Spartacus

Finds Forum Scintillating Oh Sue, you are such a trooper A SUEper Trooper in fact

Sue I'm with you on this, I've finished all the box sets I want to see and now I'm waiting for Nigello to get to the punchline of this Marathon Snickers behind hand as said and pats Yorkie on head

If the LTNs are removed , will the newspaper headlines quote "Cycle Lobby's and Councils forced to backpedal" ?

And as well as going after the street space changes, cabbies are going for uber based on illegal business activity BBC News - Uber: London cabbies plan to sue for damages https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55742569 Whilst indirectly related to the healthy streets, if they win and companies like uber are forced to withdraw or change their business practices then it may have additional positive effects on traffic volumes using main and side roads and people returning to public transport This could see lower traffic volumes occurring naturally and negating one of the key arguments for LTNs (but not all)

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was like catnip to them and they couldn't help themselves. Thank you I've now got an image of council officers wide eyed and high on nip rubbing themselves up and down on a giddy planning kipper 😻 No change from how they normally behave I suspect

Strangely both are correct ... no wonded English is so hard to learn. denier noun plural noun: deniers a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. noun a unit of weight by which the fineness of silk, rayon, or nylon yarn is measured, equal to the weight in grams of 9,000 metres of the yarn and often used to describe the thickness of hosiery.

Flag gate Or flagon as it will be known by our grandchildren !

On freeview it's channel 8 (for future references) so you may need to retune

Ex Are you saying that you are against a fair consultation on the subject ? It feels very much like you are to me from the way you try and dismiss one (of two) petitions against the LTNs (and that's just Dulwich) yet pro petitions don't generate such high numbers of signatures. Look at what happened in Crystal Palace with their petition. The local sentiment in areas where LTNs are implemented without consultation (as in the case of Southwark) is normally against them hence why there is reluctance by the council and the pro lobby to hold a formal and fair consultation. After all that's all people are really asking for, the council to hold a formal and fair consultation and agree to act accordingly based on the results.

The trumpeters are surrounded the walls of Jericho https://www.cityam.com/high-court-rules-tfls-streetspace-plan-unlawful/

Interesting You are advocating using a national report to trump local opinion If that is repeated across the whole of the country, and if the local opinion everywhere is contra to the national report will councils still say "but national... so local opinion isn't important" ? Regardless, my point is that the council needs to do proper, structured and validated consultations on the LTN or alternative options and work with the demographics not against them.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Dulwich central > > > > Can you show us a petition that represents more > > than 3000 people in an area of 11,255 residents > in > > favour ? > > > No I can't. But with respect, neither can you. > A neighbour told me that petition didn't have > postcode verification - so it could have been > signed by people outside London even. Like the one > in Kensington and Chelsea to get the cycle lane > removed there - it was signed by people Africa. :) So based on hearsay and speculation you are dismissing the petition as a "vocal minority" without providing anything to support your argument You are obviously clutching at straws to dismiss it because it doesn't support your belief that cycling is the only way forward. Maybe if you have belief in your convictions you should also be pushing for a formal and fairly presented consultation on the future of the measures and as you are so paranoid about outside influence, everyone will need to verify their address so neither side can get external support from outside the area (and I say area as the roads effected by the local dissipated traffic need to be include ) Or are you scared that if such a consultation happens you will realise that maybe you are in a vocal minority ? I'm not scared to find our and if I'm wrong so be it. Time to put your money where your convictions are.

Dulwich central Can you show us a petition that represents more than 3000 people in an area of 11,255 residents in favour ? And rockets also pointed out that the use of 1% is flawed, they weren't agreeing with you. It's not uncommon for both sides to use outside signatures and the cycling lobby often puts the message out London wide so I am afraid your argument that not everyone lives locally is negated plus how many of the people who signed live just outside the boundary but need to come into the area ? As said , and there is no denying it, a formal consultation fairly run is required.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The petition with 3000 signatures accepted > signatures from outside Southwark though didn't > it? So ex dulwicher is being generous with 1%. The pro lobby also use the same tactic and as it represents a distinct area it's not 1% of the borough but 26% of the area Your use of stats is terrible

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the council appear to have paid lip service > only to a 3000 plus signature petition. > > Southwark Council's website says that Southwark is > home to more than 314,000 people so a 3000 > signature petition is a little under 1%. > > Quite the opposite then - if they act on a 3000 > signature petition, that's ignoring the 99% of > people who haven't responded. > > Even if you focussed it right down to Dulwich Ward > (population 11,255 according to ONS: link > https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/london/wards/s > outhwark/E05011100__dulwich_village/ ) it's 26% > opposition. That's assuming of course that > everyone opposed lives/works in Dulwich Ward; the > reality is that there's always some cross platform > signatures from "outside". Oh dear So you are dismissing out of hand a petition that's equivalent to 26% of the population of the area it represents which incidentally is a lot more people than the council say wanted schemes like this. By the same argument you use, the cyclist and pro LTN lobby also uses "outside" signatures so that negates that as an argument. The council seem to play fast and loose with statistics, let's look at the response to the CPZ consultations as a clear example and yet you are dismissing a response of 26% of the area against the LTNs in favour of what percentage exactly supporting the LTN scheme ? (As they say at school, show your workings) This is exactly why a consultation is required to see what the real level of support and objections there are and then actually listen to the people or are you denying that this is needed and things will improve once drivers all take up cycling, including the elderly, disabled and otherwise physically incapacitated ?

Thanks's legal So the council appear to have paid lip service only to a 3000 plus signature petition. That's hardly listening to the public or running proper consultations. Didn't Grant Shapps say he would personally intervene where councils aren't listening to or consulting with stakeholders. This potentially could be such a case 🤔

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question > What happened to the last online petition ? Found it Closed a few weeks ago with over 3000 signatures , was there any feedback on this or was it dismissed by the council ? http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=500000049

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This reminds me of sitting outside the nurses > office at school waiting for my vaccination for > whatever (there were a few different ones in the > 1980s). > > Nothing to be worried about in the end although we > all compared marks. Lol I suspect covid vaccine scabs won't be a patch on BCG scabs

Question What happened to the last online petition ?

Thanks elloriac You gave a very balanced response, it's not a case of being bothered but more the confusion over why a group of people, who often quote the reason that they are vegan as against the use of animals for food, are marketed to by manufacturers using meaty terms or names It just seems counter intuitive and the question is, to appeal to all vegans regardless of reason, should new food names be introduced ? I agree with KK, a lot of these products are processed and that isn't good either. I'm still interested in views from both sides

I know it's so called veganuary at the moment but today I saw a product called "green cuisine chicken free dippers" that look and taste like chicken dippers Why ? If you want to eat a product that looks and tastes like chicken then chicken is the answer! If you want to be vegan then surly the point is to eat things that aren't a "meat" substitute (in name, taste or appearance) A vegan friend said its to convince meat eaters that they are eating a meaty product but is it right ? Should new names be invented for vegan products so that it's clear what they are ? Bacon could become vecon Burgers could be vamburgers Sausages could be sawdustes It directly strikes me as weird that vegans want to call their products after the associated meaty name What are others thoughts from both sides of the meat / free table ?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spartacus Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Not sure how true it is but some of the tactics > > seem to have been used in the past, especially > the > > blocking on social media. > > Everyone blocks on twitter - mainly bots/multiple > accounts as there are loads. Why do people still > accept the 8 figures as a username suffix if they > only have a single account (twitter does it > automatically these days on creating accounts but > if you love your account you'll remove it and add > something less bot like). You are right johnl but if you read the tweets of people who object to Southwarks car polices, you will see that time after time they get insulted and then blocked by the pro account. This seems a tactic often used against businesses in ED who raise objections and they often get blocked after being told how people will never shop with them again. 😱 I did have a strange thought this morning are the pro cycling lobby the social media equivalent of the old pyramid selling scheme, where the more new cyclists they sign up, the better their standing ? 😂

Hmmmm Read all the twitter thread and see if it sounds familiar in terms of how a handful of pro LTN supporters seem to work. Not sure how true it is but some of the tactics seem to have been used in the past, especially the blocking on social media.

With the covid vaccines being opened up to the clinically vulnerable and over 70s and invites being posted out (according to today's news) I hope there is a procedure in place to identify and fast track these very important letters. Although the real hope is that those who can, will be reached by other methods.

Whilst not quite ED the open our roads group in Crystal Palace are seeing how well a council engages Croydon did a consultation on the LTN in Crystal palace and over 60% of those who responded said it should be removed Councillors voted 3 against 2 to respect these wishes but now it's future is down to the sustainable cabinet member to decide if it's removed, amended or replaced with ANPR cameras that will have a side effect of raising revenue... https://twitter.com/EliskaFinlay/status/1349136663700770817?s=19 It will be interesting to watch and if Croydon don't respect the results of a consultation then it may have ramifications for any consultations run by Southwark.