- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Sadiq Khan LBC (screenshot)Sadiq Khan claims anti-ULEZ protests infiltrated by Nazis, says opponents have joined hands with far-right groups
Sadiq Khan has claimed that Nazis have infiltrated protests against London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expansion schemes, adding that ‘decent members’ of the Tory Party have been swayed by far-right and conspiracy groups, including ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘Covid deniers’.
Khan had already sparked controversy earlier this month when he said during a public Question Time that some people with ‘legitimate objections’ to the ULEZ expansion have been “joining hands” with those from people from ‘far-right groups”.
It seems that the London Mayor has doubled down on his earlier statements, according to The Telegraph. Speaking to the newspaper, which was accused of using divisive rhetoric against cyclists, he claimed that protestors came to Ealing Town Hall a few weeks ago with Swastikas, also adding that Nazi sympathisers had latched on to the protests from “decent Tories” who opposed expanding ULEZ to all 32 London boroughs.
He said that many people opposed ULEZ for good reasons, and he was keen to talk about these problems and would try to address the concerns in the coming weeks.
However, he added: “You need to understand that their opposition has been latched on to by anti-vaxxers, by Covid deniers, conspiracy theorists and Nazis.”
According to the Labour mayor’s plans, the ULEZ – inside which motorists will be charged £12.50 a day for driving non-compliant, high-polluting cars – will be extended to outer London from 29 August, a decision described by Khan as “not easy but necessary to reduce the capital's toxic air pollution”.
As part of the expansion, a £110m scrappage scheme will also be introduced, which aims to provide low-income Londoners with grants of up to £2,000 to replace their high-polluting vehicles.
At the People's Question Time event on March 2, Mr Khan had said: “Let’s call a spade a spade; some of those on the outside are part of the far-Right, some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers, and some are Tories.”
Mr Khan's comments sparked anger in the crowd, with members of the public shouting back to the Mayor: “We are not the far-right - normal people are not the far-right.” Conservative Assembly Member Peter Fortune, also at the event, criticised Mr Khan's comments, saying: “You heard it didn’t you? If you disagree with the Mayor, he’s going to paint you as far-right.”
After yesterday's comments, a number of critics lashed out against him. Together Declaration, a group known to push back against cycling and walking schemes like LTNs and 15-minute cities, wrote on Twitter: "'Nazis'" now is it? Shameful & embarrassing from @SadiqKhan. Desperate & despicable slurs can’t mask the truth: Most Londoners don’t want ULEZ extension Perhaps as well as scrapping his unfair tax it’s time @MayorofLondon resigned as well."
The far right came to the Mayor's People's Question Time last night, bringing a coffin & at least one swastika with @SadiqKhan's face on it.
London Tories should condemn not condone this & never forget they have already run one shamefully racist campaign against @MayorofLondon— Emily Thornberry (@EmilyThornberry) March 3, 2023
Lately, Khan has faced increasing pressure from local authorities to reconsider the expansion. Eleven of the 19 outer London councils have expressed their apprehension towards the scheme – over issues such as the seven-month timescale of implementation (which they believe does not give residents enough time to switch vehicles), the scrappage policy, and poor public transport links – while some councils have even considered legal action.
In January, the Conservative-controlled ‘rebel’ councils of Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, and Hillingdon released a joint statement on the expansion, saying they would “do everything in our power to stop it from going ahead”.
A London Assembly member accused Khan of treating the city’s residents “with complete and utter contempt” over his attempt to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
Last month, Boris Johnson also accused Sadiq Khan of threatening to impose “a mad lefty tax” on “hard-pressed motorists”, in the latest high-profile attempt to derail the London mayor’s plans.
Amidst the resistance, the Mayor has been arguing that the opposition to the scheme is simply a political strategy by Tory councils who he says are “in the pocket of vested interests”.
While the extremely vocal opposition to the scheme has become a TalkTV staple, the extent to which it represents the average Londoner has been questioned by some on social media.
Anti-ULEZ protestors having a totally normal one 🙄 200ish people max, spectacularly undiverse, mixed in with other random conspiracy theory-type messages. Lots of bemused looks from people just getting on with their Saturday - mostly on foot or public transport! pic.twitter.com/uef58JKdwE
— Charlotte Baker (@charlie_baker23) January 28, 2023
Great to have it confirmed that ULEZ opposition comes from a tiny handful of cranks. We can safely move on. https://t.co/VavIH437j7
— Abraham LinkedIn 🎩 (@ukgaragefan) January 29, 2023
Meanwhile, Sadiq Khan has defended the ULEZ scheme and labelled it ‘necessary’ to tackle the city’s increasing pollution and congestion.
Responding to a local’s complaints about ULEZ expansion, a spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: “With around 4000 Londoners a year dying prematurely from toxic air, it is imperative that the Mayor’s decision to expand the ULEZ should be implemented without delay.
“Research by Imperial College London shows that Bromley has the highest number of premature deaths linked to air pollution of all London boroughs – with an estimated 204 lives lost every year.”
The spokesperson also noted that around 85 percent of vehicles in outer London are already compliant with ULEZ regulations.
They continued: “The Mayor is also calling on the Government to provide additional scrappage funding to London and the surrounding areas.
"The Government has provided millions of pounds for scrappage schemes in other parts of the country, but not given a single penny to London.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 9 sec ago
Take it to an understanding LBS like mine who will return to Shimano whatever state the cranks are in and you get a brand new Ultegra chainset for...
- Rik Mayals underpants 5 hours 39 min ago
Here's my cycling related Christmas gift. Beautiful enamel garage sign to go above my Campagnolo Super Record RS equipped Colnago.
- Rendel Harris 9 hours 47 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- wtjs 11 hours 26 min ago
Fair enough:...
- SecretSam 12 hours 37 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Rome73 14 hours 43 min ago
That's not strictly true - Reform will legalise immigrant baiting, trans bashing and tar and feathering of anyone woke. Loads of fun for all the...
- Rendel Harris 14 hours 30 min ago
What's a "legitimate cyclist" please? Someone who doesn't conform to your arbitrary norms? At the age of 56 I admit that you have 13 years more...
- mattw 1 day 5 hours ago
This risks turning me into a hanger and flogger....
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 10 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
63 comments
No mention of why cars are different it seems...
I wonder why? Because they aren't perhaps?
How else are you going to dissuade owners of the most polluting vehicles from driving in th ULEZ area if you don't use financial incentives?
just ban them. since charges and fines are (allegedly) only about revenue, anyone breaching the rules gets their car confiscated for a week.
There are other ways - for example; where is Khan's support for LTNs?
There is the minor fact that he introduced them to London with £250 million of Covid safe neighbourhood money, that he's been to court (and won) to defend their existence in the face of legal challenges, that he has continually stated that he supports them and wishes to see their expansion and so on. Honestly, he can't win, can he, anti-LTN activists blame him for supporting them and now people who apparently support them blame him for not doing so?
The ULEZ scheme is not about revenue generation. It's about reducing airborne pollution and improving public health.
That is an admirable aim with which I agree. Unfortunately due to Kahn having a poor record with cycling infrastructure and completely useless at selling the ULEZ it is rather apparent he is using that as a facade for what people are saying is a tax. For example where is Khan’s big support for LTN’s?
I'm not sure - most of outer London doesn't have a big problem with the pollutants the scheme targets. Sure there are hotspots, as in inner London, and they should be dealt with - but there appears decent evidence that the solution isn't very tailored to the problem. Unless the problem is revenue generation.
Bromley counts as outer London and has amongst the worst air pollution, same for Croydon.
People also seem to ignore the fact that cars are, by definition, mobile.
"There is terrible pollution around the shopping centre, a lot of it caused by pre-2006 vehicles."
"Yes, well, that's bad but I don't live anywhere near the shopping centre, the air in my neighbourhood meets official standards so why should I have to give up my pre-2006 vehicle?"
"What do you use your vehicle for?"
"Well, driving to the shopping centre, mainly."
Pollution spreads. Rather reminds one of the point made around the time of the smoking ban, "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a pissing section in a swimming pool, it's not going to stay there, is it?"
Bromley is a great example, I know it quite well (as, I think, do you, so apologies if the following is obvious - but it's still a good example). It's the largest London borough by area and one of the most populous. It's also extremely diverse, taking in the likes of Crystal Palace (quite inner-city in nature - narrow, traffic-clogged streets but good public transport options - you can just ban dirty vehicles there outright for all I care), though sprawling low density suburbs with limited public transport - but about half of Bromley is rural or semi-rural with very little public transport. And while I like cycling those country lanes on a sunny Sunday, I wouldn't expect people to do it every day in all weathers in daylight or darkness. Such areas have virtually no traffic pollution issues - in contrast to what Rendel says, they're very localised (PM concentrations very greatly over a matter of metres, not miles).
The practicality and politics of all this is quite hard, so I've sympathy for Khan - but a one-size-fits-all policy that isn't hugely effective, hits poor residents hardest but just happens to raise a handy sum from people who don't vote from him anyway doesn't obviously seem optimal to me.
You've misunderstood me – maybe I expressed myself badly – I didn't mean the pollution from non-compliant cars in low-pollution areas would spread on the wind, rather that the people using those cars are obviously going to use them to drive to other parts of London, including high pollution areas, and contribute to the pollution there when they do, aren't they?
I'm quite happy for people driving high pollution cars to high pollution areas to be penalised, particularly where there are good alternatives. Where they aren't driving to pollution hotspots, especially where there aren't good alternatives, the case for penalising them in the same way seems much less compelling.
I tend to agree (though it would still be good if they could be encouraged to switch from their high-polluting models) but I can't really see how in a metropolitan area like London one could create a huge number of "permitted" and "no-go" areas for different makes of car without creating mass confusion and discontent.
I think we're agreed. I wrote earlier that the "The practicality and politics of all this is quite hard" - but motorists already cope with lots of different rules and restrictions (e.g. bus lanes, speed limits, school zones, parking restrictions, congestion charge), so having an outer London approach which isn't a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't seem entirely impractical and seems more easily defensible.
There could be a 6 or 12 month phase-in period or a "first offence" approach where you get a letter saying, "next time/after X date you'll be charged for going there in that vehicle" (the current proposal does have the benefit of simplicity and that no-one can say they didn't know!).
But it's not up to me, and I'm glad of that. Happy riding.
I support his ULEZ expansion. I've followed him on Twitter and some of the comments he gets are horrendous. The extreme right really does have it in for him and has certainly been maniuplating the anti-ULEZ feeling. I know a few people against ULEZ and when you confront them with facts about pollution they just go, "....but, but but," and have no substance to what they're saying.
You can get a 2006 petrol car that's ULEZ compliant for less than £1000 so the stuff about people not being able to afford new cars is a load of rubbish. And older cars or motorcycles can be adapted and it doesn't even cost an arm and a leg. my neighbour's 2001 Honda was adapted to meet the requirements and she certainly is not rich.
For the far right he is nearly the worst thing imaginable. A person who isn't white who refuses to be bullied.
(If he was a woman he would tick all their hate boxes)
He could introduce financial incentives to drink beer and watch football and they would find a way to hate him for it.
Standard 'guilt by association' smear.
Pretty routine in politics because it works.
Not every (insert group here) is a racist/fascist/bigot but...
The way the Tories and their press acolytes have been using antisemitism allegations for the last decade?
Just like that Rendel...
"Our analysis points to a culture within the [Labour] Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be
seen to accept it."
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-in...
Would that be the same EHRC that has three times refused to investigate complaints from the Muslim Council of Britain of over 300 instances of Islamaphobia in the Tory party?
A delightful example of whataboutery.
There was a significant problem with anti-Semitism in the Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn as the report above demonstrates unequivocally.
Antisemitism in the Labour party was not therefore an example of 'guilt by association' just an example of straightforward guilt.
Did you ever study the dossier? I thought it was thin gruel when I had a look at part of it.
The ECHR desicison was not a surprise.
Only as much as what I read in news reports. As far as I could see it found that a few members of the Labour Party had been engaged in antisemitic abuse and that the leadership had not dealt with it as promptly or efficiently as they might have done, I've certainly seen nothing to suggest an endemic culture of antisemitism. The very quote that Rich seems to think is a zinger shows this:
Effectively, one way of looking at it ("at best") is that the measures/mechanisms to act against antisemitism when alleged were insufficient. I absolutely accept that the party management should have taken allegations more seriously and acted more swiftly on them. Nothing there that says the party or its leadership itself is/was antisemitic.
So the Labour MPs who personally experienced anti-semitic abuse were making it up?
Clearly, not everyone who opposes ULEZ is any of those things. But it is definitely true that the opposing ULEZ has been picked up by anti-vaxxers/COVID deniers. I see that every Sunday in my urban village.
Extremists will attempt to attach themselves to any popular protest movement.
COVID has unfortunately brought conspiracy theorists into the mainstream and we'll see them attach themselves to all manner of protests from now on.
However - not a smear if there are indeed racists etc. in the other "main" group and these are not being challenged.
The way to avoid "guilt by association" is not to minimise it but to ensure you're not associating with those you don't approve of. If they come and try to piggyback on your cause note it, speak out against it and take measures to discourage those views being linked with yours.
It's also routine in politics to get support wherever you can, and take the moral high ground only once you've benefitted from tacitly permitting the "unacceptable".
I support what he's trying to do, as it has to be done, and sooner rather than later. But I hope his hard-line attitude doesn't lead to the policy unravelling. It's hard to press ahead with policies that aren't supported by the public. A vocal minority can still do a lot of damage and get decisions overturned.
I'm pretty sure that there was opposition to prioritising infra that favoured cycling and walking in the Netherlands during the seventies. The government at the time was eventually persuaded by the Stop de Kindermoord protests to radically change their priorities which were heavily influenced by American road planning in a post war Europe. In fact there are motorways that have now been repurposed in some places. The U.K. itself has evidence of pre-war infra that has been sidelined or given over to the motor vehicle and explosion of car ownership. To protect people and environment we really need to be bold about this.
Pages