Laurence Fox…who’d want to s*** that?

Incitement isn’t a recently “pushed-through” piece of legislation, though.

The crime of Inciting other people to commit a crime was always part of English Common Law.

Criminal Damage has always been part of English Common Law too, well before subsequent Acts of Parliament updated it.

Wasn’t a new law provided to prosecute protestors Boot?
And here are a couple of recent new additions to laws…
Quote from Wiki:-
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.” The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.[10]

The original law being passed in 1986…

Is any of the above relevant to the topic under discussion, though?

Fox was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit criminal damage.

I wasn’t aware that he was being investigated for any crimes under the legislation you’ve just quoted.

No perhaps not Boot, I do ramble a bit sometimes…

The WHO stated that all London boroughs, including the green outer suburbs all had unacceptable levels of gases and particles. The five worst were all outer London.
Airports affect air quality too, not just roads.

TfL subsidy was not cut. It was removed.
It is easy to see how aligning three things with ULEZ is attractive. First reduce air pollution. Tick. Second fund public transport and support more people using public transport. Tick. Third reduce private car use, except for non-polluting cars. Tick. All positive.
The alternative was to reduce public transport. After the pandemic ticket revenues fell considerably and unless alternative funding was found this was mean significant cuts to public transport around London. Result - more private car use, greater costs and inconvenience for those reliant on public transport. What’s the opposite of a tick?

1 Like

Ask an idiot


The main two functions of ULEZ are to provide a substitute for the reduction of road tax caused when everyone is made to buy an electric vehicle. The second was to prevent gridlocks on Britain’s roads when most lower classes will not be able to afford to buy and run an EV. I don’t believe it has anything to do with air pollution otherwise other more polluting means of transport would have been targeted first. When the establishment want to do anything unsavoury, they use the sick, the elderly and children as the reason.
And ULEZ is a means of controlling who goes where and when…
That’s three isn’t it…
PS:- Oh, and if everyone does buy an electric vehicle, you will still have the gridlock, and power cuts due to an overwhelmed national grid.

You don’t have to drive an Electric Vehicle to avoid ULEZ charges.
Over 90% of the vehicles in the Greater London area are already ULEZ compliant and some people can apply for exemptions.


Sorry but these are made up ideas. The money from ULEZ goes to London and TfL rather than to the treasury (where road tax money goes). And your second reason is simply fairytale hogwash - and you know it. How do I know this - I was dealing with TfL when ULEZ was being planned. Your source of info?

1 Like

I believe petrol vehicles registered after 2005 are exempt , there aren’t a lot of 18 year old cars around.
I understand different rules apply to diesels.


At one time the government was promoting diesels .
One thing is you need to tow anything it won’t be with an electric car .

It might be the later diesel vehicles that use AdBlue that are exempt from the ULEZ charge. Our car with a 1.6 diesel engine is.

What is AdBlue?


@mart :+1:
Thanks for supplying the AdBlue link
I found it interesting to read the explanation of what AdBlue does.
I’ve seen references to AdBlue before but I’ve never had a deisel-fuelled vehicle, so I wasn’t sure what the AdBlue function was.

It’s a first for me too. All our other cars have been petrol driven. The AdBlue tank holds 17 litres, which should be good for around 15,000 miles (so I read). There’s a warning given when it runs low, not to be ignored.

I looked up my 2005 Renault Clio Automatic 1.4 petrol driven, and found out it was exempt. Not that I have any intention of driving anywhere near that dreaded zone! :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Interesting, many internal combustion cars are in fact exempt. So all this ULEZ backlash is being whipped up rather than being based on real facts.


Does Laurence Fox want to shag a ULEZ car?

I was pleased with Offcom decision that the interview did indeed demean the journalist

And also pleased the obnoxious Dan Wootton is leaving GB news

A bit worrying that he’s going to set up his own platform, but at least that will corral the type of person who likes watching him in one place and I can avoid.

A great improvement that he hasn’t got a platform on a mainstream news channel, or even a wannabe mainstream channel like GBnews

And also good to see GBnews struggling financially


As Talk TV is about to fold hopefully GBNews will go next.

1 Like