DuncanW

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.

No-one attacked a living human being though, and it's against both the law and 'our values' to do so. So not sure the imaginary hypothesis is the best mechanism to consider our thoughts on the real world events, which in my opinion are fairly straightforward. The action against these four was wrong, but I think the jury was the 'least best' juncture for it to be halted. The CPS should have ruled the case out as not being in the public interest, and if a jury had found them guilty the judge could and should have issued an unconditional discharge.

Hi Rockets, As I said, things can change, as they have in the past. And you are absolutely right - the ballot box is our chance to have our say. All I'm saying is exactly the same chat was on this forum a year ago, with certain people predicting that candidates opposed to LTNs would do well. That didn't happen. And I don't believe I am confusing or conflating anything. National, regional and local are all different, but will bleed into each other. I believe one example of that is the erosion of local support for the LibDems reslutant from national policy as outlined above. Labour are up in the polls, Tories down - LibDems have done well recently, but their candidates are likely to be pro-ltn anyway. So let's see what happens in May... candidate submissions are open until early April, but I don't see anyone mobilising as an Anti-LTN candidate so far, do you fancy giving it a shot?

Some contributors to this thread have short memories it would seem. There was some chat on here around this time last year about wouldn't it be great if there were a candidate in the then forthcoming mayoral election who opposed LTNs, and wouldn't they get a a lot of support. Shaun Bailey opposed LTNS, as did Farah London, Laurence Fox, David Kurten, Brian Rose and the beautifully named, Peter Gammons. You will be aware of the outcome of that election. Things could all change, of course - and despite all the guff written on here about a one-party state, etc LB Southwark was under Lib/Con control as recently as 2002-2010. Lib Dem support ebbed away coinciding with the Cameron/Clegg coalition, their support for austerity and the reversal of policy on student debt.

From LB Southwark's website Christmas tree recycling Please recycle your real Christmas tree once you're finished with it. Simply remove all decorations including any pot or stand and do one of the following: if you have a food and garden waste collection, real Christmas trees can be collected as part of your garden waste subscription collection - simply leave it by your bin on collection day, please note that trees over 6 foot long should be cut in half if you do not receive a food or garden waste collection, email environment@southwark.gov.uk stating your name and full address to request a real Christmas collection - then leave your Christmas tree for collection outside your property at ground floor level in a place that does not cause an obstruction to pedestrians or vehicles, please note that trees over 6 foot long should be cut in half if you live on an estate or in a block of flats, leave your real Christmas tree by the bin areas or bulky waste collection areas, please make sure your tree is easily accessible and not behind a locked gate or in a bin store alternatively book a permit and bring you real Christmas trees and plastic Christmas trees to the Reuse and Recycling centre on Devon Street (off old Kent Road) There is no charge for disposal of Christmas trees by any of the above methods.

Sadly... (they are enforcing a regulation to reduce pollution in a city where levels in many areas exceed legal limits, increasing the risks of heart and lung disease, and damaging children's health) Whattheactualf*)!

/forum/read.php?30,1745327,2251043#msg-2251043 Can't speak regarding his availability, but we have used Nico previously, and he has been very good.

Comedy recommendations are super-subjective... but - I really enjoyed This Country. It's not the best thing ever but if you stick with it, it has a nice narrative arc. Also - Back to Life with Daisy Haggard, two series available on iPlayer. The first one is excellent, the second one merely quite good. If you don't mind subtitles, Call My Agent/Dix pour Cent is great and on Netflix. More of a comedy/drama/soap, very watchable.

Heartblock - you're right, there is common ground in that most of us want less pollution and congestion = less cars. There have been a couple of contributors who have pretty much said they don't care - let's consider those as outliers. I'm not sure about the viability of all your suggestions though: Banning fossil fuel cars - yes 100%, but it won't happen in the next ten years. Too big a job. One car per household - just seems really impractical to enforce, what about shared flats/houses - families with grown-up children etc..? Road charging is an option, but are you suggesting only on certain types of road - like EDG? How is that fair? All the main roads in Southwark are also residential, OKR, Camberwell(S), Walworth etc... - you could extend C-charge to the ULEZ I suppose, but good luck to any authority that tries to implement that By the way, I would be entirely happy with a 'new world' where all those things were reality - I'm just doubtful they can be implemented in the time-frame needed.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I wasn't asking why is it some people see the bad cyclists, but not all the good ones? Your cinema analagy works well to rebutt that, but it wasn't my point. Moreso, why is it that some people see and complain about bad cyclists all the time, but much less so about bad motorists. Noted that you then go on to detail some poor car driving that you've seen. But it seems that there is a cohort that notice and complain about bad cycling much more readily - and this is in inverse proportion to the harm caused.

You're absolutely right Rockets, there are bad eggs who drive cars and ride bikes, I've seen some silly pedestrians too. Some people only see the bad cyclists though, and I can't for the life of me understand why that is... By the way, if you are worried about hitting a cyclist as they are not lit up, wait until you hear about these 1.5 tn lumps of metal people have started leaving on the side of the road everywhere :)

I think 'Sheeple' was ironic - as in anyone who is foolish enough to belive in the data being offered by the council and the experts they employ is Sheeple - Only 'we'* with our tin foil hats firmly in place can see the through the matrix etc etc... *you

Oh okay - I go OKR to Wells Way sometimes and it's a bit scary at night.

Burgess Park isn't even lit at night is it?