Forum Topic

Nora Watkins explained"I look forward to your response."A classic troll...but who can resist ?Nora your reasoning right from your very first postwas that this £400,000 was solely connected to * the tendering process * It wasn't, and never had anything to do with it.If you actually read the article on the front pageof ChiswcikW4 you will see that this scandal onlyever came to light courtesy of the Liberal Democratsquote:In his reply on 21 December to Liberal Democrat Caroline Pidgeon’s question on the matter , Sadiq Khan said ...TfL has also had to pay the holding costs associated with the infrastructure for the ferry service. Together these costs amount to £80k for every four weeks since August 2021. ...[ Liberal] Richmond Park MP Sarah Olney said on Twitter, "Considering the devastating impact the closure of Hammersmith Bridge has had on the lives of my constituents, £400,000 (so far) really is an inexcusable amount of money....end quote:So that basically the Lib Dems were using this (which unfortunatly for him, happened to be true ) as another thing to bash Sadiq Khan with.There *never were* any pontoons. There *never was*any infrastructure.All that there ever was was a rolling contract to supply a boat, running at £80,000 a month which was allowed to run on for *five months* totallyunneccessarily.As I said before, I believe Sadiq Khan is an honourable man. However anyone who takes on ajob involving the whole of London where the pursestrings are controlled by their political opponents in Central Govt, who along with theLib Dems  is going to blame them for everything almost inevitably going wrong, is a fool quite frankly.And so Nora, you can tell your boss/brother/husband, that while I don't personally hold him responsible for any of this, he was a fool to take it on in the first place.michael adams   

Michael Adams ● 1714d

Nora Watkins explained -" I see you’re still avoiding answering my question "Nora you're simply not very good at this.It really does appear that you were totally disarmed by my offhand response to Russell Pearson's suggestion that yourself and Robinson were alike; in my saying you were only intersted in people living in harmony.As if !Did you *really* think you were in the clear at that point ?Did you honestly think that I'd forgotten all about that *other* post that you made, a few weeks back ?This one ?" There are three threads on this forumrelating to cycling/the cycle lane with260+ comments between them.  They have approx. 30 unique posters across the three threads. I would say people are getting bored and are no longer engaging." To repeat *unique* posters. Not just postersbut "unique" posters. Now *unique* is used as a metric when measuring all sorts of things usually for marketing purposes so as to distinguish simple users of a product from actual buyers - or when guaguing opinion to distinguish genuine respondants from er...Do you remember that it was at this point that I asked you if you were familiar with the term "sock puppet", Nora ?That is "sock puppet" as against "unique poster" ?The fact that some boys at the back of the class took me to be accusing *you* of being a sockof course played, right into your hands.A "sock puppet" being of course a second or third identity adopted by a single posterin the one forum.    And then this thread comes along where the Lib Dems have identified an oversight on the part of TfL and Sadiq Khan whereby they continued paying£80k a month for boats that were no longer needed ... and you're out of your pram straightawayobfusacting like mad with nonsense about tendering- which got Robinson out of his pram and then back into it pretty sharpish, false accusations, the works in fact. All in defence of TfL andSadiq Kahn.Which maybe answers a few other questions as well.michael adams       ...

Michael Adams ● 1714d

Ooops ! I seem to have posted this twice. Never mindNora Watkins explained -" I see you’re still avoiding answering my question "Nora you're simply not very good at this.It really does appear that you were totally disarmedby my offhand response to Russell Pearson's suggestionthat yourself and Robinson were alike; in my saying youwere only intersted in people living in harmony.As if !Did you *really* think you were in the clear at thatpoint ?Did you honestly think that I'd forgotten all aboutthat *other* post that you made, a few weeks back ?This one ?" There are three threads on this forumrelating to cycling/the cycle lane with260+ comments between them.  They haveapprox. 30 unique posters across the threethreads. I would say people are gettingbored and are no longer engaging."To repeat *unique* posters. Not just postersbut "unique" posters. Now *unique* is usedas a metric when measuring all sorts ofthings usually for marketing purposes so asto distinguish simple users of a product fromactual buyers - or when guaguing opinionto distinguish genuine respondants from er...Do you remember that it was at this point thatI asked you if you were familiar with theterm "sock puppet", Nora ?That is "sock puppet" as against "unique poster" ?The fact that some boys at the back of the classtook me to be accusing *you* of being a sockof course played, right into your hands.A "sock puppet" being of course a second orthird identity adopted by a single posterin the one forum.    And then this thread comes along where the LibDems have identified an oversight on the part ofTfL and Sadiq Khan whereby they continued paying£80k a month for boats that were no longerneeded ... and you're out of your pram straightawayobfusacting like mad with nonsense about tendering- which got Robinson out of his pram and thenback into it pretty sharpish, false accusations,the works in fact. All in defence of TfL andSadiq Kahn.Which maybe answers a few other questions as well.michael adams    ...

Michael Adams ● 1714d

The image Michael reposted comes from the TFL blog and relates to the Peddle My Wheels bike trial scheme (it is easy to lookup via Google Lens / Image Search), and there's a street sign in the image so obviously not Chiswick (Abbeville Village in Clapham). The quote and image appears to be from Louise: "We trialled the Babboe Mountain cargo bike for three months from Peddle My Wheels and have been thanking our lucky stars that we found them! It’s a massive expense to buy outright and we use it for our 14-mile round trip commute to school. We needed to be sure that we’d use it in all weathers and that the bike would cope with all the hills and the distance. I’m happy to say we all love it and thanks to the trial, we’re absolutely sure we want to keep it" For context, this was a discussion with Michael that started when he challenged whether a bike lane could have an eco benefit if it resulted in the removal of a tree. While he declined to respond to my points regarding CO2 or particulate emissions, Michael made the point that bicycles were impractical to do a school commute with two children at two different schools: "What about a household consisting of two children one aged 5 and one aged 6 one of whom attends a school 1.5 miles due East, and the other attends a school 1.5 miles due West ? As its clearly irresponsible to leave a 5 or 6 year old child at home alone, this means that one child will travel 4.5 miles to school and 4.5 miles back every day accompanied by a parent who will cycle in total 12 miles every day. Half of which at a pace which will determined by the slower of a 5 or 6 year old. Its maybe just as well they don't have to try and earn a living on top of all that eh ? It's all part of this great "modal shift, innit !" My response was that this 12 mile journey would save even more CO2 (than an earlier example I'd worked through for him) and that far from being impossible (and bear in mind Louise's round trip was 14 miles — 2 miles longer than Michael's hypothetical), it was quite feasible with a cargo bike: "Then your hypothetical family would emit far less CO2 and pollution if they switched to a bike for that journey — equivalent to the annual carbon sequestration of almost 16 mature trees in a standard car or 22 mature trees in a large SUV.....For very young kids, individual bikes may not be appropriate and if you venture out on C9 you'll see a growing number of these [I posted the image of the cargo bike] on the school run — rain or shine." Michael declined to respond to my points and immediately pivoted to cycling safety, pointing out: "So how comes the woman in the picture, "Mum" presumably, is wearing a helmet, while the children in the carrier on the front of the bike who are clearly the most vulnerable, aren't ?* Ooops!" I note he's continued this point on this thread.  The important thing to remember is that those on the anti-cycling side who deploy arguments about cyclist safety, particularly helmets, are not doing so because they care about cyclist safety.  Their intention is only to delay or reverse further road space allocation to active travel. We saw this when our local OneChiswick element came out to heckle cyclists at the opening of the C9 extension. Very strange ... you go on a happy family cycle, and a random passerby on the pavement starts shouting that everyone should wear a helmet. Most were anyway! This person completely ignores the danger from motor vehicles, and focuses on families out having a safe and healthy ride. pic.twitter.com/Cl1E9cS0qR— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) December 19, 2021

Ed Saper ● 1713d

Nothing is as antagonising to the opponents of reallocating road space to protected cycle lanes and healthy streets as videos and photos of people and families going about their normal daily business on bikes. It is deeply threatening because it normalises a mode of transport that they have invested huge amounts of time in trying to "other" so that they can mock it and demonise it in order to argue that it should not receive support or investment. They pretend that they believe that these people are recklessly endangering themselves and others so they can express outrage but really they just can't stand the fact that they are using bikes for things that they think cars should be used for like the school run and shopping.There are more and more parents using cargo bikes in Chiswick. They are popular in Grove Park and I am aware of families who have dramatically reduced their car use after purchasing one. Even people who were dead set against the cycle lane and road restrictions. The cycle lane has been an important factor as have other measures to reduce dangerous through traffic. But there is much left to be done to help these responsible parents and more like them to travel in a healthy and sustainable way and reduce local car journeys for the benefit of everybody. Not least protected surface level crossings dedicated to bikes over the A4 , more cycle lanes on main north/south routes, more road restrictions north of the A4 (Dukes Avenue is crying out for no exit onto the A4) and removal of barriers on the subways that are difficult or impossible for some cargo bikes to get through. The ECL has had an excellent couple of years in Chiswick but there remains much to do. It gets easier to change the status quo of car-dominated streets as more local people realise the freedom bikes afford to them in their their daily lives. Anti-cycling keyboard warriors will continue to heave their bile all over social media but they have lost the argument now and just make themselves look more and more out-of-touch and ridiculous with every post. There must be people on here who know the women shouting in the street at strangers in the video embedded in Ed's post. I like the way you can see her confidence quickly drain as she notices who is questioning her and that he has a camera filming her.

Paul Campbell ● 1712d

Nora expleined"I look forward to your thoughts", it's called sarcasm Michael."No it isn't "Nora". Its called trolling, pure and simple " I'm not going to apologise,  "steal" was probably a bit strong,  but I was shocked by what you wrote."No you weren't. You were lying through your teeth." And I still think it's disturbing that you took someone else's photo and shamed them and their child."No you don't. You're still lying. Although how you can actually manage to keep a straight face while you're typing such transparent baloney is anybody's guess. " I'm still waiting for plenty of responses for you about the actual topic of this post "Sure you are. You're trolling again aren't you ? You simply can't help yourself. " I'm sure you'll keep responding to me,"We'll see  " your obsession with me and my identity is a bit disturbing "It's not an obsession "Nora". Just idle curiosity.Which you would inded find "disturbing" if youwere indeed posting under a false identity. Although quite why such an obvious troll such as yourself should find such a suggestion so "shocking" is anybody's guess.Let's face it Nora you're just pixels on everyone'sscreen in any case. Unlike some posters on the group with real world ID's. For all anyone could possibly tell, you could actually be a man pretending to be a woman. There's no shame in that.And by the same token, I could actually be a woman pretending to be a man. Now wouldn't that be something !So should it actually be "Norman" maybe ?There's always the possibilty I suppose that we'vecrossed swords in the past; and clearly you did no better last time round than you're doing now. Hence yet another doomed attempt to get even. Nora or Norman continued" it might be time to walk away from the keyboard for a little while."    Yes Norman/Nora you go and have a shave, or not as the case may be, and maybe take the dog out for a nice walk in the park.Woof woof!michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1712d