DuncanW

Peckham Rye Common and Park is already significantly subdivided for different sections of the local community to use and by definition to the exclusion of others - some temporary, periodic, some permanent The Common gives over a large amount of space to Aussie Rules Football in the summer Zippo's Circus and Carter's Steam Fair are regular vistors There is a cafe that is for paying customers only Friends of Peckham Rye fold an annual fete There is an annual 10K running event A play park A car park The Park has ParkRun every Saturday morning and marked out football pitches where local teams play A bowling green - not currently in use A gated off picnic area An adventure playground and a younger kids' play park Changing rooms for the football A skate park An outdoor gym The point being, none of us have free rein to use all areas of this wonderful open space at all times as it stands, and it's been this way for long time. Why can't we live together?

I follow David Allen Green and normally think he is spot on. Didn't agree with that take particularly. There may always be Boris Johnson types floating around, but in common with another bete noir, Jeremy Corbyn - I would argue it is rare that these types ascend to lead their respective parties. As much as I don't have any particular fondness for any previous Conservative prime ministers, Boris is a one-off when it comes to his personal moral compass and conduct. Cressida Dick, apart from her personal characteristics, was very much in the mould of those who preceded her. She held the remit for changing the culture within the Met. From the outside looking in, it very much seems she has failed to get to grips with that. For me, the parallel is probably closer to Jeremy Corbyn and his handling of antisemitism within the Left of the Labour Party. There just seems to be a complete denial on the scale of the issue.

About time too!

Ken, I'm really not sure that was what SpringTime was getting at. It's not clear, and ST hasn't taken the opportunity to clarify.

I'm still not sure, if I'm honest.

His actions are disgraceful. Not sure what his religion has to do with it. Maybe you would care to expand on that point?

Sorry Rockets, perhaps not the best choice of phrase. I don't suppose you'd care to respond to the substance of the post and walk me through how you saw a cyclist trying to smash a car wing-mirror in that clip... and how an angry slap on a car window is much the same as throwing a glass bottle at someone.

No, not as far as I can see. The cyclist kind of slaps the car window. You represented that as him trying to 'smash the drivers door and mirror' - that is patently not true. The cyclist then gets back on his bike to ride away and the driver throws a glass bottle at him. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume there had been an incident prior to this exchange. You can argue that doesn't excuse the cyclists behaviour but if you think that slapping a car window in anger is on parity with throwing a glass bottle at someone, quite frankly you need your head looking at.

"No compulsion to use it" is not a narrative - it's written into the Highway Code. I get that you don't like it though. There are all sorts of reasons why a cyclist may not be in the segregated cycle-lane - none of them excuse dangerous driving, do they?

From memory, it's normally 10:30pm

The road *is* safer when there is a dedicated cycle-lane. They separate vulnerable cyclists from heavier and faster road traffic. That doesn't equate to dictating that cyclists must use them all the time. When I am on my bike, I use them when I think it's better to, and there are occasions when I feel safer, or safe enough, using the main carriageway.

Once in the road, did she not have priority over a car under the old version of the Highway Code anyway? It seems like the OP certainly afforded her that consideration. I'm assuming the OP was the driver of a car that had to stop for her. Had they seen her in ample time to stop, which I take to be the case, but not done so, they would have been at fault anyway. My understanding of the change regarding 'People Crossing the Road at Junctions' is that now 'when people are crossing or waiting to cross at a junction, other traffic should give way' - it's the waiting to cross part that is significant. So if a pedestrian is stood at the side of the junction between NX Road and Lordship Lane wanting to get from The Palmerston to Superdrug (maybe to get some Alka Seltzer) cyclists and drivers wishing to turn into NXR from LL now need to stop to allow them to cross.

I agree with you. It was an awful thing to say and only served to make him look desperate.

I think Johnson is a liar and admire Blackford for saying so. Dawn Butler also. I don't think there's anything wrong with the rules though. If Johnson is found to have misled the house, he would need to resign - I believe that is written into the ministerial code. The rules cover that. His comments about Starmer were unsavoury, but not sure it's a lie to point out that he was DPP when the CPS failed to prosecute Saville. It wasn't his decision but he was in charge. In the past, Johnson has fallen foul of taking the wrap for a 'subordinate' when a leader was written in The Spectator when he was editor that made vile and untrue claims about the Hilsborough tragedy. He was made to apologise by Michael Howard. Parliament is rambunctious enough without MPs calling each other liars and the ilk during the sessions. It can be hard to prove and subjective, plus it wouldn't be tolerated in most professional workplaces, certainly not anywhere I have worked in recent years. If anything, the removal from the chamber serves Blackford (and the country) well as it draws attention to and amplifies his assertion, that Johnson is a liar. Which he most certainly is.

It does look great and hopefully this will be a big step forward,and important keystone in reinvigorating an area that has its issues, as Nigello says above.

The tunnel is being financed by a private sector consortium - they will be paid back over a 25 year period with that money being generated by user-charging.

Raeburn Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant > increase > > in car ownership within it's boundaries..... > > Curious, where are you reading this? And what is a > significant increase? > > I'm using google, but can't find anything that > remotely supports this, but points to the > opposite. At best: "Now, it couldn't be mistaken attribution of causation Born of a coincidental (temporal) correlation"

Could it possibly be a combination of factors? Including... that a large number of office workers, who are most likely to cycle-commute, are not going to their offices as frequently. People are choosing to drive for journeys where they may previously have used public transport, but feel safer (from Covid) in their own personal space. Online shopping has been increasing for years but has accelerated during Covid times meaning more delivery vans on the road. Motorised vehicular traffic isn't going to go away completely, no-one is saying that. But we need to be trying to reduce it...

There's a lot to read on the subject - it might be slightly less time-consuming to have attended the actual trial :) I found it interesting that the same barrister blogger who details the legal routes to a not guilty verdict after the trial, posted this beforehand: https://barristerblogger.com/2020/06/08/the-colston-statue-destroyers-have-no-defence-in-law-but-they-will-never-be-convicted/

Cat - would you like to have seen them convicted of something?

They're not narrow margins - even in Dulwich Village

Fair enough, I take your point. You're absolutely right that the jurors make their own judgement on the prosecuting case being 'beyond reasonable doubt' by their own rationale. What I would underline in this case is that the defendants made no claim that they weren't physically responsible for the damage to the statue. So where does that leave us? It may not have been destroyed but it was certainly damaged. The quote from the Guardian was meant to illustrate the central thrust of the closing argument of the defence. It wasn't presented as being the complete argument.

Shhhh!! :) :)

Good point!! No, not currently. It's now meant to be going up in her home-town of Grantham. The council approved it and a plinth has been built.

We may not be in a position to know the minutiae of the jury's deliberations. What we do know is they were asked to consider the arguments of both the prosecution and defence. They went with the defence. The summary of the defence's case is brief and widely available. From The Guardian: 'In closing statements following the nine-day trial, the defence had urged jurors to ?be on the right side of history?, saying the statue, which stood over the city for 125 years, was so indecent and potentially abusive that it constituted a crime.' The defendants did not contest that they damaged the statue. The jury deliberated for just over three hours. So it seems reasonably straightforward - albeit unusual. What is very difficult though, near impossible, is trying to second-guess what this might mean for other real or imaginary cases. Quite obviously, if you damaged a statue of Churchill, Maggie Thatcher, Nelson Mandela or whoever - or throw a living person into Bristol Dock, this verdict would have little or no bearing.