Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[first mate]

It was signed off by him last month and the document also indicated a statutory consultation in June. So far nothing.

I do not think the leadership debacle, which was some time later, will affect that decision. However, I wonder if he will also refuse to serve under Sarah King? 

 

[Rockets]

Yes indeed, will he still sit in cabinet under her? Or does she get to do a reshuffle?

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 15/06/2025 at 19:44, Rockets said:

according to the active travel lobbyists on here

This is really unhelpful. Who are these 'active travel lobbyists'? Is it just anyone with a different opinion to you? Should everyone start referring to 'inactive travel lobbyists'? Why not just engage with substance of what people say?

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah perhaps everyone should get badges....;-) I am happy to proclaim that I am not an active travel lobbyist! 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Who are these active travel lobbyists, and what is the lobbying activity you’re suggesting they’ve taken part in?

[Spartacus]

It has been observed that the lcc (london cycling campaign) have influenced local consultations, so maybe that is what is being refered to here ? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

‘Perhaps’ 🙄. It’s nothing to do with LCC being consulted alongside a number of other stakeholder groups. The insinuation (it’s always innuendo and weasel words, never straightforward), as you well know, is that commentators on this forum (basically anyone with a different opinion), are part of a co-ordinated lobbying organisation. It’s a really transparent attempt to dismiss people’s views as not their own, but as part of some undeclared, organised campaign group. I’m fed up of these types of tactics. Engage with the substance.

@Rockets if you want to accuse posters on here of something, be a big boy and spell it out, so that they may respond. Don't be so cowardly.

I'm so sick of these rhetorical tactics, constant unevidenced claims, doubling down on false statements when challenged, deflections, insinuations etc. There is just no substance to any of it. It's all just an endless 5 year grievance. 

Edited July 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

if you want to accuse posters on here of something, be a big boy and spell it out, so that they may respond. Don't be so cowardly.

What that some posters on here act like active travel lobbyists...I dont need my big boy pants to post that...goodness me! I think that is pretty obvious - lets also ground this conversation on the nonsense accounts set-up like LTNBooHoo, RaptorTruckMan etc which were just set-up (I suspect probsbly by posters with other aliases) to troll anyone who dares disagree with the active travel propaganda posted by some.

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's all just an endless 5 year grievance. 

....as I was saying...

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

What that some posters on here act like active travel lobbyists

Here we go. You didn't say they 'act like active travel lobbyists'. You said they were active travel lobbyists.

Well I'm asking you to spell out exactly who on this forum you're accusing of being an active travel lobbyist? What organisation do they work for and where is your evidence?

Edited July 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I would definitely categorise you as an active travel lobbyist (in the same way I have no doubt you categorise me as anti-LTN) given your propensity for defending and promoting anything and everything the council says on the matter and the way you aggressively, and relentlessly, argue with anyone who dares suggest a different perspective.

To be fair you do also claim to subscribe to a paid-for service to receive Anna Goodman reports on LTNs which does suggest more than a casual interest in the matter! 😉

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

To be fair you do also claim to subscribe to a paid-for service to receive Anna Goodman reports on LTNs which does suggest more than a casual interest in the matter! 😉

I'm not subscribed to a paid-for service to 'receive Anna Goodman' reports. I'm subscribed to the BMJ. I actually have a general subscription which give me access to a number of academic journals. 

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

your propensity for defending and promoting anything and everything the council says

This is nonsense. I have criticised the council many times. This is just another example of your binary mindset. You can agree with the council on some things and not others. It's not a football match. One can use their critical faculties to come to judgements on individual matters (I know, it's a radical concept).

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I would definitely categorise you as an active travel lobbyist (in the same way I have no doubt you categorise me as anti-LTN)

These are not remotely the same things. Saying someone is a lobbyist, suggests that they are part of and (by implication) acting on behalf of an organisation. It implies a hidden agenda. Saying someone has an opinion that they've openly expressed is hardly the same thing.

I would ask you what organisation you are accusing me of 'lobbying' on behalf of and where your evidence for this is (again, I know the idea of evidencing your statements, or even attempting too is 'radical', but see if you can try).

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

the way you aggressively, and relentlessly, argue with anyone who dares suggest a different perspective.

Nope. Very happy to listen to other opinions, but not to indulge an individual who is clearly acting in bad faith.

Edited July 18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

You dont have to be a Lobbyist to be a lobbyist! Would you not agree that many of your posts are lobbying for the benefits of active travel/LTNs and that you take strong positions against anyone who does not subscribe to your particular view on the matter?

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 18/07/2025 at 16:08, Rockets said:

You dont have to be a Lobbyist to be a lobbyist!

If you're going to accuse people of being lobbyists (which suggests that they're part of an organisation), then you need to say which organisation they are part of and provide evidence. 

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

 

 

lobbyist

/ˈlɒbɪɪst/

noun

 

1. a person who takes part in an organized attempt to influence legislators.

Edited Monday at 12:36 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Still no news about the statutory consultation for the proposed reduced MGS CPZ- as per recommendations approved by the Cabinet Member in June. has anyone heard anything about this?

Edited Monday at 20:59 by first mate

[Rockets]

@first mate with this administration silence is often defeaning and a sure sign something is up. Or it could be caught up in the Cllr McAsh chaos.

@Earl Aelfheah what happens when you use lobbyist as a verb.....?

Edited Monday at 21:22 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

When you refer to someone expressing an opinion on a local parking scheme as one of 'the active travel lobbyists', it is very clear what you are doing. You are not engaging with a view that has been expressed by an individual, you're trying to imply that they are part of an organised (yet undeclared) group of 'campaigners'. It's a way of insinuating that their opinion is not their own, but that they are part of a wider agenda. It's really transparent and often used tactic by conspiracy minded populists and internet trolls. And the fact that when challenged, you tried to deflect by subtly changing your own words to say:

On 18/07/2025 at 15:02, Rockets said:

What that some posters on here act like active travel lobbyists

... You didn't say they 'act like active travel lobbyists'. You said they were active travel lobbyists.

And now you're again playing semantics.

I'm fed up with these constant bad faith tactics.

[CPR Dave]

Earl A, you lobby very hard on here for active travel measures. Are you saying that you only do that on the EDf and never in real life?

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

Earl A, you lobby very hard on here for active travel measures. Are you saying that you only do that on the EDf and never in real life?

I don't 'lobby' for active travel measures. I do take the view that people exercising more would be a good thing - which presumably is something you would also advocate? Does that also make you an 'lobbyist'?

You also know exactly why Rocket's repeatedly dismisses opinions he disagrees with as those of 'lobbyists'. It's not very subtle and you're not stupid.  

If I repeatedly dismissed anyone with different views to my own as part of the fossil fuel lobby, would you think that was good faith rhetoric?

Edited Tuesday at 08:22 by Earl Aelfheah

[CPR Dave]

Yes I advocate and lobby in the real world for libertarian measures regarding car ownership and road dues for motorists.

do you lobby in the real world for your preferred CpZs and LTNs or do you only do so in this forum?

[first mate]

Forgive me if I try to get this thread back on subject; does anyone know if there are plans for a statutory consultation around proposed MGS CPZ? This was slated in the last council documents I have seen for June/July. It would be a cynical move for this to happen when lots of people are away on summer holidays.

[Earl Aelfheah]

40 minutes ago, first mate said:

It would be a cynical move for this to happen when lots of people are away on summer holidays.

This is exactly the kind of position I would expect you to take as part of the fossil fuel lobby.

Edited Tuesday at 09:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

See how easy that is?

[first mate]

Not sure what your last comment means?

Aside from that,  I take it you think the possibility of holding a consultation over the school holidays when lots of people are away, is a great idea?

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I would expect you to take as part of the fossil fuel lobby.

There is no evidence that I can see that anyone on these boards is employed by, or advocates for, the oil and gas industries. You are conflating someone who cares for those who are owners and users of private cars, however powered, and inter alia deplores misuse of the roads by cyclists who break normal road rules, with a complete different sort of industry advocate. Some, but not all, private cars use fossil fuels, certainly, as many use steel, and plastics, and leather. You may as well accuse your opponents of being advocates for big steel, or big engineering, as advocates for fossil fuels. You just hope to gain sympathy for your own advocacy by associating your opponents with what you believe will be a dog whistle cause which will help praise your position.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Whooosh

13 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

There is no evidence that I can see that anyone on these boards is employed by, or advocates for, the oil and gas industries

That's right. It's almost as though dismissing people whose views you disagree with as 'lobbyists' is just being cynical.