Newton

I?m genuinely sorry to see James go. Long time readers will know we haven?t always seen eye to eye, but I voted for him yesterday and would again. A genuine loss to the community.

Called Lee to handle a leak in our loft. He came in, explained the options to us and fixed the problem in the shower and thoroughly checked his fix. This involved breaking some tiles (which he had warned us about before he arrived) and he recommended a builder to fix that. Overall, very happy and will use him again.

So, let's be clear, the DCC are still considering proposals for dealing with the volume of traffic in Melbourne Grove (south) whilst the council are simultaneously proposing to make the problem worse? If I lived on Melbourne Grove I'd be feeling pretty aggrieved right now. I'm sure that encouraging parents to use public transport will make a difference of up to one car a day.

I decided to leave this alone a while ago, but I can't help pointing out the irony of people appealing to Human Rights who clearly don't care about actual humans. :)

1) panda boy: you are completely correct and I unreservedly apologize. I should have done a bit more research before posting. To be clear, I have exactly no problem with people wanting to preserve the site as it currently stands (or have any other reason for opposing the councils actions). Sorry. 2) Otta: I'm sorry if you dislike the phrase "harasser of women", but the problem is, I'm not even being rude or abusive when saying it, I'm just being descriptive. Here's the first definition I found on the internet: > the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands Now, here's the crucial point here: you don't get to pick whether or not it's harassment. The test isn't whether it's annoying you, the test is whether it's annoying Sue. So maybe start listening to her rather than trying to mansplain your misunderstanding of the term. And frankly, if you believe it's OK to publish some people's personal information on twitter just because it's possible for someone to get the information from the internet... you have no idea exactly how much information is on the internet.

> In the interests of keeping this thread focussed on the original issue Nice way of sounding high minded whilst supporting a known, unrepentant harasser of women. You can't have a civilised debate when one side is going beyond the bounds of civil society. I mean, if Sue is big enough to engage with you politely, that's extremely big of her, but she frankly doesn't owe you anything. You want the issue of harassment to go away? How about this for an approach: make the harassment go away or eject and condemn the perpetrator. Otherwise, frankly, I find your use of the word "reasonable" to be laughable.

mynamehere said > no legal case to answer, a tempest in a teapot Let me ask a rhetorical question, what's the fundamental standard for the behaviour of decent people? You know a) It does not cause harm or distress to others b) You don't think the other people are important c) It's going to get you in trouble with the law The answer for those who don't know is the first one: a. b and c are how mynamehere has characterised it. Dismissal is a powerful rhetorical device, but it doesn't make the person employing it correct. It really doesn't matter if you can get 60 people to turn up to support a harasser of women or 600, _it's wrong_. Denial is not an answer. johnie said > Why? I'll answer johnie's question here: because what's being said here makes him feel uncomfortable. Some people would rather smash the mirror than look at their reflection.

> Some might say that someone saying that someone "deserves to have children spit in your face on the street" hardly makes them a bastion of pleasantness, joy and enlightenment. Here's the problem with tone-policing: I can either express my legitimate anger and disgust at Lewis' behaviour, or I can moderate it at the cost of blunting my point. So what I said stands: his actions are disgusting > And you've based that on three tweets? It only takes one tweet to specify a woman's exact name, where to find her and link her to a subject a lot of people feel strongly about to your 2500 followers. That's the beauty of the internet (if you like harassing people). > But you obviously have strong feelings on this, for reasons I don't know as yet. I've spent a fair bit of time listening to the victims of internet harassment campaigns. It's one of the most disgusting things you can do that's unlikely to land you in jail. > Very little in life actually is black and white: most things are actually shades of grey. Yes, and unfortunately people who deal in black like to exploit that. > PS And stop making me defend Lewis. It makes me feel strange and uncomfortable. a) LOL and b) trust that feeling :)

> let's not extrapolate that out to him being some sort of monster roaming the countryside. Hi Loz, please don't take this as an personal attack, because it's not meant as such. Please _do not_ feel sorry for Lewis. In cases like this there's an harasser and there's a victim. There's really no shades of grey. Unfortunately, it's part of human nature to perceive someone calling out the harasser as an attack in itself. The thing is, people like this aren't actually uncommon. They're often charming, but they've learned that they can cross the line and that the heavens don't fall down on them. Everything I've read on this thread is _way_ too familiar to me, sad to say. So no, he's not roaming the countryside, but I do think people like that make life worse for everyone and they're best excluded. Anyway, I'll let everyone return to their discussion.

Only, he's not having a spat Sue on Twitter, he's harassing her. There's a difference. The fact that you think this is consistent with his behaviour over a _four year period_ confirms that this is part of a pattern. Since you're now trying to defend doxing, I'll just link you the entire geek feminism article on the subject and let you read it at your leiusre. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Outing Short version: you getting upset about some trees doesn't trump her right to privacy. With that said, I think it's fairly clear that you're not really interested in right and wrong here. Everything you've said has been to attack the player, not the ball. I can spot silencing tactics from a mile away, and it suggests to me that you're not prepared to engage Sue on the issues. Oh yeah, and don't think I didn't spot your attempt at DARVO as well.

I'm not sure I can think of anything that has got me angrier on the forum than reading this. Let's be absolutely clear: the internet isn't magic. If you're a garbage person on-line, you're a garbage person in real life. And if any of you associate with Lewis during or after this, you're part of the problem. Seriously, if you care more about some trees than an actual real live woman getting harassed you deserve to have children spit in your face on the street. If you want to continue your campaign, fine, but get him out of your group. Oh and one last thing for women associating with Lewis, don't think that because you're not the target this week you won't be next.

So, I see that the pro-barrier group has signally failed to actually engage local residents again, but has found time to get another article in the Southwark News which basically decides to attack the player rather than the ball. This all while they've been "too busy" to meet with EDAus or anyone else from the resident's delegation. Seriously, the councillors wonder why everyone is so upset while Melbourne Traffic Action are publishing hit pieces aimed at members of the resident's delegation. You'll note that half of the article uses wording that comes _directly_ from MTA, a group that has repeatedly misrepresented what's going on. They also manage to completely omit to mention that Robin is a Melbourne Grove resident herself. I think it's fairly clear Southwark News can't be trusted to report on this issue.

3.1.b already has the answer to your question in the first sentence: there's an established process, let's use it. One of the major problems people have with the study is that it seems to be focussed on one problem in an area with multiple problems. For instance, as you know there's a bunch of (formerly Iceland, soon to be M&S) lorries thundering down Melbourne Grove. But they're coming from Chesterfield Grove, and there's nothing in this proposal that suggests this would do anything other than move those lorries off one small stretch of Melbourne. Whereas in fact the problem needs attacking where it starts in Chesterfield. I'm _not_ saying there isn't a problem. Just that there's more than one problem. And if we're going to look part of it, we need to look at all of it.

@rch: if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Melbourne Grove would be considered a primary diversionary road for 40/176/185? And, if that's the case, they're likely to object to pretty much any measure we propose? e.g. Full-with bumps, the barrier proposal, one way &c? (Not that I see how you could possibly run those buses both ways down that street.)

If I recall correctly, when Ashbourne Grove residents were petitioning for a barrier, the average car speed was 25 miles an hour and the road was getting completely torn up, there was no study even proposed and the council provided no support. Instead they were told that access was vital for emergency services. And now I get to find out that someone's saying they've "contacted me" 4 or 5 times by reading the forum. And apparently the emergency services no longer serve the area.