In article .com,
"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote:

Colum Mylod wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4352520.stm

US embassy staff not paying their congestion zone tax. Livingstone
says it's not a tax but a "charge" and therefore not exempt from the
1961 Vienna Convention.

--
New anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com

Has Mr. Kiley (sp?) commented on this?

Here's what I wrote when the charge came out:

Just because -they- call it a congestion charge doesn't mean -we- should.
It is nothing more than a clever way for OPACs to tax exurbanites.

It isn't a congestion charge because the the price is not related to the
amount of roads usage.

It is not a congestion charge because there are exemptions and discounts
based on residence location.

It is not a congestion charge because some of the money goes towards more
vehicles on the roads.

It is a POV excise tax with a special treatment clause for OPACians.
That there is no outrage shows just how far the NUTSO crowd have taken
over the process.

Inner London Auto Disincentive?
Yet Another Transit Subsidy?
Anything but don't call it smart growth and don't call it congestion
charge.