Rockets

@Earl AelfheahI called for accountability, you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and you suggested councillors are only accountable at times of elections which is beyond nonsensical - they cant do what they want without censure during their term.

Ha ha @Earl Aelfheah you're not mentioning the "majority support" for the Dulwich LTNs anymore....thank goodness...we have some progress! 😉 Southwark councillors agree to a code of conduct when they take office - the 7 principles of that are listed below. SELFLESSNESS INTEGRITY OBJECTIVITY ACCOUNTABILITY OPENNESS HONESTY LEADERSHIP Clearly some of this has been tested by some behaviour from councillors during this process but, of course, whether anything will ever be done to ensure there is accountability is another matter - a culture of accountability needs to start at the top. Southwark doesn't have the best track record of holding their councillors accountable when they have stepped out of line.

@Earl Aelfheah what a load of nonsense - councillors and other elected representatives don't have free reign to behave as they please between elections without any accountability..... Are you trying to convince us that the accountability for the Lambeth councillors involved in the West Dulwich debacle should be the ballot box at the next election?

Those responsible for it. Throughout this whole sorry process one thing has been consistent; the council's lack of accountability to their constituents. They have been happy to ignore, mislead and demonise anyone who dared suggest what they were doing was undemocratic and poorly executed. If any of us behaved the way in our work lives we would be disciplined - in some parts of the council, and amongst their cheerleaders and fan-bois, it seems to be considered a badge of honour. @Earl Aelfheah they managed to convince you that there was majority support for the measures by using the spurious and (deliberately) misleading 55% support stat and burying the actual result of the consultation. You either fell for that or decided to ignore the actual result - I wonder how many more people were hoodwinked in the same way. I am sure Lambeth council thought that they could get away with such behaviour with the West Dulwich LTN but they got caught (not only did the judge find it unlawful but also had real issues in the ways the council were manipulating the process, the consultation and the narrative around it) - but will there be any accountability? Unlikely. The left-wing elements of Labour don't do accountability - it's always someone else's fault - look at Corbyn, he's still banging on about a media conspiracy against him costing him the election in 2019. When I hear people saying....."it's years ago move on"....is a clear sign people know there are things to hide.

Good that you have finally admitted that your "55% majority support" for the LTN consultation nonsense was about as accurate as a pneumatic traffic counter under 10kmp/h - only part of the story and not being close to reality!!! 🙂 But that wasn't the case, per the council's monitoring, on all of East Dulwich Grove was it? Ripping out the square or increasing speeds limits would not make me happy. Holding those within the council, and their cheerleaders and supporters, to account for the un-democratic way they have forced measures against the will of the majority (the results of the consultation spell this out very clearly despite your, and the council's desperate spin) would make me, and a lot of others very happy. Bring it on. Perhaps the council should take the same approach with cycle lanes that it does with abandoned cars....if there are weeds growing on the cycle lane and clear signs that it is not being used then they will remove it for us! I am sorry but no-one can claim that cycle lane is well used - it's an abomination of an active travel intervention and a complete waste of tax-payer's money.

yes @Earl Aelfheah many of us have been saying this to many of your pals who have been very keen to accuse many us of being fascists just because we oppose the council's approach! There's certainly Trumpian fascist traits being displayed by some of your cohort. Oh don't start that again......not all of EDG benefited from this alleged "drop" though did it - which buts were red, was it the other two parts of EDG? By the way. does anyone know why the council removed the monitoring dashboard just when many of the roads started going and amber red when compared to traffic prior to lockdown?

No, you hadn't bothered sharing that information. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share the report as I do not live on Gilkes so am not privy to it? Also I am not familiar with Gilkes - was there a big parking problem there - I know there have been concerns about school drop off and pick-ups but CPZs do nothing to alleviate that? Also, not sure how long it has been since you went to school but nothing just evaporates....it evaporates, condensates and then falls as precipitation elsewhere...but it seems that as you are so happy about how clear Gilkes is (and the council no doubt over the moon they can chalk another street as being an additional revenue source) that what happens elsewhere probably isn't much of a concern. Not necessarily - Southwark have a number of criteria about what qualifies as an abandoned vehicle. If you report it they will visit the car to see if it qualifies - yes they will check if it is taxed or has been registered as SORN but they will also look to see if there are signs it has been left for a long time - disrepair of car, grass or weeds growing around/beneath it, flat tyres, damage to car, missing number plates etc. If so, they will put a sign on it alerting the owner that they have 7 days to contact the council or it will be removed. Did the Gilkes RA advise people to follow that process to have semi-abandoned cars removed before lobbying for a CPZ? Still struggling to understand why anyone would semi-abandon a car, especially on Gilkes Crescent.

But @Earl Aelfheah that one 55% stat showing support for the Streets for People strategy does not back up your claim that there was majority support. There was majority support for the streets for people STRATEGY - and it is exactly that it is a strategy. When you actually bother to look at the detail of the very same council report you can see that the TACTIC of the Dulwich LTN was not supported by the majority as the majority of respondents preferred for it to be returned to it's original state. That, I am afraid, shows majority opposition to the LTN - after all the consultation was on the TACTIC not the STRATEGY. I am sorry but the below means your claim is pure whimsical fantasy and a massive stretching of the truth. Ok, I know you can say "well that's what the council told me in their infographic I read" but you should really do more detailed research and try to cut through the council spin. I remind you it was that type of spin that the High Court judge in the West Dulwich case took a very dim view to. I refer my right honourable friend to the passage above and suggested one might get their own house in order before accusing others....;-) I am sorry but the 55% stat you quoted a proof of support for the Dulwich LTN is the very best example of misinformation. Come on @Earl Aelfheah you're spinning again. My accusation was that some on here seem to have taken pages from the despot dictator and fascist playbook in trying to manipulate facts, deny the voices of anyone who dares be critical of the measures and encouraging people to move on - nothing to see here. Honestly the way some of you argue is very Trump/Vance'esque. I think the "worse at the weekend" is because weekday traffic patterns have changed a lot and has nothing to do with timed restrictions - fewer people are commuting to offices during the week.

Again, the overwhelming weight of more scientific evidence than just your hunch suggests you are, badly, wrong. You're starting to sound like a despot dictator (or someone trying to prop up a regime)....honestly "if everyone that responded opposed, that is academic". Someone put a blue plaque up on this site entitled...."today marks the day democracy died....". It is really starting to creep scarily into Active Travel Fascism now....

What evidence is that because according to the active travel lobbyists on here personal assessments/opinions presented on here cannot be taken as fact...do you have anything beyond your own personal opinion to back that up. Still looking for a rational explanation as to why people doing a car sale ride hustle would "semi-abandon" cars on Gilkes yet seemingly no other road and what the motivation for that is....cars depreciate over time.... Look, we get it. Your street is now much less crowded than it used to be - you are clearly very happy with that but if what you say is true then have you given even a moments thought to what this has meant for other streets nearby or does that not come into your consideration? Do you also realise there is a perfectly good mechanism for reporting abandoned cars? We had one near us, that had been involved in an accident. Someone reported it to the council a notice was stuck to it and then it was removed after a set period of time. No-one thought a CPZ was the best way to deal with it.

Thanks @malumbu.....;-)

@malumbu on what evidence are you basing this on as every consultation, as your good friend Earl can atest, says exactly the opposite?

@Penguin68 completely agree. There is a huge level of hypocrisy from many on the pro-active travel lobby who are happy to preach to others about how they should live their lives but happy to turn a blind eye to their own indiscretions. Happy to tell everyone how they cargo bikes their kids to school (although they moan it tales longer to get the bike out and load the kids in that it used to to walk) and how they drive a Tesla (bought before Elon turned into a facist of course). They are less likely, of course, to talk about the 4x4 they own for trips to their 2nd house in the country due to range anxiety of the Tesla.

@Earl Aelfheah of course it is. You also dodged your question, are you still convinced after the 55% support nonsense you regurgitated that the majority supported the Dulwich LTN? Or have you changed your opinion when presented with actual fact rather than weak council spin? Is the Sydenham Hill consultation the only one left you can claim had "majority" support? Not sure how that gives the council a mandate for the ones in Dulwich do you?

So @DulvilleRes let me get this right...around Melbourne Grove it was commuters driving from Kent and Gilkes Crescent was full of semi-abandoned cars for people running a side-hustle....i always thought car depreciate over time. Have you checked what the roads nearby are like? This is why a lot of us have an issue with the self-centred and selfishness of many who love the new quiet roads but dont give two hoots about the impact it might be having on others. I'm alright Jack, I love my street transformed - who cares what's happening at the end of that street. @malumbu dont know about your cats but mine hardly ever stay put, they go everywhere...;-)

@malumbu maybe don't throw in road closures that create increased congestion...there's always that too isn't there? I am not on a train.....

One wonders as well how many of the residents who ignite the consultations have close ties to either the council or the active travel lobby.

Ha ha...thanks for validating my point Mal....good grief...

I think a lot of it is that nothing seems to work anymore, nothing is joined up and since Covid planning and delivery just arent lining up. Has anyone had anything close to the level of customer service big companies used to give before Covid...it's almost as if they don't care anymore and I can imagine in utilities with items being shipped from around the world that it is utter chaos. I hadn't been to that part of Dulwich for a while and it is really bad.

You can add a "consultation is not a referendum" to the growing lexicon of BS phrases spouted by those who know there is something to hide.. It joins such classics as: A small vocal minority You must be a right- wing pertrolhead There is majority support for these measures It was five years ago..move on Nothing can hinder cycle growth The council said it is so, so it is so

It's no wonder some truly believe that there was majority support for the LTNs when the council focuses only on the stats that validated its decision - the 55% support the aims of the Strretspace initiative was front and centre of the council's summation of the consultation yet no mention that most wanted it returned to its original state. This is something the judge in the West Dulwich case was highly critical of - a manipulation of the results to present a misleading picture. The problem is people believe what they are spoon-fed.

Funny how you dont want to go over it again when you've been shown to be wrong. So without the Dulwich LTN consultation to prove your point you're now left with just the Sydenham Hill one. That's hardly compelling evidence against the weight of consultations where clearly respondents said no. Honestly...sometimes it's like watching a White House Oval Office meeting with a head of state Trump and Vance don't like waving "proof" which upon proper analysis is nothing of the sort.

@Earl Aelfheah you really need to take a look at the actual data rather than the headline infographics the council put out. Below is the reality of the report that you have used to chmapion the headline 55% stat you have quoted. This headline hid a much more powerful stat that massively undermines your position. In the report, look at page 18...you will see this.... So you're absolutely wrong (again) - that 2021 consultation report actually showed majority opposition to the measures....it's there in black and orange.....anything to say about that? Dulwich Village consultation report.pdf But then you're happy to suggest (incorrectly) that the 2021 consultation report showed support for the measures.....hmmmmm

Oh dear @Earl Aelfheah. You have selectively plucked a response to a single question. Remember this was the consultation that didn't allow you to say no to the measures. The question response you have selectively plucked was whether respondents supported the aims of the Streets for People initiative which was a question that had diddly-squat to do with the specifics of the LTN. That's a huge reach to claim that is majority support for the LTN. And I am not going to argue with you again about the Sydenham Hill consultation. Maybe we should talk about all of the other consultations as well - do you have anything to say about those ones as the results were not at all in support were they?

I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"?