Mr Bojangles

Thank goodness, I can actually do some work

What happened to the earlier posts? Have we been censored?

Didn't you comment on this thread that you agreed with Maurice's view on forums The analogy of eating an elephant is a little bit simplistic when you are talking about traffic management in a particular area. Anyway, good luck with your campaign. It's well intended, even if a little bit misguided in this particular case.

No, I'm saying that you should come and join the real debate at meetings and not comment blindly on forums. Its an affliction with forums that Maurice alludes to regularly. I don't have a problem with your view per se (i'd happily do away with cars) but I do have a problem with the fact that your view is not based on any proper consulation / participation or having any appreciation for the persons affected by the road closure. I'd be fine for CG to be closed but only after proper consultation and a joined up strategy for dealing traffic in the area but I don't want it closed just because a few people like it without cars. All streets are nicer without cars; that's not a reason for closing a particular road.

Al, That's a bit of a cop out. Come on you can do better. Don't duck out now its just getting interesting. My comments weren't out of spite. The link you post underlines that my issue has been about traffic management so thanks for that. On the other hand, labelling people as posh bashers... when you've not had any meaningful involvment on this issue My reference to regeneru was not meant to be mean that I was somehow afraid of the link but that I didn't want you to give me some generic all cars are bad response. So, come on, give me some good solid reasons as to why you are so keen in particular to pedestrianise CG and why this is your "agenda"? You thinking that regeneru is the man gives an idea as to why you've waded into this debate and called for pedestrianisation without fully understanding the issues / consequences. Regeneru's suggestions (which I have some sympathy with) are a little bit more sophisticated than that and he accepts that it is not appropriate for him to be commenting on this issue because its not his area. It would be nice if you did the same. I think its great that you care and get involved in Camberwell issues; I've seen your posts on windsor walk and denmark hill station. But don't pursue an agenda in area where you don't live unless you are willing understand all the issue and come up and participate in residents meetings and council meetings. At the very least you'll understand people's motivations. If I ever blindly comment on issues affecting your area, then I would expect to be given a hard time. But I wouldn't because its not fair on the people who live there.

I never said I found "fun in making them look silly and selfish". That's just misrepresenting what I said. I think you are looking for a little post-event justification for your own view about posh bashing which hasn't exactly found much support. Perhaps, your interpretation of this issue says more about your own issues then my motivations. About 95% of the people who turned up to the meeting wanted the road re-opened. You shouldn't confuse a couple of light hearted posts on this forum as representative of the affected community. People simply wanted the road opened not out of spite but mainly because of the issue of traffic displacement and also people use CG as an important through road. Now it may be that the road is closed or subject to further restrictions in the future (e.g. made one way) but it will be done pursuant to a proper and full consultation on traffic management in the area and not at the whim of a minority interest group. As for my comments, I said that I found the meeting fun because it was. I was pleased with the result and also because the residents were seen in their true colours (i.e. selfish). They could have been students, gypsies, squatters, working class, middle class for all I care. This was just a self interested group against the wider community. You seem to think that this group is posh and the wider community is poor. Firstly, that is not an accurate representation of the people who turned up to the meeting, and secondly, even if that's right, seeking the opening of a public road for the benefit of the wider community is not posh bashing. I can't believe that you can't accept that. As I've said before, if you had turned up at the meeting, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. Also, your "agenda" would have a bit more credibility. You don't live anywhere near CG and I'm assuming you walk up it what, once a week? So, out of interest, why are you pursuing an agenda of pedestrianising CG? And please don't cut and paste something from one of regeneru's post. Give me some good reasons as to why in particular CG should be pedestrianised. Really, if you are concerned about Camberwell issues, surely there are other more important issues to be pursuing?

No-one was trying to redress any imbalance in Camberwell. People just wanted a fair distribution of traffic around a particular area. It was a very local issue. AD, you've just got the wrong end of the stick on this. You should have come to meeting and then you'd have got more of a sense of where people were coming from; 350 people wanting to make sure that common sense prevailed and it did. And that is something to be pleased about. A community coming together for the greater good. It had nothing to do with some outdated concept of posh v the poor. Maurice's right about those other Camberwell forums. It doesn't help that there is often an anti-Camberwell Grove theme expressed on these forums and that does come across as a bit of them and us attidude. Perhaps, that's influenced your view of this issue.

Yes there is nothing wrong with poking fun and having a bit of banter (and Maurice your always a good sport in this regard which is also a British trait) But what is annoying is labelling an important issue as posh bashing, particularly where you have limited knowledge or involvement. AD: If you say that delighting in having a go at CG residents undermines an important issue, wouldn't you also agree that this is the same for labelling the same issue as posh bashing?

-- moved topic --

Yes they - the residents - looked silly and selfish because they had no credible argument to keep the road opening. Someone actually mentioned keeping out the "boom boom" car as a reason. That's not posh bashing but a reflection of how the residents looked at the meeting - the one you weren't at.. Yes pls lounge, I'm also bored

It's good that you comment; i'd just rather you got your facts straight on the reasons for people calling for the road to be opened before labelling everyone as posh bashers. Otherwise, post away...

You needn't worry about being knocked down as you'll be able to cross the road at the traffic lights. Also, CG is a wide straight road with big pavements protected by trees so you won't get into any scrapes (unlike some of the surrounding roads which are also equally salubrious if you wanted to extend your tour). I'm sorry but it is a little daft to equate opening a public road and fox hunting. If there's been an underlying sentiment, it is one of NIMBYism which is not posh bashing. I don't count chav's and maurice's interactions cause they always bash each other regardless of the issue. The CG closure is an emotive issue for the surrounding residents because of a number of accidents due to the displaced traffic. The Selbourne Village comment is a reference to the fact that you shouldn't be continuingly calling for the closure of the road where one (i) you are not directly affected by this otherwise than enjoying walking on the road as there are no cars (which is the case for every road anywhere), (ii) you weren't at the meeting to hear all the issues, (iii) you haven't participated in any neighbourhood or council discussions on this issue. If you'd have come to the meeting and heard all the arguments and still felt the same way, then fair enough. But you can't comment from afar and then label a decision "posh bashing" or akin banning fox hunting when your only involvement has been to comment on this forum.

Alan Your comments are idiotic. The three camps that argued most strongly against the road being closed were based in the North side of camberwell grove, lyndhurst grove and grove park. There is no wealth issue with these camps (these are affluent areas); just a community that argued articulately that the road should be opened for the greater good. I should stick to commenting on issues that affect "selbourne village" Lets not turn this into a class debate because it was never about that.

when foxtons arrive... oopppsss

Alan It is certainly not posh bashing. That's a ridiculous thing to say. There has been a few jokes at Maurice's expense which he has been happy (generally) to play along with. Did you even attend the meeting and listen to the arguments? These arguments have been well rehearsed and don't need to be repeated again. The traffic lights are only supposed to be a temporary solution until the bridge can be repaired. No-one really wants traffic lights but it is (according to the experts) the safest solution for the time being. The council agreed to look at the whole issue of traffic management in the area. And that's what this exercise was about - traffic management not posh bashing

Lorraine Chase sold up recently. I had a look round the house when it was on the market. Not sure if that is someone of real note though

It was rather fun. I thought the CG residents (those who wanted the road to remained closed) were made to look rather silly and totally selfish.

Meeting is tonight Bring your weapon of choice: AK47 or gentleman's pistol I understand that the CG residents are rolling out the big gun lawyers to question the legality of the opening.

Maurice, I think your honesty is fantastic; makes me laugh. But despite your amusing posts I'm with Andrew on this.

I thought I never say this but I agree with Maurice. Whilst I'm sure the people on that website do a great job in terms of the park and I totally applaud people who give up their free time for such causes, you've got to pick and chose your battles carefully so as not to undermine your credibility for the important issues. That corner of BP is grotty and this looks alright. If anything, it might make the park more attractive; less congestion and a tidier exterior.

We are just talking about opening a public road, in a reduced capacity, that benefits the wider community. No-one condones criminal damage or theft and I'm struggling to see how the two (opening the bridge / crime) are connected. Do these people drive to your house to toss their cans and needles and break in? If this is the case which I seriously doubt, then this will still occur cause the road will still be open for access; you just won't be able to cross the bridge.

Unfortunately, in this case, the issues are not separate. Traffic controls should reduce the traffic because people are less likely to use the route. If the bridge remains closed, the traffic just gets displaced to other less appropriate routes where there is a higher risk of an accident. Lyndhurst Grove is narrow and has a School, Grove Park has sharp bends (apparently, there have been accidents here already). And for what purpose? So that the residents of CG can enjoy some peace and quiet and keep out the "'boom boom' cars".

Well put lozzyloz Has anyone got any idea of who the right person to contact at Southwark Council about these issues (aside from the local councillors). If I can't make the meeting, I want to make sure that my views are heard. I expect that the meeting will be over run with like minded people to Maurice who want to create a "mini Chelsea" in SE5 at the expense of the wider community interest. I've found this: transport@southwark.gov.uk but not sure if it is the correct channel for these matters.

Funnily enough, I think the councillors (for south camberwell) that are participating in the campaign for closure actually live on the Grove. The Bridge is fixed but can only take a reduced volume of cars which is why there needs to some form of traffic control (lights or otherwise). You'd thing the CG residents would be happy with that given that it should lead to less cars on the road.

I'm not sure completely banning cars is an option. Wouldn't it great if we could do that everywhere. Imagine LL without any cars. How pleasant would that be? For a start you could sit outside the Bishop without feeling like you are smoking a car exhaust. The reality is we are stuck with cars so it's a case of how best to manage this. In terms of the Grove, some form of traffic management to reduce volume as proposed by the council seems like a sensible compromise.