Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[chowce5382]

You could have just condemned it but you decided to troll.

Do something constructive for our community rather than funnel money to lawyers in a vague hope on keeping the status quo.

I did condemn it. You can hardly call me out on trolling given that you don’t think it is legitimate to have a view on LTNs which says that “whilst they are policy of the council, they must be implemented within the rule of law”. I think that this an legitimate (in the absolute sense of the word) position. I’m am not for one side or the other. In ANY DECISION made by the executive my position will always be that it must be within the confines of legislation. The reason why? Legislation was implemented to uphold the rule of law and protect people. It’s my view on life. I’m sorry if you don’t think it’s good enough but I’m pretty sure that no one has been on the wrong has side on history by fighting for the rights of those groups who are protected under legislation. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. However, if you do actually want to talk about our positions, and I don’t think they are actually as polemic as you think, DM me and let’s talk and this back and forth it obviously not getting our respective points across. The offer is there and I am willing to discuss. Are you?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I did condemn it. You can hardly call me out on trolling given that you don’t think it is legitimate to have a view on LTNs which says that “whilst they are policy of the council, they must be implemented within the rule of law”. I think that this an legitimate (in the absolute sense of the word) position. I’m am not for one side or the other. In ANY DECISION made by the executive my position will always be that it must be within the confines of legislation. The reason why? Legislation was implemented to uphold the rule of law and protect people. It’s my view on life. I’m sorry if you don’t think it’s good enough but I’m pretty sure that no one has been on the wrong has side on history by fighting for the rights of those groups who are protected under legislation. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. However, if you do actually want to talk about our positions, and I don’t think they are actually as polemic as you think, DM me and let’s talk and this back and forth it obviously not getting our respective points across. The offer is there and I am willing to discuss. Are you?

It's not like the law has ever been used to persecute or marginalise groups either ffs.

 

[edcraw]

I did condemn it. You can hardly call me out on trolling given that you don’t think it is legitimate to have a view on LTNs which says that “whilst they are policy of the council, they must be implemented within the rule of law”. I think that this an legitimate (in the absolute sense of the word) position. I’m am not for one side or the other. In ANY DECISION made by the executive my position will always be that it must be within the confines of legislation. The reason why? Legislation was implemented to uphold the rule of law and protect people. It’s my view on life. I’m sorry if you don’t think it’s good enough but I’m pretty sure that no one has been on the wrong has side on history by fighting for the rights of those groups who are protected under legislation. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. However, if you do actually want to talk about our positions, and I don’t think they are actually as polemic as you think, DM me and let’s talk and this back and forth it obviously not getting our respective points across. The offer is there and I am willing to discuss. Are you?

I was calling you out on trolling for your “art installation” comments.

You’re welcome to DM me anytime.

 

[chowce5382]

It's not like the law has ever been used to persecute or marginalise groups either ffs.

Ok, please give examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people and, after the Supreme Court has ruled, that persecution is still ongoing. (Btw I mention the Supreme Court because, after they rule, it is law, the rule of law and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s it.

 

[chowce5382]

I was calling you out on trolling for your “art installation” comments.

You’re welcome to DM me anytime.

Just send you a DM

 

[chowce5382]

Ok, please give examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people and, after the Supreme Court has ruled, that persecution is still ongoing. (Btw I mention the Supreme Court because, after they rule, it is law, the rule of law and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s it.

Also, if you think I fit in this category, give me an exmple of how the current case is doing what you mentioned

 

[sleaterkinney]

Ok, please give examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people and, after the Supreme Court has ruled, that persecution is still ongoing. (Btw I mention the Supreme Court because, after they rule, it is law, the rule of law and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s it.

A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people.

Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.

 

[BigTom]

A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people.

Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.

Stop and Search: s60 Stop and Search power upheld by UKSC - KBW Chambers s60 S&S powers upheld by supreme court sometime post 2010. S&S is disproportionately used against BAME people. The law says it must be exercised without discrimination but, in Birmingham at least, it's certainly not felt that way, and here's a Guardian article from 2019 that has some stats that back up that feeling: 'More BAME people likely to be targeted' under relaxed stop-and-search rules

edit: there's also the workfare case which affected unemployed and disabled people. JSA claimants forced to work for their benefits took the govt. to court and won, all the way to the supreme court. Then Parliament stepped in and IDS created retroactive legislation to, legally speaking, go back in time and change the rules which the courts found had been broken, so that they had not been broken: Reilly and Wilson v Secretary of State | Disability Rights UK

Now technically here it's not the supreme court and as far as I can see they didn't make an actual ruling because by the time it got to them, the retroactive legislation had been put in place so now the schemes "complied" even though in reality they hadn't at the time, but they agreed with the previous courts that rules as originally written had been broken in a "case comment": Case Comment: R (Reilly & Anor) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68

Had parliament not changed the legislation, iirc £120m in benefit sanctions that the courts found were illegally placed - because the DWP had not been following its own procedures properly (a situation very, very analagous to the LTN Lambeth claim here I think) - would have been returned to JSA and ESA claimants sanctioned in the various workfare schemes run under the legislation. Workfare schemes continue afaik.
Parliament being a higher legal power than the SC I think it's fair to talk about this here. There was certainly no legal route to challenging the retroactive legislation that was put in place.

 

[chowce5382]

A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people.

Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.

But the laws around homosexuality are not ongoing. That’s my point. Very much like the laws about it being legal to rape your wife. Once a change in the law has occurred the government and society has found it illegal to commit that persecution.
As for Priti Patel, she is possibly the most right wing HS we have had in a very long time. Unfortunately, if she brings gets those laws onto the statue book then they are law and there is very little that can be done apart from voting this government out. Judges will of course be able to interpret but that is the concept of the rule of law

 

[chowce5382]

Stop and Search: s60 Stop and Search power upheld by UKSC - KBW Chambers s60 S&S powers upheld by supreme court sometime post 2010. S&S is disproportionately used against BAME people. The law says it must be exercised without discrimination but, in Birmingham at least, it's certainly not felt that way, and here's a Guardian article from 2019 that has some stats that back up that feeling: 'More BAME people likely to be targeted' under relaxed stop-and-search rules

Yup, that is a very fair point. I’m still not quite sure though how our actions in taking Lambeth to court fit into this (as per my question above). If anything we are the trying to stop the exexutive making a decision which unfairly puts a group of people at a disadvantage/curtails their rights.

 

[sleaterkinney]

But the laws around homosexuality are not ongoing. That’s my point. Very much like the laws about it being legal to rape your wife. Once a change in the law has occurred the government and society has found it illegal to commit that persecution.
As for Priti Patel, she is possibly the most right wing HS we have had in a very long time. Unfortunately, if she brings gets those laws onto the statue book then they are law and there is very little that can be done apart from voting this government out. Judges will of course be able to interpret but that is the concept of the rule of law

You asked for examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people, of course it has and is. Really bizarre to think otherwise or that it's your "view on life"

 

[BigTom]

Yup, that is a very fair point. I’m still not quite sure though how our actions in taking Lambeth to court fit into this (as per my question above). If anything we are the trying to stop the exexutive making a decision which unfairly puts a group of people at a disadvantage/curtails their rights.

Just for clarity, I've edited my post above to add another example of a different situation. It took me a while but I honestly didn't think anyone else would be around this early in the morning so it wouldn't matter
You posted this whilst I was editing my post so anyone reading this should know you haven't ignored my other example, it wasn't there when you replied, and if I'd realised how long it would have taken to post or that others were around I would have made a separate post.

 

[chowce5382]

You asked for examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people, of course it has and is. Really bizarre to think otherwise or that it's your "view on life"

Yup, that’s why I asked. We are asking for the law not to be used in that way. I wanted an example to try and put it in a form of context and we are asking for that not to be done. I can see now I didn’t ask in the best way but I couldn’t think off the top on my head of current examples (rather than historic which is always a bit easier). We can disagree on this but I’m coming from the position on asking the people with the power, to ensure that they don’t use it in a way which takes away rights from a group of people.

 

[BigTom]

and as sleaterkinney said the S&S example wasn't meant as a parallel to the LTN case - although I have drawn a parallel to it with my other example - it was an example of a time where the SC has upheld laws used to persecute vulnerable groups of people.

 

[BigTom]

Yup, that’s why I asked. We are asking for the law not to be used in that way. I wanted an example to try and put it in a form of context and we are asking for that not to be done. I can see now I didn’t ask in the best way but I couldn’t think off the top on my head of current examples (rather than historic which is always a bit easier). We can disagree on this but I’m coming from the position on asking the people with the power, to ensure that they don’t use it in a way which takes away rights from a group of people.

I'd ask you to look back at my edited post and see my example of workfare challenges then, as these affected unemployed and disabled people. edit: very recently and ongoing

 

[chowce5382]

Just for clarity, I've edited my post above to add another example of a different situation. It took me a while but I honestly didn't think anyone else would be around this early in the morning so it wouldn't matter
You posted this whilst I was editing my post so anyone reading this should know you haven't ignored my other example, it wasn't there when you replied, and if I'd realised how long it would have taken to post or that others were around I would have made a separate post.

Yup, looking back at my post above it doesn’t read well as I couldn’t think of a current example to use as context. It’s why debating online is so frustrating and results in constant misunderstandings

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yup, looking back at my post above it doesn’t read well as I couldn’t think of a current example to use as context. It’s why debating online is so frustrating and results in constant misunderstandings

For someone who asks others to look at the details your own posts are all over the place.

Or the other explanation is that your argument didn't stack up - so it's a misunderstanding.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Yup, looking back at my post above it doesn’t read well as I couldn’t think of a current example to use as context. It’s why debating online is so frustrating and results in constant misunderstandings

No one is here to debate. Just point score and nit pick.

 

[chowce5382]

For someone who asks others to look at the details your own posts are all over the place.

Or the other explanation is that your argument didn't stack up - so it's a misunderstanding.

Yup, I ask you to look at legal details. You don’t have the time and/or willingness so we go back to this. I say things like “legislative balance to ensure vulnerable people are protected”, you think that I’m just making it up. In the end, I’m spending my time trying to protect the rights of a disabled friend in Lambeth who is reprsentative of many others. You want me to fail in my endeavour. I’m pretty comfortable in my decision

 

[edcraw]

No one is here to debate. Just point score and nit pick.

Ive asked chowce5382 a number of times for his opinion but he says he doesn’t have one. tbh I’ve realised there’s very little genuine debate online about LTNs and more productive to do other things eg. our group have been door knocking in Tulse Hill and that’s been v productive and informative.

 

[chowce5382]

Ive asked chowce5382 a number of times for his opinion but he says he doesn’t have one. tbh I’ve realised there’s very little genuine debate online about LTNs and more productive to do other things eg. our group have been door knocking in Tulse Hill and that’s been v productive and informative.

To be fair, I think it is a fair position to ask that, whatever is implemented, is done so within the confines of the law the therefore, legally.
I don’t understand why people don’t think this is a position. After all, the other side of the coin is that the executive are voted in, and they can then do what they want without having to obey the law. I am still utterly puzzled that people think this is not an acceptable position to take.
After all if it was a loved one or friend of yours and you thought that the executive were curtailing their freedom, I’m sure you would want to do something about it.
BTW I’m replying to Ed but his is not directed at him at all. I’m just trying to understand why it is only acceptable to be pro or anti and but a position whereby you want the rule of law to prevail is disingenuous

 

[edcraw]

Charlie, you don’t need to be pro or anti to have an opinion & no one has said that the law shouldn’t be followed.

Jeanette Moo was saying that there’s no debate going on here and I’m pointing out that includes you.

 

[liquidindian]

I used to think that homosexuality was bad until 1967, and then I thought it was fine.

 

[chowce5382]

Charlie, you don’t need to be pro or anti to have an opinion & no one has said that the law shouldn’t be followed.

Jeanette Moo was saying that there’s no debate going on here and I’m pointing out that includes you.

My point of debate is that this hasn’t been done within the confines of the law. You may think that is an acceptable position but there are huge numbers of people on here who think it’s a waste of time and money. If the appeal court, and it is an “if” find in our favour, I wonder whether those people who said it is flimsy, a waste of time
and money will still say that if it is found that the council have acted unlawfully. Or, will they say the judiciary are wrong.

To state I’m not debating is incorrect. I am debating on the point that, whatever is implemented, has to be lawful. The lawfulness of the implementation of LTNs, as found in the court, could have profound implications on the nature of their implementation. The nature of their implementation could change and thererfore this is a relevant position and therefore a source of debate. If people can’t see this because I’m not saying exactly what I want the LTN landscape to look like right now then they are, to some extent, part of the issue in terms of having to come down on one side of the other at the very beginning of the debate.

 

[chowce5382]

Charlie, you don’t need to be pro or anti to have an opinion & no one has said that the law shouldn’t be followed.

Jeanette Moo was saying that there’s no debate going on here and I’m pointing out that includes you.

And to be fair, a number of people have said on here that the case is a waste of time and money. They don’t know that until we have the final decision but they still said that is stupid, silly, a waste etc. By saying these things they are taking the position that we shouldn’t challenge the council and therefore petition the courts. Until we have a final decision we don’t know whether the law has been followed. However, by saying it’s a waste of money and time those people are are putting themselves in a position where they are saying we should challenge the council, we shouldn’t ask the courts to give judgement that they are comfortable to have a decision made by the executive whether it is lawful or not. They are comfortable with this because it fits in with their view point. Personally I don’t think this is right because it means that the rule of law becomes a tool of the executive rather than being the constitutional tool that keeps the executive (and therefore politicians) in their place.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yup, I ask you to look at legal details. You don’t have the time and/or willingness so we go back to this. I say things like “legislative balance to ensure vulnerable people are protected”, you think that I’m just making it up. In the end, I’m spending my time trying to protect the rights of a disabled friend in Lambeth who is reprsentative of many others. You want me to fail in my endeavour. I’m pretty comfortable in my decision

That’s simply not true, I read the judge’s summing up of the case because you wouldn’t go into it here. The judge found against you in all your arguments, and found that the Lambeth did have regard for disabled people’s rights.

I want you to fail in your endeavour because the LTNs are part of making London a more pleasant and less polluted place and we need to give people an alternative to the car, this will benefit people who actually have no other option than to use the car as there will be less congestion.
Covid has made a lot of people reluctant to use public transport, if you oppose stuff like LTNs and you want to increase the amount of traffic then you need to be arguing for knocking down houses and building roads.

 

[edcraw]

That’s simply not true, I read the judge’s summing up of the case because you wouldn’t go into it here. The judge found against you in all your arguments, and found that the Lambeth did have regard for disabled people’s rights.

I want you to fail in your endeavour because the LTNs are part of making London a more pleasant and less polluted place and we need to give people an alternative to the car, this will benefit people who actually have no other option than to use the car as there will be less congestion.
Covid has made a lot of people reluctant to use public transport, if you oppose stuff like LTNs and you want to increase the amount of traffic then you need to be arguing for knocking down houses and building roads.

Let’s outlaw cul-de-sacs as well!

 

[chowce5382]

That’s simply not true, I read the judge’s summing up of the case because you wouldn’t go into it here. The judge found against you in all your arguments, and found that the Lambeth did have regard for disabled people’s rights.

I want you to fail in your endeavour because the LTNs are part of making London a more pleasant and less polluted place and we need to give people an alternative to the car, this will benefit people who actually have no other option than to use the car as there will be less congestion.
Covid has made a lot of people reluctant to use public transport, if you oppose stuff like LTNs and you want to increase the amount of traffic then you need to be arguing for knocking down houses and building roads.

Did you read the bit where he granted leave to appeal, gave us the grounds and stated why the appeal was important and why the Court of Appeal should hear it?
LTNs may be part of making London a “more pleasant and less polluted place”. That is your opinion. If the court finds that the result of their implementation is to discriminate and diminish the rights of vulnerable people them you’ll have to ask yourself whether you are willing to sacrifice their rights. If you are, then that is your choice. Should you find yourself on the other side of the fence in a similar conceptual matter in future then you’ve already made your decision

 

[edcraw]

Did you read the bit where he granted leave to appeal, gave us the grounds and stated why the appeal was important and why the Court of Appeal should hear it?

Actually, I don’t think I have seen this, do you have a link?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Did you read the bit where he granted leave to appeal, gave us the grounds and stated why the appeal was important and why the Court of Appeal should hear it?
LTNs may be part of making London a “more pleasant and less polluted place”. That is your opinion. If the court finds that the result of their implementation is to discriminate and diminish the rights of vulnerable people them you’ll have to ask yourself whether you are willing to sacrifice their rights. If you are, then that is your choice. Should you find yourself on the other side of the fence in a similar conceptual matter in future then you’ve already made your decision

I also read the bit where he said that even if he had found against Lambeth it wouldn't have resulted in the LTNs being ripped out - but you've left that out of your statements.
Without LTNs and other measures, we'll just have congestion and pollution which will affect everyone, are you ok with that?