first mate

Only in DV?

No, not when you have a hill either end of ED and the main flatter route out of the area is viewed as 'iffy'.

I really think it is an issue and will make some people think twice about the wisdom of active travel(walking or cycling). With the cost of living crisis and pressures all round theft will be on the rise. Avoiding certain routes or not cycling at certain times is a practical solution but does not make cycling feel like the flexible and attractive transport option it is painted to be.

Yes, as dependence on cycling increases thieves will learn to identify the more expensive models and it is not so difficult for a young male to intimidate a lone woman. Does anyone have some useful advice as to what more vulnerable cyclists can do to protect themselves?

Mr/Mrs Waseley, I think most objectors are not anti all LTNs in principle but anti the lack of proper consultation and thoughtful implementation. Many of these LTNs were shoehorned in under emergency measures in lockdown. We are no longer in lockdown or emergency measures; time to review and reconsider the real efficacy of our local LTNs, not least with a proper and transparent process of consultation.

But it is not "opposed in principle"- that is your negative spin, it is simply stating the blindingly obvious, that currently LTNs in this area, in the way they have been implemented, are not working as well as was hoped and for some have made congestion and pollution very much worse.

They were/are but so are many other breeds. The key point is that the owner should not have had the dog off lead in that area. In fact, IMHO dogs should not be off lead on any of the footpaths in the parks...this would solve so many potential problems. Dogs can play off lead in the field areas.

There are PSPOs in place on PR which allow an owner to be fined and ordered to keep their dog on lead. There are mechanisms in place but they are not used. No need to go for a wholesale ban but the owner of this dog should definitely be held to account and educated. I hope the parent goose and goslings are going to be okay? The problem is that if the parent is badly injured the whole family are vulnerable to other predators. CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dogs should be banned from this park altogether. > > Let them have Goose Green which has already been > turned into a giant dog toilet by selfish owners > and keep the rest of our parks clean and safe.

I doubt SL will be removed but tactical voting may help to increase scrutiny and accountability. The Lib Dems do not seem to have taken a clear position on LTNs. Does anyone know what Michael Green's stance is?

Mops this is disgraceful. I cannot imagine how upsetting and intimidating this must feel. It is appalling but not surprising to learn that your local councillor has not intervened but has instead opportunistically used your complaint to further a pet agenda. I very much hope that the SNP meeting can help and support you. Have you spoken to your neighbours? Is there anything you could do as a group?

If true, it does seem a bit of a contradictory position. To fly abroad for a holiday is a choice, after all. However, a link would be fair. Glad the Rye has been left spotless.

The plan seems to retain 5 onsite parking spaces for commercial use.

You misread the post and misrepresented the poster. Time to put that cognitive bias away. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shouting and screaming at councillors about > attempts to reduce car use and people raising > awareness of imminent climate breakdown *slow > handclap*

A slight aside but for that reason I do not understand how common land can be licensed for private use by the council ( Gala festival. gabys1st Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that the Common is common land > so can't be stopped from camping and that they > have porto loos. > XR wda thought pretty obvious want more wind > turbines and building insulation. > Wdnt a Peoples Assembly allow for the above to > happen if enuf peeps wanted them to?

What is meant by ditching pets? I feel reasonably sure this is not a call for mass abandonment or euthanasia but just want to be clear. I suspect fuel poverty and the unravelling energy crisis is more likely to cause a shift in behaviour than any amount of direct action.

I rest my case.

What a very patronising post. Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Community bonds to support low emission bus > services deserves a thread of its own. There are > many on this thread that seem to have a lot of > free time to post on why the LTNs are bad. Their > time could be better spent on initiating a > community bond scheme in this area. Not a dig but > a challenge 😊

Not sure we are debating though? I think we are disagreeing about how effective XR type direct actions are. Do agree with much of your second para though

If it is a matter of only inconveniencing people then okay but once you stop people going to a relative in hospital I think a line begins to be crossed. I thinks the latter risks spilling over into doing harm.

I seem to recall in one case they would not let someone through who was on their way to be with an elderly parent in hospital. The person was completely distraught. I do not feel comfortable with that.

So XR get to commandeer the Common for free in April and then for weeks over the summer residents will be excluded from using the Common, unless they pay. This is madness.

Thanks Legal, Lots of objections from locals, which is good. The police are not happy. The proposal is for three three day events, for up to 20,000 people on the common and, I think, other parts of the park, in perpetuity. So 9 days of noise and then you have to add preparation of site time, which is days either side of the event. Overall this could be weeks of park use. Fortunately two Labour Councillors are among the objectors. Councillor Hamvas makes the point that the application is exceptionally vague and the applicants are asking for a license for use of most of the park as a massive premises.

Not condoning this action but if the shrub was overhanging the pavement it is in breach of the Highway Act 1980 s154. To add, it should be cut back to the boundary but not completely destroyed. Have they trespassed? Perhaps it was causing an issue for someone locally.

A divisive issue is likely to generate divisive content. I also think Waseley's post was on the strong side and hardly even-handed.

My preference would be for some very strong independents. But, it is likely they would be isolated and given a rough ride. But the hope would be that an independent might have a genuine interest in grass roots local issues. Some current councillors seem too interested in careers at national level. I am not a natural tory or even LD voter but the behaviour of the Labour council has been so appalling that something must be done to break their stranglehold.