Earl Aelfheah

I simply suggested that if one wants it pushed up the priority list, then getting a group of like minded people to all contact the council and express their view isn't a bad idea. It sounds as if Ab has already done this to some extent, emailing along with a load of her neighbours. But then follows it up with a strange email suggesting I should pay for the bridge for some reason, and going on about wanting to see the ducklings (perhaps a reference that's gone over my head)? Odd. I sometimes get the impression that people would rather just moan about stuff than actually try to change anything.

Eh? Why are you directing this at me? You're the one posting across multiple threads on the topic. That's an incredibly (and typically) spikey response. I just wondered whether it was just you, or on behalf of a group ('we'). As Rockets says, it may be helpful to get a group to lobby on the bridge. I suggested you might want to contact James McAsh as I've always found him responsive - but up to you. I have no interest in meeting with you in person based on the unpleasant tone of many of your posts.

Who is 'we'? I'm surprised, whenever I have emailed the council I have always got a fairly quick response. Helen Hayes is an MP, so not really the right person, but Catherine Rose should respond. Perhaps try James McAsh.

I think some of them use information from shared databases, which include crowdsourced data that updates on mobile camera locations.

I agree. You should email your councillor and ask the question.

It's an interesting one. My instinct is that it's probably a good idea in principle, but in practice, the devil is all in the detail. Need to be really rigorous protocols in place to make sure that it's properly secure, anonymised, cannot be passed on to any third parties etc.

100% agree. It would be absolutely ridiculous for us to follow Trump into this. I don't think Starmer will do that thankfully.

This happens constantly. Cars accelerate hard to overtake someone on a bicycle (often passing too close), just to break hard in front of them, to then be left behind in a queue of traffic. It's annoying, often dangerous, and always unnecessary. I think it’s perhaps because of an erroneous view that as the 'faster' vehicle they’re getting ‘held up’; which in London of course, they’re usually not.

Do you mean ‘flea darts’ (as we called them as kids)? …these:

I am ranting a bit (more just complaining). It was annoying. Perhaps you can say why you think I’ve suggested there is some sort of ‘technical difference’ / explain your response?

Agree 100% that this is an extremely dangerous escalation. That said I suspect where Starmer is concerned there is almost nothing to be gained from directly criticising Trump. His calling for deescalation and negotiation may feel weak, but is just realpolitik.

Wow, that’s crazy ”Performance data shows 70% of first-class mail was delivered on time in Croydon and 71% in Sutton, well below the legal target of 93%.” Sounds like they may have decided it’s better to pay the occasional fine than invest the money needed in improving the service.

Cycling down Crystal Palace Road this morning and a van just pulled out of a side road without looking, cutting straight in front of me. I swerved and braked, and they proceeded to shout at me. I was literally cycling straight down the road, wearing bright colours. Sometimes people look without seeing, and I’m always watching out for people like this; But the lack of an apology (or even neutral response) really annoyed me. The idea that you can just pull straight out in front of someone in a van and be annoyed at them displays a pretty incredible sense of entitlement.

Usually only responding to correct a particular monomaniac who posts over multiple, identical threads (that they’ve usually started), to discuss the 'square of obsession'. Take it up with them. Boring is probably better than being both boring and rude though, don’t you think?

The same old nonsense. Absolutely zero evidence of LTNs or CPZs increasing pollution. A fair bit showing the opposite.

It's not a listed building. Is it just me, or are there several threads with the same people posting the same things right now?

For the sake of balance, the Tories also failed to implement any of the recommendations of the previous inquiry. I'm not sure it's helpful to play party politics on this one. Nearly all parties and many different institutions have failed massively over a long period of time. Certainly Casey (who undertook the rapid review and who has recommended the inquiry) has urged people not to use it for political point scoring. As said above, at least there is now going to be a full inquiry.

like I said, don’t vote for them

This was in response to your suggestion that the council haven’t stood by their manifesto. This is your opinion, but I personally disagree. It was titled ‘fairer, cleaner, safer’ and was very clear about their commitment 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.

No one 'voted' against an LTN. Again, not a referendum.

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it.

Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/making-our-streets-greener/streets-for-people

So don’t vote for them

Read the consultation report. But again, you’re focussing on that as if it might be determinative in any way to the legitimacy of the decision. It’s not. You and Rocks are still trying to pretend that there was some sort of referendum.

No. The problem is that you still refuse to differentiate between a consultation exercise and a referendum. The former informs a decision, it doesn’t determine it. A majority did support the aims of the scheme. They objected to all manner of details. But ultimately it’s not a popular vote. Elected representatives have to consider different (and often contradictory) views / feedback, and weigh it against all the other evidence available to them (in-depth monitoring of traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling), as well as the policy agenda on which they were elected. It’s their job to make a decision and they’re held accountable for those decisions at the ballot box. Again, you’re illustrating my point. Your anger just comes from: A fundamental misunderstanding (or wilful ignorance) of how local representative democracy works and the purpose of consultation. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what you wanted. The inability to accept a decision that you disagree with, though made entirely legitimately, and talk of fascism, conspiracy and punishments for those who support a different view, is just very childish.