UK Government sexist

Originally posted on Vox on 8 Oct 2006

Week after next I'm heading to Brussels and Frankfurt for meetings, and whilst the first will be on the Eurostar the second will be by plane from London City. But it got me checking the new requirements ^H^H^H^H demands on hand luggage, and I realised that they have become - effectively - sexist.

As a very frequent flyer on business in years gone by, I used to do the 'get everything into the carry-on bag' so that I didn't have to wait anything up to an hour for someone to get the luggage off the plane, transport it to the terminal, put it on the wrong conveyor, and then wait for it to hit a carousel, This could be a saving of at least 30 minutes at each end, so making the trips less tiring (and being first to the taxi rank!)

Now though, while most men can still do this, most women cannot!

Because we have makeup (foundation is a liquid so banned) and toner/cleanser (more liquids), and keep our nails trimmed/cleaned (sharp objects are banned), etc. Yes, I supposed on each trip the first thing one could do on arrival is go shopping, but that would cost time and be wasteful of money too.

Seems to me that these new rules help the men get out the airport first …

Conversations

In my previous post I wrote an open letter to Lynne Feathersone about her proposed ban on the enforcement of parking controls on private grounds; specifically on private estates.

Where I live — in a small flat in a mansion block with a wonderful view looking over central London — is within such a private estate. It is pretty large: there are over 600 flats (apartments) and a similar number of houses, spread over a good-sized area of land, and there are two road entrances (except in bad weather when more side gates may get opened) and while each mansion block had an entryphone system installed about ten years ago it would be financially impossible to install something similar from every home across the estate to the top and bottom gates. The top one has an automated barrier fitted which closes automatically each night around 11pm and opens around 10am, although between those hours it will rise to let you leave the estate or you can enter with a 'beeper' which you can rent from the estate management committee for £50.

The lower gate is closed a few times each year for a few hours so that the 'private' nature of the roads can be legally enforced and maintained. At these times (and on the evening of Halloween) one of the estate staff stop vehicles and pass them through if they have a valid reason to be on the estate. But it wouldn't be a practical option to have a 24/7 attendant on the gate (though, as it happens, there used to be one in the 1930s when the estate was built, as there was also a pony and trap to bring people up the hill to their home from that main lower entrance.)

So returning to that post, Lynne and I engaged in a 'conversation' yesterday via twitter, and this is a record of that interaction.

lfeatherstone: Holly Lodge has gates-first defence-and ticketing better alternative which is properly regulated and a proportionate punishment

alisonw: Two gates, neither staffed. Top closed 11pm-11am otherwise open, bottom always open. No deterrent therefore. Thx for reply.

alisonw: plus a ticket has no effect on a dumped vehicle, which has been the major problem in the past.

lfeatherstone: duumped vehicles can be removed if no tax etc. Why don't you close gates? No need to answer - but seems the logical way forward

alisonw: sometimes (amazingly) dumped vehicles still have tax discs on display. Closing gates if few homes is fine but not if 600+

lfeatherstone: well - ticketing is an adequate 'punishment' for what is, after all, a parking offence

alisonw: except that the legal & actual effectiveness of a privately-issued 'ticket'is very close to zero so minimal effect.

And that is where we've currently left it. I still feel that the current proposal is going to lead to serious problems. It is sensible where the area to be managed is small enough to be gated in a controlled manner, but not for the large-size residential estates so common across London.

The ban on clamping.

The BBC are reporting that Lynne Featherstone, as the Equalities and Criminal Information Minister, is to bring forward a bill to ban the clamping or removal of vehicles parked on private land. It is "committed to ending the menace of rogue private sector wheel-clampers once and for all" she says. In the main I completely agree with the sentiment where it is unclear that you are on on 'private land', for example where there are no gates to pass through from the public highway.

But where I live this will cause serious problems, so I have just written to Lynne asking that she reconsider the detail of her proposals.

"Hi Lynne,

Though I live 'just over the border' so to speak, I felt I must write to you as a matter of urgency over today's announcement about the banning of wheel clamping and towing away on private land in England and Wales.

The Holly Lodge estate, where I live, as with many other similar estates is actually private property; the road upkeep is paid via a fee from each householder (and a substantial contribution by Camden Council for the blocks they lease).

As private land - and outside the remit of parking controls by the Council - it has been for the estate management committee to deal with dumped vehicles and such, usually by removal after warnings have been left on a vehicle for many days but occasionally when it is blocking an entrance.

The proposals you have announced today would appear to place the maintenance and free access to such roads on many estates in severe danger of becoming dumping grounds for old vehicles.

The council haven't the power to manage this, and the police only get involved where they is 'danger' involved.

Could I ask that this situation - which I know is widespread in London and elsewhere - is urgently considered before the bill is brought forward.

Thankyou"

We already have the occasional problem with people realising that they can park on the estate when the adjacent roads are subject to parking restrictions, so this would make it massively worse. If dumped vehicles, especially, can never be removed then the possibility for residents to find themselves a place to park near their home will reduce and, in time, disappear. And although we have gates to the estate it isn't practical or feasible to have them staffed around the clock.

If you also live on such a private road please let Ms Featherstone know by using the contact form on her website, or by commenting here.

A New "Routemaster"?

On the day we discover how empty the public purse really is, Boris Johnson — somehow elected as Mayor of London — unveils his new shiny.



A "Routemaster" in name only it will move fewer people than the buses it will replace; has no rear window to check what the bus following is for when you need to change routes; has no front seats upstairs — thus missing the whole point of a double decker — and is longer and wider than the original so won't deal with City streets and junctions so well (which was, indeed, the whole reason for the design features of the original Routemaster).

It is also massively more expensive than the alternatives at £300,000 per bus after the initial development costs of £1,200,000 per bus for the first five.