snowy

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could Southwark Council be accused of structural > discrimination... I think so. > https://twitter.com/rosamund_elsfdn/status/1350906 > 689969598471?s=21 Hmm wasn?t he suspended from the Labour Party for saying that ?there no basis for the Jewish race?? His paper is on Liveable Streets - which are slightly separate from the LTN implementation - liveable streets was a Tower Hamlets / TFL initiative.

We will have re-entered the EU before any of that gets built.

Trinnydad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > snowy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It?s a different view, and an idiotic one. > > I guess you are too young have been around in the > immediate post WW2 period to appreciate the > sentiments then. This snip from Wiki might help > you understand the ant-war sentiment at the > time...... > > ""The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign > minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to > prevent further war between France and Germany. He > declared his aim was to "make war not only > unthinkable but materially impossible"[3] which > was to be achieved by regional integration, of > which the ECSC was the first step."" > > The ECSC morphed into the Common Market (a very > sensible idea) however the dreamers in Brussels > wanted to fast track towards political integration > so they morphed it in to the European Community > and then further into the European Union. > > So it's origins were deeply rooted in anti-war > feelings and historic resentment (particularly in > France) against the British. Hence de Gaule's oft > repeated "Non". > > So not as idiotic as you might think. Churchill proposed the Council of Europe in 1946 - you can read that speech online citing Aristide Briand as part of the inspiration- due to his work on the Locarno Treaties. So yes, I think your interpretation is blinkered.

It?s a different view, and an idiotic one.

n dulwich northerner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And no mention of bad road layouts causing > congestion and delays to emergency services. Except that the London Ambulance Service just told the London Assembly that LTNs had no impact on response times: unless you know something different:

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s going to become even more complicated soon as > the traffic displaced from DV and Turney/Burbage > goes over the border into Lambeth, I suspect. I > gather there are some skirmishes between Bromley > and Croydon going on. Except that Lambeth Councillors last week voted 54-5 in favour of continued support for active travel. Of that five there were 4 Green abstentions, 1 Tory objection.

Barclays closing their account is more likely to do with their concerns that the activity of the charity is not in line with charity law.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Looks like we have these closures for a minimum of > six months. > > Per yesterday's OneDulwich update which I have > pasted from their email: > > On 19 June, decision-maker Councillor Livingstone > said, ?The measures are flexible as the > experimental nature of the trial allows us to make > amendments and changes within the first six > months.? But he seems to have changed his mind. In > a recent email to One Dulwich on 12 September, he > says, ?The council has stated that we will review > the permeable filter trial after its six months? > The current scheme has only been in place for two > months and we do not believe that this is a > sufficient period within which to fully assess > whether it has been a success.? > > In neighbouring Wandsworth, the council has acted > more quickly, and has decided its scheme isn?t > working. The planters are being removed this week. > In Ealing, Islington and Lambeth, thousands of > people turned out this weekend to protest against > road closures. Transport minister Grant Shapps > ([email protected]), who gave the funds to > local councils to put in emergency measures, said > in the Telegraph last week that some of the trials > hadn?t worked, ?We?re also telling councils that > now the height of the emergency has passed, > there?s time to consult people more. Where some > councils have abused the cash, my message is > clear: speak to local residents, get it fixed or > no more cash.? > > Unfortunately, Southwark Council seems intent on > listening to lobbyists from outside the area, and > a vocal minority who personally benefit from road > closures, rather than the majority who live and > work in and around Dulwich. There were 100 protesting people in Lambeth on Saturday- definitely not thousands

niledynodely Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a child is vulnerable, for example he or she > has suffered abuse at home or whatever, and they > are then confronted with images of splayed legs, > cross-sections of penises in vagines (e.g YOu, me > and PSHE) or cartoon images of people engaged in > sexual intercourse (Spring Fever), I think that > there is a liklihood that these images and the > context could trigger inappropriate behaviours > (which are called sexual abuse although I would > not be so quick to call them that - the authories > would). For me this seems such an obvious risk I > think that the onus should be on the providers of > the material to prove that this won't happen. Of > course it can't be scientifically tested one way > or another, but rates of child on child sexual > abuse have gone up in schools and my hunch is that > some of the more sexualised curriculums have a > role to play. So no proven / evaluated research then.

But you haven?t spent a serious amount of time studying abstinence based RSE programmes - as the longitudinal analysis of American programmes (evaluated by researchers with a range of ideological standpoints) demonstrates there?s little provable attributable impact. You just cherry pick research from conservative religious groups with their own agenda and interests which conveniently suit your personal interpretation of catholic tenets. If you claim to be an academic, please provide some peer reviewed sources. Otherwise the danger is that you look to be promoting bigotry for personal gain. It also looks like this is less about your children?s education and more about your own personal issues around sex and relationships. Also ?heteronormative? - I honestly pity you and your life experience that led you down that the path - it?s a word that is textbook homophobia- a belief in a hierarchy of sex and it?s application is rightly illegal under uk law.

I guess she?s here as no one is listening to her views on twitter - her account is a small bubble and some sock puppets. She?s like a quasi academic version of Uncle glen, and even he?s more liberal than her on LGBT rights.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would suggest a dice game with your 13yr old > children, invite your friends to let them see how > open minded you are so 2020. Who knows with > everything so open and moved on, and we know its > nothing to kids these days with internrt porn etc > who knows the age of consent may be needing > reviewed. > I cannot believe there is no concern over some of > the content for children. Its ridiculous. If > parents are happy to have there kids playing a > game like the dice game, I would say, buy it > yourself for ?75 and teach yourself whatever > educational lessons you pick up from it. > Thanks Niledynodely. Its good to know people are > making people aware of this weird shit. I can't > imagine why 13yr old need to discuss retrievable > objects in the anus. Children who have/are being > abused, hearing some of these suggestions for > conversations may feel confused further by there > own feeling of sexuality which may be very > different from children who have not encountered > sexual abuse. There is room for change and more > openess but this should be done very carefully and > with thought for all differences. Do we really > need children to be put into situations where they > are seen as open/bigoted if they dont wish to > speak nor hear about what people want to do with > there tongues and an anus. > Since this was posted in family room I have been > speaking with family and friends and I've not met > one person that thinks this is appropriate or > helpful for children. Judging by your critical analysis* you really should take an A Level in media studies. *sorry but the OP started that

Thanks, I?ll take a look. Is it all USA based research as there?s enough longitudinal analysis and statistics to show that abstinence based interventions aren?t effective at reducing teenage pregnancy rates or STI transmission. Qualitative research also indicated a generational negative trend on young people?s mental health and maturity around sexual / relationships education. Why do you dislike European HSE evidence?

You?re quoting research delivered by an advocate of abstinence programme delivery - who conveniently concludes that his belief is the right one. It?s sponsored by Family Watch who say that homosexuality is a mental disorde derived from childhood trauma and advocates conversion therapy. Both organisations are led by Mormons.

But you realise that this transport agenda was in the election manifesto of both the conservative and labour parties?

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy. I?m confused more about how this prompted forum fantasist glenn to emerge and regurgitate his usual word salad; to your credit at least you can engage and talk about something even if i disagree with you. He seems to emerge from his YouTube right wing nutter rabbit hole.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course they're different. Didn't intend to > start a in-depth discussion on the why's and > wherefore's of the differences in > context/polling/constitutions, or my opinions on > who's right or wrong to delay elections. > > More wryly amusing that the Graun can publish one > blanket statement headline with no reference to > context (they could have use any number of > healines for the trump article...but that's what > they chose)...then contradict themselves within > weeks in a different context because it suits > their narrative.... I can hear the sound of moving goalposts...

Are you so blinkered that you can?t differentiate between the two contexts? The NZ delay was supported by the opposition. That?s not really the case in the US is it?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boris and his "cycling czar" andrew gilligan have > an important speech today on giving over large > amounts of space to cyclists. > > This is the master plan behind all the local > authority schemes and will include a body called > "active travel england". Walkers and cyclists; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904146/gear-change-a-bold-vision-for-cycling-and-walking.pdf

Hahahaha

I seem to see rahrah quoting government figures. For context here?s what the government is directing local authorities to do: The coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has had a terrible impact on the lives and health of many UK citizens, as well as severe economic consequences. But it has also resulted in cleaner air and quieter streets, transforming the environment in many of our towns and cities. And millions of people have discovered, or rediscovered, cycling and walking. In some places, there?s been a 70% rise in the number of people on bikes - for exercise, or for safe, socially distanced travel. When the country gets back to work, we need them to carry on cycling, and to be joined by millions more. With public transport capacity reduced, the roads in our largest cities, in particular, may not be able to cope without it. We also know that in the new world, pedestrians will need more space. Indications are that there is a significant link between COVID-19 recovery and fitness. Active travel can help us become more resilient. That is why towns and cities in the UK and around the world are making or proposing radical changes to their roads to accommodate active travel. We recognise this moment for what it is: a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformative change in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities. According to the National Travel Survey, in 2017-18 over 40% of urban journeys were under 2 miles ? perfectly suited to walking and cycling. Active travel is affordable, delivers significant health benefits, has been shown to improve wellbeing, mitigates congestion, improves air quality and has no carbon emissions at the point of use. Towns and cities based around active travel will have happier and healthier citizens as well as lasting local economic benefits. The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians. Such changes will help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel. I?m pleased to see that many authorities have already begun to do this, and I urge you all to consider how you can begin to make use of the tools in this guidance, to make sure you do what is necessary to ensure transport networks support recovery from the COVID-19 emergency and provide a lasting legacy of greener, safer transport. Grant Shapps Secretary of State for Transport

Royal Docks? Not that close though

Footage of Carlton Road / Dulwich village seems to show traffic behaving normally: https://mobile.twitter.com/graeme_raeburn/status/1278074469937033217

?The UK is suffering a car theft epidemic. Crimes of this type have risen by 50% in the past five years, the Home Office says. They reached an eight-year high in 2018, with more than 106,000 cars stolen in England and Wales.? https://www.whatcar.com/news/car-theft-group-test-britains-most-secure-cars-2019/n19874 By your tortuous logic we should ban selling cars and clamp them when not in use.

mockingbird Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > wulfhound Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Experimental Orders do not require > consultation > > but to make them permanent after the stated > time, > > that DOES require consultation. > > > hi wulfhound > You state that making experimental orders > permanent does require consultation after the > stated time. Can you advise where the regulations > state this? From the amendments to the Transport Act related to covid that I?ve previously posted. Technically they need only consult emergency services to make any changes that the government (via Department for Transport)has directed them to do.