Dogkennelhillbilly

There's oftwn an inverse relationship between the states and the bile so local politics can be savage (as this thread shows). Coincidentally the Tories have just announced their candidates and their policies are as follows: 1) LTNs are bad 2) LTNs are bad 3) Labour is bad because of the LTNs https://www.dwnconservatives.com/news/dulwich-conservatives-announce-candidates-dulwich-village-ward So whoever wanted their single issue candidates here they are. Interesting also that one of them was also the driving force (no pun intended) behind the recently-formed "Dulwich Alliance" and the "Dulwich Village, College Road and Woodyard Lane Residents Association", both of which have been issuing statements against LTNs.

To me...to Roux...

Media personality and gaming enthusiast Dominik Diamond, enthusing about small town Canadian ice hockey leagues, in the pub on the corner of North Cross Rd and Lordship Lane.

The technology exists, but there's a limit to how much text you can put on a roadsign.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Clearly there's a rat in No.10, well we knew that, > no doubt the search is in full swing We know there's a love rat in No 10, that's for sure. The real question is whether any Tory contender for the job will stab him in the back...or will they wait until after May elections? And will we end up with someone who appeals more to the right wing of the Tory membership (Truss, Patel), someone more technocratic and supposedly business oriented (Sunak), or someone more Centrist and post-COVID cuddly (...???).

Why put in an FoI request when the figure has been published in the newspapers already? It's in the link on the thread above. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-expansion-tfl-diesel-polluting-sadiq-khan-north-south-circular-b971107.html

Who wants Johnson's job? Who's outside the cabinet and wants (back) in after a reshuffle? Who wants Cressida Dick's job? What is actually surprising is that this HASN'T come out before considering at least 100 people knew. I wouldn't have thought this administration had the discipline to keep a secret - so they've proved me wrong.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the 20mph speed limit in Southwark > first of all slowed bus journeys down... > It's common to wait over 20 minutes for a P4 to > Lewisham in Dulwich Common because the bus gets > stuck in the jam which was already bad before the > LTN, but is even worse now. Any evidence for the claim that buses have been delayed by 20mph speed limits in Southwark? It's not like they were usually hammering up to 30mph in the 500 yards between bus stops. If P4 buses were getting stuck in "the jam" (which one?), that would delay them but wouldn't affect the interval at which they arrived at any stop. The P4 does run at 20 minute intervals at some points in the day...

Cressida Dick inexplicably kept her job last year.

jazzer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Daily standing charge up by 66% Pretty scuzzy to raise the standing charge, isn't it? The fuel price has obviously increased, but their cost of finance, labour, maintenance for the network hasn't gone up by two thirds...

You mean...build the Garden Bridge and demolish the Mound in one go??!?

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So on a hot day your fridge motor runs > much more consuming more energy. In cold weather > your heat pump runs much more and consumes more > electricity. Well, yeah - obviously any heat/chill source is going to consume more energy the greater the difference between ambient temp and target temp.

It's mostly people dumping their trees inconsiderately. It's always like this in January.

Moovart Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe it's to do with laws on advertising > boards, same way estate agents have to take their > signs down within a certain time when a property > is sold. It's exactly this - zooming in on the letter shows the advertising regulations cited. The estate agent boards have been up for a year or so.

"Leighton Giles?2 days ago This is a wonderful example of not what to do and must serve as a remembrance to things so bad they?re good. Long live the Mound" I agree with this and suggest the Mound should be renamed the "Vison Board Dumbshit Spending Other People's Money Memorial". The Council could have paid for dozens of social workers or teachers or environmental health offices or anything else...

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when you look at Dulwich it's really hard for > it to succeed because the underlying setup is all > wrong: poor public transport, very high car > ownership, no Santander hire and one of the > biggest school populations in South London (which > all sit on one of the obvious displacement > routes!). Dulwich does have good public transport: it has a bunch of train stations and useful buses (some of them 24 hour). The main problem with buses is the number of private cars that are in their way on roads where there isn't space for a bus lane. When the Dulwich Village bus gate is working, the P4 flies from the South Circular to North Dulwich; when it's not, you can sit in traffic for 20 minutes easily. All of London is suffering from the rise in Uber/PHVs and Amazon deliveries. But Dulwich is a particular problem because its population is richer (so there's more car ownership) and older (so there's a feeling of entitlement to drive anywhere and anytime, and who see owning a car as a matter of prestige). This is aggrevated by the private schools that market to rich parents across London but don't require them to use public transport or use the school bus. In fact, there are a number of older kids that drive themselves and their friends to school! The private schools (where many more kids "commute" by vehicle) around here tend to finish term earlier and start term later than the state schools (where overwhelmingly kids commute on foot/bike). In those shoulder weeks when state schools are in but private schools are out, there is faaaaaar less traffic in Dulwich. The problem is not the schools (we are lucky to have such a big industry in the area - much preferable to any other), it's their transport policies. The reality is that we have a city of millions of people in it and it's choking on the discretionary use of millions of private cars. Buses will not improve significantly until more cars are out the way. We are never going to get a tube. There is no solution that only involves discomfort to other people: we are all going to have to suck it up. If people were really concerned about the transport needs of disabled people or ambulances or.those who really need cars, or wanted to reduce pollution near schools, they'd be in favour of more aggressive solutions to reduce car use. But that's not what OneDulwich or the Drivers Freedom Foundation want.

@legalalien: that's a very valid point. The key question will be whether the Tories can capitalise on the issue (and overcome the fact that LTNs generally are a Tory initiative, and the general toxic stench around the Tory brand nationally). But even having a couple of Tory councillors after the fact doesn't mean the LTNs are necessarily going to go away. Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just for the record, objecting to the specific > LTNs imposed on East Dulwich and objecting to the > principal of LTNs is not the same thing. In theory, yes. In practice, not for OneDulwich (which advocated an "against all LTN measures" position in the consultation), and certainly not for the "Freedom for Drivers Foundation".

Private Eye has covered this in-depth (apart from the "cops are too PC" bobbins at the end).

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The jury directions have been published and make > very instructive reading. It appears that none of > the defendants admitted the statue was damaged and > that was a decision for the jury to make. > https://barristerblogger.com/2022/01/09/colston-su > mming-up-those-legal-directions-in-full/ I mean obviously they're not going to admit any element of the offence, but clearly the statue was damaged. "'Damage' is interpreted widely to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness". It was yanked down and chucked in the dock, and it was all on video. The whole point of the exercise was to permanently impair its value and usefulness as a monument to an awful person! The facts of the case were never really the issue.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's not whether the jury is sure, it's "beyond > > reasonable doubt"... > > > > But in any case a jury has always had a right > not > > to convict. Jury nullification is a check on > the > > law and prosecutorial discretion. There's no > way > > the jury didn't think the elements of the > offence > > weren't proven - they just didn't want to > convict > > the defendants. This verdict has zero > precedential > > value. It's just the latest example. > > > > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification > > > > It?s generally ?sure? in jury directions not > ?beyond a reasonable doubt? which is not longer > the standard direction. > https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standa > rd-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-r > ight-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/?fdx_switcher=true You're absolutely right and I apologise for "correcting" you, and thank you for sharing that blog post that was very interesting.

It is clear there are a fair number of people that object to the LTNs. You'd be insane or stupid to deny it. At the same time, neither that self-evident fact nor the results of the consultation (edit: and certainly not the drum-banging on this forum!) show that a majority of residents in a specific area object to the LTNs. 1) the consultations and notifications have always been aimed at people living or working in the area, and open to anyone with an Internet connection or the price of a postage stamp. Those who responded are not necessarily residents or people who work in Dulwich. 2) LTNs have been widely publicised and the Council actively sought comment from groups or stakeholders that weren't strictly local. OneDulwich is part of a constellation of groups with similar branding across London. As none of the groups publish their funding (as far as I can see) it's impossible to conclude see whether that's just a coincidence or something else. 🧐 Equally, drivers groups have encouraged people outside the area to criticise the LTNs in emails to the council - as of course they are perfectly entitled to. It would be nuts to conclude that there weren't a significant volume of non-resident submissions. https://oneealing.co.uk/similar-campaigns/ https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/02/southwark-ignores-dulwich-objections/ (Anecdotally - and therefore of no value - some of the most pissed off people I have come across were parents of private schoolkids for whom the drive to drop their kids off in Dulwich was less convenient). 3) people who are pissed off about something are more motivated to write in. People who are positive or indifferent about something are less likely to engage. No-one ever calls the council to compliment them on the bins getting picked up on time! 🤣 OneDulwich's attempt to position itself as the kingmaker in forthcoming elections shows admirable ambition but they're not quite Kevin Spacey in the earlier seasons of House of Cards yet!

"I don't need data, it's obvious" 🤣

The endless search for data is a furphy. There is no bar graph that will ever satisfy you that the opposing view is correct. People are demanding absolute single statistic proof (which never happens in a multivariate world) that aggregate traffic has been reduced by 50% (which would be a wildly successful outcome for a single traffic scheme). It is not going to happen. OneDulwich's ramblings on the data are either wrong-headed (because they're riddled with logical errors and mistakes that demonstrate a own lack of understanding) or worse an deliberate attempt to make everything seem so confusing that it's better to do nothing about traffic. As OneDulwich favours doing nothing and heading back to the status quo ante, I suspect it's the latter. But it all depends on how clever or stupid you think OneDulwich and its backers are. "Sorry what - traffic is down 14% on grove vale and you?re claiming that?s because it?s more congested so not counted? You?ve got to see that written down that sounds insane?" It is insane - but it's what happens when unstoppable force (facts) meets immovable object (belief that LTN is bad) - you start making stuff up in an attempt to reconcile the two.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting article in today?s Times about > e-scooter injuries and in particular the fact that > anyone injured while illegally riding an escooter > on the road or footpath may not be able to sue for > personal injury It is a little disappointing that the Times journalist didn't explain the point of law that's in dispute!

The problem is not with a lack of data. We are knee-deep in data. The problem is that people don't understand the data and/or don't want to believe the data because it doesn't align with their preferences. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/traffic_flow_and_volume_data_for?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow