Penguin68

In general you cannot approach barristers directly, that is done by and through solicitors. Barristers expect a solicitor to prepare their case (brief) for them, and also expect a solicitor to have taken a preliminary view of the client and their problem to approach a suitable barrister. [And to filter out those clients who may not have a sufficient case to take to law]. In general that approach works best - particular solicitors specialise in particular areas of the law and know the best people for specific issues. And their availability. Barristers (on an hourly rate) are also far more expensive than solicitors. The English legal system differs from, e.g. the American. They have only come together slightly recently where solicitors can plead cases directly in some courts.

Curiously, and wearing other hats, many would argue that cars not travelling 24/7 would be a good thing. The fact is that public transport availability in general, and late at night and at many weekends in particular, is comparatively poor locally. As is East west public transport at any time. That's what many of us have our parked cars for, the many times there is no practical alternative. Because we don't want to be trapped in our homes. Or, living in London, only go as far as we can walk, when we are not young fit athletes.

The £8.7k figure is of course for built land, or land with planning permission, specifically not what roads are priced at. And reflects purchase for ownership! This doesn't even qualify as a half truth, and, if an ad, would be in breach of Advertising Standards. Luckily political advertising, which is recognised as hyperbole and sham, is broadly exempt.

Exactly - the reason why people are prepared to pay for bike storage is that bikes are (frequently) stolen if left on the street, even when chained. As indeed are cars, which is why car owners also pay (and are quite prepared to pay) for secure car storage rather than street parking. Paying for security and paying for street parking are by no means the same thing. Actually, to balance council books, the part of the council deploying bike sheds for which they then charge the users should actually be paying a fee into the local transport budget for their use of the space, as do people hiring and 'parking' skips. With some exceptions cars (unlike building skips or bike sheds) generally do not occupy the same spaces in roads over long continuous periods (some do, of course).

I'm afraid that presupposes they are in favour of electric cars, but there is clear evidence, in their own statements, that they wish to drive any (my emphasis) private car ownership out of Southwark. Providing car infrastructure (even for electric cars) therefore would be contrary to their policy. This has everything to do with political principal and very little actually to do with e.g. pollution or public health and well-being. A council which is prepared to charge owners and users of cars specified for the disabled (and/ or block them from entering public spaces) has no interest in the well being of those who live, or pass through, 'their' space.

And I'm sure that (were it to be in his power) if the Mayor said that he would intend to suppress rainfall throughout Greater London, within the M25, so that people might avoid drowning you would be the first to applaud. CO2 is not a gas which, at any likely atmospheric concentrations will directly impact health adversely. It does not cause asthma, or other lung conditions, or any cancers. There is no evidence offered by anyone that the existing North and South Circular ULEZ (or even the previous ULEZ just in Central London) had any impact on CO2 levels - mainly because no one was, or thought to, measure them. There are global (not local to London) arguments about CO2 levels certainly, but to pray-in-aid anything to do with CO2 as regards local lung health issues (the apparent driver and nothing to do with hating car owners or driving revenues) as an excuse for the ULEZ is simply laughable. ULEZ was always (from its initial, small scale, introduction by Boris Johnson) a one-trick pony about lung health in London.

This has absolutely NO impact on air quality - and without it we'd all be dead because all the plants that we, or the animals we eat, would be dead. So not a cause in the mystery deaths of the Mayors 4000 annual casualties. Anthropogenic climate change may be an issue, but it isn't an ULEZ style air quality issue.

In general whenever you feel ill, and particularly if you are coughing or sneezing (unless you know it's a histamine reaction, as in hay fever) you should take some care to isolate yourself, and in particular not to use public transport. In SE Asia (and well before Covid) people tend to wear masks if they are feeling ill and have to go into public spaces. This is as true for any infection as it is for Covid, but there is no longer a mandatory requirement to isolate, or for any particular time. At least now we are attuned to working from home, where that's possible, and employers perhaps more sympathetic to those who choose not to come into work if they are infectious or think they are.

One conspicuous by its absence

The Mayor's claim about annual deaths (4000) flows from an applied statistical analysis based on fairly big picture figures. Last year I believe that only one death (or was it even that?) was actually attributed to air pollution. It is an algorythmic application to a London population figure which suggests that poor air quality reduces people's natural lives by a very small amount, and then multiplies that by the millions living in London, on the assumption that all Londoners live in London for all their lives. This is nothing like the real death toll of those dying in the great smogs of the early 20th Century. When pollution very clearly did kill.

This week, in Underhill, I have had deliveries on 3 consecutive days, and in those days, 3 weeks of weekly journals were delivered, bringing me for the first time this year up to date and on time. It may even be I have no post outstanding. I cannot quite believe it. And unprompted by complaints to my MP, which is what has got deliveries before.

That is indeed true, but not true of fires caused by batteries on electric bikes and scooters, which appear to be anything but rare, almost certainly because they are both more vulnerable to damage and more likely, through ill-use, to be damaged. The most common cause of fires in petrol vehicles is a consequence of a high(er) speed crashes - luckily (and I use that word quite wrongly) this is more likely to happen on open, fast, roads, and not in houses where scooter and bike fires are more common.

I can endorse that - the call was on time, the invitation for a scan the next week came through, the scan happened when scheduled (it takes, with questions, about half an hour all told, with a very little waiting). Results are promised in 5 weeks (but that's in the future - can't confirm they arrive on time, and if they're sent by post to SE22 almost no chance!)

I had a collection today, so not today

I suspect these employment figures are absolute, not FTE - many of the GP staff are (or at least were, when I last checked) part-time. And most appointments are on the phone, not face-to-face. I think a 'GP appointment' may refer to a face-to-face appointment in the surgery - which are now as rare as hens teeth. Considering the surgery is always empty of waiters when I (rarely) attend to pick up forms I'm amazed they have as many as 44 a week. Considering the waiters that are there are normally for the practice nurses.

Maybe the more they use them, the more revenue opportunities there are. The council may be conflicted - they think the money tree is morally wrong, but it is the money tree. Chopping it down makes no fiscal sense.

Neither, of course, is your bicycle - are you now arguing that cyclists should be paying a contribution towards their use of the paved roads, or pedestrians their use of pavements? Maybe someone with a baby carriage should be paying extra. The roads were built and paved for the public benefit of all - and the sides of the roads were designed - in most streets - to allow vehicles to be parked up. Without such an allowance we would be forced to move to the 15 minute cities that people talk about - logically where we work, shop, bank, are cared for if sick in our own tiny enclaves. This is a desire to move back to a medieval village existence. Not for me, I'm afraid. But actually, the car hatred is all about class war and envy. Destroy the kulaks and their cars. Again, not for me, I'm afraid. Such a political vision is of course one it is legitimate to hold (unless, like your predecessors, you do actually kill all the kulaks) - but I suspect, even in socialist Dulwich, it isn't that popular

To everyone You are not going to change the minds of certain posters on these threads with facts, with debate, with anything much. They are hell-bent on obfuscation and challenge - perhaps best not to feed the trolls by responding? This does not stop actual debate (rather than simple nah-nah-di-nah-nah) challenge of course. There is much to consider without them, not the least the transportability of findings based in one locale type with another, outwith whether those findings can be challenged or endorsed in the locale in which the study took place. And additionally the scientific and statistical method of the study. Nobody doubts, I believe, that there are issues, e.g. of air quality which need addressing in built-up urban areas, nor that motorised transport (to different degrees based on what are the fuels used, the time driven etc.) is a contributor. The comparative extent of this contribution against other contributors is of course moot. And it should be noted that an actual remedy in one context may not be a full or even sufficient remedy in another. Bottom line, the major cause of pollution in most cities is Man. The perfect solution would be to remove humans from the equation (this is the David Attenborough approach, arguing for massive population drops). Anything less than a total <word removed> is a compromise. The argument therefore is around the level to which such sub-optimal solutions make a contribution greater than their b***aration factor to people living, working in, serving and visiting specific locales in which the 'solutions' are being tried out. And a solution in locale A which meets that criterion is certainly worth considering in locale B, but not implementing without thought and care and (perhaps small scale) trial. It is not a matter of faith, or at least, it shouldn't be.

Saying 'hysterical' is certainly a value judgement - and open for debate, although some councillors responses have not been entirely sanguine, as reported (and no doubt that might be endorsed by the TFL staffers who claim to have been bullied by them) - however the Council is on record as being 'anti-(private) car ownership' within the borough ('driving private cars out of the borough' I believe was the phrase, or close to it) - so labelling the council as 'anti-car' (rather than anti-pollution, for instance) seems entirely accurate, not to say trustworthy. As everyone on this thread is exhibiting bias (to have any opinion at all is to be biased one way or another) I have no problem with that. Curiously these threads about traffic issues have not attracted the disinterested (using these words properly) to participate - save of course those who have no 'interest' in Dulwich, not being residents thereof, but every interest in promoting their chosen point of view regarding modes of transport and the impact that Southwark may have on the lives of Southwark residents, even not being such themselves.

There may be multiple reasons why parents (or carers) drive kids to school - from known or feared attacks on children (often by children from other schools - I could site quite a few of those incidents from the last 35 years I've lived in ED) to poor public transport links (including needs for bus changes) - particularly at secondary school age where the school is more likely to be at some distance and a trip which involves east: west travel; through to simple convenience - if a parent is driving to get to their place of work or a convenient station and is passing the school anyway it seems curmudgeonly not to offer your kid a lift there! Often (for secondary school children at least) a morning drop-off and a self-delivered return to home is a preferred choice. Sometimes (and particularly recently, with school attendance issues post Covid lock-downs) taking your child to school ensures that they are at least there in the morning.

You make the assumption that all, or the vast majority, of Dulwich residents would optimally choose to cycle rather than use other forms of transport. In my experience that simply isn't so. Some clearly would, and good luck to them. Others clearly wouldn't on the grounds of age, competence, stamina, need to carry other things and/ or people, distance needed to go... well, the list is long. And, logically, if 20 households are within a minutes walk of, say a 3 bay cycle park, that's quite a lot of people who ain't getting a cycle, if everyone wanted one.

Public transport in London is optimised around moving people into the City and West End - so it is true that, unless you are travelling through, and not into, London, or carrying many passengers or equipment etc. using public transport (even though it is both expensive and frequently not dependable) is an optimal choice. Which is why, in rush hours, most people choose it. Even In bad weather, many cyclists choose it, but of course many Londoners are not physically able (or live close enough) to make cycling an option even in good weather. So people journeys across Blackfriars bridge may increase (during rush hours at least) with cycle lanes. Outside rush hours in Town these lanes are often very ill used, whilst natural traffic levels will be held-up because road space is no longer available for them, which increases exhaust output simply because vehicles take longer, and produce more exhaust fumes, to pass any single point. Safety wouldn't allow it, but cycle lanes which were just rush hour specific would help traffic flow in general. However, and it's a big however, when you move from travel into or out of the Centre, well supported by public transport, to other movement (e.g. for us, East: West) then public transport is not optimised to support travel in these directions, meaning that it is not an obvious (or sometimes either a convenient or even a possible option for those whose journeys may be time critical). So introduction of road restrictions will definitely have a very real impact on individuals and on issues of traffic pollution - significantly adding to congestion and delay. This is non trivial.

Because the few actual polls, not clearly conducted by a 'respectable' and independent polling organisation of residents in the Dulwich (specifically) LTN roads and the adjacent (over-spill) roads have indicated a majority, even amongst LTN road residents, against them. The huge dismay of locals against the most recent (Townley Road) proposals (causing them to be withdrawn) is a good indicator of their local (lack-of) popularity. These locals, remember, are very adjacent to the existing Dulwich LTNs so clearly can be reasonably informed about their impact. More general (non-Dulwich) polls about LTNs in general (and thus probably more about the stated intent of them than their specific actualisations) have indeed broadly supported them, and indeed their intent is probably admirable. It is how they are implemented and what the knock-ons are of their implementation on adjacent roads and communities which is key. Other cities however (e.g. Oxford) have been very (and indeed violently, at least against street furniture) opposed to LTNs.

Just out of interest, and of course I don't expect you (either of you) to read what is written before you criticise it, but I very clearly caveated the 'right' to drive as the continuing right to drive, when licenced to do so, having passed tests and not having forfeited the right, and clearly, to any of all but the smallest brains, I would necessarily and obviously exclude the right to drive on roads other than those designated as public, and indeed when not otherwise specified - I have no right to drive the wrong way down one-way streets, or through barriers (unlike apparently cyclists - and yes some one-way streets for cars are 2 way for cyclists, but those are clearly signed) . However I do have the right to drive (it is not a privilege) - that right cannot be taken from me save in specific instances covered by legislation. I (and I presume you) have the right to vote, again not a privilege, but only in circumstances proscribed by law, by virtue of my citizenship, my age and my having registered to vote. Voting, like driving, is a right under law, not a privilege. I have never suggested, by the way, that the right to drive equates to the right to drive anywhere and under any circumstances, so don't put words in my mouth. There are many other things that I haven't said which 'are really bizarre because they've never been true' - but insisting this doth win you no argument. Oh, and snowy - its perhaps a shame that all road-vehicle users are not required to carry compulsory insurance to operate a road vehicle - but they have a right to do so without - or would you say that's a privilege?

Driving is a right, under law, earned through careful application and passing a relevant test, and paying for a licence, and assumes that that right has not been lost through poor driving and penalty points. That does not mean than non-drivers are in any way inferior - to suggest that those who believe the first statement also subscribe to the second would be false. You are trying to set up a conflict where none exists.