LTNs and 15 minute cities

All info related to the new biggest hoax of our time.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

2050 Net Zero target: Laura Ingraham interview with Norman Fenton (Fox News 11 April 2023)
Discussing the implication of the "net zero" as described in this twitter thread:
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

Clean air lies.

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

If you've ever watched any Walter Veith videos, you'll know he's big on the fact a Sunday work ban will be brought into operation, because SUN-day is for the SUN GOD, which goes hand-in-hand with the CORONAVIRUS, Pantheism and pandemics.

Lower motorway speeds and driving ban in plan to tackle oil reliance
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... -reliance/
Lowering motorway speed limits and introducing driving bans on Sunday are ideas being suggested to cut Britain’s reliance on oil.

The ideas are part of a ten-point plan proposed by the International Energy Agency in a bid to reduce global oil demand by 2.7 million barrels per day.

Motorway speed limits would be reduced by 6mph across the country under the proposals, while the plan also suggests a ban on driving in cities every Sunday.

Also included in the plan is working from home three days a week, and using high-speed night trains instead of planes where possible...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

ULEZ – Another Imperial Con
https://thinkingcoalition.org/climate/u ... erial-con/
Listening to the discussion over ULEZ expansion feels like an action replay of the way in which many were convinced to overreact to COVID, leading to policy responses which caused significantly more harm than good. The ULEZ “discussion” has all of the same elements, with modelled health benefits calculated by Imperial College model and Mayor Khan’s justification that he is “saving lives”, implying that opponents are wannabe murderers. Of course, this time around, the public is thankfully much more sceptical.

In this short note, we wanted to set out how those lives saved numbers are derived and to demonstrate that at best the numbers are seriously misrepresented and at worst completely wrong. In fact, applying the Government and Imperial’s own logic, there is a very strong case to say that the expansion of ULEZ will, on balance, harm Londoner’s health when considering the downstream economic consequences of this policy.

The major flaw in Imperial’s model is the one-dimensional nature of their assumption that air pollution drives health and life expectancy, in the real world health is driven by a number of interacting factors with income being the primary driver of health. There are many assumptions which one could dispute that (perhaps unsurprisingly) work towards inflating the claimed health benefits, but we focus only on the flaw of largely ignoring policy consequences.

Imperial presents several numbers including; attributable deaths (3,600 to 4,100), improved life expectancy (5 to 6 months) and life years saved (6.1 million). We wanted to focus on the claimed benefits of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in terms of life expectancy and life years saved.

Before leaving attributable deaths, it is important to note that these are NOT in any sense deaths that can be avoided, nor are they deaths that are subject to reduction by the Transport Strategy. The number appears to compare current death rates with deaths rates if ALL human emissions had been removed for all prior periods. It is a theoretical construct (similar to an unmitigated pandemic) and only a small fraction of this number would be theoretically impacted by road transport (around 15%). Only the going forward numbers (life years saved) relate to the Transport Strategy and there the benefits are relatively low at 0.4%. It is important to note that as a matter of fact, there has only ever been 1 death, of a young and chronically unwell girl, ever recorded in England (56 million population) where the death certificate mentions air pollution. Tragic as this death clearly is, it again highlights the disconnect between the theoretical attribution number and actual deaths recorded; we suggest ignoring the attributable deaths figure.

Looking at the claimed benefits of implementing the Transport Strategy it is possible for a layman to understand the main assumptions on which these health benefits are based. In summary it is assumed that reducing 10 µg m-3 achieves roughly a 6% reduction in all cause mortality. Note however 10 µg m-3 is more than ALL anthropogenic PM 2.5 emissions as estimated for England as a whole, so any benefits are scaled down from 6%. So a 1 µg m-3 reduction generates roughly a 0.6% improvement in life expectancy.

Looking at life years saved and extended life expectancy, the key assumptions are poorly explained. For those in a hurry, the detail shows that ALL of the Transport Strategy initiatives to 2050 combined will deliver a projected 0.4% reduction in life years lost to air pollution using projections to 2154. There is a claimed 5 – 6 month extension in life expectancy, so the life expectancy of a London male of around 80 years would be extended to around 80.4 years.

These gains are stated relative to a base line and for some inexplicable reason Imperial has decide to use 2013 pollution levels to establish the baseline and in the process to ignore the available data for 2019. This serves to inflate the baseline.

Assessing whether the results of modelling are compatible with observed reality is the acid test and, on this basis, the Imperial ULEZ modelling falls flat. The model covers the impact of the entire Transport Strategy to 2050 which covers many more steps than ULEZ. The Imperial document is somewhat vague about what those steps are, which are cryptically referred to as 2025 LES, 2030 LES and 2050 LES. It is enough to note that the aim of Mayor Khan’s 2018 Transport Strategy is to “aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041”. So the first thing to clarify is that the claimed 6.1 million saving of life years relates to a significant number of measures, well beyond ULEZ expansion. In effect these combined steps will largely eliminate private car traffic...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

ULEZ – Another Imperial Con

Listening to the discussion over ULEZ expansion feels like an action replay of the Covid/Pandemic response. We believe that applying the Government and Imperial College's OWN logic, there is a very strong case to say that the expansion of ULEZ will, on balance, harm Londoner’s health when considering the downstream economic consequences of this policy.

Letter from Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, AKA 'Michael Green'
Letter from Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, AKA 'Michael Green'
Screenshot 2023-08-27 at 00.30.17.png


Worth a reminder about Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, who used to turn up to conferences as "MICHAEL GREEN".

Grant Shapps confronted over ‘Michael Green’ ID in 2012
https://www.channel4.com/news/grant-sha ... k-doorstep
Michael Green
Channel 4 News asked Mr Shapps whether a number of testimonials on the site were written by real people and he replied: “Everybody is genuine. I’m answering the questions for the ASA.”

In 2012 Mr Shapps was forced to insist he was not living a double life after pictures emerged of him attending an internet conference shortly before he was elected to parliament, wearing a “Michael Green” name badge.

Mr Shapps told Sky News: “Before I went into parliament, I used to write business publications and, like many authors, wrote under a business name.

“I was always very open about it and I actually went to one conference, where that picture was from, it was sort of open fact. It was in my biography, it was in the conference programme.”

Mr Shapp tweeted on Sunday: “Old story: all properly declared at the time and all many years ago. Labour just hate business.”

Michael Green.jpeg
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

While we are on "Conservative" Grant Shapps different identities...I've found a nice young image of him and it confirms what I've though since I first posted the video below.

Grant Shapps.jpg
ScreenShot-VideoID-gi5j7jjhm4M-TimeS-55.png

Do you remember where this grab is from?

Labour-1997-PPB.gif
Labour-1997-PPB.gif (3.28 MiB) Viewed 1734 times


Did Tony Blair ever leave office? — I think not.

Labour's 1997 Party Political Broadcast- Things Can Only Get Better
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

You want to find out who funds Extinction Rebellion...



...buys all the branded tat they use, such idiot hypocrites, the irony doesn't even register with them.

ExtinctionRebellion.jpg

Imagine if they have to live in the world they think they want to create.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

Interesting thought experiment:

https://fsbrg.net/the-smart-city-of-gaza/
The Smart City of Gaza
Technologies of Containment and the Urban Condition


Palestinian protest in front of the Erez Crossing, against the ongoing siege over Gaza, September 4, 2018. Image: Courtesy of ActiveStills
Palestinian protest in front of the Erez Crossing, against the ongoing siege over Gaza, September 4, 2018. Image: Courtesy of ActiveStills

Central to this thesis is a counter-intuitive proposition: the ultimate realisation of the “smart city” is to be found in the Gaza Strip.

Under blockade for over a decade, on permanent humanitarian life-support, and regularly destroyed by the Israeli military, the Palestinian coastal enclave is undoubtedly a devastated territory. However brutal the contrast of its current appearance with the carefully branded image of the “smart city”, a closer look at the urban technology at work in Gaza reveals an uncanny resemblance with the one underpinning the fast-spreading model of an optimised urban future. Through the inverted lens of Gaza, the application of smartness at urban scale reveals its essential purpose: to produce an urban condition of deep security. So far, the critique of smart urbanism has tended to reduce the problem posed by its ongoing worldwide diffusion to one of unequal access to smartness. The main goal of the thesis is to reframe this critique: in parallel to generating islands of technologically enhanced urban privilege, smartness is also widely used to manage and to consolidate delimited zones of urban exclusion. The notion of deep security is therefore introduced as an alternative to that of smartness, in order to focus on the dialectics of upgrade and downgrade, of fast-tracking and side-lining, of capacitation and debilitation that is not only reinforced, but also largely automated by the rise of smartness as a new dominant urban paradigm.

Informed by the author’s long-term practice with Forensic Architecture (a research agency using spatial and media analysis to investigate state and corporate violence), the thesis examines how smart technologies are currently deployed in one of the most militarised frontiers of the urban condition. Processes and circumstances identified in Gaza are set against parallel urban trends that are observable around the world. The aim of this study is to question the implications of the global drive towards the networked, logistical, responsive, resilient, and optimised city. As an efficiently managed containment zone for a fast-growing population of two million outcasts, does Gaza form a blueprint for smart urban solutions to the social and ecological breakdowns of tomorrow?
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »



From the link in the tweet. I believe it.

https://miriaf.co.uk/invasion-of-the-flat-snatchers/
Invasion of the flat snatchers...
Written by: Miri. September 2, 2023

As regular readers are aware, I live in Huddersfield, a moderately sized town in West Yorkshire, population 141,000, and the bit I live in is called Crosland Moor (which, despite spellcheck's perennial protestations, is not a typo).

It's a fairly quiet part of town, mainly residential, with a couple of schools and a few corner shops. It's quiet and friendly and almost a bit time-warpy, as children still play hop-scotch in alleyways and neighbours hang their washing out on the line (and even, gasp, occasionally talk to each other...). It's the predictable and uneventful sort of place that's popular with young families: indeed, when a fire engine turned up in our street last year, virtually everyone darted out of their houses, some still in pyjamas, to find out what was going on, as it was the most excitement the locale had enjoyed in ages... In short, it's quiet and safe and I like it that way.

Just over a mile from where I live is Chapel Hill, the site of a large student accommodation development, which has made headline news this week, because - with almost no notice - the students who were due to move into this accommodation this month, have been abruptly informed by the Home Office they must seek alternative accommodation, as the Chapel Hill site is going to be used to house 400 asylum seekers.

The wider community is reeling in shock and horror at this scandalous outrage, and while I share their horror, shocked I am not, as I asked the local council nearly nine months ago if that is what this accommodation was intended to be used for, since, as of 2022, it had not housed any students for three years. On the 14th December 2022, I wrote:

  • Dear Kirklees Council,

    I am a resident of Huddersfield, currently residing in the Crosland Moor area, and I have noticed that the long-empty student accommodation development on Chapel Hill has recently started to have some work done on it. This is the development to which I refer: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/wes ... t-16120071

    In light of the current migrant crisis, and PM Rishi Sunak's recent announcement that migrants will now be housed in disused student accommodation, I am concerned that this development is going to be used as accommodation for young male asylum seekers.

    I know that this development can house several hundred people, and, like many in the community, I do not believe this is a suitable location for hundreds of single young males from completely different cultures, without families or jobs or other obvious ways to integrate into the community. To make such a transition, these men would need large teams of specialist support workers, but as far as I can see from what is happening in the rest of the country, they are simply being "dumped". This does not bode well for these men, nor for the community which hosts them.

    I know that the Home Office placed 88 single male asylum seekers in a disused mill in Milnsbridge, despite the objections of Kirklees Council, so I am aware that central government is very likely to do as it pleases where it comes to housing migrants, regardless of the wishes of local constituents or councillors.

    However, I would like to be furnished with what information Kirklees Council has at this time, regarding potential asylum seeker accommodation in the student development on Chapel Hill, or anywhere else in Huddersfield.

    Please reply as a matter of urgency furnishing me with all information you currently have regarding the government's plans to station asylum seekers in Huddersfield, and please let me know how you intend to respond to this situation to ensure Huddersfield is not made unnecessarily unstable or unsafe for its existing residents.

    Yours faithfully,

    Miriam Finch

The email was sent to a general council email address, as well as to Jo Richmond, Head of Communities at Kirklees Council, and Naz Parker, Service Director for Homes and Neighbourhoods.

I did not receive a reply.

Why didn't I? It was a perfectly reasonable and straightforward enquiry, and all it needed to assuage my concerns was a brief, "I can assure you the Chapel Hill student development site is intended solely for the accommodation of students"

Yet they couldn't reply that way - because it wasn't. They already knew back in December 2022 (and likely long before that) what the Chapel Hill development was really to be used for, because this invasion (that's what it is) has been many years in the planning.

Let's look at the basic facts: it simply isn't feasible on any level, that the UK Government, happy to let its own vulnerable citizens starve, freeze, and be murdered on the state's dime, is so deeply concerned by the plight of asylum seekers that it would move heaven and earth - and spend a gargantuan fortune - to place them in luxurious accommodation that had already been reserved and paid for by legal UK residents.

Can you imagine the amount of red tape they had to wade through, the amount of work and money they had to put in, to pull off something like this? Imagine the amount of money they had to give the private landlord who owns the development to get him to agree to turf out £200-a-week legal UK tenants, and replace them with "asylum seekers"?

Let us remember that the UK Government lets its own citizens fester in unfit-for-human-habitation accommodation for years, we hear horror stories about it all the time., especially now as the housing crisis intensifies.

So why did they prioritise these "asylum seekers" for such swift relocation and such luxury accommodation?

The Chapel Hill site is no ordinary student hall, after all. We're not talking the barely-bigger-than-a-wardrobe standard student rooms with a bed and a desk, and a grotty shared shower block. We're talking serious opulence, with spacious, airy, en suite rooms with all the mod-cons, as well as an on-site gym and even cinema. It's a significantly more high-end living experience than even most working adults enjoy.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of basic, no-frills student blocks all around the country, many of them empty now more and more students choose to live at home. Why didn't the government put these so-called asylum seekers there, rather than booting paying tenants out of luxury accommodation?

There's only one viable explanation and that is that these people are not "asylum seekers" at all, they're important government assets with a vital job to do, which is why they're put up in such splendour at the tax-payer's expense. Government only bankrolls these kind of perks for its henchmen who are key in pushing the agenda (see: politician's expenses).

You will note, also, that these people are always placed in accommodation which either has gyms on site or very near by. Why? I mean, you'd think that if you're fleeing war and persecution, working on your biceps wouldn't be much of a key concern - but it would if you were a soldier needing to maintain your fitness whilst you wait to be deployed.

These people are soldiers, and they are here to enforce something that our own military (who will never turn against their own people) would not do. That is why they've been recruited from the kind of countries that despise the West, think us immoral and degenerate, and so would think nothing of brutally enforcing some sort of totalitarian state regime (indeed, they might even think they were doing us a favour).

Because I've noticed some interesting themes in the reporting of this story. Much as the papers purport to be outraged and aghast at innocent students being kicked to the kerb to make way for migrants, they nevertheless made sure to include some quotations from local residents who see it rather differently.

Naseem Sarwar, 53, told MailOnline: 'There were all sorts of shenanigans going on. There was partying all night, we were sick and tired of them. We were disgusted with that place. I can't see asylum seekers being worse than what we had.'

Another nearby resident, Mohammed Hussain, 54, said: 'The buildings had some students, but the place also had prostitution and drugs problems. We would rather have asylum seekers housed there than what we used to have.

'It has been lovely and peaceful since the fire brigade ordered them to be evacuated.'

As I have been predicting for many months, we are on course for a transformative cultural revolution, which will have the same magnitude and impact as the social changes that took place in the 1960s - but going back in the other direction.

Our culture, seen by many to have spiralled into amoral libertine degeneracy, is ripe for revolution, and that is what these soldiers (again, that's what they are) are here to spearhead.

We know we're on course for another "pandemic", and we have been explicitly told by the government that, this time, restrictions will be applied more harshly "than feels comfortable". Well, I have to say, they didn't feel bl--dy comfortable last time - massive job losses, business collapses, mental health crises and worse was not comfortable for millions.

So what exactly do they mean that things will be even less comfortable the next time round?

Do they mean that while, last time, the restrictions were enforced merely by the TV and stickers on the floor, this time they will be policed by armed militia patrolling the streets? It was easy to break lockdown rules when the biggest risk was some curtain-twitching neighbour calling the police to "tell on you". It won't be so easy if every moderately-sized town in the country has 500 armed guards patrolling the streets to make sure you obey.

I sincerely hope that this is just my characteristic conspiratorial theorising talking here and that there are no such plans. But currently, I can't think of another plausible explanation as to why the government has invested quite so much time and money (including going so far as taking local councils to court to overrule them if they try to reject asylum seekers from their wards) into this if there isn't a massive pay-off for them. And what else could it be? What else could they be mobilising thousands of military-aged single males all around the country, including to actual military bases, for otherwise? We can discount "because they care about asylum seekers". so what other options are realistically left on the table?

As i have done on several past occasions, I would like to draw your attention to the phenomenally popular predictive programming vehicle, The Handmaid's Tale. Whenever a television series enjoys the kind of visibility and prominence that show has had, you can be sure it's because it's a major part of the agenda, "programming" us as to what is coming next.

The establishment never invests vast sums of money in producing and publicising televisual offerings merely to "entertain" us: rather, it is always to entrain us, to start to get us prepared for what is coming next (see 'Contagion', which predictively programmed us to accept the "pandemic", and upon which the UK government confirmed its pandemic response was based).

The Handmaid's Tale is set initially in modern-day, liberal America... and then it revolutionises almost overnight into an extremist religious caliphate where ultra-strict "morality" is enforced by patrolling armed guards.

What is marked in The Handmaid's Tale is how quickly this happens, how bowled over the unprepared public are, going one minute from drinking Starbucks, commuting to the office, and enjoying a few after-work drinks with friends, to a brutal system of systemic oppression where women aren't allowed to leave the house uncovered or unaccompanied (as already happens in certain hardliner Islamic countries where many of these "asylum seekers" are from), and everybody feels the beady, unforgiving eye of the state constantly upon them.

We need to be prepared for this as a possible future scenario, so we are not shocked into immobility and inaction if it happens. I hope it won't. I hope the thousands of 18-40 year old single fit men with military haircuts currently occupying our military bases really are just innocent asylum seekers. I hope the UK Government really does just have a soft spot for them (even if it doesn't care about students or anyone else).

But I'm afraid I don't think it's likely, and I think we need to prepare for an imminent future quite unlike the immediate past, and be confident in our ability to navigate and adjust to potentially enormous social change. Because, always remember: the future does not belong to the strongest, toughest, or even richest: it belongs to those whom, in times of crisis, don't panic and fall apart - but adapt, recalibrate, and survive.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: LTNs and 15 minute cities

Unread post by rachel »

This is from @_Escapekey_ and links into the ONE HEALTH thread, but since it's specifically about the Fabian, I thought I'd add it to this thread.

---------

1990. Fabian Society:

‘Since its (sustainable development) first major public appearance in the World Conservation Strategy of 1980…’

The year after the fraudulent ‘carbon consensus’. Golly.

GGPlu3HWYAErBEv.jpg
GGPlu3IXgAAG8CL.jpg

I’ve been here before. But I didn’t appreciate the gravity of the document.

It’s right there. 1980. Sustainable Development.

Huxley’s IUCN. Strong’s UNEP.

And I was sent here by a Fabian doc. Of which Huxley was a member.

https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles ... cs-004.pdf
GGPm-BKXQAAFXrO.jpg
GGPm-BSXQAA7A2-.jpg
GGPm-BRXIAAMAtv.jpg

Need more than an iPhone screen to go through this. But it’s not a flimsy remark.

GGPozYQWUAAgZNC.jpg
GGPozYJW8AAmg2p.jpg

…… this appears to be another seriously significant document.

Also, contextually - 2 years prior to the world charter for nature!

GGPqSKbXsAAWZIQ.jpg
GGPqSKUW4AAH2Gv.jpg

Which I went through previously over here

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-wo ... for-nature
GGPqgaWXQAAokR_.jpg

---------

And...

GGPgHfgWsAAHOrM.jpg
GGPgyGXWkAA3V34.jpg
Post Reply