Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Legitimate is the sense that the case passed the hurdle to go forward.
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Legitimate is the sense that the case passed the hurdle to go forward.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I'm asking a specific question related to you keeping going on about the funding of this case.
Its clear you want it both ways.
You want to undermine this disabled person case by saying you don't like where the funding is coming from.
Yet you don't want to see curb on cases like this.
I answered that question then you asked if I would donate.
Have you read the comments on the fundraising page?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Why are these equivalent questions?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It’s not. Apologies. The point I was making came out the wrong way.
I think his concern is that you have misled those donating by letting them believe if this legal case is won they will see an instant removal of the LTN's which isn't the case, even if you win the LTN's will remain in place regardless and will have wasted 35+ grand of pensioners money.
chowce5382
Active Member
As I’ve said before, a judge could find them unlawful on the basis that they discriminate against the vulnerable. The judge could then ask for their removal, for the council to undertake the proper assessments and then implement something this isn’t unlawful
Still dodging the issue, it has been repeatedly stated by your group if Sofia wins they will all be gone.
chowce5382
Active Member
That is the logical progression. If Sofia wins it means that a judge will have found that that LTNs are unlawful, discriminatory and as is the implementation of them. If that is the case, why would a judge not ask for their removal whilst the council undertakes the correct steps?
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Did that happen with the Bishopsgate case?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Surely the judge might consider that the disbenefits of removing them would outweigh the benefits of keeping them, and that adjustments to the existing scheme would be the most appropriate way to resolve things.
chowce5382
Active Member
It’s on appeal at the moment so no enforceable decision has been made as yet. Whilst on appeal the original decision is put on hold whilst the appeal goes through.
chowce5382
Active Member
I don’t see that as happening due to the nature of the Act. It is there to protect vulnerable people as a group. If it is found that vulnerable people aren’t protected then a judge could tell the council to turn off all cameras and allow for LTNs to be opened up whilst the lengthy consultation process is undertaken. I suspect that they council would ask not to have to remove them on the basis of prohibitive cost. Having said that, they are supposed to be experimental so the council will have put aside money in case the experiment doesn’t work, and asking for this would cut through the argument that they are experimental.
The equivalent argument would be a judge finding that detainment of a certain group is unlawful and the a government has behaved unlawfully. A judge is hardly likely to be comfortable keeping those people detained whilst the government comes up with another method of detaining those people as the judge would be violating their human rights. Whilst this is not as drastic, it is still a human rights issue under the Act.
Not logical at all, they pause the mentioned in your legal case, follow procedure and you are back where you started. Only having scammed donors out of 35K.
chowce5382
Active Member
Isnt not just procedure. If they consult and have to carry out proper EQIAs then the LTNs would need to be adapted and considerably in some and they could sell find out that they are not viable in others. The end result is that whatever is put in place will have to protect the vulnerable. This is why I’m doing this. I can see that you’re not going to agree and you keep on using words like scamming and suggesting it all pensioners donating. That shows how little you understand about this as pensioners are also a protected group under the Act and so any changes would also need to look after their rights. If it is all pensioners as you say then they are obviously donating as they feel that they are being discriminated against. In any event, it’s important to take this to court and get a ruling so that those people are protected.
.....still not removing the LTN's. ok.
chowce5382
Active Member
The whole point is that a judge can demand their removal due to them being unlawful on the basis of discrimination against vulnerable groups. If you don’t want to agree that a judge has this power then maybe start reading up on the power of the courts. We do say on the page
“OneLambeth is campaigning towards having all LTNs declared illegal and a full suspension.
Then we will we actively engage with the Council on measures to identify the real problems with transport in Lambeth and explore joined-up solutions that are rooted in science, data, community consultation, inclusivity, non-discrimination, democracy and strategic planning - as it always should have been done.”
From the very beginning we have been about suspension and consultation. The only reasons we are where we are is that the council refused to even consider the most basic beneficial adaptations for disabled people.
liquidindian
Hello
All? No matter how old? Just... every cul-de-sac that can be opened up, will be?
chowce5382
Active Member
The ones implemented as a result of Covid legislation
chowce5382
Active Member
You’ll recognise that these are creating issues for people. Consultation and te other steps the council have to go through should alleviate these to ensure that they are lawful.
All donors have been told to read to FAQs on the gofundme and, if the donate, they are doing so with full knowledge on everything on the page. We could argue this all day but I don’t think it will change anything on your side or mine so might as well leave it there.
liquidindian
Hello
This might seem minor but I think it's important: it's not that pensioners are a protected group, but that age is a protected characteristic. So for example as filtering traffic means a greater number of young people can travel independently that would be part of any equality analysis.
You are still dodging the bullet, they can declare them unlawful. The council changes procedure and you are back where you are started having not only wasted your doners money but their council tax as well for a scheme which will remain.
That is on your conscience, the truth is you have failed to inform your donors what they are donating to and what they are donating for, you seem to be as bad as the council which you are abusing "Read the FAQ's" is crap and you know that.
chowce5382
Active Member
I’m not dodging the question. You are failing to take into account that part of the procedure would include a full consultation and EQIA. At the end of that process what the council then puts in place would have to ensure that it protects those groups with protected characteristics under the act as well as some others. This is not about just re-ticking boxes, there is a considerable amount of work to be done which we assert was not undertaken.
As for you saying that I abusing the council, I’m not. I am asking them to have due regard to people with protected characteristics which I believe that they have failed to do. The judge and the legal aid authority also believe that there is a case to answer. That is hardly abuse. As for your point about the FAQs it’s all there and sets out very clearly why we are raising money. The reason we put it in there was to ensure that there was a sets of questions and answers at the very source where people are donating.
Jeanette Moo
Active Member
I think the last 10 pages have been the most interesting in this topic.
I never before looked at the court case in that it's not just about LTNs but could set precedent on how the council behaves in the future (emergency powers or not) with other subjects. 20 years from now when some of us are in care homes it coudl shape the way decisions and policies are enacted on subjects we have not even thouhgt about.
I never before looked at the court case in that it's not just about LTNs but could set precedent on how the council behaves in the future (emergency powers or not) with other subjects. 20 years from now when some of us are in care homes it coudl shape the way decisions and policies are enacted on subjects we have not even thouhgt about.
Did you make it clear that the LTN's would not be fully removed to your donors?
It's a simple question. Nowhere on your social media or your abusive OneLambethJustice Twitter where you abuse the council, posts for donations or on your Facebook group which regularly calls for vandalism and posts homophobic content have you mentioned that.
chowce5382
Active Member
We said that we were asking for their suspension followed by full consultation, again in the gofundme page. We were very clear about this. I am not in control of any of the social media side of this as it was deemed that the treasurer should have a separate job and not be involved. I am also not responsible for what people post on Facebook.
I have tried to stress from the very beginning that this is a legal argument for me and goes to the root of how the executive behaves when given power. The first thing Lambeth did was decide to override their legal obligations to give due regard to those with protected characteristics, to me that is not an acceptable way to behave but a group of people who are in power and their first duty must be one of care.
I’m afraid that your posts are becoming increasingly erratic and I’ve put up with a considerable amount of abuse from people for standing up for the rule of law. As I’ve said previously, let’s just leave it there.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Seems like there are the following distinct issues:
1. Did Lambeth properly carry out an equalities assessment? I am very pro LTN but I can see that there are implications for people with disabilities and it must be correct to take this into account. I have no idea (like most of us) what Lambeth did and whether it was enough and I am happy for the court to look at this and Lambeth will of course have to abide by the decision. This is the system working and those of us that are pro LTN shouldn't stand in the way of that.
2. Similarly wrt consultation let's see what the court says. I suspect that if Lambeth took shortcuts then this is fixable and I wouldn't expect an adverse finding to result in the 'tearing out' of LTNs.
3. The motivation of the funders and the information that has been provided to them. First, the fact that I disagree with some of them politically is kind of irrelevant. They have a right to fund a court case and it might be the right thing to do. Secondly, I suspect there are many of them that think that success means no more LTNs. They are going to be sadly disappointed here is my guess. Also, fuck them - I don't care if they lose money and are sad about that.
Ultimately I am not too worried about the court case - it's not a bad thing to question Lambeth and if they have got things wrong then they need to fix that. I doubt it rings the death knell for LTNs and in fact could strengthen the mandate for them by ironing out any issues in the process.
1. Did Lambeth properly carry out an equalities assessment? I am very pro LTN but I can see that there are implications for people with disabilities and it must be correct to take this into account. I have no idea (like most of us) what Lambeth did and whether it was enough and I am happy for the court to look at this and Lambeth will of course have to abide by the decision. This is the system working and those of us that are pro LTN shouldn't stand in the way of that.
2. Similarly wrt consultation let's see what the court says. I suspect that if Lambeth took shortcuts then this is fixable and I wouldn't expect an adverse finding to result in the 'tearing out' of LTNs.
3. The motivation of the funders and the information that has been provided to them. First, the fact that I disagree with some of them politically is kind of irrelevant. They have a right to fund a court case and it might be the right thing to do. Secondly, I suspect there are many of them that think that success means no more LTNs. They are going to be sadly disappointed here is my guess. Also, fuck them - I don't care if they lose money and are sad about that.
Ultimately I am not too worried about the court case - it's not a bad thing to question Lambeth and if they have got things wrong then they need to fix that. I doubt it rings the death knell for LTNs and in fact could strengthen the mandate for them by ironing out any issues in the process.
Similar threads
