"Electric cars are not a solution, they don't cut emissions as they simply transfer the emissions from the exhaust pipe to the power stations."
Well, no, not really. Even ignoring clean power (where I live, for e.g., 97% of power generation is hydroelectric), power stations can generate the power rather more efficiently than tiny powerplants in cars can, and the emissions can also be controlled more effectively at scale. Not to mention that power plants tend to be placed such that far fewer humans are exposed to their emissions than are exposed to the emissions from vehicle exhausts. Yes, for things like greenhouse gases this doesn't really matter, but for e.g. particulate emissions that cause lung damage, it matters *a lot*.
"Range anxiety, slow charging and so forth are of no use to anyone who is required to travel any reasonable distance in an expected time... I'm sure employers would love to hear how your shiny new environmentally friendly vehicle took you an extra 2hrs to get to the site and begin work.. because you had to charge it up halfway there... Or for those who make multiple visits to multiple clients, often in places with no access to chargers at all.. meaning yet another stop to recharge your vehicle enough to make it to the next needed mini top up."
These are all reasonable reasons why existing electric vehicles aren't suitable for *some* people, sure. I don't think anyone's suggested they are. No-one's telling people who drive their pickup 500 miles a day to replace it with a Nissan Leaf. But lots of people have cars and don't actually drive them hundreds of miles a day, they drive them fifty or fewer miles a day and just about never drive them more than a couple hundred miles. For these people, existing electric cars are already a great option.
"Fuel cells on the other hand ARE a decent and viable solution"
The market doesn't appear to agree with you there, since just about no-one is building them. They have their own issues, which you seem to just ignore entirely in favour of a blanket statement that they're "a decent and viable solution" with exactly no supporting evidence.
"as a short term fix, hybrid cars should be what people are looking to purchase until such a time as govt/business gets of their arse and puts the infrastructure in place to refuel fuel cell vehicles."
This seems weirdly prescriptive. If an all-electric car is suitable to someone's needs, who are you to tell them they "should be...looking to purchase" a hybrid instead? If you are one of the people who drives hundreds of miles a day in such a way that charging an all-electric car is impractical, sure, a hybrid may be a good choice (though they have downsides, being as how you're basically paying for two separate powertrains and the extra maintenance that results from that complexity).
"All electric vehicles are a con and the intention is to convince people to BUY MORE CARS and prop up a floundering economy caused by Labours incompetence and the Tories greed and desire to punish any one who's not rich... and god help you if you are sick or disabled... because they really loathe those types and want to see them suffer more and more each day."
This just seems to be a wild rant that's rather disconnected from reality. Plus...in the rest of your comment you seem (so far as I can make out) to be advocating incentivising the purchase of fuel cell and/or hybrid vehicles instead...so how would that be any different? They're still cars...