sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why you're not willing to explain the case on here.See above post
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Maybe urban75 were part of the case!!
chowce5382
Active Member
I've explained that
snowy_again
Slush
I’m still confused that you (Charles)have the opportunity to come on here, unmoderated to discuss what doesn’t work and how to fix it, and apparently find out things you didn’t know, but the OL Facebook remains a closed group where it’s all ‘cyclists don’t pay for the roads’, ‘Claire Holland’s a bitch’, ‘let’s kick an old man building a parklet’ rant fests...
snowy_again
Slush
Oh and after posting that image of the OL Facebook page (taken from someone else’s twitter account) I’ve started to receive abusive messages from OL members again!
waves
waves
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Lambeth can dig their heels in sometimes. Which amounts to almost spiteful behaviour. Take Cressingham estate for example.
Or the way the Council opposed the Library campaigners.
I do think there is a certain amount of quite resentful behaviour from senior people in Lambeth when the decisions they take are opposed by residents. They think they know best and don't like opposition from organised residents.
I've seen some senior officers get quite upset when faced with opposition.
Remember when Council got police to attend planning meeting on the arches. Same thing happened when the library campaign was on. It got that adversarial.
Last edited:
Yeah, institutional ableism, what a load of fanciful nonsense.
I’m not sure that’s what nagapie said and quite an accusation. It’d be good if people could back up these claims - I’ve asked several times when the council has said blue badge exemptions would be unworkable without an answer and no one seemed to have noticed the SEND transport exemption.
I don't see how any of this changes anything. A full impact assessment has not been done. You can't do a bit and hope people will think that's enough, it has to be done properly.
Quite frankly, your posts are all nitpicky and fail to take into consideration the big questions which people have already pointed to amount to failing to comply with equalities acts. There's no excuse for that and you just sound a bit shit defending it.
But there are impact assessments for each LTN - genuine question: what do you mean by a full impact assessment & are these not them?
No. I believe they have not complied with full impact assessments according to the law for various groups or there would be no judicial case to be had.
Okay - it wasn’t clear to me that was the basis of the case.
Here’s the EIA template - I’m really not up on this but how do the Lambeth ones differ & what’s missing? Again, this is a genuine question.
I am not a legal bod. But the whole basis of the case is that it's not been done fully, if the judge disagrees there will be no case.
But I can say that no one assessed the impact on blue badge holders until very recently after an almighty shitstorm. So it stands to reason impact on disability was not fully complied with.
actually I’m pretty much sure that the judge will agree that 1+1 = “remove the cpz’s now, so we can drive down every road” and that’s why we’ve grifted 35k from people who couldn’t really afford it
You too seem to be missing the entire point. Unsurprisingly, as every post you write makes it clear that disability rights are something you have no interest in understanding, alex_
I find that harsh and seems to be a go to to shout down people in favour of the schemes - “you don’t care about disabled people” / “you don’t care about poor people on main roads” etc.
Nonsense. Ignoring the rights of vulnerable groups is what's harsh. It is not caring, in the most insidious way.
Yes it is - but not sure how you can accuse people on here of that. alex_ has said he supports blue badge exemptions.
In posts 5030, 4406 and 4271 I’ve said blue badge holders should “clearly” be exempt.
great work sherlock
ps Also 4408
Last edited:
Didn't you join in the discussion about blue badge fraud and then say they could be introduced with curbs.
Also blue badges are not the only issue.
Ym
blue badge fraud exists, it doesn’t mean blue badges should not exist
Do we should not go down reassessment route because LTNs may have not been introduced properly so may be recalled. We should rather take them as they are without proper impact studies. What are you saying,can't laws can be introduced without proper assessment in line with equality law?
It's this bs that I am pointing out in your posts. Yes, if the lea didn't introduce them properly with thought to all, they need to be recalled and redone no matter how small the group affected.
Come back in the morning
And I agree a full impact assessment should be done and have never said otherwise. Though I’m still not clear what’s missing from the ones that have been done as people seem happy to state these aren’t full.
I think people should reserve judgement for the court result unless they can show otherwise.
I think people should reserve judgement for the court result unless they can show otherwise.
Last edited:
Similar threads
