ULEZ camera cutters

[Jeff Robinson]

Violence is a tricky concept to pin down. Most - possibly all - definitions are susceptible to counter-examples. The reason for this, I think, is that violence is not a neutral descriptor, but a moralised notion that has a value-judgement built in to how we use it. Hence there are some acts of physical force against another person that almost no one considers 'violent' - for example, participating in an arm-wrestling match. There are other instances that involve no physical force that many people consider violent, for example our legal system classifies harassment as a violent crime.

Disagreements about violence don't typically boil down to dictionary definitions, but substantive moral and political disagreement about what forms of conduct are legitimate or justified.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Violence is a tricky concept to pin down. Most - possibly all - definitions are susceptible to counter-examples. The reason for this, I think, is that violence is not a neutral descriptor, but a moralised notion that has a value-judgement built in to how we use it. Hence there are some acts of physical force against another person that almost no one considerations 'violent' - for example, participating in an arm-wrestling match. There are other instances that involve no physical force that many people consider violent, for example our legal system classifies our legal system classifies harassment as a violent crime.

Disagreements about violence don't typically boil down to dictionary definitions, but substantive moral and political disagreement about what forms of conduct are legitimate or justified.

To slightly complicate this, I think violence is often not regarded as wrong per se, but rather prima facie wrong, wrong in the absence of special circumstances. Accordingly, it is a moralised notion, but not a fully moralised notion. That said there are some forms of conduct that fall outside of most people's understanding of violence because of moralisation. Think for example about somebody who uses a mace spray to repel a sexual assaulter. Personally, it strikes me a wrong to classify this and similar acts of self-defence as 'violence' because the acts are clearly justified.

 

[Spymaster]

To slightly complicate this, I think violence is often not regarded as wrong per se, but rather prima facie wrong, wrong in the absence of special circumstances. Accordingly, it is a moralised notion, but not a fully moralised notion. That said there are some forms of conduct that fall outside of most people's understanding of violence because of moralisation. Think for example about somebody who uses a mace spray to repel a sexual assaulter. Personally, it strikes me a wrong to classify this and similar acts of self-defence as 'violence' because the acts are clearly justified.

Yes. Although violence is often justifiable. That doesn’t mean it’s not violence.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm pleased to see so much pedantry on display

 

[chilango]

I don't have a problem with their methods.

I have a problem with their aims and motivation.

 

[ska invita]

Violence against physical objects has been a long running debate amongst nonviolent direct action types for decades I gather.... Leading to the most ardent nonviolent activists risking their necks to break into military complexes only to symbolically tap weaponry with a hammer, barely leaving a scratch.

Quite interesting from a philosophical point of view.

 

[Pickman's model]

Violence against physical objects has been a long running debate amongst nonviolent direct action types for decades I gather.... Leading to the most ardent nonviolent activists risking their necks to break into military complexes only to symbolically tap weaponry with a hammer, barely leaving a scratch.

Quite interesting from a philosophical point of view.

It's all an issue of people not reading the evidence about the efficacy of nonviolent protest, which if read carefully - as the excellent 'street rebellion' by Benjamin case and published by ak makes clear - includes things many people would consider violent like riots. The founding evidence of the nonviolence works best school includes basically anything without actually taking up bombs or arms

 

[Serge Forward]

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.

Nonsense. It's vandalism (justified) rather than actual violence. Smashing the windows of someone's house is not a suitable comparison either. In the case of the slaver statue, the target was clearly a piece of metal which was a positive commemoration of the institution of slavery. In the case of smashing someone's windows, the target is usually those people inside the house.

Once again, you're showing yourself up with your silly right wing shtick. Anyone who's experienced or witnessed actual violence would know straight off you're talking bollocks.

 

[Spymaster]

Nonsense. It's vandalism (justified) rather than actual violence. Smashing the windows of someone's house is not a suitable comparison either. In the case of the slaver statue, the target was clearly a piece of metal which was a positive commemoration of the institution of slavery. In the case of smashing someone's windows, the target is usually those people inside the house.

Once again, you're showing yourself up with your silly right wing shtick. Anyone who's experienced or witnessed actual violence would know straight off you're talking bollocks.

Spectacularly ignorant cobblers.

And “right wing”

 

[Spymaster]

I have a problem with their aims and motivation.

I don't know what their aims and motivations are. I even doubt that it's one group with a common aim. There'll likely be some who are politically pissed-off that it's a regressive tax, some working class folk who own E5 diesels that they need to get to work, some who don't like Khan, some anti-environmentalists, and some who just like an excuse to smash shit up.

 

[mojo pixy]

You’re just arguing for the sake of it.

No fucking way

 

[Spymaster]

No fucking way

Don’t get me wrong; I thoroughly approve!

 

[Pickman's model]

You’re just arguing for the sake of it.

It is the urban way

 

[platinumsage]

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

Isn’t your car in the dieselgate years, so it’s probably effectively below Euro 4 and deserves to be scrapped?

 

[bellaozzydog]

Is this the ten pound argument thread?

 

[A380]

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

Criminal Law act 1977 actually uses the term ‘using violence to secure entry’ and there are a fair few stated cases supporting its use just against property. I think it was drafted that way as ‘force wouldn’t have been any use as just turning a key in a lock or pushing open a door requires force.

BTW this dull bit of legislation is what you can use against landlords kicking down the door at evictions…

I should get out more, or get a hobby I know.

 

[MickiQ]

Isn’t your car in the dieselgate years, so it’s probably effectively below Euro 4 and deserves to be scrapped?

Nope Euro 5, It's a 2014 plate which is the beginning of Euro 6 for Audi diesels. I suspect mine (a former company car) is actually probably amongst the very last of the 2013 builds.
As for it being scrapped it depends on what gives me the best return be it a scrappage scheme or WeRipoffAnyCar but of course I need to find a replacement first which I am currently looking for.

 

[platinumsage]

Nope Euro 5, It's a 2014 plate which is the beginning of Euro 6 for Audi diesels. I suspect mine (a former company car) is actually probably amongst the very last of the 2013 builds.
As for it being scrapped it depends on what gives me the best return be it a scrappage scheme or WeRipoffAnyCar but of course I need to find a replacement first which I am currently looking for.

I meant that due to fraud by VW group its actual emissions might not comply with the Euro 5 limits, because VW fitted software to disguise sub-Euro 4 emission levels so as to pass Euro 5 tests. If that's the case then it's not a high quality vehicle and you shouldn't feel miffed at being ULEZised, because it would actually be a dirty shitbox that should be scrapped.

 

[NoXion]

Spectacularly ignorant cobblers.

And “right wing”

Are you going to actually explain why? Because "nuh uh" isn't a convincing argument.

 

[MickiQ]

I meant that due to fraud by VW group its actual emissions might not comply with the Euro 5 limits, because VW fitted software to disguise sub-Euro 4 emission levels so as to pass Euro 5 tests. If that's the case then it's not a high quality vehicle and you shouldn't feel miffed at being ULEZised, because it would actually be a dirty shitbox that should be scrapped.

I don't feel miffed about the ULEZ given I live 150 miles outside it. It has just added one more little push to my desire to replace the Audi with something else. I really like the look of the Lexus GS300h but finding one at the right age and price (plus colour Mrs Q is surprisingly fussy about the colour) has not been sucessful so far since they aren't as popular as Audi's.
I don't think mine is one of the dodgy ones but it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned since I get charged the same for driving in any clean air zone regardless of whether it is genuinely a Euro 5 or really a Euro 4.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

 

[Chz]

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

The purpose of the scrappage scheme is to help people with ancient cars they can't possibly sell get enough cash to swap for a compliant banger.
There's no point in "market value" scrappage, because if it's market value then you can go and damned well sell it at that price! If it were Parliament trying to rid the entire country of them, there might be a point; but London doesn't care if other parts of the country buy up all the Euro 4 and 5 diesels. They're welcome to them.

 

[pbsmooth]

View attachment 392940

assuming you think you could reason with the 'blade cutters', I am not sure this line would work - they tend to not believe ULEZ will change the air quality or even the number of drivers, and just see it as a money-making scheme by KHAN instead.

 

[Rob Ray]

There does seem to be an especial amount of hatred reserved for anything with Khan's name on it. For some reason.

 

[pbsmooth]

It must be because they know the Labour party under Starmer is institutionally racist and hostile to black/brown people... must be...

 

[MickiQ]

I meant that due to fraud by VW group its actual emissions might not comply with the Euro 5 limits, because VW fitted software to disguise sub-Euro 4 emission levels so as to pass Euro 5 tests. If that's the case then it's not a high quality vehicle and you shouldn't feel miffed at being ULEZised, because it would actually be a dirty shitbox that should be scrapped.

No they didn't on the affected A6's the affected years were 2014-2016 when the last of the Euro 5's were frauduently sold off as Euro 6's (alongside genuine Euro 6's). The dividing year is 2014 (mine is registered as 01 Mar 2014) but it is down as a Euro 5 not a Euro 6 which implies that DVLC aren't as simplistic as just the date on the plate.

The purpose of the scrappage scheme is to help people with ancient cars they can't possibly sell get enough cash to swap for a compliant banger.
There's no point in "market value" scrappage, because if it's market value then you can go and damned well sell it at that price! If it were Parliament trying to rid the entire country of them, there might be a point; but London doesn't care if other parts of the country buy up all the Euro 4 and 5 diesels. They're welcome to them.

You're absolutely right of course but I don't live in London (or indeed anywhere near it) so I'm cool selling my Euro 5 diesel to anyone who wants it. The more rabid of the anti-car brigade on these forums will no doubt be cheering the fact that my trip to Birmingham tomorrow will be on the train in part so I can avoid the £10 Brum clean air charge plus parking in central Birmingham is difficult and hard to find.

 

[Rob Ray]

cheering the fact that my trip to Birmingham tomorrow will be on the train

Not sure why you'd need to be rabid to approve of people taking the train, but go off I guess?

 

[A380]

There does seem to be an especial amount of hatred reserved for anything with Khan's name on it. For some reason.

I guess we will never have a black and white answer for why that is...

 

[tim]

Violence against physical objects has been a long running debate amongst nonviolent direct action types for decades I gather.... Leading to the most ardent nonviolent activists risking their necks to break into military complexes only to symbolically tap weaponry with a hammer, barely leaving a scratch.

Quite interesting from a philosophical point of view.

You can cause a lot of damage to sensitive parts of an aircraft by hitting it with a hammer. I have a friend who broke into a BAE base where a Saudi jet was being serviced and his view was that had they actually been able to hit the plane it would have taken several weeks of work before it would be able to murder people in Yemen again.

Anyway attacking a non sentient object isn't violence.

 

[LDC]

Anyway attacking a non sentient object isn't violence.

You can clearly smash something up (and do plenty other things that don't hurt someone) violently, it's just nonsensical to say it can never be violent or violence.