Rockets

Malumbu - you clearly didn't read the Guardian article I posted so I recommend you do as it answers many of the points you raise - https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/05/doubts-grow-over-labours-vat-plan-for-private-schools I will ignore your comments on 2029 because you're either trolling or being incredibly childish.

Unfortunately whilst making my way to said meeting point I was crossing the road opposite the library and was hit by a cyclist pulling the manoeuvre seen by the lady at 2.25 in barybyonabike's latest instalment of bad cycling that he posted 3 days ago... In all seriousness it is amazing how many times that junction features in his rogue's galley!!!

BTW your claim of the data shows an overall reduction in traffic - where are you getting that from - I know the council claimed that but did they provide any data as the dashboard doesn't give you the function to look at the overall volume for all roads they monitored? Remember those percentage figures are compared to the volume of traffic pre-Covid so a 1% increase on EDG is a far greater volume of traffic than a 1% decrease on Townley. What their own charts show is that the council's grand plan has failed - that all the LTNS have done is displace traffic. On the basis that Cllr McAsh said that the measures could only be considered a success if traffic reduced for everyone then clearly they have failed. Again what data because the dashboard certainly suggests some roads have seen increases whilst others decreases - which is displacement is it not?

Earl, it is perhaps no surprise to anyone that you (and via likes folks like Malumbu, March46 and Snowy) come running to Dulwich Roads' defence - it's like some predictable pavlovian muscle memory response (i.e. we must defend our brothers-in-arms come what may!). It's pretty clear to anyone that if you retweet a post about someone being under covers after an accident and then use the words "tragic" and "horrific" in your own tweet to your followers that you cannot then be surprised that people interpret that as a death. Now, layer on top of that the fact that this happened outside a school (and school with a site on each side of the road) and I am sure a few parents may follow Dulwich Roads and it doesn't take a genius to see how this caused panic and why the police had to confirm there were no fatalities. If you're going to position yourself as a "community effort" as Dulwich Roads does then perhaps they need to consider the impact tweets such as this might have on that community. All I asked was for them to engage brain before tweeting - to think of the impact a tweet may have if you put it into the public domain. A rabid and rapid fire and forget policy because you are desperate for content to further your ideology will land you in hot water - you will get things wrong and you may spread mis-information that has negative impact on the very people you are trying to engage with. Which is exactly what Dulwich Roads did but, you know, they still stand by their tweet so read into that what you will.

Just leaving this here....

Doubling down - interesting approach and speaks volumes. Tragic when retweeting a tweet that references a person under covers = death. You clearly thought someone had died and couldn't wait to tweet about it. You are the one responsible for creating the impression that someone had been killed outside a school. You created so much distress that the police had to put out a statement confirming no fatalities. Are you proud of that? Does it not tell you something that the person who tweeted the "person under covers" has now deleted it? You need to be more responsible and think of how your posts might be read. Maybe find yourself someone who can take a step back and help you review your posts for you to ensure you don't do that again - get a fact checker!

Dulwich Roads - please engage brain before posting - put your ideological obsession to one side and think about how your posts might be interpreted. Your offending post (where you used the words horrific and tragic) as you retweeted a post where someone said there had been an accident outside a school and there was a person under covers (which I see has now been removed) is utterly reprehensible and caused undue concern amongst the parents of pupils at Oakfield School. The police had to issue a statement to confirm there were no fatalities because of your post such was the level of panic and concern it created. Is that what you consider a good measure of success? Try harder in future to engage in fact-based rather than narrative-based posts and don't be so quick on the trigger finger before establishing what actually happened and any consequences.

Oh Bridget....deary me more ludicrous dog whistling...meanwhile back in the real world the NASUWT is urging Labour to delay the plans because of a worry of redundancies in the private sector that will be lost to teaching forever....there is far more at stake than embossed stationery. A seriously foolish post from an MP.

A mile is a long way when it comes to the council's attitude towards spending..... Honestly, were there ever two images that perfectly summed up Southwark Council..... The council and it's cheerleaders should be ashamed #forthefewnotthemany

But Earl, come on - how are One Dulwich misrepresenting the council's data - which you can see below. What message does the council data send you? And just imagine what it would look like if Croxted was reported accurately and they'd bothered to monitor Underhill....I am pretty sure this is not the grand vision promised by the council.....in fact in Cllr McAsh's stated view this must be considered a failure must it not? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

Malumbu - you do it all the time. Let people be critical - Southwark is big enough to defend itself and doesn't need a resident from outside the borough trying to come to their rescue - let them be accountable for their actions and their behaviours.

Trinidad, when you posted yesterday I thought to myself "be careful you'll upset Malumbu". And behold.... The irony being Malumbu is Southwark council's number 1 fan and self-appointed protector of their reputation and doesn't even live in the borough! 😉

And your point is what exactly...at least we are talking about Dulwich Square and keeping it on subject, ahem....

What does it show then? You would acknowledge, surely, that if there was displacement the roads that have shown significant increases in traffic since pre-Covid would be the ones expected to show an increase?

So, in other words, you don't have any examples. The one you cite is interesting in itself because I am not sure you can claim that as mis-information as they are presenting their conclusions and backing the rational for that conclusion with the council's own data. Interesting to note that they also flag how the council may have (deliberately?) used erroneous data in their monitoring figures to help massage them. Given Cllr McAsh said that the measures could not be considered a success if all roads did not see a reduction then, by his own bar, the council dashboard reveals that is has failed - those East Dulwich Grove increases over pre-Covid/pre-LTN monitoring are shocking . https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/data-confirms-failure-of-dulwich-ltns

Which mis-information in particular? If you respond with any examples, I would suggest it's not on the scale of the misinformation programme run by the council and their supportive cheerleaders around the "success" of said LTNs.

I agree, there are too many intangibles at play to be able to say what has, or hasn't created, the increase in crime in the whole ward. I do think there is a debate to be had whether quieter streets with fewer cars mean that certain types of crime are easier to commit and allow targeting of victims. The current modus operandi of crash for cash only really works on quieter streets and it is no coincidence that areas around the DV LTN are being targeted by criminals. On phone snatches and knifepoint robberies the argument could be made that because there are more people walking around the quieter streets then that part explains the rise in crimes of that nature (which aren't happening on Dulwich Square but on the surrounding streets. Overall, in the Dulwich Village ward, crime is on the way up, is the highest it has been in the three years of monitoring available on the police website, and it is being driven by certain types of crime - I don't really care what the cause is but what the solution is because it is Dulwich residents (all of our neighbours) who are often on the receiving end of what can be terrifying encounters that can have lasting impact.

I think the council are targeting those with particular issues.

It is an incredibly small sample size as one postcode averages about 15 houses - one street could be 4 or 5 different postcodes maybe more? Can you search for multiple postcodes on that site? As far as I am aware there is no way to search multiple postcodes on the police website and they only offer you the ward detail and at the ward level crime is increasing. You can do a summary of monthly crime and which part of the ward it is being "reported" but I have no idea how accurate that is but there seem to be two distinct epi-centres for crime in the ward - around Herne Hill station and the centre of Dulwich Village (it fluctuates month to month but you can see the epi-centres). https://www.police.uk/pu/your-area/metropolitan-police-service/dulwich-village/?yourlocalpolicingteam=about-us&tab=crimemap There are so many factors involved in why a crime happens in one area or another (I am amazed how many people wander down roads where there is a known phone snatch problem typing away on their phones) but the upward trends are worrying - especially the robbery from a person (as often knives are involved) as these can be hugely traumatic for the victim. It is clear that criminals are targeting the Dulwich Village area and certain types of crime are rising and the overall picture for the ward is not good either.

Never mind what's on the artists impression - have you been down there to have a look - a 25 ft long and 9 ft wide fire engine weighing 13 tonnes could not negotiate through without driving up the kerbs but, as I mentioned before, I am sure I read that emergency vehicles can't use Calton anymore.

Yeah that bit confused me too because the bits of France I go to are very much not like Switzerland......

It's now one of Time Out's must-see parts of London apparently.......especially with the new really expensive crazy paving!! Apparently Time Out claims that the cost per brick is the most expensive of anywhere in the world - making it London's must-see white elephant with the publication telling readers to "get there quick" before the council changes it all again because the cycle lobby think the new paving is "too bumpy".....;-)

What has the Daily Express got to do with it? Are you saying this because you think this thread has some scare story element to it (a la the Express). The fact remains crime is going up in the Dulwich Village ward and paying more taxes or being more French isn't going to slow the rate of increase any time soon.

What I find galling is the council deemed Dulwich Square more of a priority than other far more pressing infrastructure needs.

That's one way to spin it.....until you rationalise it with the fact that OneDulwich only came into being because of the lack of transparency and accountability from the council and councillors over a lot of these measures - they lied from day one and those who felt they were being taken for a ride by the council engaged with One Dulwich because it gave them a voice. People were annoyed because the council would tell anyone that would listen (catalyzed by the pro-LTN lobbyists and cheerleaders) that is was a small vocal minority of residents who opposed the way the council were handling themselves - it was anything but a small vocal minority and that's why so many local residents signed up on the One Dulwich website. But you're happy with the council to have an incredibly cozy relationship with pro-active travel lobby groups and to manipulate engagement processes, ignore constituents to get the result the lobbyists want?