Earl Aelfheah

Think it might be to do with rents, yes. I agree it?s a shame.

Just red that thread by the Secret Barrister ?. It?s an excellent, and very clear appraisal of the issues. Thanks for sharing.

Just pedestrianise Oxford Street if they want to ?reinvigorate? it. Most provincial high streets in England removed traffic decades ago and yet London?s ?premier shopping street?, is still a congested, polluted, mess.

Heaven forbid anyone would want traffic calming measures!

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When they donlt align....where is the line? Who > gets to decide which laws and which values takes > precendence over the other? Ultimately, a jury of 12 do.

couldn't agree more re. the CPS. How anyone could think this prosecution was in the public interest is beyond me.

Blimey. That's a crazy Christmas. Sorry you had such a tough time Fox. Hope you're on the mend.

@cat - that?s a reasonable post. But ultimately, how is leaving the single market and the customs Union not going to make the country poorer. We?ve made trade with our biggest and closest market more difficult. We are now a solitary nation trying to negotiate trade deals from a position of weakness. In terms of influence - I don?t see how Brexit can possibly be considered to have made us more highly regarded internationally, or to have increased our power on the world stage. So how one can be said to have more control with less power, less influence and less ability to shape one?s environment, I don?t get. If you can explain it to me, I?m all ears. And of course there is then the very personal issue of having individual rights and freedoms restricted by the government. It is on any measure, hugely regressive. My sister moved to the EU as a young adult, where she got various jobs and eventually built a career, got married and is now expecting a baby. My own children, growing up today do not have the same opportunities. Of course it won?t effect the wealthy, but many people have had opportunities snatched from them. And for what? To make us poorer, more divided, less influential. If you can tell me how it doesn?t do those things, how we?re going to be richer, more powerful, less divided, and have more individual rights and freedoms resulting from Brexit, again I?m all ears.

The council haven't 'eroded the democratic process'. They've shown a degree of ineptitude, especially in their communications. But they have consulted and then they have taken a decision. They have explained that position. Ultimately, people can vote them out if they disagree.

@Rockets - I commented on the fact that there were (quote): ??a small number of idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with their bags and placards?. I have apologised for saying ?idiots?. I was irritated by it at the time because I was cycling with my kids. You and a few others decided to attack me over this at the time. Saying variously that: I made it up - that there were only protesters on the pavement (not true, someone else produced photos). Accused me of not living in the area (I've been on this forum since '07) Of putting my own children in danger by cycling through the village Suggested that it was fine to block the entrance to the square from the main road anyway (even though apparently this also didn't happen). Called me a troll ...and yes, ridiculously tried to pretend that the quote above is me abusing the elderly. Apparently the accusation has now expanded to suggest that I have also insulted the disabled. People can see this thread and they can see that I have done nothing of the sort. It?s completely untrue. You have now gone back to again calling me a liar. There is a clear, demonstrable lie that has been repeatedly made in this thread. You have stoked it. And both times I have pointed it out, you?ve encouraged a personal attack on me. Your behaviour is pretty transparent and pretty cynical.

You're spot on Exdulwicher.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dougiefreeman Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jenijenjen Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > dougiefreeman Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Seriously? > > I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people > turning off the main road' I explained the context > of this. > > There were a few people who decided to block my > daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her > stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on > her bike). This was a few thoughtless people. > You've decided to say they were elderly and > disabled, although they weren't, to try and > reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and > dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable > people'. It's about as cynical as one can be. > > To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled' > is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue. I will apologise for referring to anyone as an idiot - not really necessary. I should have just said a few 'inconsiderate people'. The point stands however.

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenijenjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > dougiefreeman Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > @rahx3 > > > You?re really not in any position to demand > > > apologies when you yourself refused point > blank > > to > > > apologise for publicly insulting a group of > > > predominantly elderly and disabled folk? > > > #idiotsgate > > > > Can you point us in the direction of the post > > where he did this. Or did he just disagree with > > them. > > > Sure. Page 221. > > Legalalian wrote: "Seems to be an anti LTN protest > at he closed junction this morning." > > To which rahx3 responded: "Yep, a small number of > idiots blocking the right turn for cyclists with > their bags and placards." > > > The protest was comprised of predominantly elderly > and disabled people who were peacefully protesting > following major disruption to their lives as a > result of the LTNS and other measures. This was > following unsuccessful attempts to have their > concerns heard (let alone valued) by Southwark > Council. > > You can read on from there to see how Rahx3 > responded to the varying comments made on this > reaction. Seriously? I said there were a 'few idiots blocking people turning off the main road' I explained the context of this. There were a few people who decided to block my daughter's exit from the main road (leaving her stuck out in the middle of two lanes of traffic on her bike). This was a few thoughtless people. You've decided to say they were elderly and disabled, although they weren't, to try and reframe criticism of their inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour as 'attacking vulnerable people'. It's about as cynical as one can be. To say that I 'insulted the elderly and disabled' is completely disingenuous, and completely untrue.

Kanella & Co

dougiefreeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rahx3 > You?re really not in any position to demand > apologies when you yourself refused point blank to > apologise for publicly insulting a group of > predominantly elderly and disabled folk? > #idiotsgate Suggesting that I've insulted the elderly and the disabled is completely untrue.

@legalalien It?s not that confusing. Look at scopus. It gives details of publications and the journals they?ve been published in, (as well as h-index and citations if you?re interested). You can see that Professor Aldred has well over 25 peer reviewed articles. https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=24068404200 It does matter a lot in academia by the way, as Heartblock will well know. It is completely out of order to impugn someone?s academic credentials by misleading others over their outputs. It is not the same thing as critiquing the research itself, which is of course entirely legitimate. As for implying that someone?s research conclusions are being manipulated to meet the needs of a funder, that is an accusation of research misconduct and about as serious as it gets in HE. I wouldn?t have made such a big thing about it, but he?s insisted on doubling down and I really do think it?s time he retracted his comments. I won?t say anymore because it?s boring. But hope he will do the right thing and correct the record.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just googled and it?s confusing, either 50+ or > 25+ > > https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/cyclingevent/index.php > /programme/rachel-aldred/ > > https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/trustees/dr-rac > hel-aldred > > But given peer review seems to be such an > amorphous concept and vary across disciplines does > it really make a difference? ?No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers? I cannot deal with inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, I speak as a scientist with many international peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets is Rockets...ha ha not sure quite how to > take that.... > > Anyway, what many people struggle with in respect > to Rachel Aldred is that she led policy for the > London Cycling Campaign, which has been > instrumental to lobbying councils for LTNs, and > now writes research reports, many of which are > funded by TFL or organisations set up by TFL, > that tell everyone how good LTNs are. > > That is a glaring and obvious conflict of > interest. So if TFL commissions independent academic research it?s automatically compromised? What are you talking about? You don?t want them to fund research into transport in London? In truth, you are questioning her probity and effectively accusing her of research misconduct. Make a proper complaint if you believe it and present the evidence that she has acted improperly so that it can be investigated, instead of the online smears and innuendo. Heartblock has denied that she is an academic with over 25 peer reviewed papers, (in response to a general thread questioning her credentials). As someone who claims to be an academic of some standing and who has implored others not to attack the person, but to look at the data, it?s actually outrageous. I invited him to simply acknowledge that he has made a misleading statement about another?s academic output. But he insists first on doubling down and repeating it, then trying to reframe his accusation in a way tagt is quite disingenuous, and lastly has tried to deflect and ?move on?. It?s not good enough.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shall we keep on topic about local LTNs? Maybe > someone could explain the EDAus why their road is > now the driveway and parking area for Melbourne's > Waitrose and Ocado deliveries? Perhaps you should acknowledge that you have made an entirely false statement about another persons Academic output first.

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rahrahrah > Considering that your source article (Wikipedia) > was created by none other than Rachel Aldred > herself then it lack as certain credibility. > > She is quite clearly a lady with a certain agenda. I have no idea what this means. What Wikipedia article?

@heartblock Just to remind you. Rockets, claiming that cycling in London has been in decline over recent years 🙄, said: ??Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) info from TFL.? I pointed out in response, that ?Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at the University of Westminster with over 25 peer reviewed papers.? Rockets continued to question her credibility and to make insinuations regarding her funding, and then said: ??I can't stand another discussion on what awaiting peer review means.....? I repeated that: ?She has over 25 peer reviewed papers. They're not 'awaiting peer review'.? And then you chipped in with: ?No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers? I cannot deal with inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, I speak as a scientist with many international peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.? Rockets is Rockets. But you claim to be an academic. You?ve made a big show of your status as a scientist, mocking others for their lack of analytical rigour. I don?t think it is right for you to keep doubling down on minimising Professor Alfred?s output, or the inference that her funding is somehow dodgy. You?re now trying to pretend that the claim was that Professor Aldred has published 25 peer reviewed papers specifically on LTNs. It?s not very subtle. This is not what was claimed. You were denying her academic output in an attempt to undermine her credibility, along with Rockets.

I?m sorry Heartblock, but I am just not going to let you get away with that again. When I pointed out that Rachel Aldred was a serious academic with more than 25 peer reviewed papers, you claimed that ??there are articles and there are peer reviewed articles? and then went on the say ??I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.? You?ve made a big show of your status as a scientist, mocking others for their lack of analytical rigour. I don?t think it is right for you to keep doubling down on your denial of Professor Alfred?s output (which I linked to earlier I. The thread and is there for anyone to see), or the inference that her funding is somehow dodgy.

Just to wind up TheCat a bit more- I saw a tweet pointing out that ?the oven ready deal has just been defrosted?

On the actual data - does it show a reduction in vehicles travelling last the school both on EDG and Melbourne Grove South, or not? Last week you were claiming the opposite and using it as an argument for why the LTNs should be removed. Happy to discuss the data too, but only in the context and with an acknowledgment of the wider body of evidence. I?m not going to get in to conspiracy theories that seem to suggest that the count data has been faked.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? > papers. Yes I am going but cannot deal with > inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There > are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, > I speak as a scientist with many international > peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid > or employed by the organisation paying for the > research, unlike Rachel. 🤔