There has been an enormous proliferation of hi–vis florescent clothing among the civilian population in London over the last couple of years: motorcyclists, cyclists, joggers, workmen. I had thought that the clothing manufacturers must have discovered a cheaper way of making the fabric and were marketing it, but now wonder whether or not it is a plot sponsored by the government in lieu of employing more police officers? I am sure that the fact that until you get up close you are never quite sure whether or not a particular brightly clad individual is a cop must have an impact on behaviour.

Labels: london

Olympic torch

Whoever choreographed today’s procession of the torch in honour of the Beijing 2008 Olympics (which went past the end of my street) is a genius. I thought that running the torch across London in front of jeering crowds, in a blizzard, at the centre of a phalanx of implacable security who occasionally peeled off to beat someone to the ground and arrest them or to tear down a flag or placard captured the appropriate spirit brilliantly.

Update 7/4/08: London mayoral candidate Brian Paddick (LibDem) has stated today that “these events reflect badly on London”. He is absolutely right. Our protesters had over 31 miles of procession to seize or extinguish that torch but frankly the most likely candidate for putting it out was the weather. Despite having only 18 miles in which to work and being up against terrifying CRS riot police, the French managed to get the thing doused four times before the authorities gave up and cancelled the whole Olympic flame relay and ceremony over there. If protesting were an Olympic event, the French would kick our ass.

Labels: london, sport

Le Gavroche

Went to Le Gavroche for dinner with the wife last night. Liked it. Fancied most things on the menu and particularly liked what I ended up ordering (lobster salad followed by Scotch beef — wife had octopus and soft–shell crab followed by turbot — “Aux Perdrix” 2004 Nuit Saint Georges followed by a Delamain Cognac to drink).

Labels: diary, eating, london

Paternoster Chophouse

Went to the Paternoster Chophouse for a dinner with work. Didn’t like it. Nothing I really fancied on the menu and didn’t particularly like what I ended up ordering.

Labels: diary, eating, london

New weapon

One of the most striking images of the Islamic fundamentalist threat is that of the suicide bomber, going into battle against us in our places of work, entertainment or on our public transport networks such as the tube with dynamite–laden vest, fanatical zeal reinforced by the promise of virgins in paradise. I was therefore interested to see posters on the tube recently suggesting that we might have found a terrifying weapon with which to strike back — a suicide vest compared to which the power of mere explosive is as the bite of a gnat to a mauling from a salt water crocodile:

show/hide poster

The wearer will presumably infiltrate into the dark places where terrorists gather, before triggering the device and deploying Kerry Katona with devastating consequences to all within range.

Labels: london, war on terror

WSPA benefit

I went to a benefit comedy gig for the WSPA last night at the Hammersmith Apollo, hosted by Robin Ince. It was a big gig with lots of good people on the bill. Some, I’d seen before (Lucy Porter, Phil Nichol, Will Smith, Bill Bailey: most of whom did similar, if not the same, material as the last time I’d seen them). Of those whom I did not recall having seen previously (a slightly equivocal statement, I appreciate: comedy club visits and booze tend to go hand in hand), I probably enjoyed Chris Addison and Tim Minchin the most. Tim Minchin in particular seems to be a very talented performer and I would be keen to see him again on a smaller bill.

Labels: comedy, diary, london

Nice dinner

With two fingers up to AA Gill, I am going to write about a restaurant I went to last night. Dinner at Gordon Ramsey at Claridge’s hotel. Definitely among the swankiest restaurants I have ever been to. We had a six course tasting menu. I was impressed. The food was good and the service was spot on. My favourite course was probably the main: a meaty slab of halibut with an autumnal red wine sauce that tasted like it had been swiped from a venison recipe. The addition of bacon and mushrooms completed the hearty, keep–out–the–cold October flavour. The other half liked the scallop dish best; delicate and fresh, wrapped in pasta, with a foamy saucy and subtly spicy sauteed peppers. Good stuff. We asked the sommelier for a wine recommendation (first giving an indication of menu choices and price–bracket — the most expensive bottle on the list being ten Gs!) and he suggested that we try a 2005 Beaujolais (Jean Foillard Morgon ‘Cote du Puy’) because it would go well with the scallop and halibut dishes which comprised the two central courses. Tasty wine. Quite different from the Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Shiraz that we more usually drink (the grape apparently being Gamay; the wine produced using organic methods). A pleasant buzz, indeed. I wouldn’t mind buying a few bottles, in fact.

All in all, an extremely enjoyable evening. It’s nice when you go to an expensive place and are in no way disappointed.

Labels: diary, eating, london

Stan Tracey

After watching the first half of the rugby last night, I took the difficult decision to go to a gig at the Pizza Express Jazz Club on Dean Street instead of watching the second half. It was the Stan Tracey Trio (ST + Andrew Cleyndert (bass) and Clark Tracey (drums)) with Benjamin Herman (alto sax) and Guy Barker (trumpet). It was extremely good and enjoyable and I think that in the end I made the right decision. Spoke to Clark Tracey afterwards and apparently they were recording for a CD that night, so I will be looking out for that in due course for my collection.

Labels: diary, london, music

Camden Council

I see that there is another article by David Williams in the Evening Standard about the Boswell Street camera over which I went to war with Camden Council. I too lodged an appeal. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Tribunal eventually ruled in my favour, but only on the grounds that Camden had “lost” the video evidence by the time that the hearing came around and that I had done enough in my submissions to convince the adjudicator that one photograph alone could not be sufficient evidence to substantiate a moving violation of this nature (in the adjudicator’s words, whether or not one has “turned left” is a “question of fact and degree”).

It is interesting that in the case described by latest article, the driver’s defence appears to have been based on producing evidence that lots of other people commit the same violation, so the signs must be unclear (i.e. a mitigating factor), rather than the defence that I attempted to run (i.e. that no violation had occured at all because the sign had been complied with). My (in retrospect probably over–ambitious) argument was:

1. in these circumstances, you HAVE turned left (the Penalty Charge Notice offence here is actually “failure to drive in the direction shown by a blue sign”) provided that you don’t turn right (the identical type of blue arrow sign on a mini–roundabout is a good analogy);
2. this argument is bolstered by the fact that in performing the allegedly infringing manoeuvre, you have not travelled the wrong way along ANY of the streets designated as one–way by the London Traffic (Prescribed Routes)(Holborn) Regulations 1963, which is the statutory instrument imposing the one–way system that the that the signs on Boswell Street are supposed to be implementing.

Although he found in my favour based upon lack of evidence, the above argument was rejected by the adjudicator (despite 45 minutes of attempting to convince him!) but principled reasons for the rejection were not articulated.

So where does this leave us? The latest article states that Camden has apparently lost 20 of these cases at appeal, but won 91. Because decisions of the PTAT do not set precedent, Camden will no doubt leave everything as it is, continue to send out hundreds of tickets, of which a small fraction will appeal, of which about fifth or so will win (good preparation and a coherent argument of whatever nature probably being the determining factor).

Therefore, this remains a fantastic gravy–train for Camden until someone takes it to the High Court, which does set precedent, and demonstrates that Camden is wrong — either on the basis that the existing signs are unclear and unfair, or (less likely) that there is no offence being committed here at all. If only 20% of appeals to the PTAT succeed at the moment, and hundreds of tickets are issued a month, I would be led cynically to suggest that Camden is likely to go out of its way to avoid a case on this camera ever getting that far…

Labels: driving, london

I put my bag down for a minute today in Evans Cycles, Waterloo while I turned around to look at some bikes, and some miserable scrote appears to have made off with it. There goes my phone, blackberry, running shoes, gym kit (unfortunately freshly washed rather than sweaty). My own silly fault for being careless, but it’s a bit of a shag having to keep a hand on your stuff 24/7 to avoid an opportunist having it away. Guess that’s life these days.

Labels: crime, london

I just walked past London mayoral candidate Boris Johnson, MP, stopped on his pushbike at the pedestrian crossing on Farringdon Road. I couldn’t think of anything to say other than “nice barnet” (which I didn’t say).

Labels: celebrity spots, london, UK politics

Footway parking

It seems that I am not the only one fighting the London councils on their petty parking tickets. Unfortunately for this guy, having taken it all the way up to the High Court, he had his over–literal interpretation of the wording of the infringement rejected by Lord Justice Moore–Bick and found himself liable to pay some 100 parking tickets plus costs.

I believe that I have fallen foul of the prohibition in question myself. It sounds very much like Penalty Charge Notice Code 62, which prohibits parking on the pavement. Only in London is there this general prohibition on parking on the pavement. Elsewhere, parking on the pavement is allowed unless specifically prohibited or an obstruction is being caused. This means that on a reasonably wide pavement out of London, you are usually OK to park a motorcycle, but in London you will get a ticket if a warden passes by.

It sounds like this bloke must have run a defence based upon a literal interpretation of the wording of the infringement, which is “Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)”. Because his bike was up on the stand, with both wheels off the ground, I assume he argued that there was no infringement. However, the judge apparently decided that the “motorcycle can quite properly be said to be parked on the pavement, even if neither wheel is directly in contact with it”.

As a matter of interpretation, that is clearly the only common sense approach. Otherwise, one could park on the pavement with impunity by jacking the car up, or even by making sure that there was a sheet of newspaper under each tyre. Still, one has to admire the balls of this guy for running up a hundred parking tickets (£10 grand’s–worth) and fighting all the way up to the High Court based upon his conviction that such a technical defence would suceeed.

Incidentally, my own route to seeking to get off was to obtain plans from the Land Registry in the hope of showing that, although parked, I was not “on any part of an urban road” but rather on private property. Sadly, the plans availed me not on that occasion, showing that the wall against which I was parked marked the limit of the private land, so I decided to pay up at the 50% discount for early settlement and live to fight another day.

Labels: driving, law, london, motorcycles

Apparently, this Joseph is the big thing at the moment. “He looks handsome, he looks smart. He’s a walking work of art”. Doesn’t stop him looking like a young Colonel Gadaffi, mind you.

Labels: london, music

Judge cleared of rush-hour flashing

Yup, lack of video evidence. That’s how you get off in my experience too.

Labels: law, london

2012

Is it just me, or does the recently launched 2012 Olympics logo on this page look kind of rude; specifically, like lots of copulating couples. No doubt I have just returned a positive Rorschach inkblot result for sexual dysfunction or psychosis of some kind.

Labels: london, sport

Speed camera

Got flashed by this very sneaky speed camera when I went out to Canary Wharf today. My own fault for not spotting it, but this illustrates the dangers of driving to places to which you do not usually go. If you’re coming out from underneath Canary Wharf, just after you filter into the Limehouse Link tunnel, watch out for this one, because it is not obvious until you see the white lines on the road and it’s too late. Unless you are a bad driver and take the spot of tarmac 20ft in front of your vehicle as your focal point when driving through a tunnel. A long 14 days waiting for the ticket now begins.

Update:No ticket so far. Starting to think I got away with it (28/06/07).

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Camden

Got home tonight to judgment on the Camden Penalty Charge Notice. I got off (hurray!) but only on the basis that a week before the hearing, Camden had written to me and the tribunal indicating that the video evidence had been ‘misplaced’. The adjudicator rejects my legal arguments as to why a hypothetical turn out of Boswell Street, around the traffic island and into Procter Street would not amount to “failure to drive in the direction shown on a blue sign” anyway, but states that since this is a question of ‘fact and degree’ he cannot be satisfied from just the still photograph on the PCN that I could not have turned left as directed, so has to let me off. So the decision preserves Camden’s ability to continue to shaft people for this so–called contravention, but they’ve thrown me back on this occasion due to lack of evidence.

It is as one might have expected. I suppose that the adjudicator was never going to topple the status quo regarding whether or not this is legally a contravention. You would probably need a legal challenge in the High Court to do that, with the inherent risk that you would lose and face the attendant liability for Camden’s costs. But if the adjudicator had found against me on the facts on the material before him, for a “moving violation” without any moving pictures or witness evidence, a judicial review application would not have seemed out of the question. Everyone’s a winner, I guess. It occurs to me that if the Evening Standard article was right about this camera making £12,000 per day for Camden, it would be well worth Camden spending £1m fighting all the way to the House of Lords to maintain their right to fine people for this manouevre. I remain of the opinion that this sort of thing is an example of how this country is going to the dogs, with London in the vanguard.

A win is still a win though. Yippee!!!!!!!

Labels: driving, london

Camden

Had the appeal against the Boswell Street penalty charge notice this morning. Lasted a hard–fought 45 minutes. The adjudicator reserved judgment to be delivered in writing at a later date, so I will make no further comment as to how it went for the time being.

Labels: driving, london

Apparently, Westminster suck slightly less than Camden

Westminster has backed down, although not with a great deal of good grace. Their letter kindly explains the rules for me:

“The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. The notes made by the Parking Attendant at the time of the contravention show that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines.

Yellow lines, at the edge of the road, means that there are parking restrictions in force, which apply to the whole length and width of the road, apart from designated parking places, such as parking bays [my emphasis]. These have their own restrictions, which are displayed on associated signs and instruction plates.

On this occasion only, your Representation has been accepted, and the PCN and Notice to Owner has been cancelled”.

So given the fact that my vehicle was clearly parked in a designated parking place exactly as they describe and that therefore to the PCN was issued entirely without justification, their stance is that they are kindly prepared to let me off the “contravention” just this once. Nice of them. Still, the right result. Now, just Camden to deal with.

Labels: driving, london

On a few occasions now around dawn or dusk, I’ve seen a fat, sleek and healthy–looking urban fox that must live in my neighbourhood.

Labels: london

Westminster suck even more than Camden

Wankers! Westminster Council have rejected my written representations as well! Unlike Camden, Westminster give no reasons for the rejection, but jump straight to the increased fine and threats of bailiffs. I know they say that you should beware a war on two fronts, but I thought this one was a slamdunk. I am going to have to appeal it. What a bloody waste of time, though. I think it’s a disgrace.

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Camden

Well, Camden have rejected my written representations about the penalty charge notice, so I must either pay up or appeal to the independant adjudicator. In two minds. £50 for an easy life or stand on principle?

Update: The guy in the comments is right. It’s not about the money or the hassle, but is rather a question of civic duty to stand up against unfairness in the State/citizen relationship. Appeal papers have been filed. I will probably live to regret this.

Labels: driving, london

Faust

Went to see Faust by the Punchdrunk Theatre Company at a derelict building in Wapping last night. Interesting idea and atmospheric venue and set, but quite hard to pick up the story from what was going on. Worth seeing though.

Labels: arts, diary, london, theatre

Arghh!

Just got another Penalty Charge Notice today, this time affixed to my motorcycle by Westminster Council. I must say that I am at a loss as the the basis upon which this one is to be justified, given that I was parked in what appeared to be a designated motorcycle bay, which showed no sign of having been suspended:

On this occasion, I was actually parked a quarter of a mile away from where I wanted to be, on the basis that I was attempting to park in a “legal” parking spot. I am starting to wonder about whether or not it is even worth trying to obey the law.

Update: The bay I parked in appears to be listed on Westminster Council’s own website.

Labels: driving, london

Over-regulation on the roads

Should the amount of traffic lights on the roads be reduced? I say yes. There has been a steady increase in the number of junctions around where I live in London to which lights have been added and my impression is that most of the time it clogs the roads up and slows everything down. When driving outside of rush hour, frankly, I’d be tempted to ignore the lights and drive on where safe to do so, if it wasn’t for the fact that in many cases these days some wanker will have been stationed by the local council to watch my actions via a 24–hour camera and send me a £100 fine.

On a related note, TFL’s Road Safety Advisor, Jenny Jones was on BBC breakfast this morning having a pop at 4x4s in London. She did a good job of confirming my suspicions that TFL contains a fair number of irrationally prejudiced, interfering gits. Her basic argument was that 4x4s are unnecessary and that “PEOPLE NEED TO REALISE THAT THEY’RE JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE”. She did not have a sensible answer to arguments that 4x4s take up no more road space than do a lot of cars and are no more polluting, that the feeling of safety for which Londoners supposedly purchase them in fact has a solid basis in the statistics and that the real problem is actually goods vehicles, which take up much more space and produce a third of all pollution from vehicles, not to mention being noisy and damaging roads inadequately designed for their use.

My response to Ms Jones would be that everything beyond breathing and bare subsistence could be said to be unnecessary and, assuming that civilization is about more than the merely necessary, what is actually unacceptable is the government, the council and TFL steadily increasing the number of restrictions, obstructions, prohibitions, penalties, taxes, tolls and charges in the way of law–abiding citizens in a free country without reasoned, genuine justification.

Labels: driving, london

Camden Council

Just got back from a three night short break skiing in Austria (not much snow, but enough for two full days snowboarding) to find that Camden Council have caught me again on one of their evil 24–hour real–time video monitors (operator 1576!) and sent me a £100 Penalty Charge Notice. A google search suggests that I am not the first person to be caught by this camera, which according to the linked Evening Standard article makes an estimated £12,000 a day for the Council! Nothing appears to have changed in terms of the road layout or the signage since the article in 2005. It seems from the evidence therefore that this is a money–making scheme, undertaken with malice aforethought by the Council, to tempt people into committing what a reasonable man would not realise was an offence so that fines can be levied. That is wrong and makes me cross. It is not appropriate for what is supposed to be a public service to act as a highway robber, extracting unjust tolls with menaces on those passing through its territory. If Camden Council needs more money to fund its services, it should raise the council tax (sorry, Camden residents) or procure more funds from central government. The employment of men and women to raise funds by watching these 24–hour real–time cameras and sending out penalties leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.

Labels: driving, london

This is quite handy. It gives walking directions and maps for London.

Labels: london