chowce5382
Active Member
Ed, that is the exact position of people who have posted a copy of an EQIA and then asked why it isn’t sufficient
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
chowce5382
Active Member
i would suggest that you read the previously posted EQIA docs and put yourself in a position of a vulnerable group. Once you’ve done that that, re-read the document and work out whether you would be in the same position or not and how those decisions might impact you and the rights you have now and what they might be. Then I suggest you read this
Equality Act 2010
An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the...
Once you’ve done that, put the questions you have and relate them to the pertinent part of the legislation. I will endeavour to answer them
chowce5382
Active Member
Hi Ed, couple of people have posted an EQIA for railton (I think). Have a look back through the last couple of pages and follow the steps I’ve suggested above rather than posting the same question. Once you’ve done that. Come back with a set and questions that are pertinent to the topic.
Sorry, are you saying asking why they aren’t sufficient is the same as saying they are fine?
I’m genuinely asking what’s wrong with them.
I do struggle to understand how you didn’t know about the SEND transport providers exemption before the other day but knew the EQIAs were insufficient when it’s mentioned in them.
chowce5382
Active Member
Ed, you’re like an intelligent person. I’ve just given you the ability to look at the current EQIAs and then the relevant legislation and I’ve also then said I’ll answer your questions and also given you the basis on which to critically view those EQIAs. Why don’t you take some time and go through then and read the leigilstion and come back with questions. I know you want me to answer you questions now but, until you understand the legal basis of the argument, this is just going to turn into a teach in but without you understanding the basis for the argument. I can see you obviously care so, just like I did, look at the material and come back with questions.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I've just gone back and looked at some of chowce5382 previous posts on the EQIA.
Poster has gone into why they think there is an issue. The legal system says there is case to answer.
Why don't you just go back and read them.
Instead of banging on at chowce5382.
As you said wait for the judgement
You’re saying the EQIA’s are wrong, I’m asking how.
If you know they’re wrong surely you can say why rather than ask me to find out for myself.
chowce5382
Active Member
Ed. It’s called education. If I tell you, I suspect that you’ll just challenge everything I say anyway. If you do it yourself then you’ll educate yourself. Also, there is the point that you want me to do your work for you. It’s simple. If you care about this then do your homework. I’ve spent months on this, I’m only asking you to take a couple of hours. If you don’t then you don’t have to take the steps I suggested but I would respectfully suggest that you can’t really be bothered to take the time to understand the issues.
Really? That’s not how it works. If you make a claim you need to back it up (see my post above). If you’ve spent months on it that should be easy.
Simple, genuine question:
Why are the EQIA’s insufficient?
chowce5382
Active Member
See posts above Ed. The amount of time you’ve spent arguing you could have read one by now. I have posted previously on this. If you can’t be bothered to read the relevant posts that’s your look out
I’m pretty sure it’s very apparent I’ve paid lots of attention (probably too much) to this thread and can’t say I’ve seen an answer to that question.
Does seem strange there’s not a simple answer - good job I’m not a donor
I accused him of ableism, ignoring disability rights, as have some of your posts displayed. It's an issue at the heart of this discussion. Spelling errors are not.
which is plainly bullshit - I’ve stated on a number of occasions there should be a blue badge exemption
Yes, extremely generous of you. That's all fine then for the rest of the LTNR impact . And don't forget you were in favour of restricting this small concession on grounds of cost.
What are your suggestions?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure why you’re on this forum, if you make a point, it’s reasonable to be asked to back it up. If you can’t or won’t then we can draw our own conclusions, especially in light of the Lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth council stuff from a few pages back.
chowce5382
Active Member
As I’ve said, I’m not going to rehash the arguments. It pretty simple to see what the issue is. I’ll give you a hint, given that the council have allowed SEND vehicles into LTNs. Now ask yourself whether SEND represents all disabled people. If it does then the council has fulfilled its duty. If it doesn’t then it hasn’t. It’s pretty simple and not that difficult to understand. Now think about how many people who are disabled who don’t fit into this category and ask why they are not catered for. I’m surprised that you can’t see this. It’s pretty logical. No doubt you’ll come back with something unrelated and ask me how to think about other groups and if I can explain it to you. Please just read what is here and have a sensible conversation regarding whether it’s acceptable or not
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
dO uR oWn ReSuRcH!!!!!
snowy_again
Slush
But you’re doing what that Transport for All report asks campaigners not to do - you’re treating people with disabilities as a homogenous group.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It’s not a rehash, you’ve never explained the issue in the first place.
Why would I ask myself such a stupid question?. You can’t set up a silly strawman argument then say disagreeing with it is illogical.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
chowce5382 has being giving support to a disabled person who is taking Lambeth to court.
The disabled person is the client. The legal team are working for the client I believe.
These recent posts criticising chowce5382 are in end criticism of the disabled person whose case it is.
The disabled person is the client. The legal team are working for the client I believe.
These recent posts criticising chowce5382 are in end criticism of the disabled person whose case it is.
Not wrong, incomplete. As in does not fully comply with the equalities act. If this isn't the case, there will be no case.
So instead of saying people are just looking for a stick to beat the LTNRs with, why don't you wait to hear the court's view of this.
I have no other reason to dislike LTNRs. Although I don't see how they can work if related issues in society are not addressed as part of the implementation.
This is just ridiculous and an obvious way of shutting down any discussion it also suggests why OneLambeth are pursuing this course as they know arguing for disability rights looks a lot better than arguing to “open all roads” which if you read the fundraising comments (have you done that yet?) is their real motivation.
I just went back to the first page of this thread back in 2019. We were all arguing the toss then whether traffic would be displaced or reduced. Here we are still going!
The judicial review feels a bit like al Capone being convicted for tax evasion, find the weak point and attack.
There are different statements that are true in this argument:
1. Disabled people are probably not being catered for properly by the current status of the LTNs.
2. That most people contributing to the one Lambeth fund for the judicial review do not care about that, they just want to go back to how things were
3. The case argued in court by Charlie et al, is probably a strong one because it’s unlikely (due to Lambeth taking advantage of covid legislation) that they had done all the paperwork/consultations that would have been done had there not been a pandemic.
So where does that leave us? We will have to wait for the judgment.
The judicial review feels a bit like al Capone being convicted for tax evasion, find the weak point and attack.
There are different statements that are true in this argument:
1. Disabled people are probably not being catered for properly by the current status of the LTNs.
2. That most people contributing to the one Lambeth fund for the judicial review do not care about that, they just want to go back to how things were
3. The case argued in court by Charlie et al, is probably a strong one because it’s unlikely (due to Lambeth taking advantage of covid legislation) that they had done all the paperwork/consultations that would have been done had there not been a pandemic.
So where does that leave us? We will have to wait for the judgment.
chowce5382
Active Member
Ok. Pleas explain why it a ST argument taking into account the point above
I know what you mean, but to stretch the analogy that means that not sufficiently catering for some people with disabilities is the least worst thing about LTNs and they present much worse evils - which wouldn’t be true.
It is also true that LTNs do present many advantages to many people with disabilities & elderly people. For example crossing streets in an LTN is much safer and many in these groups can cycle especially if it’s made safer. I know this from my own family’s experience.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Ah yes true, I’m not trying to say that an LTN is bad thing, far from it, I’m just saying that from a legal point of view, there are definitely weak elements that can be exploited.
Similar threads
