Except what he says above is not correctA 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.
There were strict restrictions on the number of peope who could turn up.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'.
View attachment 305743
As I’ve said all along with JR SR cases, the relief granted is up to the judge. Is not the same as a criminal case with a juryThis 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?
The banner & signs aren't about this though which is surely telling. One of them is also a taxi driver.There were strict restrictions on the number of peope who could turn up.
Also, for those of you always saying “it’s the motor lobby” look at the people in the photo. These are the women who have done 90% of the work on this and nearly all of them have done so because they have someone who is “vulnerable” and impacted by LTNs
Yup. One bloke. The rest are as I’ve said above, so that’s 90% who aren’t “the motor lobby”The banner & signs aren't about this though which is surely telling. One of them is also a taxi driver.
Women can't be part of the motor lobby or taxi drivers?Yup. One bloke. The rest are as I’ve said above, so that’s 90% who aren’t “the motor lobby”
Because this is an appeal Ed. It’s not a rerun of the previous case. In any event, this wouldn’t be pertinent to the case. You can believe that these women are part of the motor lobby if you want that to be your convenient truth.Women can't be part of the motor lobby or taxi drivers?
The signs are pretty clear what they're campaigning for - getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today, in fact your barrister seems to be a fan on LTNs.
You really don't make a lot of sense, It's an appeal so their signs shouldn't mention what the case is actually about?Because this is an appeal Ed. It’s not a rerun of the previous case. In any event, this wouldn’t be pertinent to the case. You can believe that these women are part of the motor lobby if you want that to be your convenient truth.
You said “getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today”. I pointed out that’s it’s the appeal and so this isn’t pertinent as it’s looking at the relevant merits of a previous decision. The appeal court are looking at those merits and so the basis of the decision. I’m not sure why you think that this would be brought up unless you don’t know how the court of appeal works. This would be understandable given it’s quite technical. As I’ve said, relief is at the gift of the judge and will depend on their decisionYou really don't make a lot of sense, It's an appeal so their signs shouldn't mention what the case is actually about?
oh ffs - that's the point. The OneLambeth group are saying "No to LTNs" & "remove road closures" which isn't what the court case is about. You're claiming they're solely focused on the needs of people with disabilities, they are demonstrably not.You said “getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today”. I pointed out that’s it’s the appeal and so this isn’t pertinent as it’s looking at the relevant merits of a previous decision. The appeal court are looking at those merits and so the basis of the decision. I’m not sure why you think that this would be brought up unless you don’t know how the court of appeal works. This would be understandable given it’s quite technical. As I’ve said, relief is at the gift of the judge and will depend on their decision
I was pointing to the people in the photo and said that they weren’t the motor lobby and were there as they all had a reason based on protecting those that are “vulnerable”. So the peope in the photo are there for the exact reason the court case was brought about. Unless you know them better than I do. I which case I’m happy for you to tell me their reasons for being there.oh ffs - that's the point. The OneLambeth group are saying "No to LTNs" & "remove road closures" which isn't what the court case is about. You're claiming they're solely focused on the needs of people with disabilities, they are demonstrably not.
Not sure why you give a fuck really. If it’s upheld you’re happy. If it’s overturned, you’re also happy as it will mean that the council is reminded that it has to operate within the confines of the law. You win either way EdAnyone that thinks this is a good use of £50k is probably a lawyer.
Oh sorry - I was going by what the signs they were holding up were saying. My bad.I was pointing to the people in the photo and said that they weren’t the motor lobby and were there as they all had a reason based on protecting those that are “vulnerable”. So the peope in the photo are there for the exact reason the court case was brought about. Unless you know them better than I do. I which case I’m happy for you to tell me their reasons for being there.
So you're agree this wouldn't stop LTNs. Maybe update your fundraising page then "An appeal win could influence how LTNs are implemented across London and other UK cities, and even whether the schemes are allowed to continue."Not sure why you give a fuck really. If it’s upheld you’re happy. If it’s overturned, you’re also happy as it will mean that the council is reminded that it has to operate within the confines of the law. You win either way Ed
I’ll feed back your concerns.Oh sorry - I was going by what the signs they were holding up were saying. My bad.
So you're agree this wouldn't stop LTNs. Maybe update your fundraising page then "An appeal win could influence how LTNs are implemented across London and other UK cities, and even whether the schemes are allowed to continue."
We definitely care because it's our Council tax money being wasted.Not sure why you give a fuck really. If it’s upheld you’re happy. If it’s overturned, you’re also happy as it will mean that the council is reminded that it has to operate within the confines of the law. You win either way Ed
As I’ve said, if it’s overturned then it willWe definitely care because it's our Council tax money being wasted.
Any chance of you being more specific here and the exact parallels between a case where a couple of roads are filtered and the one you're referring to?Remember that Lambeth have form here and have had to pay out millions in damages.
Think I read somewhere that they have until February 4th to raise the moneyNotice the fundraiser is still short. Hope Sofia isn’t liable for the shortfall. Do you know what happens chowce5382 ?
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.
You could almost make a film about this kind of stuff.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.
View attachment 305704
BUT I NEED MY CAR etc etcRaising £50k to keep the status quo…
Londoners told to reduce physical activity on Friday due to pollution
Government advises older people and those with lung or heart issues to avoid strenuous activity altogetherwww.theguardian.com
It's great to see these people coming together with a common purpose to improve conditions for the vulnerable. There have been lots of OneLambeth complaints, and mention in the court, that not enough groups representing people with disabilities were consulted ahead of the implementation of the LTNs. I guess the reality will show over time - whether these individuals will now be volunteering with one or more of the existing groups, or forming a new local body to lobby the council for a range of improvements to the area to benefit people with disabilities. Or whether their only interest and concern is over LTNs and their freedom to drive everywhere by the shortest route. That the banners they're holding up seem unrelated to the case doesn't seem a good sign.I was pointing to the people in the photo and said that they weren’t the motor lobby and were there as they all had a reason based on protecting those that are “vulnerable”. So the peope in the photo are there for the exact reason the court case was brought about. Unless you know them better than I do. I which case I’m happy for you to tell me their reasons for being there.