totally agree
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
totally agree
Why? Typo, should have said So. You use it to try say my points are not credible. Nice.
You did accuse him of not caring about disabled people.
I was asking a question of the treasurer of OneLambeth which I thought was relevant & he seemed happy to reply.
You’ve seemed happy to take a very generous approach to OneLambeth’s motivations or say they aren’t relevant but personally I think motivations are very relevant, especially when people seem happy to accuse others of not caring about others. I’m going to judge those motivations on what people actually say.
Can I ask you again whether you’ve read the comments on the OneLambeth fundraising page?
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I know what you're doing. Trawling through someones social media to try to discredit them. Post it up for public view.
I'm not impressed.
Whether poster was happy to reply is your view. Quite aggressive use of social media in my book.
Last edited:
Seriously? I follow both Will Norman and Charlie so it shows up on my feed straight away, hardly trawling.
Do you not think people should be judged on what they say? Especially a treasurer of a campaigning organisation.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I have better things to do than trawl through individuals "feed".
Your are only doing it to find dirt.
Social media like twitter I regard as pub talk. Unfortunately it remains on view. I don't really like the way its regarded as written in stone views.
I said I didn’t trawl, it was on my feed. Again you ignore what people actually say, bad faith imo.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
On your feed.
Why is someone whose views you are not in agreement with in your feed?
I do not have this on my social networks.
Also can you stop saying things to me like I ignore what "people" actually say.
You don't speak for the "people".
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I did add this.
Social media like twitter I regard as pub talk. Unfortunately it remains on view. I don't really like the way its regarded as written in stone views.
I find it useful not to just follow people I agree with, surely I’d be accused of being in an “echo chamber” if I did.
You’ve consistently accused people posting here of saying things they haven’t actually said, if you stop I’ll stop pointing it out.
Is pub talk the same as “banter”?
I asked chowce5382 a question about his comment - hardly saying it’s written in stone.
You seem very happy to believe OneLambeth have nothing but very honourable intentions whilst ignoring what they actually say - but you seem fine with implying the worst of everyone else!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So its a nit picking exercise. I say you are trawling you say you are "following"
I have looked at One Lambeth FB posts. I've no inclination to have that on my feed after reading it a few times. So I don't follow it on twitter/FB.
And I've asked once already can you stop talking to me as though your posting up for the "people".
Maybe we’re on very different wavelengths as tbh I just see you replying to things you think I’ve said rather than what I actually have.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The wavelength you're on isn't about listening to others.
The reason you have anti LTN people on your feed is actually to confirm the echo chamber you inhabit.
You’re stating things as fact about someone you know nothing about. You don’t seem to be here for any actual discussion.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I'm making a judgement based on what you've saying. You have done the same to me.
We both disagree.
You extrapolate that into arguing I'm not here for discussion.
Which BTW not something I've said about you.
Fine to make a judgement but please don’t state it as a fact.
chowce5382
Active Member
I think that this is the point. People like Ed point to the fact that there is a document. I don’t deny that. But it comes down to if the document is fit for purpose. If it was fit for purpose then I would assume that judge would have said that there is no case to answer. That is the point. I would just say that, imagine if you had a loved one who was in this situation. Would you say that, because there is a document, then the council has done everything is should do.
No, I’m really not just pointing to the document - I’ve been asking what’s wrong with the it. That’s a genuine question- can you answer or is that what the judge will do?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its what you do to me. So I don't know what you are complaining about.
chowce5382
Active Member
This is the real point. We can all talk about who said what on social media but this is about genuine legal arguments in court. We would not be here if a judge had not thought that the point was valid, or had some validity. We need to wait for a judgement and then go from there. That is the whole point of the legal system. I’m not sure why people are so baffled by this concept. What you think is an acceptable EQIA (in your view) does not make it so. You don’t govern legislation and interpretation of the law. This is why the rule of law is fundamental. Let’s just let the court decide. Saying, “well I think this EQIA is fine” or that it exists is not a particularly compelling argument. Not here and definitely not in the eyes of the law
[
What do you mean by this? Again a genuine question, what should the council be doing more than the impact assessment?
btw - I gave a loved one, my 90 yr old mother-in-law that has benefited by the Tulse Hill LTN, so I can imagine the situation to a degree.
What do you mean by this? Again a genuine question, what should the council be doing more than the impact assessment?
btw - I gave a loved one, my 90 yr old mother-in-law that has benefited by the Tulse Hill LTN, so I can imagine the situation to a degree.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Back in post 5100 you say we should wait for the judgement.
Its what chowce5382 is also saying.
So why are you going on at this poster?
You said :
chowce5382
Active Member
ok. I’ll answer this in a bit. But first, you tell me what you think a council should do when making changes like that and the amount of data and the impact on the lives of people who are subject to that change. Have a think and take us through the steps you would take if you were in the same position. What you would think of, how your proposals might affect people and what you would do to mitigate those issues
Has anyone here said that? I’ve asked why it isn’t - presumably you have an idea to have started the legal action? Again, this is a genuine question, I want to understand.
They should follow the law. I don’t know completely what this is, I know it includes impact assessments and I’ve seen these but you’re saying they haven’t followed the law - I’m asking how they haven’t.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
We must be reading a different thread.
chowce5382 has posted up previously about this.
The legal action as has been repeatedly pointed out has gone this far as there is a case to answer in legal terms.
Its not sbout chowce5382 personal opinion.
I replied because chowce5382 suggested I was “pointing to a document” and implied I might understand if I had loved ones affected (which I do).
Not sure I was “going” at him.
Okay - who on this thread has said “well I think this EQIA is fine”?
Similar threads
