Dogkennelhillbilly

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

The beneficial or adverse impacts you're talking about above are measured at specific points on specific roads - it's not discussing aggregate pollution going into the atmosphere.

Is it the Estate that's the landlord of the old bank or someone else?

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

kissthisguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The LTN issue is almost *the* > issue of this election. Bound to be some upset. LTNs are *the* issue for a small number of people (me included), but there are many thousands of other people for whom it's not a big deal - certainly not in comparison to education, social care, housing etc. Others who will show up and vote for whoever they always vote for. The "passion" (cough), frequency and length of posts on the EDF is not actually a good indicator of how normal people in the real world feel.

Don't worry, ab29 - the Lib Dems proved under Nick Clegg that they'll abandon their principles at the slightest sniff of power. If they thought it would get them a councillor, they'll U-turn from "traffic calming" to "motorists' rights" quicker than an angrily driven Range Rover.

DuncanW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > all the guff written on here about a one-party > state, etc Apparently it's a one-party state in which anyone could stand and easily win an election! 🤣 But then OneDulwich repurposed the white supremacist slogan "All Lives Matter" for its posters, so it's hardly surprising its loudest advocates are not politically astute.

The Bus Times app works really well (and it's free). I have no idea what percentage of the bus using population wouldn't be comfortable using s mobile phone or how much the indicator boards cost.

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Will One Dulwich stand on a promise of removing > the LTNs and starting again with a scheme that > works? I would vote for them if they did. 1) that would be great - they'd have to be more transparent about their funding for a start. 2) I suppose if your sole focus was whether or not you could drive down a specific street any time you want, and you had zero interest in education, social care, planning, housing, parks, waste management or anything else local government does, then yes, voting for a single issue candidate would be a great idea. 3) have any of those who think Southwark is an autocratic regime or single party state ever actually spent much time in a genuine authoritarian regime? Or do they really think their plight is comparable to the average Uyghur or Aleppo resident? We're not talking torture camps or barrel bombs here, we're talking about whether some roads in suburban London are open or closed to cars.

Is it big enough inside for an Ivy? It's quite a demanding franchise. There's not much room for deliveries etc...but what do I know.

You have to watch out for "charity" bins operated by the fraud-cult TVIND. I'd rather give clothes free to private dealers than that lot. http://www.tvindalert.org.uk/how-does-tvinds-used-clothes-money-go-round-work/

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only eventual remedy may be either judicial > review You don't get judicial review of elected officials' decisions just because you think they're crap. You need to evidence some illegality, a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could ever make it etc. That is (deliberately) a high bar. https://www.ashtonslegal.co.uk/insights/business-news/a-quick-guide-to-judicial-review-planning-claims/ But feel free to invest your time and money in discovering that for yourself. I'd be happy to recommend some expensive barristers.

I don't know about East Dulwich but it's all happening in West Dulwich: - La Gastronomia is temporarily closed, apparently for renovations - at least they're moving stuff around inside. Hopefully the back garden and greenhouse will have a spruce up, as it could be a really nice little space - Sheriff Coffee inside West Dulwich Station has reopened (or just rebounded?) as Colibri. Didn't get a chance to see whether the coffee has improved, but the pastries look the same as always - the new grocer/organic/eco supplies store has opened up at 10 Croxted Rd. I think it's called hummingbird or something. It looks very nice inside. - Peace & Riot has (hopefully temporarily) closed due to COVID restrictions.

If you get pinged by six cameras in one day, do they tell you the locations and times of all the instances on which you were pinged or just one per day?

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What they really SHOULD do is to change the MOT so > that if there is any blue smoke (well, some low > level anyhow) then you automatically fail. Too > many vehicles that are probably 'ULEZ compliant' > that are disgustingly dirty. Emissions of the individual vehicle are tested at MOT and prolonged or dense blue smoke is already a major fail. https://www.motester.co.uk/mot-test-of-exhaust-system-and-emissions/amp/

You can?t compare the UK & Afghanistan as though they were identical in such a crude way. Like comparing apples & oranges.