Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
...with funding from BP and Shell no doubt...
I don't see why, or why you would say that. BP and Shell's interest in car transport is coming to an end, and not before time.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
Or as Malmesbury suggests, get EVs to filter the air as they go along roads.
But it's true that tyres are a significant source of pollution, since most aren't recycled (though most are in the UK).
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes.
Free speech means free speech. If he wants to speak, and a venue wants to let him, then that's freedom.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
...with funding from BP and Shell no doubt...
I don't see why, or why you would say that. BP and Shell's interest in car transport is coming to an end, and not before time.
Because what you're claiming is BS adopted by those pro-ICE/anti-EV, not real science. Hence the tongue in cheek suggestion that such "research" should be sponsored by fuel companies.
It's exhausts that are the source of particulates. Tyres are inconsequential in comparison.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
We had an erudite posting a little while back that pointed out that tyre particulates are heavy enough to settle quickly, unlike diesel particulates that remain in the air. I forget who from, but sounded evidence based.
Tyre particulates may well contribute to land and water pollution though.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes.
Free speech means free speech. If he wants to speak, and a venue wants to let him, then that's freedom.
The promotor should be able to bring anyone he likes on stage, that has nothing to do with the venue which provides the room for an agreed fee.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
My favourite was someone trying to use a brake pad study to prove that EVs would be killing lots of people through particulates.
Bit like opposing SpaceX launches because of aluminium particulates in SRB exhaust. Which one @environmental group@ of interesting provenance tried.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
My favourite was someone trying to use a brake pad study to prove that EVs would be killing lots of people through particulates.
Bit like opposing SpaceX launches because of aluminium particulates in SRB exhaust. Which one @environmental group@ of interesting provenance tried.
Anyone talking about tyre particles from EVs, is against cars in general and was previously using emissions as the crutch by which they should be banned.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes.
Free speech means free speech. If he wants to speak, and a venue wants to let him, then that's freedom.
The promotor should be able to bring anyone he likes on stage, that has nothing to do with the venue which provides the room.
That's up to the venue surely?
Freedom means freedom to choose. That applies to the venue as much as it does Griffin.
Now my choice is that no platforming is bad. I do not endorse it, or agree with it. But if others make a different choice, that's on them.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
Or as Malmesbury suggests, get EVs to filter the air as they go along roads.
But it's true that tyres are a significant source of pollution, since most aren't recycled (though most are in the UK).
Not my suggestion - just pointing out that EVs (like ICEs) hoover in vast quantities of air for cooling. They generally filter this air, so as not to cover the internals in crap. So, some of them literally clean the air. I wonder how the various makes deal with the build up on the filters?
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
We had an erudite posting a little while back that pointed out that tyre particulates are heavy enough to settle quickly, unlike diesel particulates that remain in the air. I forget who from, but sounded evidence based.
Tyre particulates may well contribute to land and water pollution though.
"Tyre wear particles are generated on roads, and therefore most particles are formed in urban areas and the motorways that connect them. Scientists created models describing the behaviour of tyre wear particles for German highways, estimating that 45% of the total particle mass is accumulated near the road (Wagner et al., 2018), whilst the remaining 55% ends up in the environment through various mechanisms. Of these particles that enter the environment, 82% are carried by water and the remaining 18% of the particles are expelled into the air (Raza et al., 2018) (Figure 2). "
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes.
Free speech means free speech. If he wants to speak, and a venue wants to let him, then that's freedom.
The promotor should be able to bring anyone he likes on stage, that has nothing to do with the venue which provides the room.
That's up to the venue surely?
Freedom means freedom to choose. That applies to the venue as much as it does Griffin.
Now my choice is that no platforming is bad. I do not endorse it, or agree with it. But if others make a different choice, that's on them.
No. If the venue hires the room to a comedy promoter, then they don’t have a veto on the comedians performing.
It’s a short path from there, to banks closing accounts for Tweets with which they disagree.
Last time I took the train from Waterloo back to Honiton the three hour journey ended up taking six hours. But that's still probably quicker than doing it in the car would have been.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
My favourite was someone trying to use a brake pad study to prove that EVs would be killing lots of people through particulates.
Bit like opposing SpaceX launches because of aluminium particulates in SRB exhaust. Which one @environmental group@ of interesting provenance tried.
Anyone talking about tyre particles from EVs, is against cars in general and was previously using emissions as the crutch by which they should be banned.
No, they are not. Reducing tire particulates is a worthy endeavour. IIRC a combination of properly engineered road surfaces and tire design can do quite a bit.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes.
Free speech means free speech. If he wants to speak, and a venue wants to let him, then that's freedom.
The promotor should be able to bring anyone he likes on stage, that has nothing to do with the venue which provides the room.
That's up to the venue surely?
Freedom means freedom to choose. That applies to the venue as much as it does Griffin.
Now my choice is that no platforming is bad. I do not endorse it, or agree with it. But if others make a different choice, that's on them.
No. If the venue hires the room to a comedy promoter, then they don’t have a veto on the comedians performing.
It’s a short path from there, to banks closing accounts for Tweets with which they disagree.
If the venues contract permits them to, then they do have one.
Not comparable as banks provide a regulated service, AFAIK venues do not.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
Nazis Smarzis....
Would you give a platform to people who advocate feeding rescued migrants Dominos Hawaiian Pizza? While playing them Radiohead and teaching their kids to code in Python?
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
My favourite was someone trying to use a brake pad study to prove that EVs would be killing lots of people through particulates.
Bit like opposing SpaceX launches because of aluminium particulates in SRB exhaust. Which one @environmental group@ of interesting provenance tried.
Anyone talking about tyre particles from EVs, is against cars in general and was previously using emissions as the crutch by which they should be banned.
No. I like cars. I have one. I drive it. I am just predicting the way things are inevitably going to go. Mass Car Man was a 20th century phenomenon.
Driving is anyway about 20% as much fun as it was 40 years ago, what with extra traffic, and speed cameras.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
The promotor should be able to bring anyone he likes on stage, that has nothing to do with the venue which provides the room.
That's up to the venue surely?
Freedom means freedom to choose. That applies to the venue as much as it does Griffin.
Now my choice is that no platforming is bad. I do not endorse it, or agree with it. But if others make a different choice, that's on them.
No. If the venue hires the room to a comedy promoter, then they don’t have a veto on the comedians performing.
It’s a short path from there, to banks closing accounts for Tweets with which they disagree.
If I own a venue am I not entitled to put restrictions in my contract with the comedy promoter about what they can and can't do with the room? After all, it affects my reputation as a venue and my business if promoters use the space for impromptu BNP rallies or topless dancing when I thought I was hiring it out for standup comedy...
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
Donald Trump would be impressed at this level of grift.
The daughter of Capt Sir Tom Moore was paid thousands of pounds via her family company for appearances in connection with her late father's charity.
In 2021 and 2022, Hannah Ingram-Moore helped judge awards ceremonies which heavily featured the Captain Tom Foundation charity.
Promotional clips suggested she was there to represent the charity.
However her fee was paid not to the Foundation but to her family company. She is yet to respond to the claims.
That whole saga has everything that is wrong about this country, rolled into one. Old fucks, covid, Piers Morgan, NHS worship, grifters, planning laws, planning law breaches. It just screams EMIGRATE NOW
Yes. Those polling results are awful. They seem out-of-kilter with previous polling. Has opinion changed?
That is a suspicious poll. It was done by the Russian opposition and is trying to get people to go to their international anti Putin rallies. Later on in the thread people are responding with other polls that come to different conclusions. It may not be particularly representative of the reality.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
The venue is free to cancel, and the promoter is free to sue them for their actual costs and lost profits resulting from that decision?
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
The rationale for the cancellation was that a person had been added by the last minute (according to Leon, it's Graham Linehan). If they had added a BNP comic at the last minute, would you be OK with the cancellation or not OK?
Donald Trump would be impressed at this level of grift.
The daughter of Capt Sir Tom Moore was paid thousands of pounds via her family company for appearances in connection with her late father's charity.
In 2021 and 2022, Hannah Ingram-Moore helped judge awards ceremonies which heavily featured the Captain Tom Foundation charity.
Promotional clips suggested she was there to represent the charity.
However her fee was paid not to the Foundation but to her family company. She is yet to respond to the claims.
That whole saga has everything that is wrong about this country, rolled into one. Old fucks, covid, Piers Morgan, NHS worship, grifters, planning laws, planning law breaches. It just screams EMIGRATE NOW
Yes, Emigrate to Britain. The comedy of life is awesome here. And we take the piss out of everyone.
Christie 2nd amongst republicans in NH. Just taken the remaining £14 at 90 on betfair
Well, at least he's offering them an alternative option, unlike most of the others. Ok that doesn't get him all that many, but it's more coherent at least.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
I agree. But @Sandpit keeps adding caveats like "it's a comedy not a BNP rally", which is the equivalent of adding a large target saying "obvious logical problem here".
Donald Trump would be impressed at this level of grift.
The daughter of Capt Sir Tom Moore was paid thousands of pounds via her family company for appearances in connection with her late father's charity.
In 2021 and 2022, Hannah Ingram-Moore helped judge awards ceremonies which heavily featured the Captain Tom Foundation charity.
Promotional clips suggested she was there to represent the charity.
However her fee was paid not to the Foundation but to her family company. She is yet to respond to the claims.
That whole saga has everything that is wrong about this country, rolled into one. Old fucks, covid, Piers Morgan, NHS worship, grifters, planning laws, planning law breaches. It just screams EMIGRATE NOW
Oh, I think there's a lot more wrong than that which has not yet been included.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
The rationale for the cancellation was that a person had been added by the last minute (according to Leon, it's Graham Linehan). If they had added a BNP comic at the last minute, would you be OK with the cancellation or not OK?
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
The venue is free to cancel, and the promoter is free to sue them for their actual costs and lost profits resulting from that decision?
Depending upon the contract, sure. It's a contractual dispute surely?
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
We had an erudite posting a little while back that pointed out that tyre particulates are heavy enough to settle quickly, unlike diesel particulates that remain in the air. I forget who from, but sounded evidence based.
Tyre particulates may well contribute to land and water pollution though.
"Tyre wear particles are generated on roads, and therefore most particles are formed in urban areas and the motorways that connect them. Scientists created models describing the behaviour of tyre wear particles for German highways, estimating that 45% of the total particle mass is accumulated near the road (Wagner et al., 2018), whilst the remaining 55% ends up in the environment through various mechanisms. Of these particles that enter the environment, 82% are carried by water and the remaining 18% of the particles are expelled into the air (Raza et al., 2018) (Figure 2). "
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
I agree. But @Sandpit keeps adding caveats like "it's a comedy not a BNP rally", which is the equivalent of adding a large target saying "obvious logical problem here".
I’m saying that a venue is free to not accept a booking from a BNP rally.
But that, having accepted a booking from a comedy club, they shouldn’t be able to cancel at short notice, not because of anything in their terms and conditions, but because of a 3rd party campaign against the event, targeted at the venue.
Now, if the comedy promoter decided that the event would be tuned into a BNP rally, that’s a different story. But the actual story here, is one of the venue bowing to the mob over an actual comedy event, with the controversial speaker being one of the greatest comedy writers of his generation.
59% of Republicans thinking there was voter fraud in 2020 but only 31% of Americans overall thinking there was voter fraud suggests that Trump remains clear favourite for the GOP nomination unless convicted but would still be likely to lose the general election.
Christie would be the GOP's best bet to beat Biden in my view, centrist and charismatic but hard to see him winning the nomination although he may do well in New Hampshire, not too far from New Jersey where he was governor in the North Eastern US
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
We had an erudite posting a little while back that pointed out that tyre particulates are heavy enough to settle quickly, unlike diesel particulates that remain in the air. I forget who from, but sounded evidence based.
Tyre particulates may well contribute to land and water pollution though.
"Tyre wear particles are generated on roads, and therefore most particles are formed in urban areas and the motorways that connect them. Scientists created models describing the behaviour of tyre wear particles for German highways, estimating that 45% of the total particle mass is accumulated near the road (Wagner et al., 2018), whilst the remaining 55% ends up in the environment through various mechanisms. Of these particles that enter the environment, 82% are carried by water and the remaining 18% of the particles are expelled into the air (Raza et al., 2018) (Figure 2). "
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
...with funding from BP and Shell no doubt...
I don't see why, or why you would say that. BP and Shell's interest in car transport is coming to an end, and not before time.
Because what you're claiming is BS adopted by those pro-ICE/anti-EV, not real science. Hence the tongue in cheek suggestion that such "research" should be sponsored by fuel companies.
It's exhausts that are the source of particulates. Tyres are inconsequential in comparison.
ICE cars have tyres too. I don't see how being aware of particulate pollution from car tyres is pro-ICE cars.
I don't really understand why the GOP wannabees who are running or thinking of running against Trump don't all do what Chris Christie is doing, i.e. tell the truth. They'd have nothing to lose, and potentially much to gain, by doing so. It's a very simple calculation: either Trump is brought down by the various prosecutions and legal cases, or he isn't. If he isn't, he gets the nomination, with near 100% certainly. But if he is, then you don't want to have been on his (losing) side in the ensuing unseemly scrabble to replace him.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
We had an erudite posting a little while back that pointed out that tyre particulates are heavy enough to settle quickly, unlike diesel particulates that remain in the air. I forget who from, but sounded evidence based.
Tyre particulates may well contribute to land and water pollution though.
"Tyre wear particles are generated on roads, and therefore most particles are formed in urban areas and the motorways that connect them. Scientists created models describing the behaviour of tyre wear particles for German highways, estimating that 45% of the total particle mass is accumulated near the road (Wagner et al., 2018), whilst the remaining 55% ends up in the environment through various mechanisms. Of these particles that enter the environment, 82% are carried by water and the remaining 18% of the particles are expelled into the air (Raza et al., 2018) (Figure 2). "
59% of Republicans thinking there was voter fraud in 2020 but only 31% of Americans overall thinking there was voter fraud suggests that Trump remains clear favourite for the GOP nomination unless convicted but would still be likely to lose the general election.
Christie would be the GOP's best bet to beat Biden in my view, centrist and charismatic but hard to see him winning the nomination although he may do well in New Hampshire, not too far from New Jersey where he was governor in the North Eastern US
It would be highly unlikely but hilarious if Trump were to actually lose an early primary. He would lose his shit completely (even more so than usual).
Heck, he already lies about having won the contest in Iowa in 2016. And he outright said about the primary process in 2016 that he had been saying it was rigged but no longer did once he won.
59% of UK voters think offshore barges are an acceptable form of accomodation for asylum seekers though as per government policy, as do 82% of Conservative voters and 80% of Leave voters.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
Not just the railways, but in general British customer service is also getting worse, in my business too. Its back to the Seventies again.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
Not just the railways, but in general British customer service is also getting worse, in my business too. Its back to the Seventies again.
Yes, the last few years have felt liek a real change, I just expect things to be crappy now. (Railways actually I've had no problems with, other than prices being ridiculous)
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
The venue is free to cancel, and the promoter is free to sue them for their actual costs and lost profits resulting from that decision?
Depending upon the contract, sure. It's a contractual dispute surely?
For an individual case, yes.
However, there is a background of organised attempts to shut down certain speech by activist groups who target venues. In the US this is already resulting in bomb threats being phoned in, in order to get venues evacuated.
Freedom of speech needs to include freedom to offend, and the harassment of theatres is no different from the harassment of online platforms, and the reaction to that from activist employees, that we’ve seen in recent years.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
...with funding from BP and Shell no doubt...
I don't see why, or why you would say that. BP and Shell's interest in car transport is coming to an end, and not before time.
Because what you're claiming is BS adopted by those pro-ICE/anti-EV, not real science. Hence the tongue in cheek suggestion that such "research" should be sponsored by fuel companies.
It's exhausts that are the source of particulates. Tyres are inconsequential in comparison.
ICE cars have tyres too. I don't see how being aware of particulate pollution from car tyres is pro-ICE cars.
Because by moving the conversation on to tyre particulates it diminishes the fact that the real problem is exhaust particulates. It's a lie spread by those pro-ICE to justify why there's no point to switching to EVs.
Tyre particulates are inconsequential. Dangerous levels of particulates (particulates always have and always will exist) come from exhausts.
Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?
The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.
Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.
Sidwell. Grotesque
I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it
None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism. Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.
And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)
A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles
I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well
Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.
A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.
Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.
The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.
Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.
Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.
Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.
But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.
Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.
As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.
Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?
I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.
There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.
It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.
There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.
Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.
The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.
Compromise - park and ride?
Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.
Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).
Park and ride absolutely can be a part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.
Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.
And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.
People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.
Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.
Are you aware of what car club is?
I didn't say anything you claim I said.
Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.
A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?
Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.
Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.
The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.
So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.
Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.
Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.
You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades. Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/
So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.
Have you ever walked around outside?
Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.
Why?
You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?
Not pretending, I mean it.
Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.
I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?
Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?
And have you heard of children?
Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?
You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.
Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.
Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.
Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.
Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.
So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.
All car tyres pollute the air.
By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air. By that logic, walking pollutes the air.
Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.
The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.
I don't think that's right. I think there's sufficient particulate pollution from car tyres that it's worth a few grants to university materials science departments to do research into alternative tyre materials.
...with funding from BP and Shell no doubt...
I don't see why, or why you would say that. BP and Shell's interest in car transport is coming to an end, and not before time.
Because what you're claiming is BS adopted by those pro-ICE/anti-EV, not real science. Hence the tongue in cheek suggestion that such "research" should be sponsored by fuel companies.
It's exhausts that are the source of particulates. Tyres are inconsequential in comparison.
ICE cars have tyres too. I don't see how being aware of particulate pollution from car tyres is pro-ICE cars.
Because by moving the conversation on to tyre particulates it diminishes the fact that the real problem is exhaust particulates. It's a lie spread by those pro-ICE to justify why there's no point to switching to EVs.
Tyre particulates are inconsequential. Dangerous levels of particulates (particulates always have and always will exist) come from exhausts.
It’s a lie spread by those anti-car, as a replacement for their pollution arguments being rendered worthless by the switch to EVs.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
Not just the railways, but in general British customer service is also getting worse, in my business too. Its back to the Seventies again.
Travel more
Customer service is an issue all over the world, post pandemic. This is not a uniquely British thing. People have been displaced, veteran workers have retired, migration patterns have altered
It is probably worse in some aspects of British life than in other countries, but it is better here than elsewhere in other areas
And urban decay is palpable and visible across the entire western world
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
Not just the railways, but in general British customer service is also getting worse, in my business too. Its back to the Seventies again.
Travel more
Customer service is an issue all over the world, post pandemic. This is not a uniquely British thing. People have been displaced, veteran workers have retired, migration patterns have altered
It is probably worse in some aspects of British life than in other countries, but it is better here than elsewhere in other areas
And urban decay is palpable and visible across the entire western world
Things being crappier elsewhere does not make things being crappy here better.
I'm not starving in the middle of a warzone dying of ebola or whatever, but that doesn't mean I cannot moan about stuff after all.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
Nazis Smarzis....
Would you give a platform to people who advocate feeding rescued migrants Dominos Hawaiian Pizza? While playing them Radiohead and teaching their kids to code in Python?
Oh well, if we are bringing pineapple into it, that's just taking the pith
[Ta-daaah! Pineapples have pith. I had to look it up!]
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
The rationale for the cancellation was that a person had been added by the last minute (according to Leon, it's Graham Linehan). If they had added a BNP comic at the last minute, would you be OK with the cancellation or not OK?
A BNP comic? So long as he’s funny.
I draw the line at BNP.
They are a terrible bank, and frankly, the joke is on them.
None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.
It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.
If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason
Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.
This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.
Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?
If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.
PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.
I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.
They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.
...which does rather raise the question of whether you would be OK if they slipped in Nick Griffin at the last minute.
Yes, I’d be fine with him. Sunlight is the best medicine, and Griffin’s appearance on Question Time was the start of his downfall.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
You keep saying that (the bit in bold) as if there's a difference. From your answer above I assume you would be OK with a BNP rally. Now that's a bit unusual for the Fringe, but let's be honest, it's better than the mimes.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
I am saying that that venue is free to decline a booking for a BNP rally, if doing so offends them.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
If the venue is free to decide, it is free to decide.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
The venue is free to cancel, and the promoter is free to sue them for their actual costs and lost profits resulting from that decision?
Depending upon the contract, sure. It's a contractual dispute surely?
For an individual case, yes.
However, there is a background of organised attempts to shut down certain speech by activist groups who target venues. In the US this is already resulting in bomb threats being phoned in, in order to get venues evacuated.
Freedom of speech needs to include freedom to offend, and the harassment of theatres is no different from the harassment of online platforms, and the reaction to that from activist employees, that we’ve seen in recent years.
Freedom of speech does include freedom to offend.
Venues happy to have people in who are offensive are not against the law.
A venue can tell activists to f**k off, or kowtow to them, it's their choice. I'd rather they tell them to f**k off but it's not my business.
The activists are engaging in their own free speech too of course.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
You have a car that doesn’t need taxed, insured or serviced?
Christie 2nd amongst republicans in NH. Just taken the remaining £14 at 90 on betfair
Well, at least he's offering them an alternative option, unlike most of the others. Ok that doesn't get him all that many, but it's more coherent at least.
He's clearly partly got an eye on the history books. When future generations ask who did anything to try to stop Trump's second term.
Re the cancelled comedy event, I’m not sure Linehan was added “at the last minute”
I believe the venue was only alerted by activists at the last minute that he was on the bill - and that he has controversial opinions on trans rights
I am happy to be persuaded otherwise if this is wrong
Indeed.
Andrew Doyle’s “Comedy Unleashed” club is a known quantity. They’re libertarian, right-wing and controversial - and have been going for years, encouraging comics to say the unsayable.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
You have a car that doesn’t need taxed, insured or serviced?
Which of those have a marginal cost?
If he's already paid for those, they're sunk costs. Travelling at three times the price, for 2 times the time, won't refund a penny of them.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
Not just the railways, but in general British customer service is also getting worse, in my business too. Its back to the Seventies again.
Travel more
Customer service is an issue all over the world, post pandemic. This is not a uniquely British thing. People have been displaced, veteran workers have retired, migration patterns have altered
It is probably worse in some aspects of British life than in other countries, but it is better here than elsewhere in other areas
And urban decay is palpable and visible across the entire western world
Things being crappier elsewhere does not make things being crappy here better.
I'm not starving in the middle of a warzone dying of ebola or whatever, but that doesn't mean I cannot moan about stuff after all.
No, but then you must accept that the moaning can sound like childish, ill-informed whining, to the more worldly members of your audience
I don't really understand why the GOP wannabees who are running or thinking of running against Trump don't all do what Chris Christie is doing, i.e. tell the truth. They'd have nothing to lose, and potentially much to gain, by doing so. It's a very simple calculation: either Trump is brought down by the various prosecutions and legal cases, or he isn't. If he isn't, he gets the nomination, with near 100% certainly. But if he is, then you don't want to have been on his (losing) side in the ensuing unseemly scrabble to replace him.
Surely at least one of the cases would have been decided by November 2024 and the cases against Trump are unanswerable and carry jail sentences. So, probably Trump gets the Republican nomination then gets thrown in jail. Would he get elected from his jail cell? Maybe, then he can pardon himself for the federal crimes, but not for Georgia. It's a mess and the Republican Party should rule that their candidate cannot be someone who is currently in jail, they need to show some courage like Christie is doing,
Of the 490 pedestrians injured in collisions on Edinburgh's pavements over the last 20 years, only 9 were hit by a cyclist.
The 8 that were killed were all hit by drivers, including two children under the age of 5.
With that, I bid you all good evening.
Hard to compare like for like figures, but nationwide 1% of transportation mileage is via cycling.
You are saying 2% of injuries are via cycling.
Seems that bikes are as likely to result in injury per mile than cars then? 🤔
I do not propose banning cycles, or restricting them, despite the fact they come with risk. Life has risk.
Not clever or funny, Bart. 100% of DEATHS caused by motor vehicles.
So what?
Life is not without risk.
You're a hard man, Bart. Those children under the age of 5 definitely knew what they were getting in to when they bought their tickets.
Shit happens.
Sometimes kids get leukemia.
Sometimes kids get in accidents.
It's a tragedy. Try to lower risks, supervise your kids, teach them road safety etc. It's not a reason to stop living.
You sound like a zero COVID zealot.
You sound like a jerk, frankly.
Not that I don't sympathise, I had an Alfasud and a couple of Golf GTIs in the days before speed cameras were invented. I can't see what fun you are getting crawling round Warrington in the Skoda, but it's all you have ever known. I am not an anti-car militant, I am just pointing out that they are on their way out.
As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system
I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.
Nothing works in this country any more, it really does feel on the slide back to the 1970s, only with much worse music and worse economic growth.
The problem with the railways is that - regarding the staff, no one cares anymore - it is total disinterest. They just laugh at you.
Not just the railways, but in general British customer service is also getting worse, in my business too. Its back to the Seventies again.
Travel more
Customer service is an issue all over the world, post pandemic. This is not a uniquely British thing. People have been displaced, veteran workers have retired, migration patterns have altered
It is probably worse in some aspects of British life than in other countries, but it is better here than elsewhere in other areas
And urban decay is palpable and visible across the entire western world
Things being crappier elsewhere does not make things being crappy here better.
I'm not starving in the middle of a warzone dying of ebola or whatever, but that doesn't mean I cannot moan about stuff after all.
No, but then you must accept that the moaning can sound like childish, ill-informed whining, to the more worldly members of your audience
That's either an intentionally good self own gag or an hilariously epic lack of self awareness.
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
Of the 490 pedestrians injured in collisions on Edinburgh's pavements over the last 20 years, only 9 were hit by a cyclist.
The 8 that were killed were all hit by drivers, including two children under the age of 5.
With that, I bid you all good evening.
Hard to compare like for like figures, but nationwide 1% of transportation mileage is via cycling.
You are saying 2% of injuries are via cycling.
Seems that bikes are as likely to result in injury per mile than cars then? 🤔
I do not propose banning cycles, or restricting them, despite the fact they come with risk. Life has risk.
Not clever or funny, Bart. 100% of DEATHS caused by motor vehicles.
So what?
Life is not without risk.
You're a hard man, Bart. Those children under the age of 5 definitely knew what they were getting in to when they bought their tickets.
Shit happens.
Sometimes kids get leukemia.
Sometimes kids get in accidents.
It's a tragedy. Try to lower risks, supervise your kids, teach them road safety etc. It's not a reason to stop living.
You sound like a zero COVID zealot.
You sound like a jerk, frankly.
Not that I don't sympathise, I had an Alfasud and a couple of Golf GTIs in the days before speed cameras were invented. I can't see what fun you are getting crawling round Warrington in the Skoda, but it's all you have ever known. I am not an anti-car militant, I am just pointing out that they are on their way out.
Not a jerk for knowing life has risk. I sympathise with anyone who has experienced a tragedy, it sucks for them.
But life having risk is not a reason not to live life.
I've done a skydive, which has considerably higher risk than driving. Should the risk of that be a reason not to do it too?
Leaving your home carries risk. Not leaving the home carries risk too. Life is full of risk, you need to be balanced in approaching it.
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
I travelled on a German train from Berlin to Amsterdam in the summer: while only one trip, it was a pretty good experience.
I am afraid the actual facts say that you are wrong
"Last year, a third of all long-distance trains operated by Germany's national railway company Deutsche Bahn ran late, the worst showing in 10 years, deepening an existential crisis in a country where failing to show up on time is verboten."
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
I'm going thru the latest reviewer comments from the peer reviewers. One of them doesn't have English as his first language and isn't familiar with the field. Problem is the article has lots of technical terms, and he's just continually saying "what does this word mean?". It's considered impolite to tell the reviewer "buy a bloody dictionary", so I'm having to add simpler terms or explanatory phrases, which makes me look like a moron.
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
This Marina Hyde piece on the current "government" is really quite brilliant and says everything that needs to be said on the subject.
I tend to like her when she's really angry about something, but this piece, like the electorate she describes, is just bored with the Cons, just wants them to go away. Which is both entertaining and telling in itself.
Still a swing of more than 14% from Conservative to Labour and more than 7% from Conservative to Liberal Democrat before tactical voting - 46% of Blue Wall voters are prepared to vote tactically so that might accentuate these swings.
Last night's Redfield & Wilton GB poll had a swing of 16% from Conservative to Labour.
Of the 490 pedestrians injured in collisions on Edinburgh's pavements over the last 20 years, only 9 were hit by a cyclist.
The 8 that were killed were all hit by drivers, including two children under the age of 5.
With that, I bid you all good evening.
Hard to compare like for like figures, but nationwide 1% of transportation mileage is via cycling.
You are saying 2% of injuries are via cycling.
Seems that bikes are as likely to result in injury per mile than cars then? 🤔
I do not propose banning cycles, or restricting them, despite the fact they come with risk. Life has risk.
Not clever or funny, Bart. 100% of DEATHS caused by motor vehicles.
So what?
Life is not without risk.
You're a hard man, Bart. Those children under the age of 5 definitely knew what they were getting in to when they bought their tickets.
Shit happens.
Sometimes kids get leukemia.
Sometimes kids get in accidents.
It's a tragedy. Try to lower risks, supervise your kids, teach them road safety etc. It's not a reason to stop living.
You sound like a zero COVID zealot.
You sound like a jerk, frankly.
Not that I don't sympathise, I had an Alfasud and a couple of Golf GTIs in the days before speed cameras were invented. I can't see what fun you are getting crawling round Warrington in the Skoda, but it's all you have ever known. I am not an anti-car militant, I am just pointing out that they are on their way out.
Not a jerk for knowing life has risk. I sympathise with anyone who has experienced a tragedy, it sucks for them.
But life having risk is not a reason not to live life.
I've done a skydive, which has considerably higher risk than driving. Should the risk of that be a reason not to do it too?
Leaving your home carries risk. Not leaving the home carries risk too. Life is full of risk, you need to be balanced in approaching it.
You did a tandem skydive, Bart, where the fatality rate is about 1 in 1 million
Comments
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/727604522156228608
It's just a little more protracted and destructive than poor old Senator Graham realised.
It's what he's saying now that's BS.
https://twitter.com/leonidvolkov/status/1691490561604071425
...with funding from BP and Shell no doubt...
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/101707/9/Tyre wear particles are toxic for us and the environment 0223-2.pdf
Have a read.
But it's true that tyres are a significant source of pollution, since most aren't recycled (though most are in the UK).
Free speech means free speech. If he wants to speak, and a venue wants to let him, then that's freedom.
The problem is the venues trying to inject politics into venue bookings, heavily influenced by militant activist groups.
It’s a comedy show, not a BNP rally.
It's exhausts that are the source of particulates. Tyres are inconsequential in comparison.
Tyre particulates may well contribute to land and water pollution though.
Bit like opposing SpaceX launches because of aluminium particulates in SRB exhaust. Which one @environmental group@ of interesting provenance tried.
Freedom means freedom to choose. That applies to the venue as much as it does Griffin.
Now my choice is that no platforming is bad. I do not endorse it, or agree with it. But if others make a different choice, that's on them.
are formed in urban areas and the motorways that connect them. Scientists
created models describing the behaviour of tyre wear particles for German
highways, estimating that 45% of the total particle mass is accumulated
near the road (Wagner et al., 2018), whilst the remaining 55% ends up in the
environment through various mechanisms. Of these particles that enter the
environment, 82% are carried by water and the remaining 18% of the particles
are expelled into the air (Raza et al., 2018) (Figure 2). "
https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/101707/9/Tyre wear particles are toxic for us and the environment 0223-2.pdf
No reason to think poluting the ground and the water is less bad than polluting the air.
[as you can tell I am teasing you. But if you hold a free speech position, you must allow for and approve of the existence of a BNP rally, Nazi rally, whatever on the Fringe. And if you don't, the punchline becomes "...we are just discussing the price"]
It’s a short path from there, to banks closing accounts for Tweets with which they disagree.
It's obviously a wild long shot.
https://twitter.com/AlexofBrown/status/1691501515859435528
Not comparable as banks provide a regulated service, AFAIK venues do not.
The daughter of Capt Sir Tom Moore was paid thousands of pounds via her family company for appearances in connection with her late father's charity.
In 2021 and 2022, Hannah Ingram-Moore helped judge awards ceremonies which heavily featured the Captain Tom Foundation charity.
Promotional clips suggested she was there to represent the charity.
However her fee was paid not to the Foundation but to her family company. She is yet to respond to the claims.
I’m also saying that, having already booked the venue to a comedy promoter, it’s wrong to cancel the comedy event at the last minute because a bunch of idiots have been harassing them online and by phone.
Would you give a platform to people who advocate feeding rescued migrants Dominos Hawaiian Pizza? While playing them Radiohead and teaching their kids to code in Python?
Driving is anyway about 20% as much fun as it was 40 years ago, what with extra traffic, and speed cameras.
The 8 that were killed were all hit by drivers, including two children under the age of 5.
With that, I bid you all good evening.
If the promoters contract is ironclad then they can't cancel it without serious compensation. I'd it's not, then that's their choice.
Cancellation is the wrong thing to do, but freedom means people are free to do the wrong things.
It was near seamless. The Trainline app makes booking a doddle. The trains were all clean and on time.
I thought about hiring a car but then I thought: I don’t need one. And I didn’t
It helps that Cornwall still has plenty of useful branch lines. Bring them back everywhere and abolish private cars
You are saying 2% of injuries are via cycling.
Seems that bikes are as likely to result in injury per mile than cars then? 🤔
I do not propose banning cycles, or restricting them, despite the fact they come with risk. Life has risk.
But that, having accepted a booking from a comedy club, they shouldn’t be able to cancel at short notice, not because of anything in their terms and conditions, but because of a 3rd party campaign against the event, targeted at the venue.
Now, if the comedy promoter decided that the event would be tuned into a BNP rally, that’s a different story. But the actual story here, is one of the venue bowing to the mob over an actual comedy event, with the controversial speaker being one of the greatest comedy writers of his generation.
Christie would be the GOP's best bet to beat Biden in my view, centrist and charismatic but hard to see him winning the nomination although he may do well in New Hampshire, not too far from New Jersey where he was governor in the North Eastern US
Heck, he already lies about having won the contest in Iowa in 2016. And he outright said about the primary process in 2016 that he had been saying it was rigged but no longer did once he won.
Life is not without risk.
Labour voters are opposed to using barges to house asylum seekers though 49% to 37% as are Remainers 46% to 44%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2023/08/08/45727/1
I believe the venue was only alerted by activists at the last minute that he was on the bill - and that he has controversial opinions on trans rights
I am happy to be persuaded otherwise if this is wrong
However, there is a background of organised attempts to shut down certain speech by activist groups who target venues. In the US this is already resulting in bomb threats being phoned in, in order to get venues evacuated.
Freedom of speech needs to include freedom to offend, and the harassment of theatres is no different from the harassment of online platforms, and the reaction to that from activist employees, that we’ve seen in recent years.
Tyre particulates are inconsequential. Dangerous levels of particulates (particulates always have and always will exist) come from exhausts.
Customer service is an issue all over the world, post pandemic. This is not a uniquely British thing. People have been displaced, veteran workers have retired, migration patterns have altered
It is probably worse in some aspects of British life than in other countries, but it is better here than elsewhere in other areas
And urban decay is palpable and visible across the entire western world
Sometimes kids get leukemia.
Sometimes kids get in accidents.
It's a tragedy. Try to lower risks, supervise your kids, teach them road safety etc. It's not a reason to stop living.
You sound like a zero COVID zealot.
I'm not starving in the middle of a warzone dying of ebola or whatever, but that doesn't mean I cannot moan about stuff after all.
[Ta-daaah! Pineapples have pith. I had to look it up!]
Which reminds me:
The Most OFFENSIVE Word In The English Language?
They are a terrible bank, and frankly, the joke is on them.
Venues happy to have people in who are offensive are not against the law.
A venue can tell activists to f**k off, or kowtow to them, it's their choice. I'd rather they tell them to f**k off but it's not my business.
The activists are engaging in their own free speech too of course.
Andrew Doyle’s “Comedy Unleashed” club is a known quantity. They’re libertarian, right-wing and controversial - and have been going for years, encouraging comics to say the unsayable.
If he's already paid for those, they're sunk costs. Travelling at three times the price, for 2 times the time, won't refund a penny of them.
It's a mess and the Republican Party should rule that their candidate cannot be someone who is currently in jail, they need to show some courage like Christie is doing,
Blue Wall VI (12-13 August):
Conservative 33% (+2)
Labour 32% (-3)
Liberal Democrat 25% (+1)
Reform UK 5% (-1)
Green 5% (+2)
Other 0% (-1)
Changes +/- 30 July
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1691479873959886850?s=20
Not that I don't sympathise, I had an Alfasud and a couple of Golf GTIs in the days before speed cameras were invented. I can't see what fun you are getting crawling round Warrington in the Skoda, but it's all you have ever known. I am not an anti-car militant, I am just pointing out that they are on their way out.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
https://www.economist.com/business/2023/05/25/it-will-take-years-to-get-deutsche-bahn-back-on-track
"Train to Bavaria — a lovely way to travel, if you can live with the delays
From London to Altotting, via Augsnurg — Melanie McDonagh finds German trains are no better than our own"
https://www.standard.co.uk/escapist/bavaria-train-travel-b1098774.html
https://www.thelocal.de/20220818/a-disaster-how-did-train-travel-in-germany-get-so-bad
Yep: DeSantis has managed to drop out of the top two.
But life having risk is not a reason not to live life.
I've done a skydive, which has considerably higher risk than driving. Should the risk of that be a reason not to do it too?
Leaving your home carries risk. Not leaving the home carries risk too. Life is full of risk, you need to be balanced in approaching it.
"Last year, a third of all long-distance trains operated by Germany's national railway company Deutsche Bahn ran late, the worst showing in 10 years, deepening an existential crisis in a country where failing to show up on time is verboten."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-late-trains-national-psyche-7d84166f
The French, in particular, have some rolling stock that takes me back to my childhood.
Last night's Redfield & Wilton GB poll had a swing of 16% from Conservative to Labour.
https://britishskydiving.org/how-safe/
and you continue to sound a prat by eliding your devil-may-care shit, with the deaths of very small children.