I’ll see if i can find it. It wasn’t in the published judgement as a judge giving appeal against his own decision isn’t contained in the publish judgement. I will need to check whether it’s in the form of a side letter and whether it can be released as there might be an issue of who it is addressed to. I’ll check. In any event, we’ve been given leave to appeal by J Kerr which means that, on the appeal grounds, we’re back to debating the issues in court once again.
You asked sleaterkinney if he’d read it? Confused.
Again, if a judge says this, they have the state on what grounds they wouldn’t grant the “normal relief” in these situations. There is then a process where they have to go back to the relevant case law and state exactly which exception they rely on as the standard normal position is that “relief will be granted”. To not state these reasons is grounds for appeal in itself. This was a matter of opinion, which is fine, but not law.
I don't know if it has been leaked. Someone on Twitter said they had seen it and I’m not entirely sure how. In any event, I’m not going to be the person to leak something.
Apologies for the laughing emoji, but a lot of your posts are quite amusing in a dark way but provocative as well...
So you asked if they’d read it knowing they couldn’t have? And you reference it and we have to take your word about what it said?
As I said, it was leaked on Twitter, you guys knew about the judgement at exactly the same time I did, that was released on Twitter so I assumed he might have seen it. Not difficult to understand
It’d be great if you could share.
So can you confirm that you are definitely filing an appeal?
Yup, of course. I’ll check if it is subject to some form of legal privilege. I’m being cautious as Lambeth didn’t mention the right to appeal in their press release so it just makes me think that there might be a legal reason (I.e. that the judge was addressing the respective legal teams directly and not the general public)
I must comment on this.
thank you for this CH1, a much needed injection of context and humour on this sorry thread.I must comment on this.
In church history buggery was associated with heresy - a capital offence.
So its not quite disabled people on this issue - its people wilfully turning their back on God's teaching etc etc.
There is a notorious case in the Church of Ireland whereby the Bishop of Waterford and his steward were executed for this vice.
John Atherton - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
it took fifty years of campaigning to change the law on this. And it was not an easy ride.
Police prosecutrions for gay sex offences INCREASED massively after homosexuality was legalised.
Not only that Mary Whitehouse used the Blasphemy laws to close down the newspaper Gay News.
Sometimes legalising something doesn't;t work when prejudices are deeply ingrained - particularly in the police force.
As regards the LTN measures, for and against - there is surely a case for seeing this issue as and act of faith.
Rather like a religious dogma the pro lobby on here are in for the kill.
Mind you I dislike gratuitous damage to public property.
This anti-authoritarian Brixton businessman from Coldharbour Lane had a better way of getting his point across
View attachment 279334
This is the second time I have asked the question chowce5382 and you haven’t replied. You are under no obligation to do so of course but I assume from your silence that there is a possibility you will not be filing an appeal. You have already said that you will accept the final decision of the court and so that will be that.
I see that they are some way off the funding target which may ultimately decide the issue:
I didn't realise that I didn't realise that they were that exciting. Now I know where to go when I get out of self isolation!
These idiots are utterly deranged.
Totally this - I really haven't seen this huge congestion increase people claim. OneLambeth keep referencimg SCOOT (?) data to say congestion has increased but that also says traffic volumes has decreased, how are LTNs responsible for that? It's bullshit.
Don’t be silly, it’s other people’s pollution that’s the problem, not theirs.
Norwood Road is sometimes backed up, particularly from Tulse Hill towards West Norwood. But as far as I can tell it's because of the various Thames Water digging on the road and temp traffic lights rather than anything to do with LTNs,
London of course being famous for its free flowing traffic before LTN’s arrived
and they also say that congestion has risen on some boundary roads despite lower traffic volumes. I can't see how that can be blamed on LTNs and goes against the constant claims of increased traffic volumes.
