London mayor wants to ban cars in some areas after attack

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: Grambler

So, this supposedly intelligent elected official is under the impression that someone who is trying to run over pedestrians in a vehicle will be stopped by a sign that says they're not allowed to drive there?
The law against driving over to that area is somehow more influential than the law against murdering people?

I mean... really?

No more like the cement baracades that the last terrorist rammed in to. They obviously stopped him from continuing. Securing areas for foot traffic only makes sense. It prevents people from driving explosives into parliament for example.

I felt that this entire area from the Victoria Embankment, over Westminster Bridge, and onto the Parliament Palace square, should have serious limits placed on private auto travel. You can't park, or even stop, without being ran over by some Double Decker Bus or other. Heck, the closest my wife and I got to any M.P.'s was standing in line for a river tour boat, on the dock at the Embankment, when several of the deceased M.P., Jo Cox's buddies, were standing around with yellow boutonnieres, waiting for a drudgey wooden motor boat to come, up the river, and drop a bouquet of yellow roses into the Thames.

But those Labor M.P.'s had a major police presence on the docks, while they waited for that little motor boat with the yellow roses, to chug up there, against the currents.

a reply to: Grambler

He did not ban knives, he doesn't even have such powers anyways.

Zombies don't exist, there's two reasons someone owns a knife like that, for the purpose of harming others in either self-defense or assault or for decorative purposes.

If you're going to make threads about the UK in relation to such things it would be wise to at least educate yourself on how our law works.

For instance to have a weapon in self-defense insinuates that the defendant knew of a potential of endangerment. Hence it being a criminal matter anything else is nonsense... That's how defendants in a court of law get ordered to partake in psychological assessments.

Police officer: why do you have a machete in your car

Driver: I'm about to do some jungle tracking

Police Officer: So why is it in your car?

Driver: Actually it's for self-defense.

Police Officer: OK that's an offensive weapon and you're coming with us, we'll also need to know your reasoning to suspect your life is in danger.

Fairly simple proceedings, our laws can often be relatively logical. Don't go down the route of "so you can't defend yourselves in the UK?" Because that's a logical fallacy.

Chopping someone up isn't defensive, it's offensive. People have went to jail in the US for near identical reasoning, such as executing trespassers.

Self-defense does not give good reasoning for murder.

So in short, he didn't ban knives, he or government cannot ban knives for their is no logical reasoning behind such things.

Banning a knuckleduster or a tool clearly not intended for any domestic purpose in the UK is a complete different issue.

It's already been stated that he has long standing beliefs and thoughts in regards to pedestrianisation within central London, so your comments just come across as weird and a vialed attempt at attacking his character due to, I can only assume is your long standing loath of the man for whatever reasons you have.

Good on you, you're entitled to your beliefs. I this case however you're wrong. You're so off the ball you're running around in the car park outside the stadium.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You have “ripped my argument to bits”?

Is this another joke, like everyone who critiques Kahn for this is racist?

I can’t believe you can’t see how Kahn having this plan before the attack makes him bringing it up the day after the attack even worse

Let’s say trump wants to eliminate government spending for high speed rail roads because it costs tax payers too much

He pushes this for a year

Then one day there is s terror attack on one of these trains

Trump goes on state radio the next day and says “Hey we should get rid of these trains that may lower the terror risk”

You and every other sane person myself included would bash trump for politicizing a terror attack to push a plan of his that had nothing to do with the attack

That is exactly what khan is doing here.

It doesn’t matter if there are a bunch of non terror reasons eliminating cars from these areas would be good

He is using this attack to connect it to an issue that he wants past

As you yourself have admitted, to claim this would somehow help terrorism is nonsense

The fact thais he has had this plan for years means nothing

He brought it up on the bbc in RESPONSE to the terror attack

a reply to: RAY1990

Hmm funny how all of you folks criticizing my knife ban comment can’t even tell the whole truth

Again, the problem wasn’t with the ban, it was with the idea this is somehow going to stop terror attacks

But if we are to get technical, why did you leave this part of the ban out?

Anyone buying a knife online will be banned from having it sent to a residential address, under a government crackdown following a surge in street stabbings.

www.google.com... l%3famp

Odd you would do that?

Or is the independent wrong here?

So I guess anyone who wants a knife delivered must also be a would be criminal or only want it for decorative purposes

Kahn beliefs in pedestrian traffic in the past does not somehow make his comments here ok

He was using a terror attack to push a previous plan he had

Would stopping cars in certain areas somehow stop terrorism?

No

Then he is a scum bag for politicizing this attack to push a plan for better foot traffic he has had for years

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He is using this attack to connect it to an issue that he wants past

As you yourself have admitted, to claim this would somehow help terrorism is nonsense

The fact thais he has had this plan for years means nothing

He brought it up on the bbc in RESPONSE to the terror attack

And a few minutes later

He was using a terror attack to push a previous plan he had 

Would stopping cars in certain areas somehow stop terrorism? 

No 

Then he is a scum bag for politicizing this attack to push a plan for better foot traffic he has had for years

Your " argument " sound conflicted. It can happen when you are arguing with yourself.

Make up your mind....
He is " politicizing " the attack for his own fiendish goals
Or
He is making a futile attempt to safeguard against future attacks

???
You just don't like this man...it's ok. You don't have to.
What has he done that impacts you ?
Was it the Trump balloon thing haha

a reply to: RAY1990

Yeah , go on trying to convince yourself.

a reply to: cosmickat

How is that contradictory

I made the op, sourced from a left wing site, saying that Kahn suggested banning cars from certain areas to help reduce terrorism

Then people say “Ah ha! He has had this plan for years to fight pollution and traffic, therefore that makes it ok”

Admittedly, I didn’t know this was a plan he had in the past.

However, this makes it worse

Just like when I made the op, Kahn’s plan would still do nothing ng to solve terrorism

But now, in addition to that, we find out he is somehow trying to politicize this attack to push an environmental policy he has had for years that has nothing to do with terror

It has nothing to do with me not liking him

It is that his comments are idiotic

Again, had trump used a terror attack to push an environmental or fiscal plan he had which had absolutely nothing to do with terror, both myself and many of the people praising Kahn here would call him out for it

a reply to: Grambler

I made the op, sourced from a left wing site, saying that Kahn suggested banning cars from certain areas to help reduce terrorism

Exept he didn't, the transport secretary did he just backed the idea because it fits with his plan to reduce cars in central London......

Carry on though...

a reply to: Grambler


Let's just ban human beings. How about that lefties?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

I made the op, sourced from a left wing site, saying that Kahn suggested banning cars from certain areas to help reduce terrorism

Exept he didn't, the transport secretary did he just backed the idea because it fits with his plan to reduce cars in central London......

Carry on though...

As has the government and City of London since the 1993 and 2001 IRA bombings, the function creep of the congestion charge /anpr/cctv/met/sis relationship, Home Secretary and international security experts.

Yet somehow Khan is singled out.

Strange that.

a reply to: Grambler



I'm guessing the cars he banned are fully automatic.

All major cities should allow only electric cars of specific models....nothing else within City limits.....with kill switches that shut down a vehicle after the first impact....it is what it is.

I would support a car-ban for the entire city of London. Also ban the next most dangerous thing on the roads - bicycles. Pedestrianise the whole place, or at least start to actually deal with poor cycling behaviour.

The London Mayor is a wet blanket. I would hope that when the mayoral elections come up again he loses his job. The mayor of the world's greatest city needs (er) charisma.

I would also seek to pass a law that any asylum seeker convicted of a serious offence has his/her British citizenship revoked as a default, but that's another discussion, eh? They have proved that they don't deserve the protection of the UK if they work to undermine the UK. This would include all these Pakistani child sex-groomers et al.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Grambler



I'm guessing the cars he banned are fully automatic.

He'd be better off banning manual transmission vehicles seeing as only 30% or so of UK cars are automatic.
I'd struggle to give up a manual gearbox, I like using a clutch and actually driving the vehicle...I'll leave automatics for old people who don't know how to use more than one lever at a time.

Khan's idea is ridiculous though, if I was a terrorist I'd just run over people in the busy commercial districts nearby instead. His ban will only keep politicians safe, not regular citizens.

a reply to: Grambler

Well I'm sure banning cars will solve the problem......until people try to kill people with other objects. Knives? Check. Acid, Check. Rental Vans, Check.

Sometimes I just don't understand our elected officials and how their brains are wired.

Just wait till the bike drive by killings with rope..............

Super. More misery for Londoners as their city gets decimated by Khan.

a reply to: Grambler

Hmm funny how all of you folks criticizing my knife ban comment can’t even tell the whole truth 

Again, the problem wasn’t with the ban, it was with the idea this is somehow going to stop terror attacks 

But if we are to get technical, why did you leave this part of the ban out? 

I didn't leave anything out.

As of today no laws have been passed curtailing the purchase of knives online. Don't believe me though, here's the source, the UK government:

www.gov.uk...

Due diligence fella, you're talking a lot about something you've clearly researched in a half-arsed manner.

Considering the proposed "ban" isn't even a ban at all. If it comes into effect I will still be free to purchase blades online I will just have to collect them from a store that's convenient to me, where I'd be prompted for ID.

As I'm aware the purchase of knives was supposed to be done with proof of age, kinda like alcohol too. Meh I purchased cigarettes and alcohol at 16... One was illegal one was not... Some things take a heavy hand to enforce.

So I guess anyone who wants a knife delivered must also be a would be criminal or only want it for decorative purposes 

Hyperbolic nonsense. You're a bright fella, don't peddle propaganda and hyperbole. It's an offence to your intelligence and mine.

Kahn beliefs in pedestrian traffic in the past does not somehow make his comments here ok 

He was using a terror attack to push a previous plan he had 

Would stopping cars in certain areas somehow stop terrorism?

Tbh I don't much care what Kahn thinks, the policies and dictates of a London Mayor has no bearing on me.

He has a point however and yes it may not stop terrorists but it would negate their ability to use vehicles as weapons within pedestrianised areas. Thus forcing them to come up with alternative measurements of which will create more ideal scenarios of discovering and thwarting their plans.

Kinda simple and rational me thinks, shame you can't see that.

Then he is a scum bag for politicizing this attack to push a plan for better foot traffic he has had for years 

He's a politician, it's what they do.

Like how Trump launched tomahawks at Syria on a whim without evidence..

I think it's called capitalising on crisis.

Yeah he's a scum bag. He's a politician. The fact he's scum has nothing to do with him being a lefty or him being Muslim or him being coloured.

Seems those things get in the way of people thinking critically these days, it's a shame.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: RAY1990

Yeah , go on trying to convince yourself.

What?

That zombies aren't real or that Kahn has no power to ban knives.

It's not me I'm trying to "convince" it's Americans that are seemingly clueless on British and English law or the powers a Mayor has.

I need no convincing, I already know what I can purchase, where I can purchase and.how to go about being a law abiding citizen whilst doing so.