Crowd-funded legal bid launched to block Tower Hamlets mayor ripping out traffic-calming measures
Crowd-funded legal bid launched to block Tower Hamlets mayor ripping out traffic-calming measures
Almost 700 people have already pledged £37,000 to the legal fighting fund – though another £45,000 is needed to fund the case
You can support the legal challenge to stop Lutfur Rahman ripping out cycle lanes and pedestrian infrastructure by donating to the crowdfunder: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-our-safer-streets-in-tower-hamlets/?utm_campaign=claim_submission&utm_source=x
You're viewing a single thread.
Interesting. Obviously safer streets are good and I generally support schemes like this (I cycle pretty much everywhere in London, and walk or take public transport when I don't cycle). But Rahman was elected on a platform that included reversing these measures. I'm not totally convinced that he should be prevented from doing so, even though I don't agree with him.
He wasn't solely elected on that. His manifesto contained dozens of incoherent contradictory promises. He's a populist and says whatever will get him elected. The fact is that local residents have repeatedly said they want the traffic calming measures to stay and Rahman who claims to be a "listening mayor" is doing the complete opposite. This is culture war posturing and nothing else.
If the campaigners are right and what he's done is illegal then opinions don't really matter, he shouldn't be allowed to conitnue pushing this course of action.
If saving actual lives isn't enough for you to oppose a "democratic" agenda I wonder where you would draw the line.
Yes, I'm very pro-death. I'm glad you noticed because sometimes people suggest my arguments are a bit too nuanced for people with low reading comprehension, but you've got straight to the key point and correctly identified my pro-death views.
OK dude. But hilarious sarcasm aside, if you don't think these actions should be opposed do you think any manifesto item of an elected official should be given a pass?
No. There are obviously limits. 'Exterminate [ethnic group]' should obviously not be given a pass even if you get 100% in a fair referendum.
However, 'these traffic calming measures cause more harm than good' might be the wrong view to hold (and almost always is, IMO), but it's not wrong on a fundamental level.
If the court decides taking them out is unlawful then, hey, it's unlawful, but I don't think it's inconsistent of me to be slightly worried about judicial activism of this kind.
OK, so you don't actually disagree with either the community opposition or any potential judicial opinion blocking the measures (provided the basis is in applicable law). Your initial comment reads a little differently.