Rockets

At what point do those who side with the council go...you know what that's outrageous and not what I expect of my elected officials? Or are some so entrenched that they will never get to that point - happy to turn a blind eye to abuse of power and seriously questionable actions because the outcome aligns with their ideology?

Are you now questioning whether judges uphold the rule of law and are actually being swayed by "NIMBYs with money and time on their hands?" @malumbu was it not the judge that summed up by saying it was a "masterclass in selective partial reporting" or is that just spin from biased folks with an agenda.....;-)

Ha ha, or because they are activist researchers...a, perhaps, far more worrying trend where organisations like TFL and the Mayor's office get friendly researchers to help them mark their homework for them 😉 I think what you meant to say was that you're avoiding the recent debate because the FOIs expose something you have said cannot and was not happening....and poses real questions about your beloved Southwark Council and their approach to active travel interventions.

To be fair what you claim to be a "fake AI summary" was a darn-sight more accurate than what you posted....but we know you love to put your own unique spin on things to suit your own agenda.......and then accuse others of being biased....laughable.

Unfortunately I think the incoming candidate may have to live with the "backlash and bad press" as I suspect assurances by them of the council consulting, reviewing and amending post-election may not hold much weight with the electorate - we have seen this so many times before and we know how this goes. This is likely to erode a lot of trust in Southwark Labour - no matter who the councillor is. The question really needs to be answered why the rush - it seems to be political suicide to try to rush this out so close to an election and most councillors would want to wait until after the election. Who has been pushing this to be so urgent and why? Is it because they were worried about losing the ward, is it because someone had made a promise to someone/some group about this going in, was it because they had budget and have to get it in this financial year....the rush suggests there is some motivating factor most are not aware of that is driving this.

The thread is only embarrassing for the council, councillors and those who blindly support them in their active-travel/LTN quest. It is yet another proof point that what some of us have been saying about the way the council and councillors have been abusing the process may well be true.

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah you don't seem to be that keen to discuss the content, just argue about which AI summary is more accurate. I don't know about anyone else but when I look at the documents within the FOI then @Lebanums AI summary seems far more balanced than yours. The fact you have the gall to post something to suggest that it demonstrates "numerous governance strengths" when a key excerpt is email traffic suggesting the council avoids it's own internal governance process is beyond laughable. You are making yourself look a little bit myopic over this - there is no defence for the way the council has behaved over this. The FOI materials are beyond damning - one person even withdraws from the process due to the approach being taken - no doubt to protect their own reputation and, possibly, career.

@Earl Aelfheah come on....you are not going to able to distract people from the content within the FOI. This is just desperate now. It's absolutely damning. You know it. Everyone knows it. You're desperately trying to distract away from the smoking gun left by the council and the way you refuse to acknowledge the content is the most telling, and concerning, part of this.

This is really bad for Southwark Labour. It is an utter disgrace. Some of them are abusing the powers given to them with the office they hold.

Was there any indication on the What's App group why the council was in such a rush to get this rolled out? Which councillors were leading the charge to get it deployed?

@Earl Aelfheah but what about the content of the emails.......which your LLM conveniently omitted....;-)

Spot on. I would love to know who was asking whether they could by-pass internal governance processes, which in my company, would be reason enough to report someone to internal governance. And they are ignoring all the advice they are given - look at this on the two one-way street ideas about large vehicle movements (like bin lorries).

But @Earl Aelfheah if there were suspicions then they have been vindicated not by the search itself but by the content of the emails - the content is there for all to see - surely you can acknowledge that. The smoking gun is not from the muzzle of those sending the FOI but those who wrote the emails. Surely you must acknowledge that something odd is going on when you read @Lebanums summary? I mean this is a potential PR disaster for the council and the councillors seeking election. Can anyone trust Southwark Labour anymore? Everything many of us feared regarding the way councils treat these processes and their constituents is being realised right now. Surely even you cannot defend the council this time round?

It is. Southwark Labour are treating residents with utter contempt. They have been doing it for years over LTNs and clearly thought they could get away with it again. This is what happens when organisations get away with abusing their power - they keep doing it. To be fair @Earl Aelfheah I saw your summary and then opened one of the documents (emails and other reports pdf) and saw far more aligned with @Lebanums summary than yours - did you not upload that file? That's where the juicy staff is! It may also have struggled as so much of it is redacted.

Ha ha, looks like @Earl Aelfheah got some, ahem, AI hallucination thrown in to their summary....