|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 5, 2023 14:16:08 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. They probably could not care less, as he probably got some anti car people in the job role. It is no worse than local councils like Waltham Forest implementing CPZ's and use the ridiculous method if someone does not reply to the proposals that is taken as a yes that they would accept it. Absolutely wrong in a democratic society. So even if 98% of the respondents said no and 2% said yes. But 52% of households the letter was sent to did not reply, then it is taken in their favour. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 5, 2023 14:17:44 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. This court case has been entertaining to say the least. Looking less and less likely any ruling will go in TfLs favour after this. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 5, 2023 14:26:38 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. This court case has been entertaining to say the least. Looking less and less likely any ruling will go in TfLs favour after this. I think after this case, the question really needs to be asked has The Mayor deliberately lied an mislead the London Assembly. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 5, 2023 15:02:16 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. They probably could not care less, as he probably got some anti car people in the job role. It is no worse than local councils like Waltham Forest implementing CPZ's and use the ridiculous method if someone does not reply to the proposals that is taken as a yes that they would accept it. Absolutely wrong in a democratic society. So even if 98% of the respondents said no and 2% said yes. But 52% of households the letter was sent to did not reply, then it is taken in their favour. Just like the cycling lobby claiming their policies they promote are reducing car usage. Turns out the stats were taken during Englands World Cup matches when many people were watching the game |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jul 5, 2023 16:03:45 GMT
This court case has been entertaining to say the least. Looking less and less likely any ruling will go in TfLs favour after this. I think after this case, the question really needs to be asked has The Mayor deliberately lied an mislead the London Assembly. It’s a shame there isn’t an impeachment style process for the MoL. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 5, 2023 17:40:56 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. There's a ULEZ camera at Ealing Common on the Uxbridge Road but I've often wondered how easy it would be the flout the ULEZ if you cross the North Circular and then turn off before the camera location (assuming its where the camera sign is after a junction). Absolute joke to use deliberately misleading data though. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 5, 2023 18:43:37 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. If that information was widely known within the organisation, then whistelblowing without repercussions isn't an issue. Chances are only a select few would be the wiser with court material like this, so a whistleblower could be found somewhat easily & TfL will definitely discipline them severely. If signing confidentiality forms aren't a big deterrent, mishandling data under GDPR would be enough to keep someone sthum. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 5, 2023 18:50:20 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. If that information was widely known within the organisation, then whistelblowing without repercussions isn't an issue. Chances are only a select few would be the wiser with court material like this, so a whistleblower could be found somewhat easily & TfL will definitely discipline them severely. If signing confidentiality forms aren't a big deterrent, mishandling data under GDPR would be enough to keep someone sthum. All this data would be available under FOI, so don't see how GDPR would be relevant . If you asked for the source data, they would of had to give it to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 5, 2023 19:06:06 GMT
I think after this case, the question really needs to be asked has The Mayor deliberately lied an mislead the London Assembly. It’s a shame there isn’t an impeachment style process for the MoL. What's funny is despite all this unfolding today, he's not even the number one person at risk of being thrown out of City Hall. Bailey seems to be holding onto that crown. I wonder what Khan's moves will be if the ULEZ gets deferred. By that point, when a flagship policy of yours runs into such a brick wall you do the decent thing and resign like what David Cameron did. The issue is also that the ULEZ won't get scrapped with, chances are it will only be subject to certain conditions which are probably attainable, but not by the end of August. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jul 5, 2023 19:11:45 GMT
It’s a shame there isn’t an impeachment style process for the MoL. What's funny is despite all this unfolding today, he's not even the number one person at risk of being thrown out of City Hall. Bailey seems to be holding onto that crown. I wonder what Khan's moves will be if the ULEZ gets deferred. By that point, when a flagship policy of yours runs into such a brick wall you do the decent thing and resign like what David Cameron did. The issue is also that the ULEZ won't get scrapped with, chances are it will only be subject to certain conditions which are probably attainable, but not by the end of August. I can't ever see Sadiq Khan resigning unless he is forced out! |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 5, 2023 19:21:17 GMT
More evidence of how inept TfL are. In the court case about current ULEZ compliance in outer London, TfL have stayed their figures were based on evidence from 106 cameras, all either on the north or south circular, which just happens to be the border of the existing ULEZ. You kind of guessing ULEZ adherence would be quite high on the zones border, but to then state this as stats for the whole of Outer London is shameful. Not only shameful, decietful and false. Deliberate lies! What a sham organisation TfL are. If they were instructed to provide sham statistics by the sham of a mayor, then someone should have said no, or at very least whistleblower. If that information was widely known within the organisation, then whistelblowing without repercussions isn't an issue. Chances are only a select few would be the wiser with court material like this, so a whistleblower could be found somewhat easily & TfL will definitely discipline them severely. If signing confidentiality forms aren't a big deterrent, mishandling data under GDPR would be enough to keep someone sthum. Not a lawyer by any means but won’t “severely disciplining” a whistleblower be seen as witch-hunting and discrimination? If this was a private organisation the company would have been fined heavily if proven to had discriminated against a whistleblower |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jul 5, 2023 20:06:49 GMT
If that information was widely known within the organisation, then whistelblowing without repercussions isn't an issue. Chances are only a select few would be the wiser with court material like this, so a whistleblower could be found somewhat easily & TfL will definitely discipline them severely. If signing confidentiality forms aren't a big deterrent, mishandling data under GDPR would be enough to keep someone sthum. Not a lawyer by any means but won’t “severely disciplining” a whistleblower be seen as witch-hunting and discrimination? If this was a private organisation the company would have been fined heavily if proven to had discriminated against a whistleblower Whistleblowers are protected under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. So if dismissed or disciplined it is seen as unfair dismissal. TfL would be no different to this and wouldn’t be protected because it’s a publicly owned organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 5, 2023 23:23:41 GMT
It’s a shame there isn’t an impeachment style process for the MoL. What's funny is despite all this unfolding today, he's not even the number one person at risk of being thrown out of City Hall. Bailey seems to be holding onto that crown. I wonder what Khan's moves will be if the ULEZ gets deferred. By that point, when a flagship policy of yours runs into such a brick wall you do the decent thing and resign like what David Cameron did. The issue is also that the ULEZ won't get scrapped with, chances are it will only be subject to certain conditions which are probably attainable, but not by the end of August. If he resigns then he is a fool like Cameron. I cannot stand this resign like a baby because you could not get your way. There are so many things to London than the pathetic ULEZ |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 5, 2023 23:24:51 GMT
If that information was widely known within the organisation, then whistelblowing without repercussions isn't an issue. Chances are only a select few would be the wiser with court material like this, so a whistleblower could be found somewhat easily & TfL will definitely discipline them severely. If signing confidentiality forms aren't a big deterrent, mishandling data under GDPR would be enough to keep someone sthum. Not a lawyer by any means but won’t “severely disciplining” a whistleblower be seen as witch-hunting and discrimination? If this was a private organisation the company would have been fined heavily if proven to had discriminated against a whistleblower Would any whistleblower in their right mind want to still work in the organisation if something of that matter went to court. I definitely would not want to. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 6, 2023 6:06:14 GMT
What's funny is despite all this unfolding today, he's not even the number one person at risk of being thrown out of City Hall. Bailey seems to be holding onto that crown. I wonder what Khan's moves will be if the ULEZ gets deferred. By that point, when a flagship policy of yours runs into such a brick wall you do the decent thing and resign like what David Cameron did. The issue is also that the ULEZ won't get scrapped with, chances are it will only be subject to certain conditions which are probably attainable, but not by the end of August. If he resigns then he is a fool like Cameron. I cannot stand this resign like a baby because you could not get your way. There are so many things to London than the pathetic ULEZ Yes but he is “destroying” London in the process In the grand scheme of things ULEZ is immaterial. People are fed up with him because of an indifferent attitude towards public safety, sharp increase in stabbings, acid attacks, poor policing, bending over backwards attitude to supporting cyclists and shafting anyone who owns a car, and decline in public transport quality. Near my previous home in the Isle of Dogs there have now been 6 stabbings plus 2 axis attacks in a radius of 500m for example. Police never seem to turn up for serious incidents but are always at hand to arrest you if you try and get these morons from JSO out of the way so you can get to work! |
|
