Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
The usual analogy is just ‘sticking plaster for a wound’. But presumably you typed that out and thought - no - that doesn’t properly represent the true horror of LTNs - better make it a gunshot wound
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Your post 402 here makes clear you think these LTNs should be imposed without consultation.
Can you stop having a go at this poster.
Unless you have changed your mind.
Jeanette Moo
Active Member
The usual analogy is band aid on a bullet wound. You're huffing and puffing like a toddler
snowy_again
Slush
It’s an American idiom isn’t it? Besides no one really says Band Aid here unless they’re Americans, Australians or don’t like Monday’s.
Grams - you're constantly trying to shut people down and seem to add very little to any debate, not sure it's helpful.
Last edited:
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It's unfortunate more councils didn't have the guts Lambeth did, now we will just have much worse congestion and pollution than before - and people will complain about that!.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Legally speaking it is - anything that changes the appearance of something is criminal damage, no matter how quickly or easily it can be restored to its original state. That's how the law is worded, so it covers anything that can be removed or any damage that can be repaired.
Moving the
Any sentencing should take into account the reality of damage done and how difficult/expensive it was to repair/restore.
edited to correct a word
Last edited:
It does state "the interference (must) amount to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner" which is pretty clear for the cameras and not an unreasonable standard.
But, hey, if they want to be carrying out direct action doesn't it help that the action is illegal? Grams can't have it both ways - ie. it's direct action but it's such a minor action that it doesn't amount to criminal damage.
Didn't have the guts to bring in more not properly consulted policies under the guise of emergency regulations. I think our government managed a fair few.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Their real mistake is not causing a high enough value of damage to make this an either/or offence and be able to take it to the crown court and argue in front of a jury that their illegal actions were justified to prevent a bigger injustice, like Seeds of Hope (Hawk jets going to indonesia), Smash EDO (arms company supplying Israel) and Extinction Rebellion (criminal damage to Shell's HQ) did - although I remember the climate camp trespassers at Kingsnorth power station ran this defence and it did not succeed.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I'm not arsed about consultation, people won't put the environment above a little bit of inconvenience and will keep clogging the roads up which is not a solution for anyone.
Modal filters and LTNs have been around for decades, it's not some crazy new idea that we're not sure works or not.
I know where you’re coming from but consultation is not, and should not, be a referendum but a process to help find out any issues and take views on board.
People still banging on about the lack of consultation when these are now temporary traffic orders that will have consultation I suspect are just worried that once people have seen them in action won’t want to see them go. LTNs can be quite difficult to understand so I can’t see the issue with having a temporary trial period. I’m sure Chowec would say they’re anti democratic but that would be to misunderstand democracy.
A little bit of inconvenience is not what the consultation that is missing is about.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Well One Lambeth have declined time and time again to explain their case so I’m not sure what that’s about.
I and others on this thread have explained repeatedly about the need to do a proper assessment for those with disabilities and all that transport and care for them. If that's what you call an inconvenience, then I don't even need to bother to discuss this with you.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I am talking about the more widespread opposition to these changes. You’ve been talking about consultations the last few posts, now it’s the assessment?. I and others on this thread have asked about the existing ones and not got anything back.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
To bang on again as you don't listen to views that are different to yours.
This thread was started as it was about the TFL pre pandemic funded Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood.
As I've posted several times when officer in charge of the scheme talked to my local residents forum in LJ. He said lessons had been learnt from the previous Loughborough Junction debacle. That (as Ive posted up about Good Growth scheme) this time full consultation would be done. Lambeth had to show to TFL that they had done this. If they couldn't get local support the next tranche of money would not be given.
The consultation process was going to in words of the officer to concentrate on reaching hard to reach groups of resudents.
What you are wanting is to impose a particular type of scheme and assume in end people will accept it. The top down approach.
This is not what officer who came to my LJ Neighbourhood forum meeting said. No talk of using temporary traffic orders.
This was to be done in phases. Changes to road use to be designed in conjuction with local communities.
Okay - but that changed, funding became available for such schemes and we’re now where we are so let’s deal with that. What should we do now? Rip them out and proceed how it was going before or take it from the current position we’re now in?
What about the Oval, Tulse Hill & Streatham Hill LTNs not in Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood plan.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So lack of proper prior consultation as promised is fine with you?
Not fine but we need to deal with where we are now as things changed.
Another example of things changing is Tulse Hill gyratory - there were plans and funding for this and consultation and engagement carried out, but because of TfL’s funding troubles is not going ahead - is that fine?
What do you think we should do now with the LTNs?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
So why are you so against the JR by the disabled lady.
Given that Lambeth have gone down the route of imposing this surely a JR is fair way to respond.
Imo the way that Lambeth have gone about this is typical of their behaviour on series of past issues.
I’m not.
I did ask you a question twice and would be interested to hear your answer - what should we do now with the LTNs?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
You've spent an awful lot of posts here criticising where the funding for the disabled ladies case comes from. And the motivation of those supporting her.
And no I'm not going to answer your question.
Imo the Council have gone down the road, as you agree, of doing this without the promised prior consultation.
Its the Council mess. I'm a bystander now. I should not be asked. Its nothing to do with me now. The Council have made their political choice.
More to the point is what you think the Council should be asked. My impression is that you are quite happy with how things stand now.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Has the judgment on the JR been made yet. When is it due?
Okay - what do you think about the Tulse Hill gyratory scheme not proceeding? Is that fine? As that is stalled for lack of TfL presumably Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood would have been put on hold as well.
So, if Lambeth had refused the COVID funding nothing at all would happen. Is that fine?
I am happy with how things stand, in that that they’ve been implemented and need to go through consultation to be made permanent. I much prefer this than the alternative which seems to have been to keep the status quo due to lack of funding.
I’ve heard it would take a couple of weeks so maybe towards the end of next week.
Consultation with relevant groups and proper assessment. The two go together.
I don't know exactly what was done but as there are issues around disability that have not been addressed, we know a full impact assessment in line with the equalities act was not done. There would also be no case if it had
Would you consider it ok if the scenes were not fully assessed for equality according to race, class and gender? I hope not. But somehow disability rights are less important.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
One Lambeth haven't actually said what the case is and the person behind it hadn't read the existing Equality assessment.
I've said, and I've emailed my councillor that blue badges should be allowed through, but I also see the point that there isn't a system that records this atm, unlike council vehicles and they would have had to build one for a trial which could have been very temporary, it's probably why they are looking at it later.
Blue badges are not the only issue around disability that have not been addressed. Cost should not be a barrier to fair access ever, that's called Ableism.
snowy_again
Slush
UTAG appear to have lost the bishopsgate appeal case.
Similar threads
