legalalien

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

The Dulwich Society has compiled a list of candidates in Dulwich wards https://www.dulwichsociety.com/news/local-elections-may-2022

As a I read it the key reason for the vagueness is that they?re trying to get an ?in perpetuity? license so that they can avoid the cost - and probably much more importantly the hassle / delay/ uncertainty of having to make an annual licence application. (I wouldn?t want to be organising an event this big with a risk my licence could be turned down or restricted, particularly given the ?rise of the local resident? as this page on their website puts it https://wearethefair.com/event-licensing/) At least they seem aware and trying to deal with the cable tie issue. https://wearethefair.com/projects/gala-jam-on-rye-festival/

Info and details of objections / statements in support now up on the Southwark website https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7359, licensing sub-committee to consider the licensing application on Thursday 14 April. Note that the committee can only consider quite limited grounds for refusing the licence. Presumably a different part of the council has/ has to approve the operator being there at all/ closing off particular areas - and the council demands a decent chunk of money for the privilege? Friends of Peckham Rye, Dulwich Society and three local councillors among the objectors to the change in scope from previous years.

Looks like a franchise of this place? https://dropwine.co.uk/what-we-do

So - if nothing else but to solve the mystery of the toilet, here are the minutes of the licensing committee meeting approving sale of wine at the coffee bar place opposite Hi-Vibe https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/g7289/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2010-Mar-2022%2010.00%20Licensing%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=1 The new unknown is ?what happened to Cllr Smith?s representation? - I guess we?ll never know. Outcome in a nutshell - they can serve wine on Friday and Sat evenings 5pm to 10pm and number of patrons ltd to 25. Patrons not to take alcohol outside.

Is it just me or do others sometimes wonder whether others on this and similar threads are actually people from various political parties who are well aware who each other are irl? On the TH thing I feel like the casual references to ?tax avoidance?, ?oligarchs?, salary levels etc are trying to paint a picture (surprised someone hasn?t mentioned the reference to Russian language skills that appears on Linked In given the tone). I only picked up on the pro bono thing because someone raised it flippantly - and it reality junior lawyers do get loads of this stuff dumped in them in addition to their billable workload. I really don?t miss a life denominated in six minute units.

Agree re the signage. If Living/ Healthy Streets folk are allowed to put up "road open to.." signage, then perhaps we could crowdfund for some emergency services access signs and put them up? I agree that the council should do it, but TBH I think getting some signs up (and making things clear to emergency services drivers) asap is more important than having a prolonged argument about who should pay for it?

It might have something to do with Cycle Hangars https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4029532 Will see if I can find the decision notice. (for anyone interested the above looks like a list of cycle hangars approved to go in)

I can?t see time frames offered to the public but there do seem to be some in the Service Level Agreement with Southwark Building Services, see page 7 of this scrutiny commission report from Feb 2020 https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88147/Appendix%201%20Housing%20Repairs%20Service%20Scrutiny%20Report%202020.pdf Looks as though the repair service has been problematic for some time, hence bringing it in house in 2018. An improvement plan was published in March 2020 with a proposed way forward https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s88291/Appendix%201%20-%20Priorities%20for%20Improvement.pdf Recent report on performance at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s106084/Report%20Repairs%20Performance%20Report%20to%20Housing%20and%20Community%20Engagement%20Scrutiny%20Commission.pdf ETA there?s a further improvement plan due for approval in June this year https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=50028373&PlanId=727&RPID=3596800

Looking at Linked In, TH qualified 18 months ago and is in the private client department of a city law firm. He?s probably is having a fair amount of pro bono work given to him, based on my experience - partners in loads of other departments looking for free help for charities that they and their clients are involved in ?as a favour?. Junior lawyers always end up doing this stuff! But yep, he?s probably giving some tax planning advice to some rich people. And charities by the look of it. Hardly sinister. No need for what comes across as a smear campaign. (After googling read his brief article about stranded assets which was food for thought).

Even if you assume that the principle of induced road demand is correct in studied cases, it doesn?t follow that some kind of symmetric (or even lesser) traffic evaporation happens if you close roads. And of course it all depends on specific context.

Herne Hill forum arranging some sort of election hustings Not sure which candidates have said they?ll attend, just says candidates have been invited from Lambeth/ Southwark. I assume Village Ward but given HHF proposals for changes to the junction at HH have potential knock on effects for East Dulwich I think relevant? Guess I might get deleted again if admin thinks otherwise!