legalalien

And also ignoring your electorate without extensive engagement/ consultation.

My favourite sign is this one, which has been up for ages and relates to the previous redesign. In its current context I always think ?you?re not wrong there!? They seem to have taken down the ugly blue streetspace ones (could have sworn they were there yesterday)

Not just double yellowed but now has those blip things which should be more effective as no waiting to load/ unload. Good in principle(but they are horribly ugly and do add to the overall sense of decay of the area that has been created by so much signage, traffic lights with orange covers, mismatched street furniture and planters, planters that have weathered while there are signs on them and signs now removed, graffiti? if this closure stays I?m hoping it will be tidied up a bit, happy to pop down with a paint brush and some wood stain although my DIY skills are pretty limited?)

I?ve been canvassed once each. Just received the attached through the letterbox which: (i)begs the question as to why, if hundreds of residents have been raising issues over the last two years, I?m only hearing about opposition now, shortly before the election (I guess that?s what the ?understandably, COVID? wording is aimed at, although as I understand it loads of staff are still off work with COVID and numbers of people commuting into central London is still down, which I guess is what is driving the timetable change?; and (ii) made me wonder who makes decisions on timetable - is it the train operator, government, Is TfL consulted, does someone consider taking into account overall PTAL and alternative services (I have no idea but would be quite interested to know) (iii) how would TfL take control of services that go beyond TfL boundaries and do any of these fall into that category (Thameslink do presumably, but some might not). But then given dire state of TfL finances do they want responsibility for these services as they don?t seem like moneyspinners? ?Boris Johnson?s government wants to cut train services permanently in our area? sounds a bit hyperbolic. I doubt they care that much either way in WC1 or whatever the postcode is?. Thoughts? ETA the attachment. Doh!

Good question. I?m more concerned that voting Labour would signal support for Southwark Labour (as opposed to Labour for central govt) than I am about the potential that voting conservative would signal support for Boris at a central govt level. The Dulwich Village ward is a fairly obvious microclimate viewed against Southwark as a whole. If people vote Labour locally it will undoubtedly be presented by SL as support for the Dulwich LTN, infill on council estates, the cabinet system, a lack of transparency about lobby groups and a bunch of gentrification policies that I have reservations about. So I?m sticking to my policy of voting on a local issues basis for these elections. My vote in the next general election - reserving judgment.

Do you think that?s what?s going on- I think most of the public are well aware of the party gate issues so I?m not sure what impact conservatives speaking out or not would have on local elections - in fact in some ways I would have thought that an active backbench rebellion might encourage people not to taint local candidates with the Team Boris brush as it would show that not everyone in the Conservative party agrees with the partygate behaviour? I see local elections as quite different from general elections but that could well be as a result of growing up in a country with relatively apolitical local government and/ or wishful thinking on my part.

I think it?s pretty clear that not everyone in the Conservative party is that happy with antics at number 10. I tend to think that staying and clearing things up/ out is a better strategy in this sort of situation. Otherwise you?re just letting the wrongdoers win. With no general election imminent, the only way to get Boris and friends out is for appalled conservatives to stay there and take care of the problem? Anyway, having read the manifestos now, and with a focus on local issues at a local election, I think I?m going to vote conservative. It would be nice not to have political parties / so much constant noise about national politics at a local level (and for everyone to be a bit more collaborative),but the system is what it is, I guess.

I?ve read it, and then went to the main UK website. Tbh I hadn?t appreciated quite how much XR were focused on regime change rather than putting political pressure on government and corporates: It says this on their webpage ?We recognise that we can?t look to government to solve the world?s problems. It tends to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a very privileged few, and often does not have the interests of the majority of people and the natural world at heart. We understand that we must self-organise to meet our own needs, which in the context of Extinction Rebellion means that we are working to equalise power by disrupting the usual pillars of power that govern our lives. In so doing, our intention is to create access to the resources we need, such as democratic structures that ensure everyone has a voice and an influence, information that comes without the bias of the rich and powerful, decent healthcare, education, social care and housing, clean energy production, and protections in law to prevent ecocide.? So it?s no to government, but then yes to unspecified other democratic structures and legal protections. I know I lack imagination but I?m really unsure what is envisaged. Dismantling existing governmental structures worldwide and building something new seems a bit ambitious, and I wouldn?t be confident that some alternative wouldn?t result in power being concentrated in a different group of people (Animal Farm?). I understand the the idea of mobilising 3.5% to effect this change relates to research about historically successful non-violent civil disobedience movements, but I wonder whether many of these related to more specific demands e.g. US civil rights movement. ?The change needed is huge and yet achievable. No regime in the 20th century managed to stand against an uprising which had the active participation of up to 3.5% of the population (Erica Chenoweth?s research, see ). In the UK, this would mean mobilising around 2 million people in order to oversee a rapid change in wealth distribution and power structures, preventing a rich elite from perpetuating a self-serving ideology.? From a quick google I found this article in the Guardian quite interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/21/the-guardian-view-on-extinction-rebellion-numbers-alone-wont-create-change. Back to the specific topic about trespass/ bylaws and the right to protest, if anyone wants to read some case law these decisions are interesting, one about the sort of protest camp on Clapham Common during lockdown, and the other about the guy protesting against HS2 in a tunnel on private land. https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/1962.html&query=(Lambeth)+AND+(grant) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/DPP-v-Cuciurean-Final-30-March-2022.pdf The first one gives an idea of the factors the council would have to take into account if it wished to move the camp on. The second raises some interesting legal issues as to the intersection between criminal offences and human rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. I see that yesterday the Attorney General asked the Supreme Court to clarify the relationship between the offence of criminal damage and those rights, using the Bristol statue case as an example. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-seeks-clarification-on-the-law-following-protest-case. Admin - apologies for the slight lounge-ness of this but I thought some people would be interested in the Lambeth camping case in particular(skip to para 88 to get to the guts of it). The point being that the Council has a human rights exercise to go through in deciding how to respond which may be another factor in their ?turn a blind eye? response. https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-truth/about-us/

Just checking I have this correct - the new bit is the ?update? at the end: in recognition of the fact that there is now a tree protection order in place for the two oak trees (thanks to the @SaveOaks campaign), there?s a revised refurb plan for the footbridge which allows the two trees to be retained but no info on cost of new plan, or how many other trees may need to be removed, and there?s a stakeholder meeting in May/ June to discuss - details tbc? What I found most striking is that the Council were pretty adamant that the campaigners? alternative proposal involving screw piles was not feasible (despite their having got extensive specialist advice that it was possible)- and the new solution says that it involves screw piles! If you read this earlier (Sept 2020) Q and A document the campaigners had some detailed questions about council cost estimates so let?s hope the council have listened to what they have to say on that front as well. Perhaps they should appoint the guys at @SaveOaks to oversee the project and take a share of any savings they identify and make for the council! https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/24229/Response-to-Questions-rev-.docx

I think you may have misread, it?s the neighbours who were shouting and screaming?

Yes I?m voting but not for the current admin. Haven?t quite decided who for yet.

Article on just this topic in today?s Times ( not sure if behind paywall?) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7cc63c62-b903-11ec-94e5-2197dead5942?shareToken=d4eddf673004685649038228bfe17dd2

Pondering this, I?m not sure who exactly the council would have an agreement with. XR prides itself in being a decentralised organisation and if you look at their website they have some sort of arrangement with a company that acts as their ?fiscal host?, presumably so they can have a bank account, crowdfunder etc. although it does say that XR Global Support has a contractual arrangement with the fiscal host which suggests it is a legal entity in its own right.

If the council want to allow it then they can officially authorise it and stand by the courage of their convictions. Not authorising it and doing nothing is a cop out and sets an unfortunate precedent. Methinks.

I agree with firstmate that the current crisis is the likeliest way of effecting behaviour change, I?m in ?back to the 70s? mode myself. I?m not planning to get a pet after the existing one, and fortunately have one child so no issues there!

I think the jury?s out on whether the suffragettes helped or hindered the cause of women?s suffrage in the U.K. I would have been on Team Fawcett, no doubt.

Yes it does. I think the police could have handled it better on the ground, but I don?t think protests should have been allowed in breach of lockdown rules, even though I didn?t agree with many of the lockdown rules. It?s why I also agree with the police enforcing rules against the party gate culprits.

It?s not hostility in my case. I just think that rules are rules and the council shouldn?t allow any protest group, whatever its belief, brazenly break them. It?s irrelevant whether I agree with them or not, or whether they are well intentioned, or whether they are nice people, or whether they are going to leave a mess. They can camp there with authorisation, and presumably the council has a policy on what it does or doesn?t authorise. But even if they?re right/ lovely/ tidy they shouldn?t be above the rule of law.

My view is that the law should be enforced regardless of who is protesting about what. It shouldn?t be subjective based on someone at the council?s view of whether protesters are good or bad. Otherwise next time you might find them allowing groups you don?t approve of camping there (or on a similar note they might find it hard to justify not allowing groups that they don?t approve of there). If the council wishes to authorise the protest then they should be up front about doing so and say why this case is special.

If that happens then surely Southwark are de facto authorising it? Otherwise, if they know it is happening, wouldn?t they take steps to prevent it (not my area but presumably they?d get an injunction to make enforcement by police easier)? As far as I know it?s unlawful to camp on common land? As people have said, if it were travellers I?m sure they?d be quick to enforce. I?m guessing that after all the grief XR gave them over the climate strategy (and with an election coming up?) they don?t want to pick a fight with XR? Seems strange to me. https://www.gov.uk/common-land-village-greens

From the article it seems that the Blackheath one was with council permission? If it's unauthorised then they should be moved on, if it's authorised in some way then I'd hope the council charges a fee and uses it to cover clean up costs etc. My main concern is that they should treat everyone the same. Is the council happy to let other groups campaigning for/ against a variety of other issues in London to camp there?

Completely agree re English being a first language and a lot of it being about deduction from the multiple choice options. Surprisingly I knew the radar one - god knows how - if I hadn?t seen it written down I certainly couldn?t have answered. Women?s franchise caught me as I have 1893 etched in my brain and had to guess the English equivalent.

As I read it they?re not protesting / sitting in at the park but using it as a base to stay while protesting elsewhere (cheaper to pitch tents than go to a hotel)? Presumably a few people stay behind to ?mind the stuff? while others are off taking action? Not sure about that as a concept. All in favour of peaceful protest but not sure the council needs to host a base camp? Am I misinterpreting?

Yes. Just tried an example online to see and got 23/24. Mind you, I grew up in a former Dominion and am of an age where we learned lots about the UK. Not sure if they were actual questions but if so they are very dated and some of them are pretty obscure. https://lifeintheuktestweb.co.uk/british-citizenship-test-4/

I can see it - hopefully attachment works