On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one
type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only
address part of the problem.Â* It was the same concentration on one
pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to find
an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were before
Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some, none
of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to survive
it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.Â* It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to
find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were
before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some, none
of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to survive
it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.Â* It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where
they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to
survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city
locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.

On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.Â* It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather
than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to
survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city
locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?


I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.

I think you have badly missed the point.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.Â* It was the same
concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that
gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?

Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?

I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.

I think you have badly missed the point.

I don't think so.

On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.Â* It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?

Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -Â* and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?

Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691


Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.Â* It was the same
concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that
gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?

Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?

TaL? What's that?

On 13/05/2019 23:01, Recliner wrote:

TaL? What's that?


Transport Against London

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
400 Blows - 1984 - ...If I Kissed Her I'd Have To Kill Her First...

I don't think one needs to be a conspiracy theorist to believe
that some anti-motor car fanatics have an agenda and that they
use health and environmental issues to justify their policies. The
Mayor, TfL and my local authority, the London Borough of Waltham
Forest are all prime examples.

I've had a "mini-Holland" installed in my neighbourhood, and not
far from me Whipps Cross roundabout has been converted into a
traffic-light-ridden mess. Both have increased car emissions but
in both cases LBWF claimed they were improving the environment.

On 13/05/2019 21:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube —
how to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.Â* It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel
cars rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.Â* The problem is by wanting
a quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact
that diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution
even if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by
some, none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do
manage to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with
an underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?

Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -Â* and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?

Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.

If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and
no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong.

When something looks like a duck...