They call him the cat herder – the person who brings together people heading off in different directions but who fundamentally share the same aim.
And in the days leading up to the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) expanding to cover all of Greater London, Phil Elliott was doing a lot of herding.
The founder of UK Unites, a 3000-member campaign group that aims to “unite as many people across the UK to stand up against unjust, undemocratic and unnecessary political interference”, was talking to me at his home in Lincolnshire, fresh from organising a major protest against the ULEZ expansion.
I had first met Elliott a few days before at Rykas cafe, near Dorking, Surrey. It’s popular with bikers and I had ridden there to enjoy a coffee while admiring the machinery.
To my amazement, instead of the usual clusters of bikers, there were hundreds of them gathered in front of an old London bus. I quickly saw why. On its side, banners and signs read: ‘Stop ULEZ’, ‘Stop Khan’, ‘No 2 ULEZ’, ‘Our Roads, Our Freedom’.
Arranged around the bike park, I counted 12 vans covered in such political slogans. One of them had a coffin on its roof bearing the name ‘Khan’. On one side of it was an image of a missile bearing the message: ‘To Sadiq Khan and the BBC, with love from the anti-ULEZ groups’.
A group at the rear of the bus addressed the crowd. It included Howard Cox, Reform UK’s candidate for London mayor, who, to roars of approval, assured the assembled bikers that he would make London “the most motorcycle-friendly city in the world”; and Lembit Öpik, former Liberal Democrat MP and now spokesman for the Motorcycle Action Group, who stoked the crowd further with an attack on Khan and the ULEZ expansion.
“It could come down to the thousands of us here to stop him,” he said, and – aware that bikes must satisfy at least Euro 3 emissions regulations, in force from 2007, or face a £12.50 charge for entering London – the crowd again roared its approval. (Petrol cars must satisfy at least Euro 4, in force since 2005, and diesel cars Euro 6, in force since 2015.)
Join the debate
Add your comment
What did Elliot say, John, when you asked him if he had asked the father of the disabled child about the child's eligibility to a Mobility car if he is in receipt of the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA, or the enhanced mobility component of PIP?
You did ask, right?
Because if Elliott really cares about such people, as well as pushing back against unjust, undemocratic, blah, he would have valued information like that at his fingertips. He really would
But, since he lives in a world populated with conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers, and racists, I doubt being genuinely helpful to people, like the fabled father of a disabled child, is particularly high on his partisan agenda. Shame. Good journalistic opportunity missed. Oh, and if TfL had not written to keepers of non-compliant vehicles to warn them of what is coming he'd be whining that people were not given fair warning (although the extension had been all over the news for at least a year)
Reading the article, all I can see is angry people. What I don't see is anyone proposing a solution.
As for citing the parent of a disabled son who's now in debt for changing his van to a non-complient van, is that the best these protesters defence?
The rules were brought in to lower emissions therefore my attack campaign would be based around what affect does ULEZ have on those with the ability to pay? It's a grossly unfair scheme, the irony being it's Labout mayor favouring the rich.
There's no denying ULEZ works because emissions have been reduced. So my question to the protestors is what's your solution to reducing emissions?
If you want to talk about unfairness, you should also consider those who can't afford a car at all but have to breathe dirty air. The anti campaigners don't seem to care about them.
The personalised nature of the attacks against an elected mayor - with coffins and missiles as props - are not reasonable. There is more than a whiff of racism from these campaigners.
Autocar has a responsibility towards more balanced reporting.
According to the Laws your not allowed to suppress an individual/ individual's, so in recent times we have seen more and more of these kind of protestors,some more extreme that others, they have little or no success,all they succeed in doing is get people like us to go on about them, gain a Z lister celeb status like we're seeing recently, as for the press and media,mits up to them whether to report it or not, and ultimately if you don't like it, or it get you annoyed don't read it or listen to it on ant platform.