In recent weeks, many were bemused by the Bank of England’s plans to put wildlife on banknotes. Nigel Farage called the scheme “absolutely crackers”, a sentiment that was echoed by otherwise-out-of-touch Ed Davey, who said Winston Churchill “deserves better than being replaced by a badger.”

If the Bank’s direction seems a bit nutty, wait until you find out about the Mayor of London’s plans for the capital, in which wildlife can be expected to be everywhere. Indeed, I had a sense of deja vu when one publication announced that beavers would be on English banknotes - because for the past year I’ve noticed Sadiq Khan repeatedly tweeting about beavers (as well as bees, bats and storks).

He has marked events such as “the birth of two new baby beavers” and “a family of beavers being released into the wild in West London”, as well as his deputy mayor (one of nine) introducing the world to Willow, Woody, Chompy & Chewy” in February last year. It’s hardly what you’d expect the Mayor’s office to be up to.

Read more

Yesterday Mete Coban MBE, London’s £151,465 per year Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, posted about his meeting with Arsenal’s Declan Rice. They were both attending the NBA in London.

Football is never far from Coban’s mind. Last year The Times reported on how Coban “faked a football career on social media”. Here are a few paragraphs from that (rather astonishing) article:

“Turkish football fans are among the most passionate in the world, so it was no surprise that in 2011, when it emerged that one of their own was set for an unlikely transfer to the European giants Real Madrid it made waves across the country.

“Mete Serdar Coban, a 17-year-old left-back, was at the centre of it all; born in northern Cyprus but raised in London, he told a host of sports journalists and interviewers that he had been scouted by the Istanbul side Galatasaray before transferring to Inter Milan. Now, after four years in Italy, he was off to Europe’s biggest club. His claims were buttressed by social media posts and a grainy YouTube video of “highlights” from his Inter days.”

“There was one problem: the entire tale was fabricated. The closest Mete Serdar Coban had come to football stardom was a flunked trial at the other Madrid side, Atletico, a few years earlier. He slipped away from the limelight almost as quickly as he appeared.”

The piece featured a photograph of “Turkish newspaper Hurriyet compar[ing] Coban to the Champions League winner Maicon”:

On social media someone has also found a clip of Coban discussing his career with Inter Milan, according to the translation from Turkish, where he claims “this year, I’m going to Real Madrid”. Definitely worth a watch.

When he’s not attending the NBA or preaching about climate change, Coban is a director of the charity “My Life My Say”, which nudges young voters to the ballot box. Its partners include Ben & Jerry’s and the Tony Blair Institute:

Alastair Campbell is also a big supporter:

While CEO of the charity, and serving as Hackney Council’s Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Environment and Transport, Coban racked up 40,000 air miles:

So it’s only natural that he was then promoted to London’s £150k per year Deputy Mayor for the Environment. Never mind his fake football career leading him to rub shoulders with Arsenal stars.

Nice work if you can get it!

More:

It’s been a busy year for Sadiq Khan.

In July he became the “first Mayor of London to lead [a] trade mission to Africa”:

Read more

Readers of my Substack know that I like to keep track of Sadiq Khan’s A Team.

Not always easy as the “the more the merrier” seems to be the Mayor’s attitude to hiring. Why have one deputy mayor when you could have nine, after all? (Never mind two chiefs of staff, three mayoral directors and six employees deemed “special appointments”).

Talking of Mayoral Directors, today I thought I’d introduce readers to the great taxpayer-funded talent that is Felicity Appleby, Mayoral Director, Political and Public Affairs, paid £147,770-per-year:

You can see some of her job purpose below - a lot of which involves managing local government and stakeholder relationships across London:

Appleby was previously Global Head of Outreach at the United Nations in New York - a city she has been able to stay connected to due to the “International Relations” part of her current job.

Appleby is often needed in other parts of the world, reflected in her expenses for 2022-23 (the last dates available) - her flight bill standing at £1,672.80:

The expenses add up to £4,492.06 in total, mainly spent on hotels, dining and trains.

I particularly like this note - “Taxi - due to time constraints”:

The trip in question only cost £5.97 so it can’t have been particularly long. Maybe one that could have been walked in under 25 minutes, or cycled in under 20. Isn’t that what the Major would say? (who tweeted this in Jan 2022):

Appleby’s taxi expenses are very little, though, compared to Justine Simons OBE, London’s Deputy Mayor for Culture - who’s taken tens around London. Essential travel, I suppose, for someone attending events such as the “Chanel diversity dinner at NPG”:

Simon’s presence has also been required on the world stage. A flight to summit in Brazil accounted for £3,646.97 of her £4,637.26 total travel expenses in 2023-24.

Then there’s Mete Coban MBE, Khan’s new environment advisor, who clocked up around 40,000 air miles when he was Hackney’s Cabinet Member for the Environment:

Never mind Amy Lamé, the Night Czar (£132,846), who in February The Mail revealed had “taken at least 12 foreign jaunts as part of her Night Tsar role since 2017 - with a significant gap because of the pandemic.”

Khan himself is no stranger to the old global summit:

The Mail has previously reported that the taxpayer-funded luxury 2020 Range Rover he takes around town is exempt from ULEZ.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Mayor’s team copes on 20-22 of this month when it’s World Car Free Day (even though 20-22 is two days), as London’s Walking and Cycling Czar Will Norman has made clear:

I guess the important thing to remember is that when Khan’s team pollute, it’s different.

But when you do it you’re killing children’s lungs and the planet.

With the Mayoral election tomorrow, I couldn’t help myself from doing a round up of the reasons why I (surprise surprise) will not be voting for Sadiq Khan. I’ve tried to be brief, but it has got to almost 3,000 words!

Without further ado, here are 10 top reasons:

Knife crime - and crime generally

It goes without saying that knife crime and all types of crime have risen exponentially under Khan (who, it’s sometimes forgotten, “is responsible for the totality of policing in the capital.”)

It’s now “the norm” to see theft in a supermarket or something worse.

But Khan doesn’t seem to care, and even joked about machetes last week in a panel with Susan Hall, telling her that she should stop watching The Wire. Hilarious!

Khan’s acolytes often argue that he doesn’t have enough funds to fight crime because of the beastly Conservative Party. But it’s nonsense when you see at the amount he wastes on pet projects, such as renaming stops on the London overground - at a cost of £6.3 million.

Disabled people losing access to transport

Khan’s expenditure on overground lines is even more appalling given that disabled people’s access in London has become *WORSE* since he became Mayor.

It was never brilliant to begin with. Just over a third of tube stops have step-free access - aka, can be used by those in wheelchairs/ with prams/ other mobility needs (and I’m told that’s a generous estimate, as some still have escalators to climb after you’ve used a lift). Imagine if Khan had spent £6.3 million towards changing that.

Shockingly, Khan’s administration has actually reduced disabled people’s independence. Take the proliferation of floating bus stops. Some reading may not even know what they are - proving the point of how little attention they receive from the media, despite having a huge impact on others’ lives.

Disabled people have said *for years* that these make travel much more dangerous. Yet Khan and his Walking and Cycling Commissioner, Will Norman, have blanked them.

Here’s Norman ignoring blind campaigners below (picture taken in 2019; they have been raising awareness of mobility issues for even longer than this!):

A more in-depth piece I have written about this issue for The Critic, here.

And a quote below from my recent Telegraph piece:

Hyacinth Malcolm, a campaigner for the National Federation for the Blind UK (NFBUK), told The Telegraph: “Our current mayor just isn’t listening.

“Does a blind or disabled person have to be killed before they do anything? He just doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand.”

She added: “The buses are the most accessible way for us to travel. We can’t do it any more.”

Rates for mates

Will Norman (who I’ve written more about here), has a salary of £110,000-£114,999 pa - which brings me onto another feature of Khan’s London: his inside team of 21 people very-well-paid people you’ve never heard of, including three “Mayoral Directors”. Full list here with some examples below:

Sophie Linden
Deputy Mayor, Policing and Crime
Salary: £132,664 per year

Clearly doing a great job…

Seb Dance
Deputy Mayor, Transport and Deputy Chair, Transport for London
Salary: £141,406

Justine Simons, OBE
Deputy Mayor for Culture and Creative Industries
Salary: £141,406

And our favourite, the Night Czar, who falls under “Special Appointments”:

War on cars

I’ve written so much on this topic that I hope you’ll forgive me if I paste a selection below of articles and a quote below. Tbh I think I’d find it hard to summarise in a paragraph how devastating anti-car measures have been for Londoners.

Since 2020, things have become much worse for… traders, with councils across the UK stepping up their efforts to ban cars, increasing anti-traffic schemes, including ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emission Zones), in spite of people continuing to make their objections known. Opponents of traffic reduction schemes are not conspiracy theorists or worse — self-employed couriers/ plumbers/ decorators, for instance, are some of the biggest economic victims, losing money each day because LTNs elongate their journeys, reducing the number of jobs they can carry out. Some traders have spent lots of money on upgrading their car to electric to be ULEZ compliant, only to find out that the car is now simply banned from certain routes. There’s also the disabled, vulnerable and elderly to consider - “The war on cars”, The Critic

2022: The Daily Express:

• Car-bashing Sadiq is set to make cost of living crisis worse

2023: The Critic:

• Do journalists know what matters?

Authoritarian

Khan hates having to listen to Londoners’ concerns about ULEZ (democracy, ey!) - which they simply had imposed on them - so he tries to clamp down people’s right to free speech and their use of democratic channels.

Recently he ordered police to close down a ULEZ protest of around 100 people (a size that pales in comparison next to weekly pro-Palestine protests) - as it was apparently near his home.

But there was doubt cast on how accurate this was. One protestor said: “We’re not causing anyone alarm and distress. We’re just standing round making our message heard. We’re not going anywhere near Sadiq’s house.”

A number of demonstrators were pinned to the ground and issued with a S42 dispersal order by police. Five were arrested.

It’s worth saying that London bureaucrats do sometimes appear to exaggerate the “threat” of activists whose opinions they don’t want to hear.

For instance, Haringey Council mysteriously cancelled a discussion about LTNs at short notice - because of “disruption by a small group of protestors”.

Council leader Peray Ahmet said at the time: “It was not an easy decision to cancel the meeting, but we had to protect the safety of our councillors, council officers and other members of the public."

But “others denied there was disruption and suggested the meeting could have gone ahead as planned.”

By this point residents had submitted three petitions calling for the removal of LTNs. How can democracy function when people are no-platformed in this way by elected representatives?

Another version of “no-platforming” took place last year when a “furious lorry driver” - according to ITV - was escorted out from City Hall by a security officer after she “heckled” (another description from ITV) Khan over the ULEZ expansion plan. Angie Donnelly is her name (below):

Here’s what she said to Khan (or “heckled”, depending on your interpretation of events):

"You’ve got people struggling down in Essex, that can’t feed their kids- You should put the ULEZ in Essex on hold. Let people get back on their feet, let people get a life, let people get over the pandemic."

Donnelly - like many others - was clearly fed up of trying to get her message through as the Mayor and elected representatives never want to hear it. Hence coming to the event in the first place. In general, no one ever talks about the suppressive tactics from Khan’s administration that lead voters to “heckle”, protest or, at the worst, become ULEZ “Blade Runners”. Reactions have escalated in line with democratic channels being shut down.

At worse, Khan will smear opponents to stifle debate; case in point, his appearance in March last year at People's Question Time in Ealing:

He said of ULEZ opponents:

What I find unacceptable is some of those who've got legitimate objections [about ULEZ] joining hands with some of those outside, who are part of a far-right group."

Let's be frank, let's call a spade a spade. Some of those outside are part of the far right. Some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers and some are Tories.

Punishes the good, ignores the bad

ULEZ highlights that, when they want to, Khan and his administration can enforce rules. In its first month, the ULEZ expansion raises £26 million as more than 57,000 vehicles a day were hit with charges.

But if you steal from a supermarket, nothing is likely to happen. The police rarely come any more because of the paperwork.

System failures

ULEZ enforcers are so desperate to fine Londoners that they’ve even come for innocent people. The Telegraph covers some ridiculous examples. For instance, one man handed a fine despite donating his car to the Ukraine war effort last summer.

In The Sun last year I wrote about Christopher Oxenham, who was fined 14 times despite never going into a ULEZ zone.

Two-tier policing

Khan’s double standards around policing ULEZ transgressions versus actual crime is analogous to his two-tiered attitude to protests.

Whether you can kick off in London is very much contingent upon Khan’s opinions, which he doesn't hide. In July 2023 he said:

I think that Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil are really important pressure groups trying to put power on those who have power and influence.

I fully support the right to protest.

It’s really important to recognise the joy of a democracy is protest.

But then… let’s look at the St. George’s Day march in Whitehall. I’m not here to defend or promote it. Like others I actually don’t really know what happened; my impression is that there was a mixture of people who are proud of England and worried about the continuity of British culture, and then those at the extreme end of the spectrum.

The first thing I heard about it was that “clashes had taken place” - due to “Far Right” protestors attending. Clearly, the police were told to get rid of them. It showed that the Met are quite capable of removing protestors when instructed to - yet won’t do much about the constant stream of pro-Palestine protests in London, where there has been despicable antisemitism.

Second jobs

Not everyone is aware of this but Khan is co-Chair of C40 “a global network of nearly 100 mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis.” Its funders include Amazon, Google, L'Oréal. Very left wing!

In November last year it was reported that Sir Christopher Hohn, a major funder of Extinction Rebellion [that “really important pressure grou[p]”], had allegedly donated £46 million to C40.

Democracy… don’t you just love it.

Actual disinformation

In February this year, Khan appeared on BBC Verify, as he had been a victim of disinformation.

His inclusion on the show demonstrates how ideologically-captured our public institutions are. I’m not disputing that there was a fake AI of Khan. It’s just that his own administrations’ disinformation would have made a better episode. (Sadly the media rarely scrutinises Khan; here’s The Evening Standard coming out in support of him today; gotta love our Establishment cretins).

But back to disinformation… Last year Khan was accused of "colluding to quash research" on (ULEZ) after it was found that his deputy mayor (below) Shirley Rodrigues, had, via email, “twice asked an air quality expert to counter research questioning benefits of a polluting-vehicle charge.”

More details here (BBC News):

Emails show deputy mayor Shirley Rodrigues twice asked an air quality expert to counter research questioning benefits of a polluting-vehicle charge.

Prof Kelly's science team from Imperial College London has been paid nearly £1m by Mr Khan's office.

The Labour mayor said Prof Kelly's work was not influenced by the funding.

…

In a chain of emails between Ms Rodrigues and Prof Kelly, obtained via a Conservative Party Freedom of Information request, the deputy mayor for environment and energy said she was "really disappointed" that Dr Kelly's fellow Imperial academics published a study, suggesting the central London Ulez had a relatively small effect on air pollution.

It found that harmful nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations were reduced by less than 3% in inner London nine months after the expansion of the zone.

On 16 November 2021 Ms Rodrigues told Prof Kelly she was "deeply concerned about the damage this misleading study is doing, both to our credibility and to low-emission zones as a policy instrument".

She asked him if "there is anything you can do or advise to help us set the record straight?".

In February the advertising watchdog also said that Khan and TfL misled Londoners about the benefits of ULEZ. Summary:

… the Greater London Authority or TfL breached its rules on three occasions, including with the suggestion that “one of the most polluted places in London is inside your car”.

But don’t be expecting a BBC Verify episode any time soon…

Personal thoughts

Whenever I complain about London I am often told to move to a new area.

I really struggle with the idea as I grew up in Islington - moving to Kent when I was 13 - and it had a very strong impression on me.

It is my childhood stomping ground and everything that feels “normal” and “familiar” (and yes, I do wish that one of the most expensive parts of the country wasn’t my “normal”).

Growing up in Islington, I saw crime (a man batting another round the head with a baseball bat, for instance, when my brothers and I were being driven home from school by my mum). But I was never scared - even at the age of 11 when I begged my parents to get the bus on my own. I remember the excitement as I was allowed to ride the 73 for the first time. (Back then it was 40p for a child ticket - and £1 if they didn’t believe you and thought you were an adult.)

The worst thing you faced was May Day protests (remember them?) but they are nothing compared to the constant chaos now. Moreover London was always a place that “enriched” rather taking away from people. Khan always says “diversity is our strength”, but take the many delicious eateries that have gone out of business. Some of my fondest memories are immersing myself in international cuisine, with visits to Tiger Lil’s, where you could put together amazing flaming woks, and my parents bringing back takeaways from Afghan Kitchen (which is still there fortunately) and Yellow River Cafe (it no longer exists). I miss these experiences which have been replaced by Deliveroo drivers bringing Wagamamas to the door. Of course, food is just the start of it; London feels much more corporate and heartless than it used to, with over-expensive chains instead of one-of-a-kind venues; like a big extension of M&M's World.

It’s not just the cultural decline, of course; the city increasingly feels like being a player in Grand Theft Auto. Since Khan became Mayor I have seen a long blade pulled out (in Camden), had to call the police on a fight (in Clerkenwell), been groped twice (on a bus and Old Compton Street), had my phone stolen and attended court as a witness for a trial involving a racist hate crime on a bus. At the lesser end I have been stranded on nights out because of the lack of taxis - due to the growth of anti-car measures.

One final point

In media, there is an unofficial rule that you try not to write about London; editors, TV and paper, are wary in case we (mostly Londoners) look “London centric” and alienate readers across the country. But I’ve always found there’s an interest in the topic. It’s the UK Capital, and we all have a stake in it, no matter where you’re based. When London is in an unhealthy state, the rest of the country takes cues from it. London can unnerve people, and that’s what it’s doing now. That’s why it’s so important that it’s managed sensibly, fairly and by someone who actually loves the city; I have never felt that about Khan.

Obviously, I hope he loses tomorrow (I am voting for Susan Hall to be transparent; this is tactical; I actually think mayors should be abolished full stop across the UK). But if my dreams are not fulfilled, I hope our politicians think long and hard about their neglect, bordering on contempt, for our splendid capital. We deserve better. All Brits.

Yesterday what I can only describe as the “hustings from hell” took place in central London.

Officially titled The Future of London Transport, the event was organised by Clean Cities and Possible, and supported by: “20's Plenty for Us, Action Vision Zero, Asthma & Lung UK, British Vehicle Rental Leasing Association, Campaign for Better Transport, Centre for London, Choked Up, Clean Cities Campaign, CoMo UK, CPRE London, Electric Vehicle Association England, Friends of the Earth, Future Transport London, Global Action Plan, Green Alliance, Healthy Air Coalition, Impact on Urban Health, London Living Streets, Mums for Lungs, Possible, Solve the School Run, Sustrans, Transport & Environment”.

It really should have been titled The Future of London… without cars or The Future of London… run by green zealots - because almost all of these groups are obsessed with forcing vehicles out of the capital, so that we can live in a perfect eco utopia.

To see how partisan this “transport” event was look at the organisers:

First up is Clean Cities. Here’s a page from its website, which makes clear its hostility towards cars.

While the wording suggests Clean Cities only wants to tackle “polluting” vehicles, and move to “electric mobility” to clean up the planet, ultimately you’ll find it wants to remove cars full stop.

Its 2022 Impact Report, for instance, shows Clean Cities calling Belgian council leaders to introduce LTNs, which stop cars entering roads, making it pointless to buy an electric or any of the other “environmentally-friendly” options drivers are nudged towards (often by the same people who want to force all cars off the roads).

Then there’s Possible, a charity that also doesn’t like cars. Possible has a Car Free Cities campaign which “aims to help local communities reimagine their own neighbourhoods where car dependency is a thing of the past”:

Money, money, money

The interesting thing about these organisations is they keep telling us that “active travel” - middle-class code for “no cars” - will make life cheaper and better for the muggles.

But getting people to cycle seems to be an incredibly expensive business. Just look at the income of Sustrans, which supported yesterday’s event and describes itself as “the charity making it easier for everyone to walk, wheel and cycle”. It is also the charity that knows how to get government funding…

Last year it was given £7.54m in government contracts and £92.96m in government grants - extraordinary sums!

What has it delivered in that time? Well, here’s one example. In 2023 the London Borough of Lambeth commissioned Sustrans to create “five temporary low traffic neighbourhoods into permanent, beautiful public spaces”, and it was, err, a great success

According to Sustrans, 47% of Londoners support Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 16% oppose them, which is surprising stuff when you look at the fines handed out.

But back to the event…

Even more ghastly than the companies at yesterday’s London “transport” event were some of the panel members, the most odious being Mete Coban, the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Environment & Transport.

He stepped in for Sadiq Khan, who, alongside Susan Hall (Conservative) and Rob Blake (Liberal Democrats) chose not to attend.

Coban - who I wrote about for The Telegraph last year - is the eco warrior who clocked up around 40,000 air miles on multiple long-haul trips - despite lecturing Hackney residents about LTNs and being the poster boy for the area’s £60 million contribution to climate change.

Here are some snapshots of my thread then, which you can find here.

Coban was defended at the time by Hirra Khan Adeogun, who works for Possible (one of yesterday’s event organisers).

Here she is, also being an eco hypocrite:

“TRAVELLING IS GOOD”

The chair

Chairing The Future of London Transport was Ross Lydall, City Hall Editor & Transport Editor of The Evening Standard.

Again, it is not obvious that he is a neutral adjudicator as opposed to being chosen because he likes cycling. Here’s one of his recent posts from X:

Notably, Lydall was quick to defend Coban when he cocked up yesterday and told attendees that Khan had only ruled out pay-per-mile “for now”.

Naturally everyone had questions about what that meant.

But Lydall reassured people afterwards that it was “more of a slip of the tongue” from Coban.

Was it? And was it Lydall’s place to tell us what to think, any more than it was a good idea for him to chair an event that is so ideological about travel.

Most of us know the answer. But it’s just another day in Khan’s “democracy”.

How many male versus female cyclists are there in London?

I actually have no idea. But whenever I walk around the city, it certainly seems like a lot more men compared to women.

Part of the reason why I notice men more is that cyclists are becoming increasingly obstructive - aggressive even.

Although cycle lanes have expanded substantially, cyclists seem to be riding on the streets more than ever before.

Often I find myself about to be knocked into by either a teenage boy whizzing past, a bloke who looks like he owns several pairs of mountain shoes or male Deliveroo riders wobbling about before they go through a red light.

Yes, women can cycle too, but the city seems to be overwhelmingly based around men’s love of two-wheeled travel.

One thing I - a woman! - would like in London is easy access to affordable taxis. They make me feel safe at night. However, I can’t remember the last time I ordered one due to lack of availability and soaring costs. Thousands of them have gone out of business in the big smoke, in fact, thanks to Sadiq Khan’s war on cars.

On the occasions I have complained about the male-oriented nature of cycling, I get an avalanche of (mostly male) cyclists telling me how cycling is wonderful for all.

Take this Tweet I wrote last year, and the subsequent replies:

“What oceangoing nonsense. Many of the biggest supporters of active travel are women, or men not in the first flush of youth. Some are disabled. But most of the pro-traffic, anti-cycling yobs are young men.”

“Please outline the evidence you have that "young men are some of the biggest advocates of killling off the car industry". Genuinely, this is "news" to me.”

“I disagree with your statement Charlotte. I know a huge amount of women advocating for more active travel alternatives in the city. I’m a mum and cart my kid around by bike, and cycle home at night.”

“Why do the right wing press hate cyclists and cycling? It's not a good position to be in. Something to do with petrol company shares maybe?”

So on Monday, I decided to film cyclists while I walked through London and count the number of male and female cyclists.

A pedantic point

Knowing cyclists - some of the most anally retentive people on earth - I am sure I will be accused of fake news (unlike their incredible “studies” into car use) so I will first of all add my method/ any limitations, as well as a video showing a sample of my “field work”.

Method/ limitations *excuse an even more pedantic section*

I walked from London Bridge to Barbican (approximately 1.6 miles) filming cyclists I saw on the way. While I aimed to film non-stop as much as I could, I paused several times to take photographs of parked Lime Bikes (as I document these on social media) and change my music (I am a fidgety DJ). I tried as best as possible to document every cyclist I could see. I discounted a handful in my study if their gender wasn’t clear-cut. For instance:

Sample video below:

Without further ado, here’s my tally:

Male: 1

Males 2 and 3

Males 4 and 5

Male 6

Male 7

Male 8

Male 9

Male 10

Male 11

Males 12 and 13

Male 14

Male 15

Female 1:

Male 16

Male 17

Male 18

Female 2

Male 19

Male 20

Male 21

Male 22, Female 3

Males 23 and 24

Male 25

Male 26

Male 27

Male 28

Males 29 and 30 (father and son)

Male 31

Male 32

Male 33

Female 4

Male 34

Female 5

Male 35

Female 6

Male 36

Male 37

Male 38

Female 7

Male 39

Male 40, Female 8

Male 41

Male 42

Male 43, Female 9

Male 44

Male 45

Female 10

Male 46

Males 47 and 48

Male 49

Female 11

Male 50

Male 51

Male 52

Male 53

Male 54

Male 55

Male 56 and 57

Male 58

Male 59

Male 60

Male 61

Male 62

Male 63

Male 64

Male 65

Male 66

Male 67

Male 68, female 12

Male 69

Male 70

Male 71

Female 13

Male 72

In total, I counted 72 males and 13 females.

Why does this bother me?

In general it seems to me that London transport fails at most tests of inclusivity, and is overwhelmingly now geared towards male able-bodied cyclists. *I even found it interesting that several of the women in my sample were not independent cyclists, but accompanied by males.*

Blind and disabled people, for instance, are struggling because of “floating bus stops” (see below):

There are also very limited resources - e.g. lift access - for wheelchair/ mobility scooter users and parents/ carers using buggies.

Moreover, it’s becoming harder for people in mobility scooters/ wheelchairs/ otherwise and with buggies to get past due to the growing number of cyclists who dump their hire-bikes in the street:

Here is my friend struggling to get past with her buggy:

Will Norman, the Walking and Cycling Commissioner, has spent a colossal amount on expanding cycle lanes:

He constantly tells us he’s “making London a greener safer & healthier city for all.”

But London now feels like a playground for middle-aged men on their bikes.

Let’s just say, none of my footage looks what London leaders pretend it is:

Forgive the self promotion but you may have clocked my article in The Telegraph today about the following study on Shakespeare:

I am sorry to say that it gets EVEN worse for Shakespeare this week.

Shakespeare reimagined in London, 2024

It turns out that The Globe is putting on a new version of Romeo and Juliet - to teach whippersnappers about knife crime.

I was advertised it on Instagram. Having followed the link, the first sign of trouble was when I saw this trigger warning:

The second was when I spotted Sadiq Khan’s involvement in the production:

(More on this later).

Is it 14th century Verona… or present-day London?

According to the cast of this new version of Romeo and Juliet, 14th century Verona and modern-day London were practically the same.

As one says: “We can all relate to Romeo and Juliet… gang culture, family, peer pressure”.

Exactly! And who hasn’t been proposed to by a prince?

Another cast member says: “You walk out on the street and you can see that’s a Mercutio, or that’s a Romeo.”

Definitely. Whenever I leave the house, the first thing I say to my neighbour is “do you bite your thumb at me?”

Here are some pictures from this very relatable version of Romeo and Juliet:

“Nurse” is now an NHS worker:

It even has a character called “cyclist” (ideally he’d be a baddie, but I doubt it because Khan is involved - who hates cars).

What’s the issue?

Looking at this production, some might say, “come on, Charlotte; people have always reinvented Shakespeare; what about the Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo and Juliet? Isn’t it good to adapt it for kids?”

But leaving aside the fact it looks utterly awful, why is Shakespeare being used as a crime reduction strategy?

Embedded in The Globe’s website are videos by the Young People’s Action Group (YPAG) - which advises the Mayor of London's Violence Reduction Unit (VRU).

Key to the VRU’s strategy (which is clearly going very well) is the use of “prevention and early intervention”. In other words, it seems to think that Tybalt’s death will teach children not to stab each other with machetes…

Don’t believe me?

Behold, the YPAG has created these educational videos (below) to teach kiddos the importance of not stabbing each other - and what to do if you/someone else is stabbed.

Mercutio’s death discussion

*Trigger warning: the girls’ conversation is a bit like having a lobotomy.

Here’s the main takeaway:

“Even in a moment with so much pressure, Benvolio was still able to call an ambulance. But what would have been even better was if she could have done First Aid. And there’s a really important video by the Osmani Trust on Instagram that I feel like she could have benefited from.”

It’s what Shakespeare would have wanted…

Opening scene discussion

Main takeaway:

“I feel that if the young people involved had more access to positive opportunities, it would have ensured that they were able to reduce their risk of violence. If you attended the production, in your programme you’ll see a range of opportunities that the London VRU funds. And this can be done in your local community and also your borough too.

“Personally I love to get involved in my local youth club where I can explore my passion of playing football”.

More lobotomy time:

Oh Juliet, if only she’d had a “safe space”!

Taxpayer moola

In the videos, you’ll see the youngsters talk about helpful organisations that Romeo and Juliet should have used.

For instance, in one video the Osmani Trust is mentioned.

Here’s an example of how much taxpayer money goes into some of these organisations (the Osmani Trust’s accounts for the year ended 31 March):

On The Globe website, the YPAG has compiled a list of other charities/ companies, with names like “Gloves Not Gunz” and “Football Beyond Borders”.

Deutsche Bank is also involved; it has a programme that “provides state secondary schools with free tickets to live performances at the Globe Theatre in London.” Here’s a picture of one of its programmes *shudders*:

Lastly, to add that The Royal Shakespeare Company already gets over £15 million in annual funding from Arts Council England.

So it’s a lot of money going into a lot of crap.

Either way, suspect the taxpayer might prefer some more policing over teenage explainers of Tybalt’s death…

Earlier this week Paul Scully, the Tory MP, provoked outrage among the commentariat when he warned that there are “no-go areas” in Birmingham and London.

Scully had been referring to places such as Tower Hamlets, where he said that people were “using” and “abusing” Islam. Although he added the caveat that their practice was not the actual “doctrine of Islam”, the comments did not go down well and he eventually apologised.

Far from this silencing his critics, Scully’s words sparked a more generalised debate about crime in Birmingham and London. Are there areas people avoid due to safety concerns?

It soon became clear what the “correct” thing to say on this matter was.

Rory Stewart, for instance, told us to snap out of our “paranoid fantasies”.

Jemma Forte, veteran of Jeremy Vine on 5, and err, not sure what else, said complaints about “no go areas” were indicative of people “pushing racist agendas”.

And a man named Ian made a joke that was repeated endlessly across social media.

I can’t help thinking this (below) is a good visual representation of these people, desperate to show what cosmopolitan sorts they are; the type who might make their kids and their friends a margarita to be “the cool parent”.

Sadly, having been mugged for my phone in 2021 and called as a witness for a racially-aggravated hate crime last year, along with other unsavoury experiences, I feel less optimistic about the state of the capital - or Stabital, as it should be called.

I don’t think “no-go zones” are the best way to describe parts of London (I cannot speak for crime in Birmingham having never lived there) precisely because you can be stabbed or robbed anywhere nowadays. Parents would have to be mad to want their kids roaming about London at night. And anyone who says otherwise is either living in one of the safer parts of town and/or has access to safe transport/ is burying their head in the sand. I wonder what family of the 21 teenage homicide victims last year (out of whom 18 were stabbed and two shot) would say about the “paranoid fantasies” Stewart derides?

London’s problem is not only brazen crime, but a growing sense of decay. It’s a textbook example of criminology’s “broken windows theory”, which hypothesises that visible signs of crime, antisocial behaviour and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages more crime and disorder. There are all sorts of examples of this, from continuous protests (Free Palestine, Extinction Rebellion, anti-lockdown and so forth; central London now appearing to be a permanent stage for the disgruntled) to youngsters playing their speakers loudly on the tube, to growing homelessness. Take the example (pictured) below, which is no longer unusual to the West End. It’s the sort of scene we might have seen in San Francisco (and indeed New York) a year or so earlier, and thought “wow, things have really gone downhill there”.

It sounds trivial but the supermarket has become one of the biggest hubs of criminal activity, albeit not the kind that Tony Soprano would be involved in. Last year journalist Harry Wallop wrote a gripping feature for The Daily Mail about his day in a Co-op branch that had already been robbed 1,000 times that year. From 2022-2023 shoplifting offences increased by 24 percent in England and Wales.

Recently I was at my local supermarket when I heard the security guard trying to ward off a thief. I later found out from discussions with staff members that the man turned up daily to steal things.

The security guard eventually lost his cool - having spent ages trying to get rid of the man - picked up a shopping basket and headed towards him, all of this happening outside (as the man had been slowly nudged towards the exit by staff). “He’s not worth it/ leave it”, said his panicked colleagues as the security guard went forth. Luckily the thief went and thankfully nobody was lamped over the head with a shopping basket. But it wasn’t a very reassuring situation. Were I to name the supermarket, perhaps the security guard would get into trouble - even though it’s quite understandable why he was at the end of his tether. He had no back up, and there are no signs of it coming in the future either. A staff member told me that the police no longer do anything about shoplifting as the paperwork takes too long. She added that “you and I are paying for it”, as the consumer takes the brunt of the shortfall.

On Monday I was in Waitrose when I saw another “broken window”: a pack of pens with a security tag on them (selling at a discounted price of £4.12). I was so astounded that I stood for a minute to check that these really did have a security tag (a pair of scissors did too). Eventually a member of staff came over and said “do you want me to remove the tag?”, clearly thinking I might run off with the uni-balls - which I did buy. (The tag seemed a bit pointless, incidentally, because you could just pull the pens off if you wanted to). It sounds daft but it was emblematic of how far London and the UK have disintegrated.

It reminded me of last year when I had been worried by the prospect of my brother moving to New York City for few months. Earlier that year my sister had been and recounted to me that you couldn’t buy shampoo without an assistant opening a cabinet. She described scenes as “bleak and scary”. We took heart from the fact we lived in the UK, where things aren’t that bad. Well, not yet - and when London overspills “no go zones” will be everywhere.

Recently I was out and about in London when a teenage boy on a bicycle almost crashed into me - and several others.

He was on the pavement, weaving in and out of us at a fast pace. He had no care for our safety and I couldn’t help thinking that he enjoyed terrorising people with his speed. It got me thinking about how much of the time I spend trying to dodge aggressive cyclists.

This especially annoyed me because cyclists can be some of the most moralistic and officious people. Take Jeremy Vine, the lycra-loving TV presenter, who regularly posts videos of himself travelling on his bike. Using a body cam, he uploads footage of drivers who, in his opinion, have behaved terribly, onto the internet - sometimes putting the film into slow motion and adding anguished commentary. “Drivers are the enemy!” is the message (whereas Jeremy is doing God’s work on his two wheels).

After my close-shave experience involving the teenage boy on his bicycle, I had an idea. I would become Jeremy Vine - the pedestrian version - and play cyclists at their own game, filming their transgressions on my Chaz Cam (my self-titled, pedestrian version of body cam; technically the lens of my iPhone 11).

It goes without saying that cyclists aren’t as dangerous as cars on average, and of course, not everyone cycles badly. But too often you hear “it’s only a few bad eggs giving others a bad name” to minimise the number of naughty cyclists - when the issue is actually quite pronounced, as I have found. I would guess it’s more like half of cyclists behaving badly on the road, not a minority.

Without further ado, here are some of the main findings of my day out.

Cyclists often go through red lights

My first discovery was the number of cyclists who go through red lights, in contravention of the Highway Code, which says they “must obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals” and must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red”. I lost count of the number of cyclists doing this on my day out with the Chaz Cam.

Although you might say I was being pedantic (well, I was pretending to be the pedestrian version of Jeremy Vine) and that cyclists may as well go through the light if no pedestrians are waiting, I found they do even when a pedestrian is there. One female cyclist dashed out at me as soon as the pedestrian light went green (see below):

Another time, I spotted a male Deliveroo rider almost run into a mother and her child when it was their right of way.

Some cyclists also unnerve drivers when they go through red lights, as their movements are so unpredictable.

Cyclists on their phones

The next thing I found was that cyclists using their phones while travelling, especially when completing a job. While this isn’t illegal, per se, the Highway Code advises them “You must not ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner” - with the maximum fine for mobile use being £1,000; something that doesn’t seem to be enforced very well. It wasn’t unusual to see cyclists riding with one hand or none on their handlebars, as if thinking they looked extremely cool while doing so.

One cyclist, who a van white beeped at, due to his being dangerously close in front, sped away, only to look at something other than the road (my guess being his phone).

Lighting issues

Something I never knew, until I began monitoring cyclists, is that it’s illegal for them to cycle on a public road after dark without lights and reflectors. I found this by far one of the biggest cycling transgressions; tens of cyclists don’t do this and/ or wear dark clothing, making it hard for drivers and pedestrians to spot them.

Pavement patrol

Cyclists are also overly relaxed about going on pavements, despite Section 72 of the Highway Act 1985 saying they must not “wilfully rid[e]” on footpaths. Some cyclists move through pedestrians at an alarming rate, with little to no care whether they are elderly or otherwise vulnerable. This is certainly what I found that day with the teenage boy; it seems to me a few of them even like the terror they inflict by speeding through crowds.

Delivery companies have some of the worst cyclists

One thing that became particularly obvious to me was the number working for delivery companies who did not adhere to the Highway Code (going through traffic lights, for instance). It may be the case that these cyclists would have always been bad cyclists, no matter which company they worked for. But I can’t help but wonder if having to rush people’s food around for tiny sums of money is making people cycle dangerously. Although many politicians act as if cycling will lead us to a perfect green utopia, the reality is huge numbers of low-paid workers (mainly men, in my experience) dashing around too quickly.

Conclusions

Overall, Chaz Cam investigations have hardly convinced me that the UK is ready for a cycling revolution.

It’s worth emphasising that some councils around the UK are hell-bent on this idea. It’s not uncommon to see leaflets and posters about “Liveable Neighbourhoods”, featuring cartoons of people in wheelchairs whizzing down their street, as cyclists gently go past - designed to sell the idea of diverse cycling utopia to voters.

The reality, in my opinion, is that half of cyclists behave well, and half of cyclists don’t. It’s definitely not the case that “most cyclists follow the rules”. They don’t - because they perceive themselves as “the green and the good” of British society. It’s also generally my experience that most cyclists are male (and young), and the most aggressive ones almost always so, countering councils’ propaganda of inclusive transport.

Although I joke about my “Chaz Cam” and Jeremy Vine, there is a serious point to this piece. When cyclists disobey the rules, there can be terrible consequences.

In 2016, Kim Briggs, 44, a mother of two, was killed after a (then) 18-year-old man, riding an illegal “fixie” bike with no front brakes, ran into her. Kim, a mother of two, suffered “catastrophic” head injuries and died in hospital a week after she was hit. Her widower Matthew has since campaigned for a new Death by Dangerous Cycling law (his campaign account here).

And this July, a male cyclist in Oxford was charged for killing an 81-year-old by careless cycling and bodily harm by wanton/ furious driving. She suffered serious injuries and died in hospital.

Ultimately, there’s a reason that the Highway Code has tough rules for cyclists. They can cause a huge amount of damage if they do not conduct themselves sensibly, as I suspect the teenage boy I saw that day would have done, were he to have hit a pedestrian.

Another concern I have is that UK cycling obsession increases social exclusion. With vehicles being pushed off the roads, even in spite of Rishi Sunak’s best efforts to halt the War on Cars, it’ll be the elderly, disabled and/ or vulnerable who suffer the consequences.

After all, are they going to be the ones going through lights, and riding through the pavements, or the ones bashed about by the young men who do?

Anyone reading this article may think I have a problem with cyclists; the irony being that I actually enjoy it myself, once taking children on long-distance cycling trips in Vermont, in the United States, when I worked at a summer camp.

I walk, take public transport and I don’t own a car. Several years ago I reversed into a dumpster and decided the world didn’t need any more of my driving.

But it’s the hypocrisy that gets me, along with the fact that some of their behaviour could seriously hurt people.

With my Chaz Cam, there’ll be no cyclists getting off the hook.