Rockets

DKHB - but what do you mean by members - it's not a private members club? When you sign up by giving your email, address and postcode they don't then try to upsell you to ask you to become a "member". So really not sure what you are getting at? Do you mean the founders of the campaign or something else?

Ha ha...that's hilarious...they spoke to 1,025 people across the whole of Southwark. Young Advisers provided a lot of responses and they are 9 to 18 year olds....and students (many of whom don't live in Southwark) made up a big proportion of that 1,025 as well - 52% of all the street surveys conducted were by people who don't live in Southwark. Is this a joke - is that what they are trying to claim was a consultation ? Do you think they have to had "notified" residents of this move and are trying to cover their backsides and have dug up this obscure document as "proof"? The actual Movement Plan makes one mention of area-wide CPZs (Page 18) and states that, as part of the delivery plan, borough-wide parking controls would be introduced in 2025. Moovart - was this response to an email you sent them about the CPZ consultation - if it was would you be happy to share it?

Probably a good time to post the latest BarbyonaBike rogue gallery of cyclists.....some classics here: 0.27 that was close! 0.41 Dulwich Library the favourite bike light jumping spot 3.54 Using pedestrians as a chicane on a crossing on a jacked Lime bike 5.16 Is the Full Kit Wally lost? 5.21 The one handed cycling cricketer whilst using the phone onto the pavement is some skill! 6.23 Is that a baby or a doll?

DKHB - the two Tory councillors did take a petition to the Southwark Cabinet in December - you can see it here, they don't mention One Dulwich - they are there representing the resident associations. Gotta love Cllr Williams' "you're failed Tory councillors" opening salvo - this is the problem - this council, and the councillors, doesn't like anyone telling them they are not right or that people may have an opinion different to theirs. Granted they are Tory councillors but if you treat fellow politicians like this what hope do us residents have when we voice an opinion that doesn't synch with theirs - politics and the process of politics is supposed to be based mutual respect but the way they treat the two bringing the petition compared to the way they treat other people presenting is very stark? 34.34 Cllr Williams fires the opening salvo 43.44 Cllr Williams is so dismissive and well worth watching for a few seconds more for a giggle for the Cllr Rose mansplaining moment - she honestly looks like she may kill them during the whole of their presentation.

Earl, I suppose that would be because a shed is not a means by which people get around their city and country - so yes, putting one in the street would be considered quite odd. But what if the van or car does move as it is the main means for someone to get around to work or doing their job and they already pay tax and road tax? And yes First Mate, many of the biggest proponents of these measures seem very confused at times as to which side of the debate they are on....Earl tried to dig up my supposed defending of SUVs (which was nothing of the sort) and you have a quick look at some their own posts and you see some like this: Please don't tell me that this will mean more speed bumps?! I have an old Fiesta and going over one of those bumps, even at 15 mph is uncomfortable. It seems many of them want some measures but not all, well not any that might inconvenience them personally.....;-) If the council did make a decision on borough-wide CPZs in 2019 then I am amazed (not amazed) they didn't have it as one of their manifesto pledges at the time of elections. If they did decide it and kept it from the electorate then that is another matter all together and very serious.

Does anyone know - are the council required to hold this consultation as statutory or non-statutory?

And the last consultation on CPZs didn't give the council the mandate they needed (65% of respondents rejected the plans) to roll out CPZs across the whole of East Dulwich so they have learned from that and manipulated the latest consultation process to ensure no-one has a path to object. This is local council "democracy" in action and it's shamefully brazen - they really don't care one jot for the views of their constituents (unless they need your vote of course). No doubt early next year they will come knocking on our doors asking us to support Sadiq in the mayoral elections (probably be the only time we will see them between now and then).

If One Dulwich goes into bat on the CPZs then I suspect those 2,000+ local people who registered their support against the LTNs will grow significantly - One Dulwich's seat at the table may get bigger - that'll irk a few people and send them into an even more frenzied attack mode ! 😉

One presumes the council is not going to run any public meetings about the CPZs - they seem to be shying away from fronting the constituents since Covid - is there a pre-requisite for them to hold public meetings around consultations? Interesting comments on electric vehicles and the "heavier" issue which is very much aligned to their "particulate" narrative which is their new go-to to avoid them having to fully embrace electric vehicles. In that light it is interesting the pricing for different vehicles in the CPZ: £224.64 a year for a ULEZ compliant vehicle £149.76 a year for a hybrid £74.88 for an electric -

Looks like a few big zone areas but no info on how they divide it up - I suspect they will divide the area into smaller zones (which I believe is the model other boroughs in more central London follow).

Unfortunately leaving the two questions blank and then leaving comments does not register with the council at all - they disregard comments and focus on the results only - this is why they have very deliberately left off any way to register a "I don't want/think we need CPZs". They have clearly learned from the previous CPZ consultation where that question was on the documentation and 68% of East Dulwich residents said they did not want a CPZ and this forced the council to implement them only on the streets where there was positive endorsement and support (but even then they forced it on a street that clearly voted no). I wonder what the legal precedent is if a previous consultation did have a mechanism for responding no and a new one doesn't - perhaps we should lobby to say that due to the, ahem, "council oversight" 😉 in not having the option to say no then the results from the previous consultation should carry over in that regard? The council is really playing with fire on this and is treating their constituents with utter contempt. LTNs were one thing but the majority of people in East Dulwich own a car so this will shine a lot of light on the underhand tactics the council is happy to play to get what it wants. If this was not part of the councillors' manifesto during the elections how can they say they have a mandate for this without a proper, democratic consultation? Perhaps someone in Cllr McAsh's ward could address this directly with him?

And Labour went out of their way to make sure they didn't mention anything about LTNs or Healthy Streets in their election push. So maybe the reverse applies that as they didn't lead on it does it mean the CPZ plans weren't part of their manifesto and no-one was given the chance to vote on it?

The consultation document that the pamphlet leads you to is, once again, designed to give the council the positive outcome they desire. Here are the only two questions on parking restrictions on your street - it comes as no surprise to anyone that nowhere can you click: I do not want a parking zone. Again like so many consultations before it if you don't want parking restrictions you are forced to leave your comment in a comments box that then does not get registered by the council. The brazenness of it is beyond belief. 4. What would be your preference for the days of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions? Monday to Friday Monday to Saturday 7 days a week 5. What would be your preference for the times of operation of the new controlled parking restrictions? All day (e.g. 8:30am - 6:30pm) Longer hours (e.g. 8.30am - 11pm) Part of the day (e.g. 11am to 3pm) 24 hours

DulvilleRes - but it does nothing for the claims of her impartiality does it? You can't behave like that if you want to be perceived as impartial in your research. Rush of blood to the head, impulsiveness is no defence - it is not the behaviour of anyone who should be trusted to report impartially on LTNs. Also, the bigger story is her admission that she has been "engaging" in LTN issues locally - if that means campaigning positively for them then it is a huge conflict of interest and one she should have been smart enough to recuse herself from and steer well clear of. You can try to brush it under the carpet all you like but what she did has given all those who have suspected that her research is tinged by pro-LTN bias a smoking gun in the form of video. And why do the media report on it - cos it is a "gotcha" the classic "don't bring me a story about a dog biting a man but one of a man biting a dog"? Of course the Torygraph and Fail report on it because their readership relate to it and click on it. The same is true on why Peter Walker and the Guardian would report on her findings at length to celebrate LTNs and why they didn't report on her indiscretion. Media is not impartial and writes stories, not based on the newsworthiness, but whether it resonates in their echo chamber. Given we had a Southwark pamphlet dropping through our door today announcing the plan for borough-wide CPZs in the next year I suspect the noise will ramp again. And guess what....yup...the council is running a consultation on CPZs....and guess what...it's as skewed in it's questions as the last ones have been.....here we go again....

Mal, no what this thread shows is that slowly but surely the playing field is starting to be levelled and some of the things we have been saying, that many of you have been challenging us on for tne last three years. are being proven to be 100% true. And the downfall has been concocted, accidentally, by the very people who were instrumental in plotting and executing LTNs in the first place - it looks like the power, and the unwavering support from their supporters, went to a few people's heads and they couldn't help themselves and showed their true colours (TFL bullying, Turney Road submission debacle, Anna Goodman). The last few months haven't been the greatest for the pro-LTN lobby - the house of cards is looking a little precarious right now.

Good luck Matil - quite the community centre-piece you have developed at The Grove - well done to everyone involved and have a great day. And just remember Dave Grohl's quote when you talk about the noise they are emitting: Musicians should go to a yard sale and buy and old drum set and get in their garage and just suck. And get their friends to come in and they'll suck, too. And then they'll start playing and they'll have the best time they've ever had in their lives and then all of a sudden they'll become Nirvana. Just a bunch of guys that had some old instruments and they got together and started playing some noisy-ass ****, and they became the biggest band in the world.

DKHB - and to be fair, if you are able to ask a question to the One Dulwich twitter account that is more you can do for many of the other accounts - who only allow those they follow or they have replied to to engage with them! 😉 Yes, not many people coming on here to defend Anna Goodman today (I am surprised Peter Walker didn't cover it as an exclusive - most other things from that group get his undivided attention! ;-)). In fact, many of the pro-LTN lobby seem to have lost their voices. I was interested to read that she claimed to the Daily Fail that she was "engaged with local LTN schemes" but that she "maintains a professional standpoint when conducting academic research". I wonder what she means by engaged - surely being engaged in any local LTN scheme (either for or against it) would be a massive conflict of interest given her role and the "impartial" nature of it and something she would have been encouraged to avoid? I wonder if Anna did the honourable thing and resigned from her role on the LTN review project today or whether she got lots of #solidaritycomrade messages from her friends and supporters and then helped arrange a boycott of the shop that dared release the footage.....;-) In all seriousness her actions do pose a big dilemma for the £1.5m LTN review as she has been one of the lead researchers and, surely, nothing can now be published in her name and she has tarnished all of her work to this point? I wonder if everyone involved in the project will be asked to declare any conflicts of interest as a result as it is very embarrassing for the funders of the programme. It is also a headache for Cllr McAsh in his new role because a lot of the data on cycling numbers in East Dulwich came from her research (which I hasten to add was roundly criticised at the time by many) - I wonder if One Dulwich will be asking him whether that research cannot now be considered impartial?

To be fair does anyone know, or care, who is behind Clear Air Dulwich, Clean Air For All Dulwich, Dulwich Roads or Mums for Lungs or any number of the various lobby groups there are involved in this debate? It seems to me that people fixate on trying to establish who is behind a group when they don't agree with their position and they use it as a tool to try and position them as some shadowy organisation with links that go beyond the local community they purport to represent. There have long been rumours about many of the aforementioned groups and the links, of many of those supporting LTNs, to the council but no-one has ever been able to prove it (although of course Cllr Pollack did get caught with his, shall we use Anna Goodman's term "impulsive", long running social media programme using the @SouthwarkYIMBY account to abuse and deposition residents in another part of the borough in a issue over housing). As I said previously if Cllr McAsh, Cllr Newens and Cllr Leeming were happy to engage with One Dulwich so they must have established that they are who they say they are and are representing local residents (am I right in thinking Helen Hayes refused to meet with them until she established who their supporters are?) - especially Cllr McAsh who was very explicit about only responding to constituent questions when he communicated via the forum in his role as Goose Green councillor.

DKHB yes it is. Its not actually blocking any spaces in front of the charity shop but outside the cafe so makes sense for them to be there rather than cluttering up the pavement in front of Suoerdrug. Probably a case now to remove the e-scooter parking in front of Superdrug as the one outside the cafe is for both bikes and scooters and repurpose the space outside Superdrug for private bikes.

But Mal, at the time of you removing the anti-vax poster were you being championed as an impartial academic, part of an organisation being paid £1.5m to, impartially, report on the success, or otherwise, of the vaccines and someone who had been accused of having a vested interest in the vaccination scheme? What Anna Goodman has done is ludicrous and completely invalidates any of the claims around her impartiality. Her actions show she is anything but impartial and doesn't want there to be any resistance or debate around LTNs. Those are not the actions of someone who should be entrusted to report fairly on the matter in hand. But the problem with relying on activist researchers is that they tend to remain as activists and put that ahead of their research responsibilities. Just a few posts up we have people lamenting the vandalism of planters and the actions of a minority of the anti-LTN lobby and the criticism of said academics and then this breaks - one of the leading researchers being touted by so many of the pro-LTN lobby, and pro-LTN media, as proving the success of the programmes being caught red handed. It leaves a lot of egg on the faces of those who backed Dr Goodman's research and pleaded that she was impartial - this is a massive "gotcha". What was she thinking, someone in her position should not have been so foolish? And I am not buying the impulsive defence being touted, she knows what she is doing and this has been happening a lot in the area. I wonder if others are now looking at CCTV to see who else might have been behind this. I suspect this will likely ensure that people really question the validity of her research and put pressure on councils to review research provided by her (she did the Calton Avenue cycling research for example) but ultimately make Cllr McAsh's job more difficult because she let the side down. What if, for example, some of the missing data One Dulwich have asked for had been collected by her?

Yes I stand corrected, I think a lot of people were putting Lime bikes in the space in front of Superdrug. What I couldn't help but notice today was that on Hansler another e-bike and e-scooter Bay has gone in near Lordship Lane and next to it are two bars for people to lock their private bikes. But the two bars are hemmed in by raised kerbs that jut out into the road with two huge bicycle signs on them. They could have added three more bars in the space of the raised kerb. I couldnt help but think why is it the council devotes so much space to commercial hire companies yet doesn't do the same for private bike owners? Maybe the commercial aspect takes precedent but commercial space seems to outnumber private by a significant factor.

As we were saying about the bad behaviour from some on the pro-LTN lobby even those supposed impartial academics are at it...deary, deary, deary me....such a bad look (sorry to have to post a link from the Torygraph) and you wonder why we throw doubt on their "research". Anna Goodman has apologised but she should not be allowed near any research projects in relation to LTNs, the funding for the projects reviewed and a huge asterix put next to any work she has ever published. She has just confirmed what many of us suspected... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/01/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-anna-goodman-removes-poster-cctv/

Isn't that about 20 yards from the one outside Superdrug?

But what do people mean by members? I signed the petition, does that make me a member, I presume it does? Or do people mean the people organising it? Are people being shamed by admitting they support One Dulwich because this seems to be the direction of travel? Cllrs McAsh, Newens and Leeming know who met them so perhaps those so concerned should ask them to confirm it wasn't Boris, Farage or Clarkson. And let's be honest the pro-LTN lobby seemed to have near exclusivity when it came to fake names - Manatee, BooHoo etc. I do wonder whether the people behind that are still posting under their original names, certainly some of the postings are similar.

Dulville - to be fair, similar accusations can be levelled at many of the more extreme idiots on the pro-LTN lobby as well (tearing down the signs of those opposed to the measures, the actions of Tyre Extinguishers, the posters stuck on people’s cars on their driveways). There are idiotic extremists on both sides of argument but the marked difference seems to be that you don’t see the anti-LTN lobby condoning the actions of the idiots on their side. Whilst, and take a look at the thread on Tyre Extinguishers or the XR camp on Peckham Rye, many on the pro-LTN lobby seem to support and condone the actions of some of their more extreme colleagues - seemingly happy to turn a blind eye to anything that matches their ideological viewpoint. if you take a straw poll of some of the posters on here there is far more nastiness, aggression and childish name calling from the pro-LTN lobbyists - you don’t have to scroll far up in this thread to see examples of it. Why? Because someone dared challenge them on something they are ideaologically wedded to. Funding sources are an important question and I have no answer in relation to One Dulwich but that track is also a “right wing conspiracy” trope often used to bash anyone who dares to challenge LTNs. If you support the LTNs you can approach the council to get funding for your events and campaigns (as we have seen locally) but this is not a route open to anyone who challenges them as the council will refuse to fund. For a long while councillors and MPs refused to engage with One Dulwich, citing things like needing to know who all their members were, a measure I very much doubt they apply when someone wants to engage on a subject the council or MPs support. So good on Cllr McAsh for breaking the “no engagement” policy that we have seen for so long. Will anything come of it, unlikely, but good on him for at least talking to them and those 2000+ people locally who support them.