Forum Topic

Equal under God and the Law but not in Ealing

I quote from Around Ealing recently arrived Mar 2021....."Recent data shows that just 1% of LTN penalty charge notices(PCNs) were issued to drivers who live inside of that PCN,with 60% of the fined drivers not living in the borough. The council wants to ensure drivers avoid a PCN and there is full information and detailed maps of every LTN in the borough available at...    ealingltn.commonplace.is"What is the council suggesting?That you drive with a laptop checking every road for council numpties?Is this the thin edge of rascism?Are those from Hounslow, Europe and the Caribbean banned/fined because the numpties can't produce clear signs to get their silly message across.I thought we were equal under God and the Law not in Ealing it seems.

Arthur Breens ● 1858d44 Comments

What IS absolute bullying are the cyclists who demand a friend of mine takes down the “bollards to LTN posters”They force or issue ultimatums, cyclists way or nothing

Peter Yale ● 1854d

Paul. You know what you said. Other people know what you said. I know what you said.I’m not bullying you Paul, any more than you bully other people who might have a legitimate reason to drive a car.I’m not being unfair either. You constantly tell us there are too many cars on the road (and it’s always cars with you), yet you are happy to add to that when it suits you.There are cargo bikes you know.

Simon Hayes ● 1854d

Can I add you are being grossly unfair to me as well Simon?This is absolutely bullying.

Paul James ● 1854d

Raymond.Paul doesn’t debate. He has his world view and cannot understand why people might disagree with him. He’s well known for it.I just hope the particulates and emissions from his journey this weekend don’t contribute to the deaths from ‘toxic air’ we are told happen in London.I’m sure he doesn’t want that on his conscience.

Simon Hayes ● 1854d

"Paul. You know I am right."I know you think you are :)

Paul James ● 1854d

Paul. You know I am right.

Simon Hayes ● 1854d

Please chaps.It's fine to debate, disagree , beg to differ.But this bickering does no-one any good.Either do it offline by email, or better still, on a phone call.One line dismissals of something without substantiation, is not helpful just antagonistic.But to be fair, getting the truth and facts correct, is now very, very difficult and time consuming these days.Distortion, misleading and unsound statistics are marbled through almost every aspect of our society.  We have all let that happen unwittingly.Implying or inferring insults is not fair either. There are a few that probably do deserve it, but not those who, at least participate in debate whatever their view.So step back a bit, accept that your views may be poles apart, but be more specific in trying to make tangible points. Or offer an opinion as self perceived.It's difficult, I struggle with it at times too, but its better that debate does not descend to trading low insults or point scoring. That's not to criticise or disagree but to be constructive with why one disagrees.That's where our politicians fail. Bullies are ruling without reasoning or engaging and then many end up afraid to stand up to the bullies within their groups.

Raymond Havelock ● 1854d

>>Paul, you are gaslighting again. All the things said above are things you have stated on this forum and on Facebook. As usual, having been found out, you try to change the narrative.No, all the things you THINK I've said, or purposefully misconstrued me saying... I've given you my true and honest answers to your assertions.>yet you brand the anti LTN campaign group as just that, Again this this in your imagination. Point me to where I've said it's a right wing group. I've seen it done mind you, but it wasn't me.>>Like all good LCC members, such as Darren Moore, you are happy to dish it out. Not so happy when people bite back.That's just a slur.

Paul James ● 1854d

Paul, you are gaslighting again. All the things said above are things you have stated on this forum and on Facebook. As usual, having been found out, you try to change the narrative.The LCC is a pressure group. Its intolerance of any view other than the common one shared by members is not tolerated. You say it’s not right wing, yet you brand the anti LTN campaign group as just that, with no justification. There are plenty of Labour Party members in that group, including the Ealing MP.Like all good LCC members, such as Darren Moore, you are happy to dish it out. Not so happy when people bite back.At least be honest Paul.

Simon Hayes ● 1855d

>>"You condemn ‘car drivers’ for every ill on the road."This is your imagination.>>"You say you don’t want electric cars on the road, because they ‘still pollute’."They do, they are not the answer to all our transport problems. It's not that I don't want them on the road, but we can't have millions of them on the road, they won't fit>>"You want the top end of Boston Road closed to traffic for the sake of the children. That includes all buses and emergency vehicles."Again, this is in your imagination. You are imagining I think this. This is not what I think.>>"You fail to mention being part of a right wing lobby group, the LCC."Yes, I am a member of the london cycling campaign, I've stated this. It involves paying £40 a year, I get third party insurance and access to free lawyers for this, as well as money off in bike shops.I am not an employee or a trustee or anything.Right wing lobby group? It's a charity with a board of trustees! Please contact the charity commission with your accusation of it being a right wing lobby group and let me know how that goes :D>>"You support the expansion of Heathrow on the basis that it’s our ‘local airport’, despite all the environmental damage it has proven to cause."I am not against runway three and the reorganisation of Heathrow including work to mitigate its impact on the area, including a huge congestion zone around it.>>"You then drive a car when it suits you, directly contradicting your anti-car rhetoric."I'm not anti car, again, this is in your imagination. I'm anti too many cars.>>"You even want ice cream vans banned."Again, your imagination. I would like them not to have to idle a diesel engine.>>"I’ve never called you a halfwit, you just imagine that I do. If I was to call you anything it would be a hypocrite."You have called me a halfwit many times.

Paul James ● 1855d

"However, every so often I will have a bacon sandwich or a big, juicy steak ‘because I need to’. I don’t see this as hypocrisy because my core beliefs haven’t changed. Other people are still wrong to be eating meat. I know I am right."If you want to eat meat but feel that four times a day is a bit much you don't have to say you're a vegan but still eat meat. Just eat less meat...

Paul James ● 1855d

Come on Paul.You are a terrible gaslighter.You condemn ‘car drivers’ for every ill on the road.You say you don’t want electric cars on the road, because they ‘still pollute’.You want the top end of Boston Road closed to traffic for the sake of the children. That includes all buses and emergency vehicles.You fail to mention being part of a right wing lobby group, the LCC.You support the expansion of Heathrow on the basis that it’s our ‘local airport’, despite all the environmental damage it has proven to cause.You then drive a car when it suits you, directly contradicting your anti-car rhetoric.You even want ice cream vans banned.I’ve never called you a halfwit, you just imagine that I do. If I was to call you anything it would be a hypocrite.

Simon Hayes ● 1855d

"If they don’t give up I will block them.I blocked you on Facebook because you kept calling me a halfwit Simon :D

Paul James ● 1855d

"I will label them as criminals"Who is labelling car drivers as criminals for using a car?!

Paul James ● 1855d

...and I blocked you on Facebook because a few months back you started calling me a half wit. You kept doing it day in day out, so I blocked you.

Paul James ● 1855d

"a supposed car driver":D Is this some sort of club mentality going on here? I use a car or van occasionally and therefore must toe the line as regards anything car that you think or I'm not a "car driver"?Funnily enough I am a member of a car club :D

Paul James ● 1855d

Me, thin skinned? :D :D :DDo you not see the abuse I get on social media for standing for what I believe in, including from yourself?

Paul James ● 1855d

😂    👍

Rosco White ● 1855d

Peter, to understand the mentality of the Lycra brigade and a certain advocate of theirs here I’ll put it like this.I’ve decided to become vegan. Eating meat is bad for you and harms the environment.I’m so passionate about my conversion to veganism I’m actively campaigning for it. People who aren’t vegans are destroying the planet and are also making themselves unhealthy. I will label them as criminals, even though eating meat isn’t illegal.I have discovered on the internet a load of unsubstantiated ‘facts’ that support my campaign. I will quote these incessantly until they become true. People will eventually believe me.I will pretend to engage in arguments where I gaslight those who disagree with me, until they give up. If they don’t give up I will block them. I m right in everything I believe. My vegan friends tell me so.However, every so often I will have a bacon sandwich or a big, juicy steak ‘because I need to’. I don’t see this as hypocrisy because my core beliefs haven’t changed. Other people are still wrong to be eating meat. I know I am right.Oh, and I also support the expansion of an enormous cattle farm near where I live because it’s my local cattle farm and should be supported.

Simon Hayes ● 1855d

Mr Evans, referring in part to your post. Using a bike makes a smaller contribution to easing congestion, that’s all well & good in theory (& this is not intended as a dig at you)For practicality reasons such as carrying shopping or goods. Theft & security of a bike. Weather, cold, dark, wet.Fitness to, so I use a bike a lot less than I should because of this.Cars are not just going to disappear overnight. All that’s happening is a clsss system for rich people to have modern new cars which fit criteria, that is until they move goalposts.The transport system is *****.Congestion could easily be relieved in part.Said it all before why should the Lycra clad brigade, a vocal minority , unlicensed yet more rights than motorists have.As for Mr J not sure of his agenda but for a supposed car driver, he is biased against cars seemingly

Peter Yale ● 1855d

Mark. It’s not up to you to moralise thanks. We’ve got Paul as our compass in that respect.

Simon Hayes ● 1855d

PaulLike many of your ilk you are very thin skinned. It’s you who needs to grow up. There are very many people in Ealing who find the ways you express your views offensive.I hope you aren’t driving near any schools, hospitals, residential roads or, indeed, any people this weekend. Think of all the lungs you will damage on yournin essential journey.

Simon Hayes ● 1855d

(actually not the only person, sorry, two others as they were disclosing personal information about me, doxxing, in the very nasty anti LTN Facebook group, one of whom I talked to the police about!)

Paul James ● 1855d

Hi MarkThanks!I don't own a car, I use a local car club when I need one.I used a van a few months back to help somebody to get stuff to the tip.I'm going to use a car this weekend to get some stuff to a family I'm bubbled with.Otherwise it's walk or public transport for me!

Paul James ● 1855d

Simon, you're the only person I've ever blocked on facebook, because you kept calling me names."Only a halfwit would say [what Paul James just said]" is calling me a halfwit.Please grow up.

Paul James ● 1855d

Simon, if the ambiguity in your post was deliberate then you have expressed yourself very clumsily.Also I don't think the revelation that Paul drives a car is quite the gotcha moment you think it is. It is preposterous to suggest anyone can live in the 21st century without some reliance on motor transport and owning a private car arguably in some cases can reduce the amount of emissions you are personally responsible for e.g. if you pick an item up yourself rather than getting it delivered in a van which is a far more polluting vehicle.My view on where Paul goes wrong is he assumes that every car journey he makes is essential and unavoidable (which I can accept is true) but that this cannot be said for a large number of drivers on the road. I believe the evidence strongly suggests that this is not the case and the reality is that very few car journeys are discretionary and unnecessary.Encouraging people to switch to bikes can make a small contribution at the margin to less congested roads but no more than that. By definition you will be exclusively targeting short journeys which cause less pollution and congestion than long journeys and so the impact will be minimal. We absolutely should be trying to encourage people to make this switch but to do so by allocating more road space to bikes at the expense of motor vehicles is something that should only be done after very careful analysis of the likely impact.

Mark Evans ● 1855d

Well done Arthur, although I doubt you’ve embarrassed them. Ignoring opposition is the standard tactic of these people. They’ve rather forgotten that they are there to represent us. No doubt next year we’ll get some guff about how wonderfully they’ve performed on our behalf in the pages of Pravda, sorry, Around Ealing.They are happy to discriminate when it suits them. Why do you think these half-witted schemes only exist in certain parts of the borough? It’s also why a supposedly green council is happy to actively endorse highly polluting building works everywhere and support the environmentally catastrophic expansion of Heathrow.

Simon Hayes ● 1855d

I wrote to Cllr Binda Rai and Cllr Jasbir Anand (my senior ward councillor and transport portfolio holder) early on the morning of the 6th march 2021 about the item in the March Edition of Around Ealing entitled..."Recent data shows that just 1% of LTN PCNs were issued to..........." To me it indicated that drivers from outside Ealing were being treated differently to us inside. This looked like discrimination. I found this very offensive.I worked as a volunteer in Sierra Leone for two years where I was treated as an outsider with kindness. My old granny said,"Do as you would be done by." Perhaps those in Perceval Castle need lessons in moral philosophy.  I hope I have embarrassed Binda and Jasbir for they have neither replied nor acknowledged my email

Arthur Breens ● 1856d

No, you are wrong. It’s a general comment.Paul has extreme views and dislikes being contradicted, even when the evidence is against him. His position on motor vehicles is, unsurprisingly, compromised as he has admitted to using cars himself on occasion. This despite his ongoing condemnation of anyone else who might have reason to drive. He could at least be consistent if he’s so determined to lecture the rest of us with his ideas.Perhaps he’s sensitive because he knows he’s been rumbled.

Simon Hayes ● 1856d

I disagree agree with Paul's views but he has been quite happy to engage in a fact based discussion without any rancour. The post Tricia is referring to is probably the one you made on 8/3 at 4.30pm. It is ambiguous but could certainly be interpreted as abuse aimed in his direction.

Mark Evans ● 1856d

No. No reason too. My opinion is different to yours. Can you show me where any post I’ve written directly refers to him?Paul’s usual response to anyone who disagrees with him is to block them. It’s the standard MO of the cycling lobby. He obviously can’t do that on here. Poor Paul.

Simon Hayes ● 1856d

The way I read your reply to him I thought you were being quite insulting and his reply was very dignified. If it wasn't your intention to be abusive you should clarify and apologise for not expressing yourself more carefully.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1856d

‘A lack of well reasoned argument’. LTN trials summed up in a nutshell.Paul gets his knickers in a twist if anyone disagrees with his extremely narrow works view. He seems to think I’m taking potshots at him and calling him names. He really shouldn’t be so sensitive.

Simon Hayes ● 1857d

I'm told by someone who knows about these things that the Department for Transport guidance on signs has become more vague in recent years. This may be because so many people are appealing against PCNs.However, the suggestion is that the green 'Road Open' signs that were put up in the LTNs were non-statutory and therefore provide reasonable grounds for a successful appeal. My understanding is that, although Ealing will reject an appeal on the basis of signage initially, they are not letting any get as far as the adjudicator. The Justice Lang ruling against TfL's Streetspace programme is also being used successfully as a grounds for appeal against PCNs in Ealing apparently.Therefore these fines are essentially optional for anyone who makes a properly argued appeal. As there would be a tendency for the successful appellants to be relatively well educated and therefore tending to have higher income it makes Ealing Council's reliance on PCN revenue all the more regressive.It could be that budget constraints make it difficult for Ealing to adequately sign new restrictions but the suspicion has to be even if funding was available they are happy that many motorists are being caught out. This may be good for revenue but is undermining the value of LTN for residents - if thousands of cars are still passing through that shouldn't be then they are not doing what it says on the tin.I would agree that resorting to personal insults is immature and generally indicates the lack of well-reasoned argument.

Mark Evans ● 1857d

Lots of people successfully appealed the Longfield Avenue fines.They took down the green signs recently because people were confused by them. Anyone with an ounce of brain in the council would actually go about this in a different way rather than try to antagonise great swathes of the people they will ask to vote for them next year. They must be halfwits too.

Simon Hayes ● 1857d

If the signs aren't clear I look forward to loads of people getting the fines rescinded then!Stop calling me names please Simon, it's very immature.

Paul James ● 1857d

The signs are deliberately vague and confusing. It’s the usual tactic, often coupled with inadequate lighting (see Longfield Avenue for an historic example). It’s also why they took down the misleading and silly green signs.It’s not in the council’s interest to ensure that non-residents are aware of all their schemes. Money has to be raised somehow to maintain these bits of kit.But Ealing isn’t unique. Hounslow has put signage up at the entrance to Strand-on-the-Green saying ‘access only’, yet fails to specify where access is restricted to. Many people have asked for details, only to be ignored.Only a halfwit would think any of these schemes are properly implemented.

Simon Hayes ● 1857d

I haven't been to any of the LTNs that have ANPR cameras so can't say for sure that you are wrong but the fact that thousands of people are getting fines suggests that you probably are. I can say for certain that the signage for recently introduced access restrictions near where I live is very poor and as a result lots of people are getting caught.

Mark Evans ● 1857d

The people who I talked to while they were taking photos at the Culmington Road barrier where there because they had received PCNs and had come back to find out why. Hey these weren't blind or stupid. They were my fellow citizens.

Arthur Breens ● 1857d

The signs are very clear.

Paul James ● 1857d

That assumes that everyone is online and reads every missive from a council.Most people bing hit are senior citizens and blue badge users and this who in the past year are going out only in extenuating circumstances.  I have neighbours ( who drive ) who have not been out at all for months. We and other neighbours, shop for them every now and then, they have some deliveries but are not online at all. Do what they can by telephone.  There are plenty like that.The signage is dreadful. But bizarre that they are keen to enforce a made up offence but cannot enforce some of the real road offences taking place constantly by other road users who cannot be quite so easily identified and yet put themselves and pedestrians at actual risk.Truly insane.

Raymond Havelock ● 1858d

Presumably this should read 'live inside that LTN'?It is entirely obvious that virtually nobody who is a resident in an LTN would drive through the barrier as the cameras have been controversial and everybody who lives in one would be aware of their presence.People who are going to be caught are those who don't drive through the area and were confused by the signage. It would be interesting to know what percentage of fines were given to delivery drivers many of whom are self employed and for whom the fine would be more than half they were earning on the day they received it.

Mark Evans ● 1858d

You WILL obey!I have a cunning plan.A weirdo Labour Diktat that it is my destiny to foist on you and make your small & insignificant Actonian lives utterly miserable.           😆

Rosco White ● 1858d

What did you expect in the Kingdom of SS Reichsfuhrer/Marshal Bellend?

Anthony Hawran ● 1858d