first mate

Presumably local businesses have been consulted?

@Earl Aelfheah Show us the bits in that summary that are untrue, but do it on the Ryedale thread, just so this one is not taken further off subject. reposting James Barber, to get thread back on track.

You have not yet told us which statements in the summary you have labelled as fake (in the Ryedale thread) are untrue.

What with 'fake summaries' and 'nimby judges' it is all beginning to feel a bit Trumpesque.

Thanks for that. Maybe forthcoming elections have stymied the 7 day request? If Labour get back in, do we think GALA will try with greater success in 2027?

@Sue I think there was only 1 free day in the 7 day event GALA were asking for, that was the third day, after the first weekend. I think the second weekend was meant to be paid for access. I agree, the free Horniman music events are great but have nowhere near the same impact as GALA.

@Earl Aelfheah you have carefully avoided saying whether you think any of the statements in the document provided by @Lebanums are untrue. Tell us which if any statements are untrue?

It would be a relief if that is the case but GALA, at least, have a vested interest in expanding the event to more than one weekend; with all the infrastructure in place it makes financial sense for them to get more use out of it.

@Earl AelfheahWhich of these statements is untrue? 1. Pre-determination and outcome-driven approach The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed. There is repeated emphasis on: Speed of delivery Avoiding delay until after elections Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around. 2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance Several emails explicitly reference: Bypassing or streamlining normal governance Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date. 3. Known risks acknowledged internally The FOI clearly shows that officers and councillors: Anticipated resident backlash and bad press Recognised a risk that legal justification might not be sufficient Acknowledged traffic displacement and volume concerns Understood the reputational parallels with unpopular 2020 ETMOs Despite this, the scheme was progressed on the basis that senior figures were: This is significant because it demonstrates that risks were known, documented, and accepted, not unforeseen. 4. Internal disagreement and warnings ignored At least one council officer: Withdrew from the process entirely Explicitly cited issues they had raised with the scheme Warned of reputational risk and governance concerns Others recommended informal consultation specifically to mitigate those risks — advice that appears to have been overridden or side-lined. This supports an argument that professional concerns were raised but not acted upon. 5. Consultation treated as tactical, not substantive Where consultation is mentioned, it is framed as: A reputational safeguard A way to potentially slow or derail the scheme politically Something to give councillors “cold feet” rather than to shape policy This undermines the credibility of any claim that consultation was intended to be meaningful or influential. 6. Weak evidential basis The documentation: Acknowledges risk that legal justification may not be met Does not demonstrate a clear causal link between the measures proposed and the outcomes claimed This matters for public law fairness, proportionality, and rationality. 7. Concentration of influence While the FOI does not prove misconduct, it does show: A small number of elected members driving urgency and direction Officers framing decisions around political priority Escalation being discouraged once senior backing was confirmed This creates a reasonable perception of undue influence, particularly when combined with: Lack of consultation Accelerated governance Acceptance of known risks

Earl, which of the statements are untrue?

You disagree with all the statements in the summary? Please indicate which parts are untrue.

For those who have read the FOI- does part of the ai summary below seem fair? The emails show that the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) was treated internally as a priority scheme with a predetermined outcome, rather than an open options-based process. Officers and senior figures discussed how to achieve implementation quickly, rather than whether the scheme should proceed. There is repeated emphasis on: Speed of delivery Avoiding delay until after elections Managing reputational risk rather than addressing substantive objections This gives the appearance that process was shaped around a desired result, not the other way around. 2. Explicit discussion of bypassing governance Several emails explicitly reference: Bypassing or streamlining normal governance Avoiding informal consultation and governance boards Fast-tracking through IDM/LMB with concurrent sign-offs Drafting and mobilising the ETO during the call-in period This is important: it shows awareness that normal safeguards existed, and a conscious decision to circumvent them to meet a January implementation date.

This! I would also like to know why the council has been in such a hurry to drive this through?

I am also keen to understand the tearing hurry. The emails in the FOI keep mentioning things like 'October will be too late'. Too late for what?

I just checked the Southwark Council website and it stated: All responses to the consultation will be recorded and a ‘consultation findings’ report will be published once feedback has been reviewed. The review process involves collating feedback from a number of council teams and external agencies - the aim will be to publish the report as soon as possible after the consultation has closed and no later than the 31 January 2026. The report will be published on this site. The use of bold type on the date is the Council's, not mine. They are late. I wonder why?