting in the new year allowing motorcycles into bus lanes 

Another manifesto pledge delivered. Brilliant


----------



## HackneyE9 (Dec 11, 2008)

salem said:


> Just saw an advert in the paper about the 18 month trial starting in the new year allowing motorcycles into bus lanes
> 
> Another manifesto pledge delivered. Brilliant



"Another"? 

Feel free to list all Boris' "delivery" below. All I can think of so far is scrapping the western congestion zone - which he now apparently isn't so sure was such a good idea!


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 12, 2008)

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned: another Johnson appointee bites the dust.


> The Tory tycoon embroiled in a shares scandal resigned as Boris Johnson's senior Olympics adviser yesterday.
> 
> David Ross, a co-founder of Carphone Warehouse, also quit as chairman of National Express, the transport group, after the disclosure that he had mortgaged his entire £200million portfolio of shares in four companies, in breach of City rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Dec 12, 2008)

It has been mentioned, I think there was a thread on it


----------



## Zachor (Dec 12, 2008)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned: another Johnson appointee bites the dust.



At least he gets rid of his dodgy associates quickly.  Blair and Brown just bring them back a la Mandleson


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 12, 2008)

Zachor said:


> At least he gets rid of his dodgy associates quickly.  Blair and Brown just bring them back a la Mandleson



He didn't "get rid" of him, he had no choice but to resign.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 12, 2008)

Crispy said:


> It has been mentioned, I think there was a thread on it



Not on _this_ thread, it hasn't.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Dec 12, 2008)

Zachor said:


> At least he gets rid of his dodgy associates quickly.  Blair and Brown just bring them back a la Mandleson



That's your defence of your beloved Boris? After he's lost, what, four top advisors in barely six months since taking office?


----------



## Zachor (Dec 12, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> That's your defence of your beloved Boris? After he's lost, what, four top advisors in barely six months since taking office?



I must admit it is _rather_ careless.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Dec 12, 2008)

Zachor said:


> I must admit it is _rather_ careless.



Compare it with the song and dance you made in your previous incarnation on these boards about Lee Jaspar, and I'm surprised you can look yourself in the mirror.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 12, 2008)

I wonder if there's any connection between Boris being a posh, rich, thick cunt and vermin and his propensity to appoint corrupt, good-for-nothing, sleazy infectious human trash and garbage (who should all be sent packing the halal butcher, made into chops and fed to their squealing, over pampered brat children).

There are of course more systematic factors at work (as illustrated by New Labour PLC). But the humble point I’m making here is that being a posh clueless cunt _doesn’t help_.


----------



## Mitre10 (Dec 18, 2008)

Boris now reported to be considering scrapping the entire congestion charge in London to boost the economy:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...C-charge,+Boris+Let+me+brood+on+it/article.do


----------



## Crispy (Dec 18, 2008)

>_<


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2008)

A 200ft high image of Boris Johnson will be projected on the Shell building tonight. Its a bit megalmaniac don't you think!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2008/dec/30/london-london


----------



## Zachor (Dec 31, 2008)

toblerone3 said:


> A 200ft high image of Boris Johnson will be projected on the Shell building tonight. Its a bit megalmaniac don't you think!!
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2008/dec/30/london-london



Great I was wondering where to go for a NYE wank.


----------



## toblerone3 (Dec 31, 2008)

He also told everybody to cheer up because the recession is going to end..


































Someday


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 31, 2008)

Zachor said:


> Great I was wondering where to go for a NYE wank.



If it was any other poster that would sound like a joke.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 1, 2009)

toblerone3 said:


> A 200ft high image of Boris Johnson will be projected on the Shell building tonight. Its a bit megalmaniac don't you think!!
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2008/dec/30/london-london



Was not Homer Simpson also being projected? 

Two very similar creatures.


----------



## Zachor (Jan 1, 2009)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> If it was any other poster that would sound like a joke.



It was.  Happy New Year


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 23, 2009)

Boris Johnson's u-turn on axing western c-charge zone

Article here

Ongoing c-charge thread here


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Sep 23, 2009)

From the Evening (sub) Standard today:




			
				Evening sub Standard said:
			
		

> *What he said*: Ban alcohol on the Tube to cut the 40 per cent of crime that is alcohol-related.
> *Action*: Drink was banned in June last year. No clear figures on crime because “alcohol-related” offences on the Tube are not recorded.
> 
> *What he said*: “Create a cabinet for London to assist in running London in a more businesslike manner.”
> ...


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 23, 2009)

Brixton Hatter said:


> From the Evening (sub) Standard today:



The Standard has changed quite a bit since that Russian bloke took it over and they got a new editor in.

It's gone back to being readable again rather than a London version of the Daily Mail.


----------



## Xanadu (Sep 23, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> The Standard has changed quite a bit since that Russian bloke took it over and they got a new editor in.
> 
> It's gone back to being readable again rather than a London version of the Daily Mail.


Really?  Might have to start buying it again.


----------



## Open Sauce (Oct 4, 2009)

*Boris in Eastenders*

Has  been posted yet?

Warning, there is some terrible acting in the scene before, during and after boris.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 4, 2009)

I tell ya, I could swing for that useless lump of shite . . .


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 4, 2009)

Open Sauce said:


> Has  been posted yet?
> 
> Warning, there is some terrible acting in the scene before, during and after boris.



it's pretty hard to watch Peggy fawning over Boris and saying "How great it is to meet someone who's dedicated their life to the service of others" - though on second thoughts I wonder if the writers were having a sly little dig at Boris!

can you imagine the shit Ken would have have got for doing this? Luckily he was too sensible for any of that.

Boris was also spied at London fashion week. The current issue of Private Eye has a photo on the front page similar to this with Boris saying 

"I say, what a terrific pair of sunglasses"


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 4, 2009)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Boris was also spied at London fashion week. The current issue of Private Eye has a photo on the front page similar to this...



Private Eye


----------



## zenazena (Oct 4, 2009)

i saw him in the pub last wednesday (the night before deadenders aired?) maybe he was trying to instill an image in people's heads of 'bloke in pub' prior to them seeing this in an attempt to make himself not look so ridiculous..


----------



## ska invita (Oct 4, 2009)

Xanadu said:


> Really?  Might have to start buying it again.



as its going free ill have a look too


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 15, 2009)

BoJo announces conjestion charge to rise to £10:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...don_C-Charge_Increases_To_?10_Amid_Fare_Rises


Tube and bus fares also up unsurprisingly... tube by 3.9% and buses by 12.7%!!!


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 15, 2009)

Buses up by 12.7%?

I use a PAYG oystercard and the new single bus fare will be £1.20 - that's an annoying 20% increase!


----------



## Upchuck (Oct 15, 2009)

Hang about,  £1.20 is still quite cheap for a bus fare.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 15, 2009)

The bus fares going up is partly compensated for by the knowledge that all the suburbanites who voted for Boris on the basis that he was against the congestion charge are now beginning to realise the full stupidity of their error...


----------



## maldwyn (Oct 15, 2009)

Upchuck said:


> Hang about,  £1.20 is still quite cheap for a bus fare.



In the scheme of things it probably is, that's not the issue.


----------



## Campcrusader (Oct 15, 2009)

The bus pass is a massive rise. Coupled with reports that some bus routes may see frequency cuts. I'd better get walking.


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 15, 2009)

Campcrusader said:


> The bus pass is a massive rise. Coupled with reports that some bus routes may see frequency cuts. I'd better get walking.



What sort of frequency reductions? 

The fare increase is massive. Of course it doesn't matter if you've got an unlimited expense account like Bojos.



> New figures show that the Mayor claimed £1,501 in cab fares in November, December and January as he visited the outer London boroughs where he is most popular.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ns-taxi-bill-is-eight-times-more-than-kens.do


----------



## flash (Oct 15, 2009)

The true cost of a bus journey in London only a couple of years ago, given the level of investment was in excess of £4. This I'm sure was reported in several papers. 20% is a steep hike, but given the actual cost of running that bus it is relatively cheap. This however is the wrong way to go about pushing the shift that they want to encourage towards sustainable transport. The only thing it may push is an increase in cycling and cycling fatalities.

Boris has to visit the outer boroughs, Ken never did and they didn't vote for him. Boris visited my borough more times during the election campaign than Ken did during 8 years. I also had the misfortune to be on a train with him once to Richmond when he was doing the Tory thing for some local councillors.


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 15, 2009)

flash said:


> This however is the wrong way to go about pushing the shift that they want to encourage towards sustainable transport.



Exactly. Less than a quid and no parking charges makes the bus a very attractive proposition compared to driving a car, even in the suburbs. £1.20 is still cheap compared to running a car, but it's over the £1 barrier, which I reckon will put some people off.

Right now I'm sitting in San Francisco airport, waiting for my flight back to London. Over here you pay $2 for a tranfer ticket which you can use on buses, street cars and the subway unlimited for three hours. And that's tourist prices. A monthly pass for locals costs about $60 (or $15 concessions).

Plus they've got the BART train service which whips you to the airport in about 30 mins for $8. And this is in the car-crazy USA!


----------



## PacificOcean (Oct 15, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> Right now I'm sitting in San Francisco airport, waiting for my flight back to London. Over here you pay $2 for a tranfer ticket which you can use on buses, street cars and the subway unlimited for three hours. And that's tourist prices. A monthly pass for locals costs about $60 (or $15 concessions).
> 
> Plus they've got the BART train service which whips you to the airport in about 30 mins for $8. And this is in the car-crazy USA!



Someone has to pay for that surely though?

What's the schools like there?  Is there proper care for the elderly, etc?


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 15, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Someone has to pay for that surely though?
> 
> What's the schools like there?  Is there proper care for the elderly, etc?



Schools are, apparently, fucked, and I don't know about care for the elderly but I'd guess it's fairly bad. The state of California is practically broke.

However, the city is still able to provide a decent transport system aimed at getting people out of their cars. Plus, city buses run on a hybrid of biodiesel and electricity. And the street cars date back to the 1930s but you ride them on an everyday ticket.

It's really impressive stuff.


----------



## PacificOcean (Oct 15, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> Schools are, apparently, fucked, and I don't know about care for the elderly but I'd guess it's fairly bad. The state of California is practically broke.
> 
> However, the city is still able to provide a decent transport system aimed at getting people out of their cars. Plus, city buses run on a hybrid of biodiesel and electricity. And the street cars date back to the 1930s but you ride them on an everyday ticket.
> 
> It's really impressive stuff.



So it's cheap to get to your shitty school or visit your mum sitting in her own piss as their is no-one to look after her?

This is a good thing?


----------



## ovaltina (Oct 15, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> So it's cheap to get to your shitty school or visit your mum sitting in her own piss as their is no-one to look after her?
> 
> This is a good thing?



It's a seperate issue. Or two seperate issues.

The point is, Ken put massive resources into extra frequency for buses and keeping the oyster single fare low, to get people out of their cars and onto buses. It worked - passenger journeys increased by a big margin.

Now that's being reversed, which means more people behind the wheel and fewer bus journeys. More pollution, more congestion, a less efficient city.


----------



## PacificOcean (Oct 15, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> It's a seperate issue. Or two seperate issues.
> 
> The point is, Ken put massive resources into extra frequency for buses and keeping the oyster single fare low, to get people out of their cars and onto buses. It worked - passenger journeys increased by a big margin.
> 
> Now that's being reversed, which means more people behind the wheel and fewer bus journeys. More pollution, more congestion, a less efficient city.



I don't buy this argument.

If you can afford a car, tax, insurance and petrol - then why would an extra 20p on a bus fare make any difference to the way you decide to travel to work?


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 15, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> Now that's being reversed


No, it's being slowed. Reason: Recession.

Use of the tube, for example, is 6% down year on year - that's a big blow in itself. Just like any business TfL are having to reevaluate their investment and maintenance programmes. 

Some observers are questioning the decision to 'front load' the revenue raising exercise so it doesn't impact on a re-election campaign years down the road, largely they argue revenue raising should be done once recovery begins and not while the  recession is still in full swing.

It still needs to be done though.


----------



## flash (Oct 15, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Some observers are questioning the decision to 'front load' the revenue raising exercise so it doesn't impact on a re-election campaign years down the road, largely they argue revenue raising should be done once recovery begins and not while the  recession is still in full swing.
> 
> It still needs to be done though.



So many points. The Metronet crowd are still operating as individual solvent companies (e.g. Atkins, Thames Water, Mott's etc.). They contributed to the "£84 million black hole", so why should we be expected to bail them out - how comes they are not suffering a bit more? Front loading is needed your right though as it could go off of a cliff and potential damage London over the longer term (long and different story) if the network was to stop being developed (given population growth and demand).

Also by Front Loading it will help force the 5% modal shift to cycling that is required in London based upon the current transport network (without some of the comedy options in Boris's MTS) by 2020-ish.


----------



## flash (Oct 15, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> It's a seperate issue. Or two seperate issues.
> 
> The point is, Ken put massive resources into extra frequency for buses and keeping the oyster single fare low, to get people out of their cars and onto buses. It worked - passenger journeys increased by a big margin.



Agreed but as mentioned it was at a heavily subsidised cost. Sure this would decrease over time as the network needs less development but where do you draw the line?


----------



## malice (Oct 16, 2009)

The thing that annoys me is that bus fares are going up most, and there seems to be an incredibly vague mention of bus services being reduced - no details as far as I can work out. For me this seems at a very basic level wrong to raise the fares on the very service you're reducing. It also obviously has a disproportionate affect on some areas - much of south london for example.

Also, what annoys me is the way he peddles [sorry] cycling instead. Better cylcle routes - proper, safe ones - is obviously a great thing, but his ideas seem fairly token, and they don't replace the basic majority services of public transport. What about those who aren't able to cycle? What about when it rains and cycle numbers reduce massively?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2009)

The good news is that almost all 7-day travelcards will remain at the same price.

I can't see anything specifically mentioning monthly travelcards though.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 16, 2009)

malice said:


> The thing that annoys me is that bus fares are going up most, and there seems to be an incredibly vague mention of bus services being reduced - no details as far as I can work out. For me this seems at a very basic level wrong to raise the fares on the very service you're reducing. It also obviously has a disproportionate affect on some areas - much of south london for example.



Is this because the recession has led to fewer people using the tube, and perhaps turning to the bus because it's cheaper?  Reduce buses and reduce put prices up and people will pay the extra for the tube after all?


----------



## Mitre10 (Oct 16, 2009)

teuchter said:


> The good news is that almost all 7-day travelcards will remain at the same price.
> 
> I can't see anything specifically mentioning monthly travelcards though.





You may have to squint to read the tables:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23756905-huge-fare-rises-and-pound-10-c-charge.do


----------



## lenny101 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bus fairs up by 20p for Oyster users!

I am never going to feel guilty again for not paying on the bendy bus.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 16, 2009)

flash said:


> Also by Front Loading it will help force the 5% modal shift to cycling that is required in London based upon the current transport network (without some of the comedy options in Boris's MTS) by 2020-ish.


It is an interesting point though, imo, more of a happy consequence of an approach that is far more concerned with the mayor's self-interest.


----------



## flash (Oct 16, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It is an interesting point though, imo, more of a happy consequence of an approach that is far more concerned with the mayor's self-interest.



Totally, in every which way. A freak series of circumstances which has forced a lot of things which in the long term will go Boris's way. In the short term it looks awful, but at the end of the day with everything from 7 day travelcards and up largely being frozen, the potential gains (Boris seen to be making tough decision, investment being protected, and getting the 5% shift which is allegedly essential for London and it being to his preferred method of transport) for him must outweigh the downside. I just wonder how much he and Kulveer know about it.


----------



## BarryB (Oct 17, 2009)

flash said:


> Totally, in every which way. A freak series of circumstances which has forced a lot of things which in the long term will go Boris's way. In the short term it looks awful, but at the end of the day with everything from 7 day travelcards and up largely being frozen, the potential gains (Boris seen to be making tough decision, investment being protected, and getting the 5% shift which is allegedly essential for London and it being to his preferred method of transport) for him must outweigh the downside. I just wonder how much he and Kulveer know about it.



We dont yet know the extent of cuts into services on the buses and tubes and what the public reaction will be. So to early to say that things in the long term will go Boris's way.


----------



## flash (Oct 17, 2009)

BarryB said:


> We dont yet know the extent of cuts into services on the buses and tubes and what the public reaction will be. So to early to say that things in the long term will go Boris's way.



Totally but it shows that he's not afraid to make the difficult decisions that in the long term may be for the best for London (whether or not that was his intention is questionable). Even though I don't like the guy or his administration, it sets his stall out and that's something that can only be respected. As you say though whether or not the public go with that as it's our pocket is a whole different matter.


----------



## HackneyE9 (Jan 24, 2010)

flash said:


> Totally but it shows that he's not afraid to make the difficult decisions that in the long term may be for the best for London (whether or not that was his intention is questionable). Even though I don't like the guy or his administration, it sets his stall out and that's something that can only be respected. As you say though whether or not the public go with that as it's our pocket is a whole different matter.



I smell troll. 

"Not afraid to make difficult decisions" - what, like holding zero press conferences, putting out awkward decisions by press release just before Christmas, hiding when things go wrong, taking his manifesto offline so noone can check whether the few pitiful promises he made are kept? 

You totally sure you "don't like the guy or his administration"?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 24, 2010)

Here is an obscure music reference joke thing along the theme of boris watch.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 29, 2018)




----------

