Jump to content

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Also a made up fact. It's legal to own and operate an electric scooter in Paris. As usual the link says something different from what you claim.

https://www.politico.eu/article/paris-bans-e-scooters-in-landmark-referendums/

Hardly made up, this says that when the contracts come to an end in September and rental eScooters will be removed from the streets of Paris. 

As usual Mr Chicken you try and put down other posters who disagree with you. 

 

Personally I can't wait till london bans them as they are just a bl00dy nucience riden by people going back to being 4 again.😅

 

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Hardly made up,😅

 

You said e scooters were banned. That was a made up fact, not a "disagreement". You were objectively, factually wrong with your statement.

I notice you have now amended it to the still incorrect one about rental scooters being banned.


What's actually banned isself serve rental scooters.

That is not the same as scooters being banned. That was your initial claim, and it was a made up fact.

I did like how you substituted a second link which verifies what I'm saying in order to prove me wrong. Nice try but it only works if people don't read the links 😉

 

Edited by mr.chicken
spelling

I think we all knew what Spartacus meant. Owned scooters or bikes are unlikely to be dumped around the place willy nilly, in the same way as share or hire scooters and bikes. The behaviour can hardly be said to be 'good' for the environment and it seems that is why they have now been banned in Paris. As is often the case, other cities that have endured these schemes for longer may follow suit.

This thread is meant to be discussion about LTNs.

Edited by first mate
9 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

Also a made up fact. It's legal to own and operate an electric scooter in Paris. As usual the link says something different from what you claim.

The link actually says:-

Parisians have voted to rid the streets of the French capital of rental electric scooters, with an overwhelming 90% of votes cast supporting a ban, official results show.

...

The ban won between 85.77% and 91.77% of the votes in the 20 Paris districts that published results, according to the City of Paris website on what was billed as a rare “public consultation” and prompted long queues at ballot boxes around the city. The vote was non-binding but city authorities have vowed to follow the result.

So - not that different. True, it is still legal, but the authorities have said 'they would follow' the result.

It was Amsterdam in the De Pijp district...so I was right..ha ha doubt me at your peril! 😉 I can't find the original BBC article but here is one from Bloomberg that discusses it and the reasons for it....seems all so familiar don't you think....(cue Mr Chicken and Malumbu suddenly losing interest in the debate...)

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-27/easing-tension-between-dutch-cyclists-and-walkers

Edited by Rockets
13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Maybe he could get DfT to review private jet use, surely we all depend on these.

What a slimy greaseball.  Well I suppose he has got in before Starmer. 

 

A truly independent, non biased review is what a lot of people on here have been calling for.

If the review finds LTNs are efficient and don't displace traffic or cause additional pollution through driving around them then more LTNs will be given the green light. If the opposite is found then each of the existing ones may need to be reviewed individually. 

Calling someone a "slimey greaseball" for sensibly asking a question of "does this work or not just shows your bias Mal. Maybe you're scared the truth will be finally exposed and the flat LTN world theory isn't true 😅

 

 

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Who said this quiz:

“There is clear evidence that for all the controversy they can sometimes cause, ambitious cycling and walking schemes have significant, if quieter, majority support.”

I guess when you are at the top, you rely on people below you feeding information and stats up. 

If those stats are flawed,  incorrectly recorded or reported on then the resultant message they give is also incorrect. 

Therefore it wouldn't surprise me, if due to actually public feedback, that statements that are believed true one day are reversed the next. 

He's a spineless creep.  That could be the leader of both major parties

In taking forward government policy civil servants assess the costs and impact before the implementation is signed off.

This is what happened when Johnson proposed LTNs.

He then had colly Wobbles As The Mail turned on him  for phase 2 which led to the condition of better consultation

So it's been through two rounds plus the usual scrutiny by select committee, parliamentary debate, post implementation assessment, and ultimately the courts.  

As far as I am aware no judicial review has been successful so it is legal and local authorities are acting within their powers.

He's doing this simply to get votes.  Remind me if it says in the manifesto that government will prioritise cars over health and the environment.

No doubt net zero and meeting air quality standards are government policy as is the legal requirement to meet carbon budgets.

Careful who you side with.  It could be like the Major government who went onto privitise everything.  I'll conveniently ignore Blair

 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - LTNs are green-washing, Sunak reviewing them for the wrong reasons, but fine by me. Should be reviewing them as no evidence that they reduce air pollution and  I have only seen a marked increase in traffic and idling cars on Croxted and ED Grove.

Won't make me vote Tory... but will vote Green for some REAL Green policies.

 

Edited by heartblock
  • Like 1

LTNs, approved by the Conservative Party, implemented by cash strapped Labour councils as a way of increasing revenue, then the Tories come back with Sunak's comments on Sunday with the bait in an attempt to regain disenfranchised voters from Labour.

While I'm pleased Sunak is finally saying something about them, it's nothing more than an election tactic and while we still have the mix of councils having to find alternative revenue streams (see TfL with the ULEZ expansion and axing the One Day Travelcard) and ideological Cllrs in the Labour Party, I can't see them going away just yet.

Ironically Tower Hamlets voted for a bunch of socialists on the Corbyn side of the bench who completely scrapped LTNs!

13 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

LTNs, approved by the Conservative Party, implemented by cash strapped Labour councils as a way of increasing revenue, then the Tories come back with Sunak's comments on Sunday with the bait in an attempt to regain disenfranchised voters from Labour.

"as a way of increasing revenue" lol will the daft conspiracies never stop? The LTNs are fantastic for local travel. I find it much easier to get around to places that are really beyond reasonable walking distance.

Sunak's comment's are just another Tory attempt to stir up a culture war to as a last ditch attempt to keep those red wall voters.  Sunak's argument is that the majority own cars so we should pander to them. This means that if you like Sunak's argument you should favour LTNs since the majority of people in Southwark do not own cars.

Or perhaps you just love cars & pollution and will clutch on to any argument that puts the in the top spot. Or maybe not, but I've never seen you advance a suggestion to reduce congestion and pollution that is even vaguely possible to actually implement.

 

  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...