chowce5382
Active Member
No, it’s a victory for the lady bringing the case. It has ramifications for other vulnerable groups but it’s her victory.
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
chowce5382
Active Member
Because the council can say they were the same without giving the actual address. That is what redacting information does.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
That's what they've already published - see this post
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
The council is proposing to make Oval & Railton LTNs permanent! https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/proposal-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-permanent/ And they're popular: “After careful consideration of feedback, trip patterns and impacts the proposals include exceptions for Blue Badge holders who...
www.urban75.net
The number excluded was in the report, and these are the reasons why they filtered them out. You said you'd asked for 'underlying data' - without names/address/IP address all you'd have is a load of lines on a spreadsheet that looked exactly the same.
chowce5382
Active Member
Yes, I asked how many of those deleted were positive rather than negative responses (given that there were only positive / affirmatory boxes which could be checked) and was told that this information couldn’t be given. In effect, why can you publish the deleted responses that were “suspicious” but then not tell me how many positive responses were from the same IP address? It wouldn’t require any data subject to GDPR being handed over at all.That's what they've already published - see this post
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
The council is proposing to make Oval & Railton LTNs permanent! https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/proposal-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-permanent/ And they're popular: “After careful consideration of feedback, trip patterns and impacts the proposals include exceptions for Blue Badge holders who...
The number excluded was in the report, and these are the reasons why they filtered them out. You said you'd asked for 'underlying data' - without names/address/IP address all you'd have is a load of lines on a spreadsheet that looked exactly the same.
So you don't believe their statement but you'll believe them when they say redacted information is the same? Sounds frankly like you're wasting their time tbh. Again, all very depressing.
chowce5382
Active Member
Having done quite a few of these and then splitting up the data into the various responses types it’s not difficult to do whilst also not breaching GDPR. That’s my point. Never mind.That's what they've already published - see this post
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
The council is proposing to make Oval & Railton LTNs permanent! https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/proposal-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-permanent/ And they're popular: “After careful consideration of feedback, trip patterns and impacts the proposals include exceptions for Blue Badge holders who...
The number excluded was in the report, and these are the reasons why they filtered them out. You said you'd asked for 'underlying data' - without names/address/IP address all you'd have is a load of lines on a spreadsheet that looked exactly the same.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
chowce5382
Active Member
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The sad, desperate floundering of the anti mob is never ending.
“We want traffic data”
“Noooo, not that sort”
“We want pollution data”
“Noooo, not that sort”
“We want popularity data”
“Noooo, not that sort”
Again, and again, and again.
Just admit it, you don’t give a fuck about anything other than wanting to drive your car wherever and whenever the fuck you like, and then at least people could respect you for your honesty if nothing else.
“We want traffic data”
“Noooo, not that sort”
“We want pollution data”
“Noooo, not that sort”
“We want popularity data”
“Noooo, not that sort”
Again, and again, and again.
Just admit it, you don’t give a fuck about anything other than wanting to drive your car wherever and whenever the fuck you like, and then at least people could respect you for your honesty if nothing else.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
thanks - I'd missed that.
FFS - telegraph sinks to a new low here I think with the "North Korea' line. This is sub local paper stuff - it's very clear from that planning doc that you don't have a 'democratic right' to stick a sign in your front garden.
That's not really what you said is it? Can you share the FOI request you made?
Good summary though think he's said he doesn't drive so seems like some anti-council/authority thing.
chowce5382
Active Member
That’s the response I got which linked it to Environmental data as you can see. You’ve got the jisheng of it above. The responses from the consultation showing responses discarded by the council. Splitting them into other in the other box (from the same IP address) and positive responses from the same IP address. I then asked for a couple of further subdivisions without asking for names or GDPR sensitive info
chowce5382
Active Member
I don’t own a car. I walk or take public transport.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised there are rules, I just thought the political signage would have exemptions (and it should imo). idk whether having fundraising info on it changes it from being something political to something else.
I also wonder if there have been complaints which the council is legally required to act on if they receive them - if this is what has happened then it makes the whole North Korea thing even more laughable since this is a democratic mechanism that allows people to have some input or control over the local visual environment.
There are exemptions for political signage but needs to be removed 14days after an election etc. There's no active consultations on these and not in the area where the news article's about.
A good journalist would report on what the rules around signage are but then this is the Telegraph...
Rushy
basically a scrotum
It's somewhere in between. Councils are required to look into reported breaches but have discretion whether to take enforcement action.
A breach of planning is not an offence until enforcement action is started and a time limit to conform with the requirements in the enforcement notice has expired.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I was unaware as well but if you dont' have fairly strict rules on advertising you end up with towns looking like US strip malls and risk every increasing 'battles of the signs' between neighbours. Keeping visual clutter to a minimum is a good thing.
This has been raised here many times & if true I wonder whether the law firm raised this with chowce5382
Someone watching has said that they've said any ruling would be for Ferndale & Streatham Hill - is this true?
That’s what the “one” barrister said
that was surely implicit in what I said?
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
That's a bit unfair, it started at 1030am and it looks like there were 10 people there (if you count the photographer). Though the banners seem to be completely at odds with the grounds the case is being argued on. This seems to be back to 'dirty air for all'.
Last edited:
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
A bit like the anti-speed camera carheads - why don't they just campaign to get speed limits increased? Answer of course is that they know they'd lose any such campaign because people generally aren't keen on faster traffic (possible exception; maybe they'd get somewhere on speed limits for motorways or major A roads).
So there's this whole hypocritical bullshit where they pretend that they hate speed cameras but not because they want to break the speed limit, when that's the only possible reason for becoming virulently against them. It's such nonsense.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Clearly, I don't make or enforce the rules, so was just speculating as to why the for and against signs had been treated differently.
I do actually agree with you, that this seems like a waste of Lambeth's time and energy and just stirs up more division, when it would be better for them and us to find a way to work together to get better outcomes for those already disadvantaged. Country wide it's looking increasingly that measures to reduce traffic impact (such as LTNs) are here to stay. They inconvenience anyone who uses a car of course - that's the point - but how to ensure that those inconveniences aren't insupportable to those already disadvantaged. I have no answer (or idea as yet), but this constant division - them and us - is not healthy or helping.
chowce5382
Active Member
I agree. These issues are polarising politics and, frankly, the benefit doesn’t outweight the polarisation. We can see it in todays politics where conservative ministers are condoning the indefensible. Starting to feel a bit like the US in that respect.
In any event, I feel the balance must be struck in favour of those for whom motorised access is important due to their circumstances/vulnerability. For people like me, you should just walk or take public transport.
Similar threads
