first mate

It is helpful, but putting off until after the election is the likely motivation, I think!

But they didn't, they said the father behaved inappropriately (not properly supervising his child), gave a half- hearted apology (sorry, but...), laughed at and discussed within the OP's earshot the OP's upset response with his mates. I do not think he said the parent was awful, did he? It just seems like some are angling around trying to find a way to justify how the parent handled this. It just doesn't feel that complicated- most likely OP was startled, reproached the parent and did not get a real apology, instead being made to feel they were somehow in the wrong. It can happen.

Sounds like Mal is doing a bit of projection there.

If we accept what the OP has written, and it does seem credible, the father did not respond to the incident appropriately. His child was out of his line of sight when the OP was hit from behind by the child on a bike. Many of us, having been startled like this, might express some displeasure. Rather than a sincere and concerned apology, it sounds as though the father instead attempted to paint the OP as the problem, even laughing at them. I don't know what kind of message that would send to his child but doubt it is a good one.

@Sue said: nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? This is the point. Adults are meant to teach their children by example. It sounds as though the adult guardian/ father in this case did not react appropriately. Had a truly sincere apology been given, I suspect the OP would not have posted on here. It is possible the OP snapped in the heat of the moment, but they were possibly startled because they were hit from behind? If we are startled it can be instinctive to initially react with anger. I also agree that it would be highly irresponsible to let any very young child ride or walk or do anything on a busy public street without supervision- most of all to protect the child. If in this case the child was out of the adult's line of sight that is perhaps another indication that the father needs a refresh in appropriate behaviour around a child, as well as his manners.

I am struggling to understand how Green policies translate to local issues? The Southwark Greens leaflet I received reads like a general wish list but is not locally specific. I know the same can be said of other political parties. What specifically are Greens plans for housing, protecting local parks, council tax, transport and roads/ pavement upkeep, CPZ/LTNs? On the national stage, I'm interested in the detail of how they would reverse privatisation and take water companies back into public ownership. I am not disputing the desirability of this, but in reality how will they do it?

Completely agree. We have enough pubs in the area. Franklins is more like a restaurant with a small bar. The hope is that it is not changed too much. If it ain't broken... as the saying goes.

Understood; I see the thread title has been changed a few times. Do we know if a pedestrian was definitely involved? I also hope no person was injured. As for driverless cars, I think Waymo are due to launch in London this September. It may improve speeding and other results due to driver behaviour, not sure what impact these may have on congestion though.

Surely the key thing is to establish the facts, without that you are introducing assumptions as well as blame. It seems the OP accurately posted what they saw at the time. I am not sure why you introduced the pedestrian aspect- if only as an example, then it has caused confusion as to what actually happened. As for the statement that a driver has agency, mostly I would agree but it is not a given. There can be a mechanical failure, a medical emergency and, finally, the driverless car is on its way.

I wonder how long it will be before we get the result? Before or after May?

I don't really understand the question in this context? I mean, yes, most of us are motivated by a degree of self interest but Rockets is not standing for election as a local councillor( is he?), nor did he stand for leadership of the Council, so in that sense does not have the power or influence to significantly affect thousands of voter lives.

I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything. I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?

@DulvilleRes, No idea about Daily Mail article- though your simplistic and facile attempt to paint anyone that objects to some of Labour's road and traffic management interventions as 'must be a right wing-Reform-loving-Daily Mail- reader, is now looking a bit desperate. Word can also spread locally about questionable actions. Given the shopkeeper had consented for the leaflet to be displayed on their property, I doubt they were too impressed.

Yes, but I want to know where he stands on all this stuff now. My feeling is it won't be any different from Labour?

It seems like Charlie Smith is not standing for GG ward again, or has he also defected to the Greens? The Labour website info also suggests McAsh is standing for GG Ward, so that needs updating! FWIW thus far Labour 'promises' on their website says zilch about roads, traffic etc.. I feel we have been here before.