Earl Aelfheah

It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately. If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.

Farmers aren't being gifted anything; Their heirs are being gifted millions of pound worth of income generating assets by chance of birth (in most cases). An estate that they have done nothing to earn. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part which is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate So to repeat my previous question... Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay any tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should pay tax?

Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate.

We're not talking about people who've bought farms. We're talking about people who have inherited multi-million pound estates, having done nothing to earn it. Why should they not have to pay some tax on that.

I'm not sure the heredity principle is the best way to encourage change, innovation and competition. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect those inheriting multimillion pound estates to pay tax on it.

Lessons from the past, don't bite the hand that feeds you. If farmers have to sell land to pay inheritance tax, then we lose food security and at the moment that isn't a good idea. Or we encourage new blood, innovation and change into an important sector

Everyone rushing to speculate on the cause. Of course we don't know. But instructive that the usual suspects want to suggest 'good reasons' why a car may have driven into a lamppost; When statistically, it's much more likely to be the result of careless / dangerous driving, the type that is commonplace. But let's assume not, try to minimise it (and perhaps post about someone cycling slowly past us on the pavement, because that's a much bigger danger).

If you've got to raise taxes, then those inheriting multi-million pound estates, landlords, second property owners, the privately educated, and wealthier pensioners (considering how they have been disproportionately insulated for many years), doesn't' seem like the most unreasonable places to do so. We can't just keep loading more and more pain on young, working renters because it's less noisy. The fact that the media are absolutely up in arms, suggests there has actually been some political bravery, and that power, wealth and influence isn't acting as an absolute inoculant to tax rises for once.

Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must. Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do

Nope. I've said the exact opposite, as you can read above. I would prefer them to use more expensive UK sourced stones. Had they done that however, you'd have criticised them for how expensive the materials were. The point is that if you are obsessively against creating a new public space in the first place, then there is really nothing they could do with it that you would approve of.

Yes you're quite right, my mistake.

I would absolutely support using UK sourced stone, but suspect that this didn't happen because of budget. The council can't really win on this, especially with those who will oppose anything they do with the square. Had the paving stones been sourced in the UK, they would have been considerably more expensive and that would have also attracted criticism from the usual posters. What I will say though is that (money and stone sourcing aside) it is a massive improvement on what was there before, will no doubt survive the test of time. It is already proving a very popular new public space, especially at school closing time. ...also note that many criticising the carbon footprint and expense (whilst not unreasonable objections to raise) would happily have it all ripped out again massively increasing both.

+ massive decrease in reliability

It's not about traffic. Just a discussion concerning improvements to the public realm. It would be great to have a new East Dulwich public square. May I assume you're supportive First Mate?

We should push to have something similar created in East Dulwich. North Cross road between Lordship Lane and Nutfield Road would be perfect. Could close to through traffic and do some landscaping, create some seating etc.

It's not finished yet. But not looking too dissimilar from the artist's impression. Come the summer I think it'll be great.

The works to re-landscape the square in Dulwich Village are set to complete this weekend I believe. Despite all the 'controversy', over its creation and legitimate questions over cost, it is in my opinion, looking great (and a huge improvement on the queue of idling cars that were constantly sat at that junction 4 years ago. A great new public space for people to sit, relax and congregate.

You claim that you haven't sought to minimise the number of car crashes that occur locally, then state that 5 crashes a week in a 5km by 2km area: This is literally minimising actual car crashes, occurring at a rate of 5 a week, across a tiny area. It is far, far too regular by any standard. No it's not. It's relaying instances of people breaking the rules whilst on a bicycle, not people being regularly hit by people on bicycles. If there were evidence of wide spread collisions, leading to personal injury, death, and destruction of property, caused by people on bicycles (as there is for motor vehicles) then you might have a point when you claim that: As it stands, it's absolute nonsense. Demonstrably so.

Research indicates that driver error is the primary cause of road collisions in the UK, accounting for an average of 67.26% of accidents annually. Among UK regions, London stands out with the highest percentage of driver error collisions, averaging 74.24%. So yes, many (most) are the result of bad driving. You have sought to minimise the number of car crashes that occur locally. Everyone can see your comments on this. For those who aren't aware, in a 5km by 2km area centred on SE22, there are 5 reported crashes every week on average. Across Southwark, 3,136 people were injured in road traffic collisions between 2018 and 2020. No one has highlighted the impact of cyclists, merely the observed incidence of rule breaking. Whilst I don't condone rule breaking, it is not in and of itself an impact. More of a nuisance and potential danger. It is not 5 cars driving in to people, or property every week and causing damage to property or injury to people. This is demonstrably, objectively untrue. And therein lies the point. It is another example of how you dismiss the data, minimise by far the biggest cause of road injuries, death, and property damage, whilst overstating the impact of people showing disregard for other whilst cycling. It is a wild misrepresentation of reality. It's a perfect example of being ideologically blinkered; something you accuse other of with apparently no sense of irony. Incredible.

Cyclists shouldn't, and don't get a free pass. As mentioned, people behaving dangerously or breaking the rules, whilst travelling by bicycle are often issued with penalty notices. Regulation of push bikes is much lower than for motor vehicles, but that's because they are considerably less dangerous to others than a heavy, fast moving, motor vehicle. There are far, far fewer examples of people travelling on bicycle actually causing serious damage to property, or injuring / killing other people. I don't have any issue with people criticising poor road behaviour, whatever the mode of transport they're using. But the slightest level of proportion / objectivity in such debates would be good. The forum has numerous threads by people who post almost exclusively about the 'dangers' of push bikes, whilst seeking to minimise the more significant road safety issue posed by cars, vans and HGVs. In particular, I do not understand why Rockets would heavily criticise / attack posters who highlights actual crashes and property damage caused by the bad driving, whilst promoting another who exclusively highlights inconsiderate behaviour by those on bicycles. It is clear to me that the only difference is the mode of transport. Rockets has also sought to minimise the number of recorded car crashes locally, and repeatedly railed against attempts to make cycling safer through road management schemes, cycle lanes etc. I am really bored, of this 'footballification', where some people use this section to 'score points' for their 'side'. The 'cars good, bicycles bad' mentality is as dumb as it is unhelpful. Anyone who genuinely cares about road safety, wants to see better road behaviour. From those on foot and travelling by bike, but especially by those travelling in cars, vans and HGVs. It is this latter category that cause the overwhelming number of serious injuries and deaths (in fact almost exclusively so). If you're one of the people who can't accept this fact, and who constantly seek to minimise car crashes / the most serious road dangers, then I'm not really interested hearing you endlessly bang on about 'dangerous cyclists', because it's not really coming from a place of interest in road safety. (I realise that I quoted you at the top of this post, but to be clear Penguin, this is not aimed at you btw).

It’s bad behaviour. It’s a bit entitled. I think you’re right to criticise it. Rockets however, has expended a lot of energy minimising actual car crashes, some of them serious, and made over 40 posts criticising Dulwich roads for highlighting them whilst promoting another poster who focusses exclusively on the type of lower level, anti-social incidents you describe (and calls people retards). Why? Because one concerns actual crashes involving motor vehicles and the other potentially dangerous or nuisance behaviour involving people travelling by pedal cycle. If you rant about rabid ideology blinding people, leading them to lose all perspective and objectivity, and then minimise any incident involving cars actually driving into things and in to people, whilst amplifying any reported misdemeanour by someone travelling on a push bike where no injury has occurred, it feels like there a massive blind spot, and not a little lack of self awareness. If one’s knee jerk reaction to any discussion of road safety is ‘cars good, bikes bad’ you’re either incredibly tribal and blinkered, or just not very thoughtful/ serious. Or you’re a troll.

@Rockets I have been clear that I don’t approve of people breaking the rules, whether travelling by bicycle or motor vehicle. But why do you repeatedly criticise one person for highlighting bad road behaviour yet applaud another who is doing the same thing (except highlighting less serious infractions as well as using offensive insults). I asked you why one is different from the other in your mind. There is someone being incredibly hypocritical, ideological and blinkered. It is not me

That HGV has illegally mounted and driven across the pavement. Why is criticising that considered unreasonable. But you repost someone who constantly seeks out low level misdemeanours by people on push bikes and calls them ‘retards’, and that’s fine? You talk about people being ‘rabid’, make 40+ posts attacking Dulwich Roads and say you hate it when Perhaps you don’t hate them personally, maybe just hate what they post and feel relaxed about people being described as rabid and as retards. Either way, I don’t think anyone is fooled by your pretence at being hurt by someone saying you hate them rather than ‘hate their posts’. I think it’s clear what the point is and clear who is being ideologically blinkered.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying? I thought the 'assuming that's true', was suggesting that as a premise it may not be true that cyclists pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car of HGV. That is how it reads to me, but happy to be corrected. On the second bit - I think it's unlikely, because cars are (rightly) regulated. That's not to say that it doesn't cause significant resentment, as amply demonstrated by the 'war on motorists' narrative and the numerous threads ranting about 'dangerous' cyclists. For the record (and as stated before) I 100% disprove of people breaking road rules, whether on a bicycle or in a motor vehicle. I don't actually see things in terms of 'cars versus bicycle', but in terms of road safety, which is why I get a bit frustrated with the tribalism and false equivalence often used by those who are really only interested in 'point scoring' for their 'side', rather than objective reality. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. [Edited to add] You could replace the word 'more lenient' with 'proportional' imo. I don't imagine anyone would suggest that bicycles, cars and HGVs should all be regulated in the same way.

Assuming that's true? Surely not even Rockets is going to claim that a bicycle poses a greater threat to others than an HGV.