78.8% of voters are shortsighted wankers.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 13:04,
Reply)
Thanks
I am a short sighted wanker
EDIT: By the way I would have voted yes if the charging zone was in the right place, and not put in such arbitrary places as was proposed
(
t0ria has forgotten how this all works, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 13:05,
Reply)
Well, all right then.
ALMOST 78.8%.
Happy now?
:)
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 13:07,
Reply)
I take it you voted yes?
The problem with a ballot like this is that a lot of people are going to make a rash judgement soley based on the fact it will cost them money, and a lot more are going to make a similarly rash judgement based on the environmental benefits. I personally think it should have been properly thought out and more notice taken of people who answered the consultation before the ballot was done.
Oh and I wear contact lenses so my short sight is ok thanks ;)
(
t0ria has forgotten how this all works, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 13:11,
Reply)
For may part...
I don't think it should have been put to the vote at all.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 13:13,
Reply)
78.8% of voters have seen it as the scam it is
The London congestion charge hasn't reduced congestion, but has proven a handy money-raising scheme.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 13:56,
Reply)
People with cars vote against, bus travellers vote for
The reason Woolworths is bust is because they're high street stores and shoppers with cars are being chased out of town-centres and city-centres and into out of town stores with ample free parking
(
CanonCaliber A big bore, Fri 12 Dec 2008, 14:15,
Reply)