Conspiracy Theory World Economic Forum

Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
You might be right about EVs and the traffic filters. But they are exempt from the zero emission zone, which is proposed to cover the city centre. Which in conjunction with the traffic filters cuts the city into segments. A person with an EV could access any zone without charge, by going through the city centre. Anyone else either has to pay the charge for entering the ZEZ or go the long way around.
Thats right - comparatively, no one at all can drive through a larger area in Melbourne's city center and its been that way for 20 odd years. Sky not exactly falling I reckon.

The reuters article is pure spin, it's a simple 'this 93% figure is false' without giving any context. It is just a blanket statement when they could have given reasoning for it. They could have said 'the 93% figure is false, it is only 85%' but that is just as bad isn't it?
Riiiiight, the Reuters article is pure spin but the claim its specifically addressing isn't :tearsofjoy:

It most certainly provides the context, displaying the tweet its addressing and from which this 93% nonsense seems to have grown legs;


The tweet claims "93% said no". This is a patently false 'blanket statement', exactly what you accuse Reuters of doing. Pretty clear I would have thought.

And no, they could not have said "its only 85%". If I'm understanding the table correctly, the remaining 85% is a range of opinions about the proposal, some even -gasp- positive. For the ones that you could say fall into the negative, they are still not saying "no I don't want it". They are expressing concerns about specific factors or wanting to see more information/research.

The Oxford plan does include plans for new amenities, 15 minute city and 15/20 minute neighbourhood are the same thing.
Does it? Link me up.
 
Last edited:

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thats right - comparatively, no one at all can drive through a larger area in Melbourne's city center and its been that way for 20 odd years. Sky not exactly falling I reckon.


Riiiiight, the Reuters article is pure spin but the claim its specifically addressing isn't :tearsofjoy:

It most certainly provides the context, displaying the tweet its addressing and from which this 93% nonsense seems to have grown legs;


The tweet claims "93% said no". This is a patently false 'blanket statement', exactly what you accuse Reuters of doing. Pretty clear I would have thought.

And no, they could not have said "its only 85%". If I'm understanding the table correctly, the remaining 85% is a range of onions about the proposal, some even -gasp- positive. For the ones that you could say fall into the negative, they are still not saying "no I don't want it". They are expressing concerns about specific factors or wanting to see more information/research.


Does it? Link me up.

You can still drive through the ZEZ, but there is a charge. It is free for EV's.

The reuters article is just spin. If they are going to make the claim only 8% are against it, they should have also pointed out that only 7% were in favour, but that isn't a headline the council wants out there.

Second paragraph here about plans for new amenities. In the same article it states there were 2 petitions with over 5k signatures in total against the filters.
 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
You can still drive through the ZEZ, but there is a charge. It is free for EV's.
You can't drive through Melbourne city centre no matter what you're driving. It hasn't ruined anyone's life as far as I can tell.

The reuters article is just spin. If they are going to make the claim only 8% are against it, they should have also pointed out that only 7% were in favour, but that isn't a headline the council wants out there.
I mean... you can just keep repeating the same thing over and over if you like, its not very persuasive though ¯\(ツ)

lol, you're now suggesting that the Oxforshire Council is running Reuters. And yep the fault is clearly with the article debunking "93% said no" for not taking the time to get into the minutiae of that table, not the tweet making the 93% blanket statement itself :drunk:

Actually, that would be good to get nailed down - do you consider the the tweet being referenced in the article 'spin' also?

Second paragraph here about plans for new amenities. In the same article it states there were 2 petitions with over 5k signatures in total against the filters.
Cheers, I can't see any detail in the plan on the council website itself but fair enough.

5k? Google puts the population of Oxfordshire at just under 700k, not exactly overwhelming numbers there. Speaking of numbers, was looking at that table again and noticed this right down the bottom just before the less than 1% items start, interesting;

oxford.png


Seems like your central concern with this stuff around a poor tax is not shared by many, even amongst those engaged enough to respond to the survey.
 

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
You can't drive through Melbourne city centre no matter what you're driving. It hasn't ruined anyone's life as far as I can tell.


I mean... you can just keep repeating the same thing over and over if you like, its not very persuasive though ¯\(ツ)

lol, you're now suggesting that the Oxforshire Council is running Reuters. And yep the fault is clearly with the article debunking "93% said no" for not taking the time to get into the minutiae of that table, not the tweet making the 93% blanket statement itself :drunk:

Actually, that would be good to get nailed down - do you consider the the tweet being referenced in the article 'spin' also?


Cheers, I can't see any detail in the plan on the council website itself but fair enough.

5k? Google puts the population of Oxfordshire at just under 700k, not exactly overwhelming numbers there. Speaking of numbers, was looking at that table again and noticed this right down the bottom just before the less than 1% items start, interesting;

View attachment 1602727

Seems like your central concern with this stuff around a poor tax is not shared by many, even amongst those engaged enough to respond to the survey.
I didn't say they were running reuters, but getting fact checkers on the case seems odd for a small local council. And spin can go both ways of course, but the reuters article doesn't address that the responses were overwhelmingly negative. Have a look at tables 28 - 32 of the link you provided earlier , it is overwhelmingly negative responses, like 90%. After that there are questions about which groups would be particularly affected, and some of the options are gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race and religion. What could any of that possibly have to do with a traffic filter?

The original public submissions process was only 5k. I would say a further 5k signing a petition is significant.

As for the council not having much detail, that does seem concerning. In the list of exemptions they don't even specify exactly who is exempt from the filters. Just a vague "Special vehicles such as emergency services" without going into any detail. Is a special vehicle a govt vehicle? Are the council members exempt from the filter? Historic vehicles are exempt from the ZEZ, are they also exempt from the filters? You bring up a good point about the lack of transparency about the plan from the council.
 

adogsfan5

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2020
14,957
20,028
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
You can still drive through the ZEZ, but there is a charge. It is free for EV's.

The reuters article is just spin. If they are going to make the claim only 8% are against it, they should have also pointed out that only 7% were in favour, but that isn't a headline the council wants out there.

Second paragraph here about plans for new amenities. In the same article it states there were 2 petitions with over 5k signatures in total against the filters.

I’d be less concerned with this and more concerned about CBDCs. Keep an eye on what’s happening in England..
 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I didn't say they were running reuters, but getting fact checkers on the case seems odd for a small local council. And spin can go both ways of course, but the reuters article doesn't address that the responses were overwhelmingly negative. Have a look at tables 28 - 32 of the link you provided earlier , it is overwhelmingly negative responses, like 90%. After that there are questions about which groups would be particularly affected, and some of the options are gender reassignment, sexual orientation, race and religion. What could any of that possibly have to do with a traffic filter?
So the Council called up Reuters and asked them to sort it out? Yeah dunno about that either.

"Spin can go both ways of course" is probably the closest you'll get to acknowledging the astronomical spin in the original tweet, I'll have to take it I suppose :tearsofjoy:

Bit weird to expect the fact check to go into detail that the original claim didn't but whatever.
 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I’d be less concerned with this and more concerned about CBDCs. Keep an eye on what’s happening in England..
Yup, if your central concern is around class/poor taxes there are a mountain of things to be more concerned about than this :drunk:

Gaetz was on Fox the other day suggesting blanket work-schemes in order to access social security and food stamps in the US. Wonder if he'll ever register that a lot of people are on those schemes in the first place because they have conditions or circumstances which prevent them from working?
 

adogsfan5

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2020
14,957
20,028
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Yup, if your central concern is around class/poor taxes there are a mountain of things to be more concerned about than this :drunk:

Gaetz was on Fox the other day suggesting blanket work-schemes in order to access social security and food stamps in the US. Wonder if he'll ever register that a lot of people are on those schemes in the first place because they have conditions or circumstances which prevent them from working?

 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Thats just basically a transaction account though yeah? With any funds over the cap going to your normal bank account?

As always, unsure how this would be forced on the populace in any case. I still use cash a fair bit and will probably continue to do so.
 

adogsfan5

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2020
14,957
20,028
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Thats just basically a transaction account though yeah? With any funds over the cap going to your normal bank account?

As always, unsure how this would be forced on the populace in any case. I still use cash a fair bit and will probably continue to do so.

How dare they take Facebook marketplace away.

Yeah I dunno mate, I’m extremely wary of them though.
 

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
So the Council called up Reuters and asked them to sort it out? Yeah dunno about that either.

"Spin can go both ways of course" is probably the closest you'll get to acknowledging the astronomical spin in the original tweet, I'll have to take it I suppose :tearsofjoy:

Bit weird to expect the fact check to go into detail that the original claim didn't but whatever.
It's odd that so many "fact checkers" got involved in a local council planning decision, isn't it?

These are just the ones from the first page of google results, so with the one you posted it makes 5 at least.




 

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yup, if your central concern is around class/poor taxes there are a mountain of things to be more concerned about than this :drunk:

Gaetz was on Fox the other day suggesting blanket work-schemes in order to access social security and food stamps in the US. Wonder if he'll ever register that a lot of people are on those schemes in the first place because they have conditions or circumstances which prevent them from working?
This is the WEF thread, for talking about WEF pet projects like 15 minute cities. Take this to the fox news thread if you want.
 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
It's odd that so many "fact checkers" got involved in a local council planning decision, isn't it?

These are just the ones from the first page of google results, so with the one you posted it makes 5 at least.




It's odd that so many "cookers" screech about the end of society as we know it due to a traffic management plan, isn't it?

I'd suggest fact checkers go where the business is.
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
This is the WEF thread, for talking about WEF pet projects like 15 minute cities. Take this to the fox news thread if you want.
Easy tiger, I'm not looking for a discussion on it.

Just one example of a clearly more nefarious approach from someone actually in government (just saw Pence has been making noise about social security too). Easily more of a threat to the poor in the US than some WEF boogeyman.
 
Last edited:

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's odd that so many "cookers" screech about the end of society as we know it due to a traffic management plan, isn't it?

I'd suggest fact checkers go where the business is.
Except the 15 minute cities are about emission reduction. So yes, when movement is retricted and special privileges given to owners of EV's, people are suspicious.
 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Except the 15 minute cities are about emission reduction. So yes, when movement is retricted and special privileges given to owners of EV's, people are suspicious.
'Special privileges' for a really small section of the city centre, smaller than the total car exclusion zones in Melbourne.

I'd say congestion reduction is easily equal billing re: the Oxfordshire plan in terms of their documentation, probably even the main focus. The 2 concepts go hand in hand though, and of course those with an agenda would seek to paint it as exclusively as a 'climate lockdown measure' or similar (in fact that's expressly what one of the fact check links you provided focuses on).
 

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
'Special privileges' for a really small section of the city centre, smaller than the total car exclusion zones in Melbourne.

I'd say congestion reduction is easily equal billing re: the Oxfordshire plan in terms of their documentation, probably even the main focus. The 2 concepts go hand in hand though, and of course those with an agenda would seek to paint it as exclusively as a 'climate lockdown measure' or similar (in fact that's expressly what one of the fact check links you provided focuses on).
The ZEZ is planned to cover the entire city centre, you posted the map of that yourself.

The traffic filters aren't the main focus of the documentation from what I have seen, but it is the most immediate concern for people. Local councils have been "rejuvenating local shopping precincts" for as long as I can remember, and never deliver anything. Oxford is going to introduce the traffic measures without providing alternatives in the local area. Just vague promises of improved facilities in the future that residents have heard every election cycle.
I'm sure to the residents it seems like the 15 min city is being forced upon them before the amenities required for the plan are there for them, and based on past experience don't expect them to ever be delivered.

15 minute cities are emission reduction policy. Of course there is outcry about climate lockdowns, that is exactly what this plan looks like. Despite what the "fact checkers" say, that 15 min city and traffic filters aren't connected, the traffic scheme lines up so nicely with the 15 minute city concept. You are free to drive around your own zone, but going to a nearby zone will be too much hassle/too expensive. Just stay local like you are told to. Then there is the placement of the filters. If you live on the outskirts it might not be such a big deal, but anyone living right by one of the filters might see a 2 min drive to the gym (from where they go straight to work afterwards) turn into 15 min because of the filter.


This is a background paper for the 15 min city. The greener britain pdf is referenced in it.


This is the traffic plan. Climate and emissions are listed as key reasons for why it is needed

To claim they are unrelated like so many "fact checkers" have claimed is just straight up spin. Here is another that does just that, claims the schemes are unrelated. Except for the part where climate is a key reason for implementing both schemes. Little wonder some people called it a climate lockdown.

 
Mar 1, 2007
23,333
27,810
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
The ZEZ is planned to cover the entire city centre, you posted the map of that yourself.

The traffic filters aren't the main focus of the documentation from what I have seen, but it is the most immediate concern for people. Local councils have been "rejuvenating local shopping precincts" for as long as I can remember, and never deliver anything. Oxford is going to introduce the traffic measures without providing alternatives in the local area. Just vague promises of improved facilities in the future that residents have heard every election cycle.
I'm sure to the residents it seems like the 15 min city is being forced upon them before the amenities required for the plan are there for them, and based on past experience don't expect them to ever be delivered.

15 minute cities are emission reduction policy. Of course there is outcry about climate lockdowns, that is exactly what this plan looks like. Despite what the "fact checkers" say, that 15 min city and traffic filters aren't connected, the traffic scheme lines up so nicely with the 15 minute city concept. You are free to drive around your own zone, but going to a nearby zone will be too much hassle/too expensive. Just stay local like you are told to. Then there is the placement of the filters. If you live on the outskirts it might not be such a big deal, but anyone living right by one of the filters might see a 2 min drive to the gym (from where they go straight to work afterwards) turn into 15 min because of the filter.


This is a background paper for the 15 min city. The greener britain pdf is referenced in it.


This is the traffic plan. Climate and emissions are listed as key reasons for why it is needed

To claim they are unrelated like so many "fact checkers" have claimed is just straight up spin. Here is another that does just that, claims the schemes are unrelated. Except for the part where climate is a key reason for implementing both schemes. Little wonder some people called it a climate lockdown.

By the same token, claiming an emission reduction plan = a climate lockdown is also straight up spin. You seem very willing to apply the 'spin' label to one side but not the other.

In any case, think I've had my fill of reading about Oxfordshire lol. I've DoneMyOwnResearch™ and arrived at a fairly different conclusion than you have - and thats fine.

You continue worrying about traffic/emission plans bringing about class destruction, I'll worry about elected officials in government trying to remove social safety nets and food provision schemes from the most vulnerable in society.
 

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
By the same token, claiming an emission reduction plan = a climate lockdown is also straight up spin. You seem very willing to apply the 'spin' label to one side but not the other.

In any case, think I've had my fill of reading about Oxfordshire lol. I've DoneMyOwnResearch™ and arrived at a fairly different conclusion than you have - and thats fine.

You continue worrying about traffic/emission plans bringing about class destruction, I'll worry about elected officials in government trying to remove social safety nets and food provision schemes from the most vulnerable in society.
You'll be back. Everyone knows that govt officials have no interest in improving the lives of poor people, it's just election posturing. Improving the lives of the wealthy, well there probably isn't anything they wouldn't do.
 

adogsfan5

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2020
14,957
20,028
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs

Notorious "Philanthropic Billionaire" Bill Gates didn't want the vaccines to be available to the worlds poorest people. Seeing as how the WEF called out Africa not having access to the vaccines as racist, I guess that makes Bill the chief racist.



Look at theme 4 in the link, there is a nice picture of Bill Gates at the end of it, with this quote:


They call out the racism of africa not having access to vaccines, yet a WEF member, Bill Gates, actively stopped the Oxford vaccine from being an open patent. They literally created that problem themselves for their own financial gain, then start talking about racism and how to solve the problem.


Has he been mentioned in the Epstein files yet?
 

zill

King of Mars
Oct 21, 2011
1,868
7,353
AFL Club
Collingwood
Has he been mentioned in the Epstein files yet?
I assume you mean this?

I don't think he ever denied knowing Epstein. He is already known like Clinton, Andrew, Trump. There's also a connection between Epstein and the UN. And obviously between Gates and the uN.
 

adogsfan5

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 12, 2020
14,957
20,028
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I assume you mean this?

I don't think he ever denied knowing Epstein. He is already known like Clinton, Andrew, Trump. There's also a connection between Epstein and the UN. And obviously between Gates and the uN.

Think it was a little more than “having a dinner with him”..

 
Back