PokerTime

You are not getting away with that one James. It was the Libdems who decided to sell the Heygate, moving out residents, promising them new homes as part of the regeneration, homes that didn't exist when they were moved off in 2007. I don't know how we've gone from 3000 council homes being replaced with just 79 social homes, but to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Labour council is ridiculous. Just look at the connections both Nick Stanton and Kim Humphries (and various former labour councillors) have to the players involved for example. It's all corrupt. http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/04/09/report-uncovers-corruption-at-the-elephant/ Southwark Council looked at different options for the estate in 1998. The surveyors found that the buildings were structurally sound and suggested that the best option was refurbishment. The same survey also found that four in five residents didn?t want to move off the estate. The Libdem council geve no merit to the wishes of that community, one that has been lost for ever to be replaced by what? A sizeable percentage of the new properties have already been sold off plan to foreign investors - people who will never live there. The whole thing has been a stitch up for ordinary Londoners since Nick Stanton drove up the scheme. His comments and justification of it all are not fantasy. It's very clear what he though of social housing tenants. The council will make a loss on the scheme while the developers make ?194m profit! Also just for the record, The Libdem council either sold off or demolished 8000 council homes between 2002 and 2010. Kind of makes the few hundred homes built pale into insignificance. And then there were the plans to sell off estates in need of high investment like the 4 Squares. There is no worthy track record there. Nor is it fantasy regarding the lies told at the last council elections desgined to scare social housing tenants away from Labour. It's the worst kind of campaign tactic, and lost all respect from me for the local Libdem party (a party I had voted for in the past). That's even before the travesty of the coalition landed on us. But let's look at other aspects of Libdems in control. Contracts awarded to dodgy maintenance companies like Morrissons, who lied about the work they did and charged the council for it. The Libdem council completely failed to deliver a working repairs service. ?100m wasted on a failed call centre contract. Libdem wards prioritised for decent homes programmes over Labour wards. That's what Libdem policies on housing looks like. And then you have the hypocrasy of people like Simon Hughes, voting for motions like the one to give the government power to close local hopsitals, a change in law sought after Lewisham Hospital won its legal battle against the government. To claim any kind of moral high ground over Labour is laughable. Whilst not perfect, imo the current Labour council has performed much better than the previous Libdem run council - and that's in spite of the draconian cuts imposed on them by central government. That doesn't take away from you though all the work you have done for your local community. You clearly put in a lot of effort. House building is a complex issue. All local authorities sell property, for a wide variety of reasons, some of which are are vaild, others not. It's very easy to make claims of what you will build/ do in oppostion. Much harder to deliver when it comes to the cost of it all, and even harder when your party in government has cut all avenues of available funding for decent homes and construction. If you want the respect of voters on issues like housing, then stop telling lies about sell offs, acknowledge the mistakes of the past (and the self interest and conflicts of interest of key players) and have an intelligent discussion on how next time it will be different. People are fed up of soundbite playground politics. Calling Labour bad does not make Libdems good. We are not stupid. A Libdem council will have no more money or power to solve the current housing issues than a Labour one.

Well said Renata. I still remember the LibDem record when they controlled the council. I can still hear Nick Stanton on the Politics Show saying 'an area so close to central London shouldn't be so poor' in defense of the sell off of the Heygate to private developers. Land that was sold for the paltry sum of just ?50m. And then there were the Libdem local election leaflets from last time that proclaimed that a Labour run council would sell off council home management to private companies. Hmm that didn't happen either did it Mr Barber? Looks like they haven't changed their tune with this little gem from the current manifesto caliming that Labour 'Roll over to property developers instead of fighting for more affordable homes' (you have to be kidding me!). And claiming they will 'Fight for 1 in 3 homes in every new development to be affordable'. Well Mr Barber, only 3% of new homes on the Heygate redevelopment will be social rented. That's just 79 homes. Previously it provided up to 3000 homes for social rent. I wouldn't trust Local Libdems on housing as far I could throw them personally.

Charming!

I agree Loz. I also don't expect turnout to be remarkable either.

He would be classed as a pedestrian so if there were blame to be assigned it would be under those terms. The only course of action for the scooter owner would be through civil avenues I think, that is providing he would be worth suing. She needs a name and address to do that of course. The police would have been able to help in that respect if he hadn't run away.

But otta, the OP says that he ran off because she was calling the Police. He was scared alright, that he would have to give his details to them.

I'm not humourless at all. I just don't like seeing people made fun of that's all.

A skateboard has no brakes. It has only limited control. Yes it's pretty stupid for someone to skateboard down a road that motor vehicles and cyclists are using. That's all I'm trying to say.

There is the following bylaw in Southwark.... Skateboarding etc 3. No person shall skate, slide or ride on rollers, skateboards or other self-propelled vehicles on any footway or carriageway in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the footway or carriageway.

A skateboard is not a vehicle. It's completely stupid to use it on a road, especially when vehicles are using that road. Vehicles are required to have insurance. Some cyclists also have insurance (just in case they cause an accident). It's not ok to cause an accident and run off. If a driver does that, it's a criminal offence. He's liable at least for the damage to the scooter.

I don't resort to assumptions about someones childhood when being challenged about my views, or resort to any other kind of insult either. Do you not think to make fun of Cella's genuinely upsetting experience is insensitive? For most people, expressing a view on the thread itself is enough. To then go and start another thread to poke fun is another thing entirely. How do you think she will feel when she sees this thread. She at the very least is going to wonder why you are making fun of her. She may never have the confidence to post again. And sensitivity btw is a good thing. It's what makes some of us compassionate and caring. I'm not the only one who thinks this thread is insensitive. It doesn't show you in a good light.

The OP was photographing an act of law breaking. The OP was not setting out to photograph genitals. The display of genitals was an act of that law breaking. That's how the law would see it. When you break the law you lose the right to consent to reasonable acts to catch you committing that crime. In the absence of a law enforcer (i.e. police) use of photography and CCTV is perfectly reasonable. It's blatently clear to all why the OP was offended and why the OP took that picture. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Equally, to challenge the right to confront those behaving in an unlawful way is also nonsense. I do think location is key here. We are not talking about some discreet alley in the dead of night. We are talking about an open space, next to a children's playground, a busy throughfare for pedestrians, and ironically the wall of an open bar/ restaurant that has toilets inside. Put all of that together and I see very little in terms of defense of this guy, and fail to see anything to criticise in the actions of the OP.

I don't accept that. My point was a point of law. Whatever I may think about people relieving themselves in public spaces, the law is clear. You either accept the rule of law or you don't. You can't pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.

It wasn't a child though Loz. It's not a good analogy.

And just on the photo thing. If someone breaks into a home, they are breaking the law. If you take a photo or take action to help catch them doing it and they retaliate, are you then at fault for trying to get evidence to convict them? It doesn't matter if the incident is burglary or urinating in a public space. BOTH are against the law. Obviously one has more impact than the other, but the principle is the same. The OP clearly felt on principle that this is behaviour that she wasn't prepared to tolerate. I can understand that. What I don't understand is why some people have to belittle her experience with mockery. It's ok for people to have different levels of sensibility, and it's certainly ok when the law is of the same view.

The first offence is urinating in a public space. The second offence (indecent exposure intended to cause harm and/or harassment) is a public order offence. If damage has been done to the mural or brickwork, that is a criminal damage offence. Given that the spot overlooks a childrens play area, and the wall he relieved himself on belongs to a restaurant and bar with toilet facilities open at that time of the day, there was no excuse. Do you say same the thing to women who are flashed at LD? Indecent exposure is indecent exposure no?

You are little bully aren't you? My way or the highway.

I won't be taking any suggestions from someone who sees fit to blatently mock the experience of someone subjected to public indecency. Most people have at least that level of moral compass.

That has to be one of the most infantile things I've read in a long time.

Why do you have to be so sarcastic LD? Several people have pointed out the poor taste in mocking a thread (and OP) who was clearly affected by what some would describe as an act of indecency. Are you really that insensitive?

He shouldn't have been skateboarding on the road. That was an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully the description above is good enough that someone will know or recognise him. More and more road users are now attaching cameras to their vehicles and it's not hard to see why.

It's a curious one because the junction is not really so narrow that vehicles should have problems navigating it. The raised road to kerb level probably doesn't help but there seems to be a lot of poor drivers making the same mistakes at this junction.

For a solicitor I am suprised by your attitude LD.

You can't know that LD. Had a Police car driven by they would have stopped to reprimand him too. It's a public order offence (whatever anyone may think about it being so). Any member of the public has a perfect right to challenge or report such an offence. He was in the wrong from the moment he unzipped his flies. The OP was merely gathering evidence which is perfectly acceptable. That's how the law would see it.

I'm all for a bit of good humoured parody but am I the only one who thinks this one is in poor taste?