Earl Aelfheah

I don't know much about the CPZ, but if they haven't followed the statutory consultation requirements then there is a clear example of how they might be held accountable for procedural failures. But I'm more interested in Rockets continued insistence that the Dulwich LTN (now more than half a decade old), was implemented without proper authority in some way and his calls for the council and their supporters to be 'held accountable'. I'm fed up with the insinuations and the nonsense. @Rockets what does this 'accountability' actually look like in your mind? Legal action? On what grounds? Mob justice? Against who? What is it you actually want, if not accountability through the ballot box?

They specifically committed to implementing the recommendations of their climate emergency citizens jury in their manifesto (you should read the recommendations). They also specifically committed to making Southwark safer for walking and cycling. You may not agree with these commitments, but they’re very clearly there. Again, no party is expected to itemise every individual initiative. Whether one says they have a mandate to manage roads, or a requirement to manage roads is semantics. The point is that it is entirely their responsibility. They don’t need to hold a referendum on every street scheme and it’s ridiculous to infer that they are somehow acting outside of their purview. A consultation is not a referendum or some sort of binding vote. We have local elections. Re. the Dulwich LTN specifically, it had already been implemented at the time of the last election. They were returned to office. To suggest they have no mandate is absolute rubbish. I understand that you didn’t get your way over a road layout change and that years later you feel an ongoing sense of grievance, but the constant suggestion of foul play is so boring. If you think they broke the law or acted outside their powers in some way, take some action. You keep saying there must be accountability (for the council as well as 'their supporters and cheerleaders') - what does this mean? You’re not happy with the council being democratically accountable at the ballot box, and God only knows what 'accountability' for their supporters means. What are you calling for?

Moaning years after it took place, that a consultation exercise wasn’t treated as if it were a referendum, when it clearly wasn’t one, is ridiculous. Since the Dulwich LTN was implemented Labour have stood for re-election and been voted back in with an increased majority. It is nonsense to argue that they don’t have a mandate to govern (which includes continuing to manage local roads).

You're doing a great job of challenging the stereotype of 'raise the colours' supporters there 'Cheeky'.

They have a mandate from the electorate to manage local roads. That’s the vote we had. A consultation exercise is not a vote. The fact that you cannot grasp this is bizarre. A consultation exercise is not a referendum and your criticising it on the grounds that it hasn’t been treated as one is ridiculous, and very boring.

Yes I understand that you want consultation exercises to be treated as if they were referenda, but they are not. And as I pointed out, what you wish was true is irrelevant to what is true. We have a system of representative democracy. They have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the electorate for the course of their elected term. They don’t need to constantly renew their mandate in relation to every individual initiative. We don’t live in a direct democracy, so constantly complaining on the grounds that the council haven’t acted as though we do, is pointless.

Just Google 'representative democracy'. They don't have to and they don't generally, run referenda on individuals schemes. A consultation is not a popular vote. This is just a basic fact of our democratic system, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

I haven't suggested that everyone at these 'demonstrations' is racist (although certainly there are some people with histories of violent racism who have been involved in organising the 'raise the colours' campaign). I do think that the demonstrations are fundamentally xenophobic in nature. Clearly there is a fear that immigrants pose a particular risk to children and others. I think this is misguided and we know that some of it is being driven by misinformation, false 'research reports' and made up data (by the likes of the 'centre for migration control', a front for Reform). No one wants a hotel used to house asylum seekers who are being held in limbo for long periods of time. But attacking the asylum seekers and setting fire to hotels isn't making that point.

Sure, let's see what happens. Certainly it sounds as though the council believes the contractors are liable. Time will tell.

You are just wrong. We live in a representative democracy. The fact that you cannot grasp this, or understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum is ridiculous. Their manifesto was titled ‘fairer, cleaner, safer’ and committed to clean air and healthy streets, and to building on the Southwark climate change citizens jury (which recommended amongst other things, a significant reduction in cars). They were returned with an increased majority. But regardless, they don't need to itemise every road scheme in their manifesto.

What are they 'demonstrating' for then? Because they've been reported as 'anti-immigration' demonstrations. Perhaps they're not that. So what are they exactly? This by the way - the suggestion that children are at risk from immigrants - is the definition of xenophobia. I don't believe there is any evidence at all that people born overseas pose a particular risk to children, compared with those born in the UK. Most violence against children occurs in the home. We do know for a fact that many of those behind the 'raise the flag' campaign have histories of violence, including domestic violence.

Nothing wrong with flying a flag, or being patriotic. But what is it you’re ’demonstrating’ against exactly? And who has organised those ‘demonstrations’? What have they got to do with patriotism exactly?

This I absolutely agree with.

I don't know all this. Children are starting school and people are scared because the children might be attacked by asylum seekers? What do you think spray painting St George flags does to make children safer? The flag campaign has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism, or about addressing male violence (many of those behind the campaign have violent criminal records themselves). It's about xenophobia, fear, and intimidation. The co-founder of the 'raise the colours' campaign, Andrew Currien, was a key member of the English Defence League’s leadership bodyguard team, and now runs security for the far-right party Britain First. He's previously been jailed for his part in a racist death. Meanwhile, Farage has been openly willing a 'summer of violence on the streets', putting on his best 'concerned face', whilst using the 'Centre for Migration Control' (actually just one man the Reform UK activist Robert Bates), to seed fake / made up statistics and 'research reports' to GB News etc. about crime and immigration. The reason that we've seen a huge increase in asylum hotels is because of the Conservatives deliberate policy of not processing applications and Farage's disastrous Brexit (which led to a massive increase in irregular immigration). We have the Right creating a crisis and then exploiting it for their advantage.

What priority are asylum seekers being given over the community? Whilst it's terrible that a girl has been assaulted, why are the criminal actions of an individual being seen as reason to attack a whole group of people? Many of those involved in the 'raise the colours' campaign have criminal histories, including domestic violence. Perhaps there should also be community outrage at that, instead of those people apparently being lionised as 'patriots'. There is a very clear attempt by the like of Farage etc. (who contributed significantly to the current 'crisis') to stir up unrest. The flag campaign has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism. I don't think anyone believes it does.

So people are upset in the delay processing applications? Great, I think we all agree that the system needs to be properly funded and that decisions made more quickly. But what's that got to do with spray painting St George's flag everywhere and why are people attacking asylum seekers and talking about 'taking their country back'?

There have always been union flags displayed all over the city (e.g. regents street, oxford street, the mall etc). They're done properly, placed appropriately, and well maintained. No one has a problem with genuine displays of patriotism. Spray painting roundabouts and hanging cheap flags from motorway bridges in response to a campaign organised by well known right wing extremists is not about patriotism and I don't think anyone really believes it is. What exactly are these concerns around immigration? They seem to be largely based on the idea that immigration is costing the economy (it actually boosts public finances and contributes to economic growth) and fears of crime (again there is no evidence that immigrants are more likely to commit crime, in fact research suggest that those born in the UK are). It's also worth noting that immigration has actually been falling. Largely, this comes down to xenophobia and racism, fed by misinformation from the usual suspects - for example the 'Centre for Migration Control' (which is actually just one person, the Reform UK activist Robert Bates), and which regularly seeds fake / made up statistics to GB News etc. which then get repeated by the Telegraph etc. It blows my mind that people like Farage, who's Brexit actually did significantly damage our economy and led to a massive rise in irregular migration, is still being given the time of day.

Southwark Council were elected with an increased majority at the last set of local election. They were voted in to manage, amongst other things, local roads. Whether you agree with how they've done that or not, it is simply false to claim that they don't have a mandate. As repeatedly explained, a consultation is not a referendum. We live in a representative democracy. I don't know how you still appear not to understand this fact. Whilst it's fair to criticise decisions the council have made, trying to infer that they are not empowered to make those decisions, or have made them illegitimately is nonsense.

From the article "The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors."

So do kings and queens

Agree with Jenijenjen. Ultimately, water is an essential resource and a natural monopoly. It should be publicly owned imo.

I take your point. But I guess if you've spent a load of money on photos to be gifted to institutions who then turn them down, it might feel you've been spurned, rather than simply declined. 🤷‍♀️

Still not an answer to the question of whether it's realistic to expect to be able to drive short journeys and park easily in zone 2 London. There is a good argument to say that prioritising resident parking (through a permit scheme) actually makes it easier for people to drive in London, as it enables them to keep a car where it might otherwise be difficult. Anyway, I don't' think it's realistic to think you should be able to drive and park easily / wherever you like, in a built up area of inner London. I didn't mention SUVs, the weight wasn't the point and I still find it funny that was the bit you took exception to. (the average car is now 1.7 tons btw, I just rounded it). Size is relevant only in so far as we're talking about allocation of space. BTW, you're the one who has obsessed over size. As I say it's funny that's the bit you've fixated on. 🤔 I haven't spun others words. Your words are recorded as are mine. As for being aggressive, you started attacking me, so I responded in kind. If you want a civil discussion, try being civil. It's just a childish rhetorical tactic he uses repeatedly to try and discredit someone when he can't engage with the substance. Where on earth did I say this?

Literally no one has argued that it 'does not say what it says'. Rockets has made objectively false claims however. Not for the first time. And first mate will defend the indefensible if it aligns with his sense of grievance over the filter. C'est la vie