ULEZ camera cutters

[isvicthere?]

Who said it isn't? smashing up ULEZ cameras and tipping over statues are both criminal behavour and both are community action.

Well, according to a judge, toppling Colston´s statue was a "violent act", but it wasn´t criminal behaviour.

Bristol Colston statue toppling was 'violent act', say judges

Judges rule a human rights defence was not available to four people who tore down the Bristol statue.

www.bbc.com

 

[skyscraper101]

Its a lost cause. Disabling cameras will do nothing but take out a few cameras here and there but there are literally hundreds of cameras all over the zone, so you'd need to know exactly which ones are operable at all times which would involve some sort of informed network of people, keeping tabs on which ones were working and which ones had been repaired, and which ones had been rendered inoperable again, and then planning your route around it. It's never going to be sustainable. They need to just get over it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Its a lost cause. Disabling cameras will do nothing but take out a few cameras here and there but there are literally hundreds of cameras all over the zone, so you'd need to know exactly which ones are operable at all times which would involve some sort of informed network of people, keeping tabs on which ones were working and which ones had been repaired, and which ones had been rendered inoperable again, and then planning your route around it. It's never going to be sustainable. They need to just get over it.

Yeh the cctv genie can't be put back in the bottle

 

[Spymaster]

Its a lost cause. Disabling cameras will do nothing but take out a few cameras here and there but there are literally hundreds of cameras all over the zone, so you'd need to know exactly which ones are operable at all times which would involve some sort of informed network of people, keeping tabs on which ones were working and which ones had been repaired, and which ones had been rendered inoperable again, and then planning your route around it. It's never going to be sustainable. They need to just get over it.

I don’t think even the most optimistic of them expect the vandalism to result in fewer fines. It’s a statement, same as the poll tax riots or any other violent protest.

 

[InArduisFouette]

And then there's this Tory twat

Pimlico Plumbers founder Charlie Mullins suspended from Twitter after posting that “someone should kill” Sadiq Khan over ULEZ

The businessman, known for his staunch anti-cycling stance, also posted that “it’s time to dump the Muslim mayor”

road.cc

Video: Pimlico Plumbers appeal to catch cycling ‘criminal’ – but get accused of faking footage

Footage allegedly shows Santander Cycle user kicking founder Charlie Mullins' Bentley, but some believe the incident was staged

road.cc

Mullins is also known for his hypocrisy over gender affirming medical treatment, much in the way that Elongated and JKR are

 

[Spymaster]

Well, according to a judge, toppling Colston´s statue was a "violent act", but it wasn´t criminal behaviour.

Bristol Colston statue toppling was 'violent act', say judges

Judges rule a human rights defence was not available to four people who tore down the Bristol statue.

www.bbc.com

That’s not what the judge said at all.

He said that the appeal court ruling that it was a violent act didn’t imply that they were guilty of criminal behaviour. That’s correct because it made no mention of criminal damage.

What they did was very clearly criminal damage, hence the AG’s referral. The jury just declined to convict them for it.

 

[Red Sky]

yeh. there's been other people do stuff about them in the past- not your protest but active damage to cameras - one instance i recall was from about 2006 when a load of cameras on estates in islington were paintballed. the campaign against the ulez cameras (which i'd say was going from protest to resistance) might well inspire other groups of people to take up paintball guns and pruning shears

There's been an active campaign against Tetra masts and 5G towers involving arson etc. More likely to stem from that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a strange definition of 'violence', tbh, extending the concept from actual people to stone 'people'. The video footage showed a physical act that involved no violence whatever by my definition of the word. People were enjoying themselves, nobody was in any danger of getting hurt.

 

[InArduisFouette]

My parents live on the edge of the ulez zone in a broadly petit booj area. Their local WhatsApp group, usually sedate, has kicked off over this. My parents are taking the 2k to scrap their car.

At the bottom of their road will be a camera, the sign has gone up and there's a connected black box, which keeps getting vandalised.


View attachment 390307According to the WhatsApp group there are angry people affected but also definitely others piling in with ...ahem...."other talking points".

I think this will carry on for a good while yet, but it's a losing battle overall. I can't see ULEZ being revoked or sufficient cameras destroyed to make the scheme inoperable.

I support ULEZ but 2k is low for scrappage as some vehicles worth a lot more... That said you can still sell them privately for more further afield. As with most social problems the real solutions involve targeting the richest.

I also don't have a problem with the vandals here... It would be hypocritical of me to ... This is effectively a tax revolt, and the history of that kind of non violent resistance is long.

Coming climate change state restrictions will no doubt impact the less well off far more than the rich who will largely go about their business as usual.

I also think there might yet be a wider anti camera implication here. The state surveillance in China is a very possible end goal for the British state, and much of the politics underpinning this ULEZ revolt thing has an ever growing right wing libertarian flavour which might yet translate to other state surveillance things. As with the yellow vests it's important the left is fully involved at that point.

there is massive hyperbole about vehicles , a lot of the none complaint petrol vehicles are borderline Bangers now as euro 4 was required from 2005 , there are people who have been caught out with running a decent enough 8/ 10 /12 year old diesel which isn;t Euro 6

much as the likes of WBAC are grifters and twats their view on prices are UK wide so may offer better prices than local dealers

how much is 'kipper hyperbole and how much is 'london Bubble' thinking is hard to work out , the problem is the 'kipper hyperbole is playing the far right 'libertarian' mindset

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I doubt the sort of people doing this will go after CCTV cameras more generally, unless it's by accident. They seem to be drawing heavily from the right so it'd be a bit of a "steady on, that'd be vandalism because I'm all in favour of surveilling poors in the town centre" kind of thing. Think of themselves as law abiding, usually a bit hang em and flog em, but This Is A Righteous Cause.

Unless someone went around sticking very convincing looking signs saying 'ULEZ camera' on them...

 

[Spymaster]

It's a strange definition of 'violence', tbh, extending the concept from actual people to stone 'people'. The video footage showed a physical act that involved no violence whatever by my definition of the word. People were enjoying themselves, nobody was in any danger of getting hurt.

Of course it was violence. Violence doesn’t have to be directed at people. The application of extreme force is violence. If I smash your windows it’s an act of violence.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

It's a strange definition of 'violence', tbh, extending the concept from actual people to stone 'people'. The video footage showed a physical act that involved no violence whatever by my definition of the word. People were enjoying themselves, nobody was in any danger of getting hurt.

The actual definition is someone or something so yeah it's violence.

 

[MickiQ]

there is massive hyperbole about vehicles , a lot of the none complaint petrol vehicles are borderline Bangers now as euro 4 was required from 2005 , there are people who have been caught out with running a decent enough 8/ 10 /12 year old diesel which isn;t Euro 6

much as the likes of WBAC are grifters and twats their view on prices are UK wide so may offer better prices than local dealers

how much is 'kipper hyperbole and how much is 'london Bubble' thinking is hard to work out , the problem is the 'kipper hyperbole is playing the far right 'libertarian' mindset

My 9 year old diesel Audi isn't compliant it's a Euro 5 had I bought one a year newer it would be Euro 6. Audi's despite the hatred they seem to arouse in certain Urbs are very high quality built vehicles and it runs like it did when I bought it 6 years ago (80K on the clock). I can understand that someone with one living in the ULEZ zone (I don't) feels miffed that they have to get rid but the answer is a decent scrappage scheme that pays the market value with maybe 10% on top to encourage people to get rid.
I don't expect Khan to back down and the ULEZ is here to stay plus I am convinced they will spread so I'm in the market for a new(er) car at the moment

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course it was violence. Violence doesn’t have to be directed at people. The application of extreme force is violence. If I smash your windows it’s an act of violence.

No it isn't. Smashing a window isn't the application of extreme force, not if you're doing it right anyway. It's the application of at most moderate force. And if you're having difficulty with a window simply use an automatic centre punch.

 

[tim]

Seems to be mostly young teenagers doing the vandalism. Young teenagers can't drive so clearly they'll have been put up to it by parents in some form or other. Which regardless of driving or LTN's or anything else is a fucking loathsome thing to do.

Denying the agency of the Youth, yet again

 

[two sheds]

No it isn't. Smashing a window isn't the application of extreme force, not if you're doing it right anyway. It's the application of at most moderate force. And if you're having difficulty with a window simply use an automatic centre punch.

And you could be breaking the window to get in and rescue someone who's unconscious. Wouldn't call that violence.

 

[Spymaster]

No it isn't. Smashing a window isn't the application of extreme force, not if you're doing it right anyway. It's the application of at most moderate force. And if you're having difficulty with a window simply use an automatic centre punch.

And you could be breaking the window to get in and rescue someone who's unconscious. Wouldn't call that violence.

Do neither of you agree that windows can be broken violently?

 

[Rob Ray]

The actual definition is someone or something so yeah it's violence.

Depends whose definition you're using. Wikipedia suggests property damage is included, but neither Britannica nor Collins makes any mention of non-human harm. Realistically though it really has to do with the harm being inflicted on others, if taking about such things, otherwise every removal of a rotten tree stump would count.

Israeli Settlers destroying the home of a Palestinian family fairly obviously could qualify, I'm not sure the removal of a statue to a slaver who no-one gave much of a shit about before it became a cause celebre would.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do neither of you agree that windows can be broken violently?

Yes, if you throw someone through one

 

[Spymaster]

Depends whose definition you're using. Wikipedia suggests property damage is included, but neither Britannica nor Collins makes any mention of non-human harm. Realistically though it really has to do with the harm being inflicted on others, if taking about such things, otherwise every removal of a rotten tree stump would count.

Israeli Settlers destroying the home of a Palestinian family fairly obviously could qualify, I'm not sure the removal of a statue to a slaver who no-one gave much of a shit about before it became a cause celebre would.

Utter nonsense.

 

[two sheds]

.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Depends whose definition you're using. Wikipedia suggests property damage is included, but neither Britannica nor Collins makes any mention of non-human harm. Realistically though it really has to do with the harm being inflicted on others, if taking about such things, otherwise every removal of a rotten tree stump would count.

Israeli Settlers destroying the home of a Palestinian family fairly obviously could qualify, I'm not sure the removal of a statue to a slaver who no-one gave much of a shit about before it became a cause celebre would.

Nope, the definition is clear. And wikipedia isn't a dictionary.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course it was violence. Violence doesn’t have to be directed at people. The application of extreme force is violence. If I smash your windows it’s an act of violence.

Those are 'my' windows, though, so your act is a threat to me. There is still an implied direction of the action at people. The act of pulling down the Colston statue was a threat to nobody.

 

[InArduisFouette]

My 9 year old diesel Audi isn't compliant it's a Euro 5 had I bought one a year newer it would be Euro 6. Audi's despite the hatred they seem to arouse in certain Urbs are very high quality built vehicles and it runs like it did when I bought it 6 years ago (80K on the clock). I can understand that someone with one living in the ULEZ zone (I don't) feels miffed that they have to get rid but the answer is a decent scrappage scheme that pays the market value with maybe 10% on top to encourage people to get rid.
I don't expect Khan to back down and the ULEZ is here to stay plus I am convinced they will spread so I'm in the market for a new(er) car at the moment

hence my comment aobuthe miffed / caught out aspect for the driver of the 10 ish year old deisel , it;s not a banger but it's not compliant either

 

[Rob Ray]

Nope, the definition is clear. And wikipedia isn't a dictionary.

If you're dismissing Wikipedia then both the other definitions, by proper dictionary/encyclopaedia sources, don't support your case and emphasise that it is harm against people.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/violence

Violence | Causes, Effects & Solutions | Britannica

Violence, an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm. The damage inflicted by violence may be physical, psychological, or both. Violence may be distinguished from aggression, a more general type of hostile behaviour that may be physical, verbal, or passive in nature. Violence

www.britannica.com

violence

1. actions that are intended or likely to hurt people or cause damage: 2…

dictionary.cambridge.org

My suggestion was actually marginally in your favour.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Chambers

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dictionaries record definitions the best they can - from usage. They don't create definitions. And they're always playing a game of catch-up on the latest usage in any case. Anyone arguing from the dictionary has lost the argument.

 

[SpookyFrank]

the answer is a decent scrappage scheme that pays the market value with maybe 10% on top to encourage people to get rid.

This sounds good. I'd love a state-funded kickback of 10% of my car's value as a reward for driving a shitty vehicle that's a danger to public health. I've earned it, after all.

 

[Spymaster]

Those are 'my' windows, though, so your act is a threat to me. There is still an implied direction of the action at people. The act of pulling down the Colston statue was a threat to nobody.

Balls. I could violently smash up an abandoned warehouse that belongs to nobody.

You’re just arguing for the sake of it. No way do you believe that violence can only be afforded to a person. The notion is beyond ridiculous.

Violent storms, a violent volcanic eruption …

 

[Rob Ray]

Dictionaries record definitions the best they can - from usage. They don't create definitions. And they're always playing a game of catch-up on the latest usage in any case. Anyone arguing from the dictionary has lost the argument.

I very much wasn't though, I was in fact arguing that common usage would tend to mix direct harm to people and indirect harm through property damage, though obv the actual definition would vary between people/groups. It's Kid_Eternity who's talking about "clear" definitions, which, I'm pointing out, isn't actually backed up by the usual sources of clarity.