Earl Aelfheah

If you read the letter from Chloe Deakin it is very clear that some at Dulwich College were quite comfortable with having a fascist as a prefect back in 1981.

They also described him as 'racist' https://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter One of his teachers was reported as describing his "publicly professed racist and neo-fascist views". This was in 1981, and in writing - it cannot possibly be said to have been someone trying to undermine him in a future role as a politician (unless they had a time machine or some sort of clairvoyance). I think it is fairly clear that he displayed racist behaviour as a young man of 17 / 18. Whilst he is now more careful / guarded in his language, I suspect not much has changed based on his preoccupations and rhetoric.

I totally disagree. If you listen to the Guardian podcast, which speaks with the reporter and one of those on the receiving end of Farage’s abuse, it is very balanced and credible. It is also notable that we have a letter written in 1981 by an English teacher at DC, begging the head teacher not to allow farage to become a school prefect due to his ‘fascist tendencies’. That is contemporaneous evidence of his racism at the time.

.

@CPR Dave - It is absolutely clear that Trump (a man with 34 felony convictions and who’s been found guilty by a jury of rape) was trying to overturn the election, that he directed and angry mob to march on the Capitol to obstruct the certification process, and that he later condoned the violence that took place further by commuting the sentences of far right thugs. The fact that he is now suing the UK's publicly owned broadcaster (aka the UK taxpayer) is disgraceful. Anyone with any sort of national pride, should be telling Trump exactly where he can put his lawsuit.

That's very good news!!

May I ask what actions you're advocating for? It would be helpful to share if you think they've had a positive real world impact. These steps that have been taken - Any chance you could say more? It's a little cryptic.

Don't get me wrong. I think social media algorithms have a big (largely malign) impact on the real world. But that's not the same as saying an individual posting / reposting stuff into what's largely an echo chamber, amounts to a form of activism / community action. I believe the term is 'slacktivism'.

I think we have lost all perspective - The BBC clearly misquoted Trump (which is obviously wrong), in a programme that broadly gave an accurate account of what happened on January 6th - that he inspired the attack on the Capitol. His speech did repeatedly call on people to fight. He repeatedly claimed that the election had been stolen. He has since pardoned many of those involved in that violence. The 'journalist' at the Telegraph who 'broke' this 'story', more than a year after the Panorama documentary aired, also misquoted Trump's speech and gave a false impression of what was actually said. In both the case of the BBC and the Telegraph, the editing was misleading and sloppy. In my opinion however, the editing of the speech by the Telegraph is actually more misleading than the BBC's. The jist of the speech was not one calling for calm, but one calling for supporters to fight: "...fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore". Trump used the term "fight" twenty times, and the term "peacefully" just once. During Trump's speech, his supporters chanted "Take the Capitol", "Invade the Capitol", "Storm the Capitol" and "Fight for Trump". The Telegraph have not acknowledged their misleading editing / misquote of course. Trump has escaped punishment for his role in a violent insurrection. Many of the rioters who stormed the Capital have been let off / pardoned. The only people to have taken responsibility for anything, or to have faced any consequences for their behaviour, are the BBC. The BBC have apologised and both the BBC Director General and the News CEO have lost their jobs. They (we) also face a 1 billion dollar law suit from a corrupt, criminal, President (an unprecedented act from the supposed 'defender of free speech / the free world'). The idea that the BBC's errors are being 'swept under the carpet' is self evidently nonsense. It is very clear that the Telegraph would love to end the BBC, as would the Times etc. They are not motivated by the national interest, or a quest for truth (neither is Trump - a firehose of BS). For Trump to be suing any media organisation as the sitting president of the United states, (let along a publicly owned UK broadcaster - effectively, the British taxpayer) is outrageous. That the whole country isn't telling him exactly where to go, shows a distinct lack of patriotism in my opinion.

The ‘tree people’ conjures up a very Tolkienesque image.

I'm not massively convinced by this. I think posting on social media is often mistaken for a form of activism, but actually changes very little in the real world (except perhaps increasing polarisation due to the echo chamber nature of the algorithms). May I ask what actions you're advocating for? It would be helpful to share if you think they've had a positive real world impact.

Those suggesting that they can't see a bicycle with lights and reflectors, unless the rider is also dressed in specialist reflective clothing sound like they might be wearing blinkers, I agree. Personally I do wear a reflective jacket, but that's my choice. It's easy to judge others, but I suspect many people use a bicycle without first donning special 'cycling ' clothes - They don't deserve to have someone who is not paying adequate attention, drive into them. About 5 and half thousand pedestrians get hit by cars each year in London. I'm assuming you're not blaming the pedestrians for the clothes they were wearing?

Bicycles are also required under law to have lights. A bicycle with lights ands reflectors is visible. If you’re looking.

I notice that that no one is calling for cars to be painted bright colours though. And do you wear bright clothes and reflective materials when walking after dark, as advised by the Highway Code? Why not?

The advice doesn't relate to situations where pedestrians share footpaths with cars. In fact the picture from the highway code clearly shows two individuals walking on a pavement. If you are suggesting that people must abide by advice when they're travelling by bicycle, then surely the same logic applies when they're travelling by foot? Or perhaps where it is just advice and not a mandatory requirement, individuals should consider it and exercise judgement? Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I would suggest that they are not if you are driving with due care and attention. The law would tend to agree with me too. If you drive a motor vehicle into someone travelling quite properly by bicycle and who has lights, the excuse of 'not seeing them' isn't going to be very convincing. And what colour of clothing is it ok to wear? What about green? What type of green? At what point is the shade no longer bright enough to consider them worthy of sympathy in the even of a collision?

The highway code advises reflective clothing for pedestrians at night, yes (not helmets). It also advises you "wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions". I've posted a screenshot above. Do you think that a person travelling by bicycle on well lit city streets, with lights and reflectors is difficult to see? I think they're perfectly visible to anyone paying adequate attention. If someone chooses to wear additional reflective clothing, that's great - but it's up to them. It's not mandatory, and anyone who choses to just walk or cycle in their normal clothes is perfectly entitled to do so. We shouldn't make excuses for inattentive / dangerous driving.

The space outside of Jades, where that tree is is extremely narrow as are many other bits, and the whole stretch is packed at weekends / very slow going.

BTW, this is a local discussion forum. So it kind of is a debate.

I don't know about that. I'm just commenting on the idea that it's not possible to read the signs / notice a school street. That said, if you're going from ED to Highshore Road, can't you go via McDermott > Choumert Grove > Chadwick? The original post suggested that the school street would only be in operation for just over an hour in the morning?

You can see the line along the Oddono's / Moxon's stretch where the shop owned frontages end and the pavement begins. The pavement is narrow for what is a very busy stretch at particular times and were there are pinch points around trees. You can also see in the picture below, why buses struggle to pass each other / cause congestion because of cars in the bus lane.

Who is 'they'? The people of West Dulwich?

No one is arguing that people should cycle without lights or reflectors. Obviously they should. It is also a legal requirement. But the colour of someone’s clothing? Is it ok to wear navy? What about green? What shade? At what point should we have ‘no reason for sympathy’ if they’re in a collision? I don’t want people to feel like they need special clothes just to walk or cycle. If you have lights and reflectors and you’re on well lit city streets, there is no reason why drivers shouldn’t be able to see you, assuming of course, that they're driving with due care and attention. But yes, if there are lots of people without lights, that should be addressed. I suspect in part, it's the change over in seasons and the fact that people are getting caught out by how early it's getting dark now (obviously no excuse).

I agree with this. Would be interesting to see.

I don't know it... Cyclists who chose not to follow advice? Does that extend to pedestrians who fail to follow advice too? Do you “Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions” when walking? As advised by the Highway Code? It’s quite grey out today. If not, and you get hit by a car, should there be 'no reason for sympathy'?

People should abide by the rules obviously and should have lights and reflectors (which make them perfectly visible, especially in a well lit urban area). Anything they choose to do over and above that is up to them. There is advisory guidance (as posted above). But it's just that, advisory. People should use their own judgement and I strongly oppose the idea that if one doesn't agree with their choice, then they 'get what the deserve' (which is effectively what Penguin is suggesting). The highway code also suggest that pedestrians should: Which one might consider sensible advice, but very few people abide by (and I certainly don't criticise them where they don't -I for one have never worn a luminous sash when walking 🤣).