Earl Aelfheah

This was in response to your suggestion that the council haven’t stood by their manifesto. This is your opinion, but I personally disagree. It was titled ‘fairer, cleaner, safer’ and was very clear about their commitment to clean air and healthy streets and to building on the Southwark climate change citizens jury (which recommended amongst other things, a significant reduction in cars). They were returned with an increased majority.

No one 'voted' against an LTN. Again, not a referendum.

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it.

Its' your opinion. I would point out that they have made a clear commitment to their 'streets for people' strategy, which is well supported by the public. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking-streets-and-transport/improving-streets-and-spaces/making-our-streets-greener/streets-for-people

So don’t vote for them

Read the consultation report. But again, you’re focussing on that as if it might be determinative in any way to the legitimacy of the decision. It’s not. You and Rocks are still trying to pretend that there was some sort of referendum.

No. The problem is that you still refuse to differentiate between a consultation exercise and a referendum. The former informs a decision, it doesn’t determine it. A majority did support the aims of the scheme. They objected to all manner of details. But ultimately it’s not a popular vote. Elected representatives have to consider different (and often contradictory) views / feedback, and weigh it against all the other evidence available to them (in-depth monitoring of traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling), as well as the policy agenda on which they were elected. It’s their job to make a decision and they’re held accountable for those decisions at the ballot box. Again, you’re illustrating my point. Your anger just comes from: A fundamental misunderstanding (or wilful ignorance) of how local representative democracy works and the purpose of consultation. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what you wanted. The inability to accept a decision that you disagree with, though made entirely legitimately, and talk of fascism, conspiracy and punishments for those who support a different view, is just very childish.

You're just illustrating the point: A fundamental misunderstanding (or ignorance) of how local democracy works and the purpose of consultation. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what some individuals wanted.

Time did tell. Five years passed. Elections took place. The reason a handful of people are still talking about it, is that they didn’t like a decision that was taken (taken quite legitimately). That’s it. Ongoing talk about fascism, conspiracy and wanting punishments for those who support a different view, is not evidence of a righteous cause. It’s evidence, imo, of an unhealthy fixation .

There are two main reasons this issue keeps dragging on: A fundamental misunderstanding (or ignorance) of how local democracy works and the purpose of consultation. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what some individuals wanted. Southwark spent considerable time consulting, commissioning independent reports, gathering expert advice, and publishing data. The decision was clearly informed by a wide range of inputs. The criticism boils down to either thinking the council made the “wrong” decision, or believing it should have gone to a referendum. Both views are misguided. The council’s duty isn’t to make the “right” decision (which is subjective), but to make a reasonable one based on due process. They did that. Whether a few outspoken individuals disagree is irrelevant - they aren’t elected, they’re not accountable, and their personal certainty doesn’t override the democratic process. No rational person believes this was an unreasonable decision (i.e. outside the band of potentially reasonable responses). And no one seriously wants every local issue settled by divisive referenda. So it just boils down to not having got their preferred outcome. There isn’t corruption, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s just a handful of people unable to accept a decision they don’t like… prolonging the argument over a minor inconvenience for years, as if they’re leading some noble resistance. They’re not.

Yeah, you’re right, this is definitely not a perfect example of innuendo The graph you shared to refute that number… what’s the source? Oh yeah, it’s from the report Southwark produced. So determined are they to mislead and cover things up that you’re quoting the report they published to prove it! 🤣 I can’t really be bothered going through this again, but i know exactly what the figure of 55% relates to. If you read my original post I lay it out in detail. The majority supported the aims of the scheme. Alongside surveys to understand people's views on initial changes already implemented under an emergency traffic order (in response to COVID-19), they also considered an in-depth monitoring report that included traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling. The council concluded the scheme was largely achieving the aims that people said they supported. And changes to the scheme were made based on feedback received from the public in the consultation. The decision was made perfectly properly taking account of all of the inputs. But you know all this. The fact is, that there is nothing undemocratic, unlawful, or improper about how a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village was made half a decade ago now. Yet you continue to imply there has been some sort of conspiracy, and call for people to be held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - not just unspecified councillors but also their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois', whilst complaining of ‘fascistic Trumpian’ behaviour. Is it possible that you have got things a little out of perspective?

Again, just innuendo. There is no evidence that Southwark have behaved unlawfully. They have not. You say you want to see people held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - both councillors and their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois', but won’t say who you’re talking about exactly, how, or why. It’s just ridiculous.

No one is twisting your words. You said no one uses the cycle lane, because you haven’t seen it.

So the culmination of half a decade of railing against (almost any) changes to local streets is that: you don't want to reverse anything. You do want to see people held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - both councillors and their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois', (but you can't say who, for what, or how?) 🫠 … and you’ll never give up on this important yet incredibly vague mission 🤣

@Rockets I hate to push this point: You said you don't want to reverse any of the schemes you've spent half a decade railing against; You just want to see people held accountable, censured, and / or disciplined - both councillors and their 'supporters, cheerleaders, and 'fan-bois'. Surely you can specify who you want punished, and how?

You actually claimed that: As pointed out the councillors you claim aren't accountable to their constituents have stood for re-election and been voted back in. You however, want them to undergo some sort of censure, alongside their 'supporters and cheerleaders' apparently. Is it not reasonable to ask which councillors, which of their supporters, and what nature of censure you're calling for?

Yes, so what censure are you calling for, for which councillors, and for which of their 'supporters and cheerleaders'? Are you going to elaborate?

Fair enough. As you quoted more than just that part, it wasn't obvious. Of course there are other ways to hold people accountable for breaking the law, as I've already said:

@jazzer if you just read up the thread, you'll see I already explained this. It's there because when the council consulted on whether or not to include a bike lane as part of the scheme to slow traffic on Sydenham Hill by narrowing the carriage way and imposing a 20mph speed limit, it was widely supported. The thing you seem to be struggling with, is that the carriageway wasn't narrowed to accommodate a bike lane. It was narrowed to slow traffic and this enabled the option of creating a bike lane (or not).

You posted it quoting my response to a comment suggesting councillors, involved with the Dulwich Village LTN, and their 'supporters and cheerleaders' should be punished, and my asking what that might look like. If just an update on the West Dulwich LTN, I'm not sure why you quoted me; it seemed fairly clearly to imply some relevance to (perhaps some similar 'treatment' for) Dulwich Councillors According to this article in today's Times, Rezina Chowdhury is being urged to resign over misleading the high court https://www.thetimes.com/uk/london/article/lambeth-rezina-chowdhury-resign-ltn-6s9mn5jpx It's behind a firewall but a website archive can get past that 😀 Maybe thats what should occur to councillors who are found to have manipulated information and responses rather than wait for a local election. After all if you manipulate the truth at work and get found out then you are normally disciplined or sacked so the same principle should apply to all walks of life Literally no one is saying that it's OK not to follow a lawful process. But the attempt to suggest that the Lambeth case has some relevance to other schemes with a wink and a nod, but zero evidence, is not reasonable. I'm still waiting to hear what this ‘punishment’ is he wants to see levied against ‘councillors, supporters or cheerleaders’.

The road wasn't narrowed to accommodate a cycle lane. How many times does this have to be explained. The road was narrowed to slow traffic. The cycle lane was simply a design choice, enabled by the narrowing of the road. The choices were effectively to narrow the road and not have a bike lane, or to narrow it and include a bike lane. The majority supported the former. Removing it, would simply mean the loss of a bike lane, not the expansion of the carriageway (unless that's what you're arguing for - effectively the removal of a popular and successful traffic calming scheme). Again, you're implying that because one individual (Rezine Chowdhury) may have mislead the high court, that this has some relevance to a scheme, or schemes, in Southwark, 5 years earlier. How exactly? If people act unlawfully, then of course there is recourse through the courts. But if you simply don't like a legitimate decision made by an elected representative, then the recourse is through the ballot box. Despite the constant insinuation, no one has provided any evidence that Southwark has acted unlawfully. Ignorance of the purpose of consultation, and our system of local governance, does not amount to 'proof' of wrong doing. @Rockets enough of the dissembling. You called for some form of punishment for those who (half a decade ago) implemented a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, and introduced traffic calming on Sydenham Hill, as well as for their 'supporters'. What does this entail, and for which councillors and ‘supporters’ would you like to see these consequences? If you don’t want to reverse the schemes and you won’t say what ‘punishment’ you want to see levied against which ‘councillors, supporters or cheerleaders’. The again, what do you want exactly?

Are you (again) trying to insinuate that Southwark have acted unlawfully? You've spent half a decade wanging on about a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, and traffic calming on Sydenham Hill that has successfully reduced the number of collisions. After all that, all you say you want is some form of punishment for those who implemented these schemes, and for those who are supportive of them. Is it too much to ask what that punishment looks like, and who you want it applied to? Which councillors and which ‘supporters’?

We hold our elected representatives accountable via the ballot box. The councillors you claim aren't accountable to their constituents have stood for re-election and been voted back in. But seeing as you don't consider that adequate, what is it you're asking to happen to 'the council' and their 'cheerleaders and supporters'. And again, it would also be good to know who exactly you're talking about? What is the 'discipline' you would like applied to 'councillors, fan-bois, cheerleaders and supporters'?

I'm not disputing that you've never seen anyone use it. I'm disputing that no one uses it. Nope. I'm saying the road was narrowed to slow traffic. The inclusion of a bike lane was just a design choice, with the option opened up as a result of the traffic calming. The bike lane is not a traffic calming measure itself. It's a question in response to this: If one is calling for individuals to be 'held to account' for apparently 'un-democratic' behaviour, then it's reasonable to ask who exactly and in what way? What does this mean exactly. And who are these 'cheerleaders and supporters' that must be punished?

Does it matter? There is room to accommodate a cycle lane, people expressed support for a cycle lane, and it's used by (we can agree at least, some) people. So what purpose would it possibly serve to remove it, unless people are actually arguing that they would like to reverse a successful and popular road safety scheme (which would involve widening the carriage way and so might necessitate it's removal)? Again, though, what I'm particularly interested in, is who @Rockets wants to see ‘held accountable’ for supposed antidemocratic activity? Which councillors, or council staff, and which ‘cheerleaders and supporters’, how, and on what grounds?