Rockets

It does create a major choke-point especially is they have customers eyeing up the kumquats!

Not sure where you are getting your info from but below is the Economist article from 2015 that highlights what actually happened in Greece - the similarities with the UK are clear. As the article I linked to in a previous post highlights - it is going to be very difficult for the government to be VAT prejudicial against private schools without dragging a whole load of other VAT-exempt private education establishments (nurseries, academies, sports clubs, universities, SEND schools, Faith schools etc) into the mess. VAT law is incredibly complicated and nuanced...as the Tories found out to their cost during the pasty-tax saga! Additionally, Starmer got himself into a bit of a pickle ahead of the election by declaring that anyone with an ECHP at private school would be exempt from the VAT. But the ECHP system is cumbersome, incredibly slow and massively flawed and a large percentage of children who have SEND issues at private schools (and are often funded by local authorities because they cannot be taught in the state system) do not have ECHPs. And there are more challenges and complications ahead... https://inews.co.uk/news/education/nine-reasons-taxing-private-school-fees-not-straightforward-3158472 Unfortunately soundbites, ideology and left-wing dog whistles won't unravel the potential mess this could create.....as the Greeks found to their cost...read below... https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/10/30/greece-reconsiders-a-tax-on-private-education BEFORE Greece’s snap elections in September, the outgoing left-wing government laid out plans for a value-added tax of 23% on private education. The measure, dreamed up by the governing Syriza party as an alternative to raising tax on beef, featured in their manifesto as a blow against plutocracy. It looked like a double win that would simultaneously please creditors and demonstrate the government’s commitment to helping the underprivileged. Unsurprisingly, it did neither. Some of the country’s reasonably priced private schools were forced to close, leaving staff jobless. Elsewhere, fees rose. Those affected were not just rich families. Greece has more than 300 full-time private schools, attended by about 6% of school-age children, many of whom come from middle- and lower-income families. With tuition fees as low as €2,500 ($2,750) a year, some operate in working-class areas and attract parents who are keen to give their children a leg up. Those whose parents were unable to pay higher fees moved into the already overwhelmed state system. At the beginning of term in September, Greek schools were short of some 12,000 teachers, according to the ministry of education. Some predict the shortfall will soon exceed 20,000. The tax was imposed on almost all types of private educational establishments, including language and music schools and technical colleges. It even applies to evening schools, which are a huge social phenomenon in Greece and an integral part of the education system. Full-time private education is a minority choice, but for hundreds of thousands of Greeks, evening schools (known by the ancient Greek name of frontisterion) have served as an indispensable supplement to state schooling. For low-paid teachers in the state sector, these schools are a way to boost their monthly income, and for countless pupils they have served as a vital gateway for university entrance exams. The country’s 9,000 language and evening schools employ more than 80,000 teaching and administrative staff. In the new climate, “lay-offs are inevitable, but so is tax avoidance,” says Christos Georgousopoulos, owner of Diakrotima, an evening school in the town of Lamia. Charging lower prices under the table, or employing uninsured staff may become more widespread. The general mayhem caused by the tax is forcing the government to reconsider. Indeed, Alexis Tsipras, the prime minister, had already thought better of the move before the recent election and promised to reverse it. But that has proved difficult: the deadline for the government to find an alternative revenue-raising measure passed on October 23rd, putting the 23% VAT rate into automatic effect. A new deadline has been set for November. The government is reported to be scrapping the idea of taxing private tuition and imposing higher road taxes instead. As in so many areas of Greek life, the dispute has highlighted a gap between theory and practice. There is a strong ideological antipathy in Greece to the idea of education as a profitable enterprise. In deference to that ideology, state universities, which account for most higher education, offer free tuition. Private campuses exist, but the degrees they offer are not recognised by the state. But a gap between ideology and real life is something with which many Greeks seem to live quite contentedly. Take Mr Tsipras: despite his professed admiration for state provision, he has enrolled his son in a well-known Athenian private school.

But what age groups though? The pupil shortage is affecting the primary sector - all of the schools closing locally are primary and, in fact, a Southwark report on the issue cites a significant fall in birth rates between 2010 and 2020 as one of the main causes of the problem (see paras 14 to 21 in the attached): https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s114684/Report Mitigating falling pupil numbers in schools.pdf There are a very limited secondary school places - it is one of the reasons Charter East was built. And it will take at least 5-10 years for the fall in primary pupils to have a big impact on secondary. This is an utterly misguided policy that has a very high chance of backfiring spectacularly and making some private schools even more elitist (Dulwich College had aspirations to have 50% of their pupils from state on bursaries but one wonders whether they can pursue this now and we know people with children at some of the most elitist private schools in the country who have pre-paid for their children's education and thus will avoid the VAT), closing down of many the smaller private schools, putting an increased burden on the tax-payer and ultimately impacting everyone's education negatively. Never mind the impact on nursery provision, vocational and college, academy or university courses or schools that are focussed on faith, disabilities or SEND - all of which are currently VAT free but are considered "private education". Ask the Greeks how it went for them - the left-wing dog whistle they blew backfired spectacularly and it was the very people they were trying to help who took the brunt of the fallout as the state system was over-run. Within two years it was reversed. Here's another article that cuts through some of the noise and lays out how complex this is going to be for the government and what a minefield it is for them: https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/labours-private-school-fees-pledge-requires-lesson-in-vat

Which is why march46 should never have posted that info in this thread, but they were clearly trying to suggest that the accident was caused by dangerous driving. This is a dangerous precedent to set especially if the police/persons involved are appealing for witnesses but a tactic straight from the DulwichRoads playbook where they try to project that any motorised vehicle accident is caused by speeding/dangerous driving or a combination of both. Clearly issues of potential sub judice do not apply if you are a pro-active travel lobbyist with an X account!

Clearly it's not but you may be onto something about the smugly bit! It's about trying to get cyclists to obey the rules and be respectful of other roads users, especially pedestrians (who are the most vulnerable road users and are afforded protection as such in the Highway Code - which many cyclists seem not to be aware of or ignore). The problem of bad cycling is growing, and at a far greater rate than any cycling growth. The 33% increase in pedestrians being hit by cyclists since 2020 is a very telling stat - one that many on the pro-cycle lobby seem keen to ignore. What it is actually trying to do is to get people like you (and March46) in the cycle lobby to acknowledge there is a problem and work with people to help resolve it instead of having you bury your heads in the ideological sand and try to convince people there is not a problem. The pro-cycle lobby can deflect and derail as much as they like (they seem to be trapped in this narcissistic headspace that only cyclists matter) but the problem is not going away and I suspect the only resolution is for draconian measures to be brought upon all cyclists to ensure compliance. Interestingly Peter Walker has another, ahem, "exclusive" (how does he do it!) where the cycle lobby calls for an end to the culture war on cyclists, whilst lobbying for more cycle infrastructure and investment: https://amp.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/jul/21/cycling-campaigners-call-for-end-to-culture-war-on-active-travel What's really interesting is that, whilst calling for 10% of all transport spend to be invested in active travel and at the same time lobbying for more cycle infrastructure, the head of Cycling UK calls for any debate on the issue to be "evidence based". This seems like a very risky strategy for the cycle lobby as clearly the investment in cycle infrastructure (which has come at a massive detrimental cost to public transport and pedestrians) has not delivered what was promised and any proper independent evidence-based analysis would likely say cycling is not delivering and that the priority needs to be focussed on buses and pedestrians (especially in cities like London that have pretty much ground to a halt due to the over-indexing on cycling from the cycle-lobby leaders that have been given roles to manage active travel prioritisation and investment).

I also think, that unless the facts on what actually happened have been established, that the post should not be in a thread entitled "Dangerous drivers everywhere!!" especially if witnesses are being sought - it creates the impression/suggestion that this was due to dangerous driving. People also need to think carefully about reposting content from Dulwich Roads as they have a long history of posting details of accidents without ever establishing what actually happened. They are using their channel to try and create the impression that every accident is due to speeding or dangerous/bad driving and when they have been alerted to the actual causes they refuse to provide updates - blinkered by their own self-importance and ideology.

I very much hope the person injured is OK. By the way, as you have posted this in a Dangerous Drivers Everywhere thread are you trying to suggest this was the result of a driver driving dangerously?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/cyclists-london-safe-bike-pedestrian-drivers-roads-b2583927.html

Be careful what you wish for and anyone with kids in the state system should be concerned about this too. The Greeks did this in 2015 with disastrous consequences. The measures negatively impacted the state school system and the policy had to be reversed. https://www.economist.com/europe/2015/10/30/greece-reconsiders-a-tax-on-private-education The problem is that the likes of DC, Allen's, JAGs etc will survive (and can probably absorb the costs) but smaller schools will inevitably go under - which is exactly what happened in Greece and that led to a big influx of children into the state system and class sizes grew to breaking point. Teachers from the private system who lost their jobs did not move to state and were lost to education. There is also the complex issue of exemptions for SEND pupils which is a minefield for the government as there are many SEND children in private without the relevant documentation as it can take years to get. Additionally, it is not just private schools that get tax benefits but vocational courses and even sports clubs so the impact may be much broader. As the Greeks found to their cost.

More than a few of whose owners no doubt come from the champagne branch of socialism....and we know how influential they can be once they get tje ear of local councillors! 😉

Yes Malumbu, of course you are, because you got what you wanted (but of course had no actual input as you don't actually live in the borough) but let's see how you feel if the same thing gets played back to you on something you don't want...then let's see if you are happy to turn a blind eye to willful political abuses of power. Be careful what you wish for and all that.

Southwark Labour actively avoided any mention of LTNs in their council election missives, hustings or propaganda. It was almost as if they were not a thing they ever forced upon their constituents under the cover of Covid without any proper consultation. The moment they won....ta dah...they are back again...claiming they had a mandate to continue rolling them out...charlatans....!

But they seem to be the go-to people for research on all things LTNs etc now that Aldred & Co have been shown to be anything other than impartial and have something of a bad name. One can only speculate as to why they are "opaque" - it makes you wonder who is behind them and how legitimate they are. Given Private Eye is sniffing around them I suspect it won't be long before we find out and my bet is they have very close ties to the very people commissioning the research or, as became all too apparent with Aldred & Co, they are not at all impartial and have massive conflicts of interest. It's interesting that Carlton Reid's article claimed: The newest poll was conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, a 23-year-old London-based global polling and strategic consulting company. Yet Redfield and Wilton's own website says the company was started in 2020....it was almost as if Carlton (or whomever was pushing the research to him for coverage) was trying to legitimise the survey. The more you research into Redfield and Wilton the more you realise they are questionable to say the least - is that what the Private Eye article is suggesting DKHB?

I think a lot of people don't believe in activist research....the wild west of the research community where the conclusions are determined before the research has even started and the researchers have zero impartiality or credibility.

It's actually amazing they got 300 votes in a general election - does anyone remember when someone opened the Southwark petition for those against the closures and it got lots and lots of signatories and then someone decided to do one for those in favour and it struggled to reach double figures!

And that's just the money to pay for the work that is starting this week, one wonders how much the overall total is running at now - close to £5m perhaps? Apparently money is tight...they certainly dont spend like it is. Conway are making a pretty packet from this active travel racket.

I am not advocating a return to the traffic hell that was that junction previously but I certainly don't support the pouring of more and more tax-payers money into the junction - I read that the latest works are costing £1.5m....which is a complete waste of money - money that would be better spent elsewhere on the local road network but, for some reason, Southwark council are hellbent on spending it on that junction - it makes me wonder who they are pandering to.

Some would suggest that the works of Redfield & Wilton and the likes of Aldred & Co are also opinions.....

The criminal activity is targeted at areas where councils have an aggressive approach to revenue generation from parking enforcement because it sows uncertainty in those who receive the tickets. The criminals are playing in to the fact the council is hellbent on rolling out CPZs and has created pockets of CPZ zones and has a third company sending loads of parking enforcement officers to patrol the area. McAsh is commenting because he knows why this is happening and it is his policy that is the catalyst.

A sad side-effect of the council's approach to parking enforcement as a means of targeting constituents for revenue generation.

And your point is what exactly because it's pretty clear who commissioned the data isn't it - in fact they are quoted as the source of the information in the second paragraph of that article so they aren't exactly trying to hide it? Can you find any information on who paid for the Redfield & Wilton report.......? Because they didn't do it for free....I suspect if you ever manage to find who funded it it would be quite enlightening as to why they came to the conclusions they did.....

Actually here is what really happened. The council had tried, for years, to convince people that the junctions needed closing but they could not get local support for it (it was the OHS programme) The DV junction was an awful junction not because it was a "rat run" as you claim but because it was one of the only East/West routes across the Dulwich area The council did, however, spend lots of money on making changes to the junction that actually (according to their own data) increased congestion and pollution. Covid came The council then used emergency Covid powers given to them to close the junction to "aid social distancing" The council did this because they didn't need to consult and get local support for their closures (which they had failed to do previously) - they used Covid as the Trojan Horse to get their changes through A lot of local people were very angry about this and One Dulwich was born to represent those voices as the council were trying to convince people that only a "small vocal minority" objected to them and were trying to actively drown out any people who dared question their actions. One Dulwich asked people to register their email on their site if they supported their cause - that total currently stands at 2,100 people and they shared the locations of where those people were located to drown out accusations that they were not representing local people https://www.onedulwich.uk/supporters The closure made the junction wonderful because no traffic could use it but it displaced the traffic to other routes across the area increasing congestion and pollution for those not lucky enough to live in the closed area. The council then went chasing the displacement by rolling out timed closures and new traffic measures around the new routes people were taking because the shift to cycling they dreamed of never materialised because closures never have the % modal change needed for them to be effective The council had to put a red light filter on the turn from Dulwich Village onto East Dulwich Grove because the traffic was worse than it had ever been through Dulwich Village. The council put in timed closures along many of the displacement routes to try and mitigate the impact of their closure The closures caused huge issues with response times for emergency services but the council, for some reason, ignored the input from the emergency services for over a year - and actively tried to convince people there was no issue. The council prioritised cycle traffic over everything else at the junctions which is causing issues for pedestrians The council already spent huge amounts of tax payers money on that junction at a time when it was pleading poverty and when other parts of the Dulwich transport infrastructure was crying out for investment. They submitted a plan for around £8m that was laughed out of the room They were then forced to consult on the junction and they did not have a mandate from the responses to roll out anymore changes yet they are going ahead anyway The council are doing more than landscaping at a huge cost to the tax payer - attached is the copy of the letter sent to local residents to warn about the disruption which is due to last at least 5 months. Local residents are continuing to question why the council is hell-bent on wasting huge amounts of tax-payers money on that junction - but they are pleased that the council is putting cycle speed calming measures in place (despite the council and their supporters claiming there is no issue with this) Councillettertoresidents.pdf

There isn't any because the anti-LTN lobby didn't pay a company to find the results it wanted......the pro-LTN lobby on the other hand have used this tactic from the get-go and then they get pro-LTN journalists like Carlton Reid or Peter Walker (often giving them "exclusives") to amplify the results because they know they won't ever look at the detail and will just parrot supportive headlines. Activist researchers feeding activist journalists to amplify an activist agenda.

Please don't then post an article by a cycle protagonist using research from a pay to play research house who don't tell you who commissioned the research.....ah.... P.S. Interesting that in said research it also says that Londoners think that cycling should have the lowest priority..one presumes you validate that too? Funny how Carlton Reid didn't pick up on that finding.... When asked which mode of transport should be given the highest priority on London’s streets, 37% say buses should be given the highest priority. 21% believe pedestrians should be given the highest priority, followed by private cars (13%) and cyclists (12%).

...with people who live WITHIN the LTNs....a vital part of the story that you have, perhaps deliberately, left out......