Earl Aelfheah

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

Yes.

🥱 Absolutely embarrassing.

I am not the one using weasel words. I pointed out that you can’t live in zone 2 London and expect to be able to drive short journeys and park easily. I asked if you think this is realistic? You responded by mocking an obvious typo and to answer that: That’s pretty slippery. How about answering the question asked instead of a different one? I didn’t ask whether it was realistic to want to drive in zone 2 London. I assume you do see the difference? 🥱 Haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough today Rocks Just because someone has an opinion you don’t agree with, doesn’t mean they’re a ‘lobbyist’. It’s really about time you looked the word up.

Ok, a 1.7 ton princess carriage (weight of an average car). The weight wasn’t actually the point but it’s hilarious that’s the bit you’ve taken issue with. 🤷‍♂️ I can and you seem to forget that anyone can look back and read it. There is a difference between saying you want be able to drive a car in zone 2 and saying that you should be able to “drive short journeys and park easily” in zone 2 London. You deliberately avoided the question because presumably you know it’s not realistic to think everyone can drive short journeys and park where they like, without difficulty.

Oh that’s brilliant. 👏 That wasn’t the question. I’m not the one suggesting it should be possible to make short journeys in a two ton air conditioned princess carriage and park it with ease anywhere I like in zone 2 London. Maybe you just have to accept that the world doesn’t revolve around you and that we all have to share the space available.

I’m not telling people where to live. I’m pointing out tagt you can’t live in zone 2 London and expect to be able to drive shirt journeys and park easily. You think this is realistic?

If you have mobility issues, then there is disabled parking. If not, you can get the bus, walk, cycle, or if coming from further afield, get the train to ED station. If you really need to drive, then parking can be (as it's always been), difficult. You are right that there is not enough space for everyone to park wherever they want. If you're picking up a large item there are plenty of loading bays. If you want to live in an area where you can drive short local journeys and park easily, then truth is you probably do need to move out of zone 2 London. You think people should be driving to a school with the catchment of Charter? If you're visiting a resident, then they can give you a visitors permit I believe.

You’re wrong. Cross reference the stats. Your error is a classic example of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to understand the data, you’re only attending to information that might align with your pre-held belief. Here is a clue. If you click on the street level data and see that the overall crime rate on Calton Avenue near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level, but the high level summary (which appears on a different page) states that it's a high crime area - you should question that. So the first thing you might do is look at whether they use the same source data. They don't. One is using street level crime data, the other OFS area data. Look at how the OFS analyse it and you see that they're cutting the data at Local Authority level. A quick cross reference against both the available data for Southwark and that for Dulwich Village ward respectively, and it's clear that the 7/10 figure (along with the other summary data) is taken for the whole borough. The relevant, street level data, shows that Calton Avenue is a low crime area. There is no evidence of the filter having made the area less safe.

That 7/10 figure is for Southwark. I’m not going to keep spoon feeding you. Fundamentally, if you’re looking for data to try and prove something you already, wrongly believe, you’re always going to get to an incorrect answer. Dulwich has 75.9 crimes per thousand resident population. This can be rated as 3 out of 10 or low crime level compared to other local areas in England and Wales. Annual total crime rate in Southwark is 129 per thousand population, which can be rated as 7 out of 10 or high crime level compared to other local authority districts in England and Wales. The fact is that crime here is not just low against the national average, but remains so in the context of a high crime Borough.