first mate

Penguin said : "Does this remotely matter? If they are politically motivated - then so is the council, and they are being funded by all of us whether we want to or not. It's not as if they could be some hidden commercial interest trying to leverage profit. And there would be no point in a political party secretly campaigning - that's not how political parties work. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Either people (including the significant majorities locally who have expressed an opinion when they are able to) are against what the council is doing, or they aren't. There is no reason why anyone, or any group, should not campaign against the council. Or do you believe that if 'the people' suddenly realised that it was Tories behind this (I've no idea) they would suddenly change their minds about their opposition. Most unlikely." This response clearly illustrates why some who are regularly posting 'what about One Dulwich' in response to criticism of some local road management schemes is cynical delivery of a large, fat, red herring, designed to deflect.

Still no sign of further consultation on the Melbourne Grove South revised CPZ, referred to by Cllr Charlie Smith as now agreed. I have searched on the Southwark website under MGS CPZ and keep getting 404 notices that documents no longer available. Could one of you that seems to have more success finding Southwark documents on traffic schemes post up the latest? This is a genuine question. If a local Cllr states something has been agreed surely detail should be easy to find? The revised CPZ Cllr Smith referred to is meant to cover all of Melbourne Grove, Chesterfield Grove and Colwell Road. If 'agreed' it would be useful to see the results of statutory consultation on the matter and when this took place, as well as a timeline for implementation and other details.

But how could the Chair of a sub committee purporting to represent local views and with input to Southwark Council expect to be anonymous?

Yes please. if March could provide a link to the report that would be really helpful.

Really sneaky, cynical move to trash other posters going on here. Slow handclap for attempts to frame and conflate those who disagree with your views on local road management with the "new right" and the implication that they are also going after women and all part of some shady, secret cabal. As multiple local consultations on various local road management schemes have shown, locals are unhappy with what has/ is being done, without their consent. Remember, in their last manifesto, Southwark Labour promised to put residents at the heart of decisions made about their environment.

" An unrelenting anti-council agenda", as you choose to call it, would have to be very much wider in scope than what is written on the threads in this section. To accuse those who question council decisions and process about a few select areas of policy of having some secret political motive and agenda just sounds paranoid. A number of local road management schemes are unpopular with many local residents and have been driven through without mandate and in the face of significant local opposition. Given that opposition, it can be of little surprise that criticism of those measures keeps appearing in a local forum. What is perhaps surprising is that there is a group of persistent voices in favour of these local road schemes and changes that populate these threads, some of whom do not even live in the area, but who consistently push what seems to be a minority view in favour of the changes, while trying to close down voices are against.

Oh, is One Dulwich in some way responsible for 10,000 bus fines made erroneously in Southwark and now having to be repaid? If not, it looks like a desperate attempt to deflect. Nil points, as they say.

I think the OP's comment that they were on their way to a funeral is the point really. Human error and all that...it happens to us all and under such circumstances a fine can feel harsh. But, it is what it is. I just don't know how helpful it is to advise others to be 'aware'. As I said, you can be very aware but under certain conditions, have a momentary lapse in concentration. Sue, I know you were not doling out advice to be 'aware', so not a response to you.

Bad luck. You can overall be very aware of the speed limit and overall stick to it but lose concentration momentarily and, if near a camera, you are done for. I do not for one moment think you are not 'aware' of 20mph.

I cannot find anything about the decision to implement this revised CPZ without further statutory consultation on the council website. Can anyone on here shed any light on this?

But a number of posters have said that in their experience they hardly ever see a cyclist on that route. There does not seem to be any data on cycle usage. Stand to be corrected if you have it?

People chatting, smoking, drinking tinnies- this is exactly what pedestrian spaces like Dulwich Square and Melbourne Grove North have been developed for, for people to get together, sit around and socialise.

I know little but just to get the ball rolling: In the garden - pigeons, crows, magpies, jays, ring necked parakeets, blackbirds, swifts, wrens, robins, starlings, sparrows, great tits, gold finches and the odd bird of prey, never sure which. On the Rye have heard Song Thrush. I am sure others will add to this.

Yes, it is just that the local demographic is soon to have a large shift and more late night shopping catering for student needs is likely to be very popular. Presumably the massive student lodgings development plans for Melbourne Grove will have catalysed the Londis application. Wasn't there also an application for a late night bar or club at some point round there? Still, all this will help turn Melbourne Grove North into a real 'vibrant, urban destination' and 'town centre' and, for sure, we can expect lots and lots of e- bikes and scooters to be 'parked' around the place. What makes me laugh is that not so long ago the smaller housing development in the same place was being marketed as wonderful select family homes in quiet, leafy MG, with a 'villagey' feel. As a taster for where all this might lead, has anyone noticed the crumbling brick facing on the railway development, built not so long ago? You throw 'em up and they soon start falling down. The developers make loadsa money and Councillors get to tick their boxes.

Stumbled across CQC ratings for local surgeries the other day and saw that TJ has just been assessed and rated as "good" in all areas. Has this place improved then?

All that extra recently extended pavement, plus late night shopping and somewhere to buy booze, means this can become an even more social area. The seating is already in place. It'll also be somewhere all the students living in the enormous student housing bloc can use.

I have a dim memory of being promised that Tessa Jowell Medical Centre would offer x-ray ( Dulwich hospital as was did x-rays). I just checked the site and seems they do not, which feels a bit of a missed opportunity, but I am no expert on how to run a community medical centres. Sorry, cannot help on the King's service; I doubt it is walk in but may be wrong.

Then read what I wrote.

A bit pots and kettles coming from you Mal. Nigello and Cancerian have fair points; cycling responsibly and taking care round other road users and pedestrians is in everyone's best interests, I do not see that as anti cycling. The cycle lane through Dulwich Village needs sorting, the road surface is awful and in low light may be problematic for some.

I am interested to hear Earl's answer. Also exactly what is Earl's area of expertise?

I have no idea, but not so difficult for one of them to stand to the side and record. In an odd way at least if they were doing it for social media it might explain the motivation, albeit misguided. Others may disagree, but that feels less worrying than a desire to intimidate. I think comparable games like "knock down ginger" where children run away and/or momentarily stick their tongue out as cheeky gesture, have a different vibe to what is described here.

I really do wonder if they are filming these episodes for social media?

This is the truly embarrassing aspect of it all.

What I am interested in is a potential breach of process. I understand that for some on here the end seems to justify the means. Let's not forget there was a clear majority against a CPZ at consultation and the council's own online document in June stated that the revised proposal was subject to (further) consultation.

Does anyone know when the statutory consultation to which the revised MGS CPZ proposal is subject will be taking place? In terms of process, is it okay for a Cllr to announce the revised CPZ has "been agreed" if the statutory consultation has not yet taken place?