Bagpipes

Very good question, Ossito. Also what does it mean in health terms to a) marginally decrease legal air quality on some roads and b) increase pollution on already illegally polluted main roads. Is it linear? > > Even if the schemes do achieve their long term > ambition, has the council adequately assessed the > short term risk to children?s health in these > locations?

For me it's a question of, if it's a trial, what is being trialled and how can any assessment of the scheme be made without a) traffic count monitoring and b) air pollution monitoring? Surely you shouldn't start something unless you're clear about your KPIs, what success looks like, etc. For all those saying this *will* cause modal shift, how would we know if it does or doesn't?

I haven't, but it's a good idea! Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > have you asked the borough - or the school?

.

Hi, does anyone know the farthest distance offered re places at Charter 1 and 2 this year? Thanks

You're right, Sue, apologies. Inadvertently click-baity!

A man's just knocked on my door offering to sell me fish. Is this normal?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought this closure was about reducing traffic > levels to make it safer to cycle along this > section of London Cycle Network route no.23 and > walk cycle Safe Routes To School. With respect, James, that may be the motivation, but policy makers have to be alive to the consequential harm (unintentional or otherwise) that schemes like this cause. And weigh up the pros and cons accordingly. I don't believe for a minute you would put up with - or stay silent about - the huge spike in volume of traffic and pollution that closing Champion Hill causes for residents on surrounding roads if you lived there.

I honestly cannot understand how Southwark can proceed with this without a proper evidence base - either that Champion Hill needs improvement or surrounding streets, esp Dog Kennel Hill / Grove Lane will not experience harm.

Agreed. This is an evidence-free trial. Pressing ahead without sufficient impact monitoring and analysis is unjustifiable.

It strikes me that there simply hasn't been enough thought given to the consequences of the closure for surrounding streets. What residents deserve is some actual data on key issues: -Officers should give residents of each road where traffic will be displaced an idea of the likely increase in traffic. -Officers should notify the governing bodies of DKH primary and Lyndhurst primary of the likely effect of increased traffic/ pollution on children -pollution levels should be tested on Grove Lane, Dog Kennel Hill before and during the trial period -traffic volumes should be monitored on Grove Lane, DKH and compared before and during the trial period -Officers should publish robust impact assessments of the trial.

.

I generally find staff in ED pretty nice, just spare me the bantz in Flock & Herd

@siouzie14 I think that's a fair summary

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Many appear to see being a Southwark Councillor as > a stepping stone to becoming an MP in a safe > parliamentary seat - you can never accuse a Lib > Dem of that! They move to London do a PR job, MP > researcher, union official. Become a councillor > for a London borough near parliament - Southwark > is very popular for this. Get selected in their > home town for a Safe Labour parliamentary seat. > Get elected an MP. Usually 2-3 councillors in > Southwark do this each national electoral cycle. I > would question their loyalty and dedication to > whichever part of Southwark they get elected to - > we're just a stepping stone and they don't suffer > the consequences of their councillors decisions. > It drives short termism. > Ahem. The last two to do this* were Lab cllrs Helen Hayes and Neil Coyle. Helen is, by all accounts, an excellent MP for Dulwich and West Norwood and a worthy successor to Tessa Jowell. Neil has turned Bermondsey and Old Southwark into a safe Labour seat after 33 years' worth of Lib Dem Simon Hughes ("the straight choice"). Neither Helen nor Neil's commitment to Southwark can be remotely doubted. James, it is sour grapes that you lost so spectacularly to Helen Hayes when you yourself stood for parliament as a sitting cllr in 2015? *neither of them did what James describes.

As long as it's not Polish.ED. I never knew what Toast's name really was

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those who don't see this as an issue, I wonder > how they feel about easy access to the areas where > their children and teenage daughters change. Quite. By all means make it easier for people who feel gender dysphoria to legally change gender. But protect the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls by maintaining single-sex spaces. And yes, that means no penises in girls and women's spaces however feminine your soul feels.

.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legal gender recognition has got nothing to do > with access to gendered changing facilities, as > evidenced by this stunt. The stunt is about self-ID. Do keep up!

A more tangential point but another troubling aspect to all this is children being put under pressure to change genders. Supporters of transing children have some unlikely allies in the Christian right. Parents who cannot bear feminine or effeminate boys are happier to tell themselves (and their children) that they are actually another gender. Easier to have a girl who was "born in the wrong body" than a feminine boy. Latent or overt homophobia influences some of these choices and it's disturbing. Gender is a social construct. It's a straightjacket for boys and girls - *especially* if you don't conform. Instead of telling people there is a disconnect between their biological selves and their - what? brain? soul? feelings? - we should be saying it's fine to be feminine if you're male and fine to be masculine if your female.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > > As I?ve said already, the idea that lots of men > will legally change their sex and chose to live as > women in order to access female only spaces for > nefarious purposes seems to me, far fetched. You're missing the point (as you've done already). Self-ID means there is no requirement to live "as" women. If you identify you can access spaces formerly reserved for women. > I see no evidence of any decisions having been > made and no evidence of people having their views > silenced. Again, women's groups were not consulted when the govt consulted on this issue. That is a problem as it is women's sex-based rights that will be lost.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- No one is > being frozen out of the discussions or having > their voices silenced That's not quite right. When the current govt consulted with stakeholders on possible changes to the Gender Recognition Act, no women's groups were consulted. A serious omission in my view.

.

My particular concerns is data. If the categories of sex (ie M or F) become meaningless by the inclusion of biological men who *feel* like women, we will fail to get an accurate picture of data regarding crime, health etc. The ONS only recently was considering not gathering data on sex. My personal view is that trans people should be treated with compassion and understanding and their rights should be enhanced. That's a no-brainer. But I'm afraid I have every sympathy with my female friends who say they don't identify as women, they *are* women. My friends can't identify out of the gender pay gap or any of the other issues women face as distinct sex class.

The thing is, (biological) women currently have a host of rights based on their sex, not on their gender. So if the govt gets rid of the idea of sex (a biological reality) and replaces it with a feeling (gender) those sex based rights will be destroyed. It's an important issue, one that directly affects half the population and should concern us all.