All Activity

@Earl Aelfheah try to keep it on topic please - we see what you are doing here. And what you're ducking is the clear proof, in the FOI materials, that the council tried to avoid it's own internal governance procedures, ignored the testimony from its own executives and those invited to give opinion and were hellbent on rolling this out as quickly as possible and to push any hurdles aside without any formal consultation. That is what the FOI materials show - now you want to argue about what AI prompts were used to generate, what I feel, was a far more reflective AI summary than yours. I suggest if you want to talk about various AI LLMs and how the prompts work you take that to the lounge because the longer you go on about it the more it looks like a weak attempt to distract from the aforementioned subject matter which is there for all to see in black and white.

@Rockets You constantly mock the large body of academic research, but offer no peer reviewed research to support your many 'alternative' claims. You've smeared academics repeatedly, including individuals you've previously cited favourably when (you've mistakenly thought) their work aligns with your position. You've repeated claims of increased pollution in the area many times, including on this thread, which are demonstrably false. And you have ducked this question. It would be good to know whether you're defending what you know to be deliberately misleading statements, or whether you actually believe that they're true.

The only flaw in your argument is that the research is exclusively only carried out by, as you put it, "two dodgy researchers". Why? Because those are the researchers funded by TFL and the Mayor to, ahem, "impartially" survey TFL and the Mayor's implementations. Do you have any links to this - first time I have heard anything about this? Underhill will also bear the brunt of this...so be careful what you wish for. In fact, if the council then has to take action on St Dunstan's you'll be seeing a lot more traffic on your road. And I worked that one out myself despite of your accusation about Thick People! To be fair, I am so pleased you have, amazingly quickly, developed such a strong opinion especially given you claimed, no matter than a few days ago, to have never heard of an LTN before...now you are calling people who disagree with you "thick people". I think you are exposing yourself a bit here. In the matter of 8 posts you've gone from "I don't know what LTN stands for" to landing on "there is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement".....that's one hell of a shift #justsayin Anyway, if this is the end of your time on the Forum it's been an absolute pleasure having you thank you for joining and sharing your views.

Any recommendations, please PM. Appreciated, thank you.

Week 21 points... Week 21 table... There's a Friday night game this week, so look out for Week 22 fixtures before then...

It isn't a summary. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique? I would love to know whether you are actually claiming to buy that / don't understand how AI prompts work, or are simply saying that you don't care that he's been deliberately misleading. I do appreciate your concern on this. The fact is however, that the trial is likely to proceed. I would advise you to put pressure on the council to do a lot of baselining and proper monitoring of the impacts. There is a lot of misinformation around the impacts of these types of measures. A well managed trial will demonstrate whether or not there is a negative impact on surrounding streets.

I live on Underhill, and completely understand your concern of the imact on Dunstans! I'd feel exactly the same. However, the research shows from up and down the country, where these measures are implemented, that after a short adjustment period, it has a positive impact on local roads (on average a 9% drop in traffic). Anti traffic measure people will arge that the data is biased and reference one or two dodgy researchers, but that just simply couldn't be true accross so many peer reviewed studies. The peer review process is designed to pick holes in research. Peer reviewers take pleasure in pointing out flaws and biases. There is enormous, well funded anti-traffic measure pressure from the billionaire class, who have tried to fund negative studies, but failed because the data is clear. Also, Dunstans already has slow traffic lights to desuade traffic. All of that said, I think your concerns are completely understandable, I would also be nervous, and I can see the council have been absolutely terrible at making a good case for these measures. I just see that the research outcomes are very clear. I can't find a single study that says otherwise. But I'd welcome anyone to share a peer reviewed study that shows negative impact. There is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement. More than enough to fund an £80k study.

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury.

A transparent untruth you seem to be comfortable defending whilst talking about things feeling 'Trumpian'. Oh dear.

With regards the proposed scheme Removing paid parking will have an impact on the shops and resturants in the proposed area as it will be harder for "passing" trade to stop quickly and pick things up It also makes it harder for disabled drivers as they will have to park in the middle (5 spaces?) And then cross the road to get to the shops Currently, with the exception of a short time period in the morning, buses flow fairly freely through the proposed area so is this over engineering the solution? Unless i am wrong, the bus gate on Peckham Rye appears to stop cars, vans and taxis going to the gyratory from east dulwich road and from the forest hill / Barry Road direction, does this then impact traffic that needs to go to nunhead from the latter direction as there is no right turn at the lights ? How will this be managed or are cars going to be forced down to turn around at the goose green roundabout ? Basically, this is a poor design that will have massive negative impacts across a wider area fixing a problem that doesn't really exist and should be objected to and brought into scrutiny.

Having spent a very short amount of time in this forum, I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that there is literally no point in engaging in discussion with bad faith outsiders that seemingly spend their entire day glued to a computer. Why are non-residents taking up entire pages of this forum with biased conspiracy theories, when they don't live in our area? Please leave space for actual residents to debate. To the anti traffic measure brigade, you may never have the capacity or willingness to realise you're on the wrong side of history, as I'm sure this is not the first time you have been on the wrong side of history, and it will not be the last. I am so impressed by the restraint many actual residents have shown when dealing with the bad faith responses. I now change my original ask, from people reconsidering their opposition to the trial based on actual evidence rather than hearsay, to not engaging in debate with the non-residents, as their presence here is not appropriate, respectful, or constructive. Take your feelings to the ballot box. Labour have held power in this constituency since 2010, Sadiq Khan has held power since 2016. They are huge proponents of reducing cars and pollution, and their efforts have worked. And surprise surprise they keep getting voted in. So I'm afraid, along with being on the wrong side of history, you're on the losing side of the debate. I'll now join you in your rudeness...debate here has been like the below clip from the show Jam. Over and out.

I'm fairly sure everyone engaged with this topic will have received this email yesterday, but just in case... "To whom it may concern, We are reaching out to invite you to our upcoming Residents & Stakeholder Drop In Sessions for Gala 2026. We are hosting two drop-in style sessions (one virtual, and one in person) to facilitate more in depth conversations, allowing us to run through our plans for 2026 and to discuss how we are going to address your feedback. We look forward to meeting you in person or online and discussing our event plans for both Gala and On The Rye Festival in more detail. Evening Session (IN PERSON): Time: 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM Date: Wednesday 11th February Location: Watson's General Telegraph Lunchtime Session (VIRTUAL MEETING): Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM Date: Friday 13th February We are offering 15 minute slots to speak directly with us in a virtual meeting. Please confirm your availability within this drop in period and we will confirm a time with you. You will then be sent a link directly to join the virtual session. If you would like to attend, please respond with: Your name: Your address: If you will be attending the virtual or in person meeting: Your availability for a meeting time online (if applicable): If you have any access needs so we can accommodate: We really appreciate your feedback and taking the time to attend our engagement meetings. Yours sincerely, Community Team | GALA Festival"

@malumbu that might be because James is a politician and everything Labour does is usually wrong (or at least ill-thought out or listening to the views of one lobby group more than the majority of constituents) 😉 Please run @James Barber - the Labour stranglehold needs to be broken to get some more pragmatism into local politics!

Many thanks to the woman who looked after our old deaf Miniature Schnauzer who got separated from us in the park this morning. And thank you to the man who alerted us . My husband is very relieved and grateful. If any one knows who these people are please say thank you as he didn't get their names.

Blimey Mal, thats a bit rich even for you James, when he was a councillor, helped keep the council in check and under scrutiny I for one would welcome that level of due diligence again as over the last 4 years they have steamrollered over public opinion. Has CPR Dave posted anything positive, in your opinion no, but in my opinion neither have you, however it is a public debating platform so everyone's opinion is valid, (sorry not just yours) and we all need to respect each other and have good discussions otherwise it becomes a vocal amplifier for one view or the other and this is not twitter/x where the algorithm feeds and amplifies your own views and strokes your ego.

Enpointe. The easiest way to solve problems you have described at the FHR end of Rydale would be to have double yellow lines for the first 20m wouldn’t that stop the potential collisions, road rage, swearing, upset families? Etc