If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
US ambassador won't pay the congestion charge
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4352520.stm
Like Livingstone has said, the charge is not different from a road toll in America- which British diplomats are obliged to pay.
Nice to see the London ambassador of the richest nation in the history of mankind (and the Germans as well) ignoring the laws and regulations of his hosts.
Is that what they mean by special relationship?
Edited to add the Germans to the list.
Like Livingstone has said, the charge is not different from a road toll in America- which British diplomats are obliged to pay.
Nice to see the London ambassador of the richest nation in the history of mankind (and the Germans as well) ignoring the laws and regulations of his hosts.
Is that what they mean by special relationship?
Edited to add the Germans to the list.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
It is a tax, by the by.
I'm guessing he doesnt want his car registration on the computer.
It is a charge, for driving within a congested city at peak times. No more, no less.
Incidentally, it is not just the ambassador himself we're talking about here (which one could understand being exempt by reciprocal agreement between nations). There are up to 100 cars driven by all sorts of minions and clerks. Why the hell should they be exempt?
Livingstone should tow & crush the cars in question.
Road tolls are also taxes.
Legally, it's a tax.
Because everyione should be.
Nice. Are you always so anti-social or is it just when you want something?
other than the western extention which is a waste of time, and increasing the price by 60%
No they shouldn't. Congestion Charge is a wonderful thing. It would not be necessary if central London hadn't been a completely clogged-up, choking hellhole with far too many cars in it.
Given that many of those journeys are not necessary at all something has to be done to discourage as many people as possible from driving into central London. It's either that or we go the Italian way and simply ban one half of all cars from entering London every other day.
The only anti-social people are those who break the law and refuse to pay fines.
Have a quick shufti -
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:tax
Is tax.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aservice+charge&meta=
Is service charge.
Notice the bits about being for a service and the voluntary nature of one and not the other. Also not receiving adequate service means you don't have to pay a service charge and there is a person providing a service.
For my own amusement I include extortion -
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aextortion&meta=
Nah, bollocks. What's the factual difference between a government employee and a robber?
Surely that's a bit unpatriotic - shouldn't he be serving Jack Daniels?
I had to ask for it, it was a wine and nibbles event really. I said can I have a vodka and orange and they came back with two glasses, one orange and one vodka.
And yes, they were serving some American beer but also Becks too.
Or, alternatley, scrap it. We already pay Road Tax.
Good on the bloke for not paying it - excellent to see an American sticking 2 fingers up at that gimp Livingstone.
Methinks that (legally at least) the US embassy hasn't got a leg to stand on.
That said, our spineless PM will no doubt step in behind the scenes if he has to, to stop TFL outrageously trying to make US officials obey the law like everyone else.
Have you sent for your Green Card yet?
Trying to drive through without paying would likely result in your car being reported and you having an umpleasant encounter with the police. Not advisable.
Nope. Car tax, driving licence, passports etc are all examples of tax where you get something back. The thing that makes something a tax or not is whether it's
1) Based on you merely being geographically located somewhere.
2) Involuntary. That is it's an enforced burden.
If you get something back from the money that is violently removed from you then it doesn't change the basic nature of the arrangement.
Now we can go around the mulbury bush about whether it's a good thing yadda yadda but the congestion charge is still a tax. It's even deductible. You can claim it off your employer.
They do.
The reason that the government can do what the fuck it likes is because in english law the queen owns everything. We merely get equitable title to our goods and chattels and hence are liable to taxation. As the cars and people are the property of a foreign sovereign - the president of the US, they aren't liable. As Ken's legal people will tell him at some point.
Anyway, who do you think is going to pay for any bill that's presented in the end? Some poor bastard accross the pond will get robbed to pay it. Not really worth it, imho.
No it isn't. It's a tax, but it doesn't restrict your travel at all.
It's all about choices, you can choose to drive through London and pay the charge, or you can go by Tube and pay a charge or you can take one of those private bus thingies and pay a charge.
And as an aside, it actually penalises the poor if anyone. The rich can just have the roads to themselves as they can afford the charge easier...
And I'm sure you would support the use of diplomatic immunity for other crimes as well then, non?
Except it isn't.
I've travelled through London on several occasions recently. Not once have I paid the congestion charge.
Of course I volunteered to not take my car through... TBH it's easier to use the wonderful (public owned, Matadore) tube system.
But the US has form when it comes to ignoring rules and regulations, doesn't it? :rolleyes: Wonderful? Really? I'm no Londoner, but I know that there's been some trouble on the Tube recently. I understand that last Wednesday, there were some failures of an emergency braking system on the Northern line and that some drivers refused to drive the trains as a result. I also know that the company that runs the Northern line has failed to reach any of the targets it has been set this year. Sadly, the Tube is far from being wonderful.
You are going to have to explain this for me I think.
Your reasoning makes no sense.
So Matadore, what's going to be? Are you glad that a German is "raising to fingers" to Livingstone? Or outraged that a bloody Kraut is ignoring the laws of Great Britain?
Pick one...
But are you also going to amend your title and the first post?
I also suspect they're not the only ones refusing to pay - half the embassies world wide spend more effort on arguing over road fines and rent than they do representing their countries.
With regard to the unpaid fines, yes all embassies do it but they claim diplomatic immunity against the offence commited. I guess Ken is trying to make people pay so the offence doesn't get commited in the first place (which could not be done with fines obviously due to their unpredictability.
It's a voluntary thing, just like TV Tax is voluntary as is Road Tax.
You have choices here.
Don't take you car into London, don't watch TV and don't have a car. Face it, they are all "luxuries" anyway...
The actions which cause the charge are voluntary, the charge itself isn't negotiable. The voluntary nature of the charge is not related to what it's charged for or spent on once taken. They are seperate issues.
Not about whether the charge does or does not exist, making it involuntary.
You see this is where you lose me. What have my actions as regards driving my car around different areas or spending my money on a TV got to do with anybody else?
I can see someone has said that they are related, but I want facts, not opinions. Factually, how are they related?
Simple question - can the charge be negotiated or refused?
The whole diplomatic immunity thing is way out of control. It was supposed to be to stop diplomats being arrested by kings who were pissed of about their countries or to stop them being falsely arrested for espionage (or even correctly arrested). It wasn't about dodging your parking fines or allowing you to shoplift with impunity.
It wouldn't be too bad if 75% of the takings from the charge didn't go towards paying for the damn thing in the first place. I don't think people would mind it as much if more money went towards improving public transport into London, and improving the roads themselves.
But I live nowhere near London, so I don't care.