JMK

Reported to the police Amongst other crimes in these roads, several cars have been stolen recently, almost always family cars and often with child or baby seats creating significant inconvenience for the families concerned equally, at least 5 stolen cars, again family style, have been dumped in these roads over the past few months The police have advised that they are commonly used for ferrying drugs around from place to place and seeking to be inconspicuous and that the lack of CCTV that would be present around the Dulwich Village / Court Lane junction and could be used to identify such behaviour/people as well as the quiet nature of the location have encouraged such behaviour by the criminals

Male acting very suspiciously on Court Lane and adjacent roads (Calton Avenue, Gilkes Crescent, Woodwarde Road etc…) There’s been a very significant increase in crime on these roads and adjacent roads due to the Southwark Council LTN, even more so with the recent works that are ongoing Residents and their property are being deliberately and negligently put at risk by Southwark Council’s actions and criminals are deliberately targeting this area and exploiting it given significantly reduced flow of people, much quieter, poor lighting, easy getaway and no access for the police The closure of the junction at Court Lane, Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue is a boon to thieves and criminals making the adjacent streets much less safe. The workmen have put in place wrought iron bollards in the middle of the road on Court Lane and Calton Avenue which stops police and other emergency services from accessing from Dulwich Village This materially increases the risks to residents and crime has gone up materially as a result The workmen say that they are under strict instructions from Southwark Council to put the wrought iron bollards in the middle of the road and that there’s nothing that they can do it alao stops ambulances and fire engines from getting through

a simple Google search renders multiple articles from mainstream media incl. BBC, Sky News, Financial Times on this topic since at least 2008 and also a discussion in a House of Commons Parliamentary Select Committee The original post is very clear and precise in requesting advice and people’s experience of the act of the misreporting of crime and also collusion in this act by the agencies and democratically elected representatives who are supposed to represent the interests of their communities. It is not about the criminal act itself. Met Police misreports intimate searches of children https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65700511 Sky News: One in Five of All Crimes not Recorded by the Police https://news.sky.com/story/one-in-five-of-all-crimes-not-recorded-by-police-10382167 Financial Times: Serious crime misreported by police https://www.ft.com/content/9ee810ce-a0f1-11dd-82fd-000077b07658 https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/victims-let-down-by-poor-crime-recording/ House of Commons, Commons Select Committee, Public Administration Caught red-handed: Why we can't count on Police Recorded Crime statistics - Public Administration Committee https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubadm/760/76007.htm

Hi does anyone have experience of the police misreporting crime? I have very recent experience of them misreporting a crime of one of the most serious and violent types in this area and rather misclassifying it as a very low level, ordinary type of crime and one that has little to no victims. Furthermore, the Police have then immediately closed the case and said that there’s nothing that they can do even though they haven’t undertaken some of the most basic investigative procedures such as interviewing witnesses, checking CCTV etc… Southwark Council who also have a material role in this have are complicit with the police in this deliberate misreporting of a very serious and violent crime. The local council representatives are also complicit Each of these bodies say that there is nothing that they can do. As a minimum, it seems as though all these parties deliberately want to misreport a very serious and violent crime as a very low category crime and then close the case immediately because they want their crime stats to look good. The Independent Office for Police Conduct merely states that they will refer any complaint to the police force in question who will investigate it themselves in the first instance! Separately, the Southwark Council Serious Violence & Duty Strategy 2023-24 states that: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/242858/Serious-Violence-Duty-Strategy-2023-2024.pdf - Southwark has the 10th highest rate of serious violence in London - the five year trend is upward - the Police had identified 43 Organised Crime Gangs in Southwark at Dec 2022 - that “the illegal drug market was worth millions to the local economy” - implying that they didn’t wish to stop it as it would be very bad to the local economy!

The police will not investigate a Safeguarding issue at a school as it is not a criminal matter per se and do not have the available resource The local authority does not have any oversight or regulatory authority for an Academy school A complaint to Ofsted will initially be answered within 30 working days or 42 calendar days A complaint may be made directly to the school or to a parent Trust of such a school; however, they determine how it will be processed and by whom Separately, under the UK Government Guidance dated September 2024 "Keeping Children Safe In Education 2024: Statutory Guidance for Schools & Colleges" It is stated in Part One: Information for all School & College Staff "Part 1, 2: In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all practitioners should make sure their approach is child centred. This means they they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child" Other than the two routes outlined above, there appears to be no alternative way to ensure that a school abides by their Duty of Care at all times and in a way whereby such breach can be immediately or quickly cured and in a manner which is in the best interests of the child at all times unless someone is able to refer to an alternative route?

Thank you for your reply There is no obligation on Charter North Dulwich to report this material Safeguarding incident in July 2023 to Ofsted The obligation on any person or body regulated by Ofsted to self report relates to something called a “Significant Event” However there is no definition of a “Significant Event” The regulated party, in this case, Charter North Dulwich, has complete discretion in how they define if a matter constitutes a “Significant Event” and therefore whether or not to report such a matter to Ofsted The letter to the parents in July 2023 from Charter North Dulwich reporting the material Safeguarding issue is very clear as to the steps the school is taking to address the matter. Equally, the letter very clearly makes no reference to the school reporting this material Safeguarding incident to Ofsted. There is no other evidence in the public domain that Charter North Dulwich reported this material Safeguarding incident to Ofsted.

Hello I'm keen to understand the differing view of parents of pupils at Charter North Dulwich with regards to the school's approach to dealing with bullying, misogyny, threatening, violent and abusive behaviour including physical assault and Safeguarding in general. And whether parents believe that Charter North Dulwich meets its Duty of Care obligation to its pupils at all times? In July 2023 it was communicated to parents that there was a very material failure of Charter North Dulwich's Safeguarding rules and procedures . The Designated Safeguarding Lead was immediately removed from this role. There is a reference in the September 2023 Minutes of the Board of Governors that there will be a full discussion of Safeguarding at the next meeting which was held on 23 November 2023. No Minutes of the Board of Governors Meeting on 23 November 2023 are publicly available on the website of Charter North Dulwich but Minutes of subsequent meetings are available. Charter North Dulwich has had 5 different Designated Safeguarding Leads in the last 3 years. Do parents believe that Charter North Dulwich has actually improved its Safeguarding rules and procedures in practice or do parents believe that Charter North Dulwich has an institutional problem with its Safeguarding? Are parents worried about their child's safety and security at Charter North Dulwich in the light of the material failure of its Safeguarding policy and procedures in July 2023? What is their experience and the experience of their child since that time? Do parents believe that Charter North Dulwich and its Board of Governors are deliberately hiding the information with regards to its material Safeguarding issue by not publishing the Minutes of the Board of Governors Meeting on 23 November 2023? Thoughts and experiences welcome.

Just to note that, according to Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, EV's are not the panacea to climate change or local air quality issues and will make particulate emissions worse which they classify at "the most dangerous pollutant for human health" "Whilst the proliferation of electric or zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) is likely to reduce NO2 concentrations, it will not improve air quality in its entirety. This is because a significant amount of PM2.5 is released from tyre, brake and road abrasion, rather than through exhaust emissions. The government’s own air quality expert group notes that “particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future”, as vehicles become larger and heavier.iii" Written evidence, Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation (CCE0012) https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/41541/pdf/ The point also applies to many popular cars incl. 4x4s sixe to their size and weight; however, taking spiteful and arbitrary action as Southwark Council is doing with the CPZ is not the answer but certainly discriminatory and likely to be unlawful too

Rollflick unfortunately, you continue to put forward incorrect and false information The Traffic Management Act 2004 that you state "is section 72 that enabled decriminalisation of traffic offences" was in fact the 3rd in a series of acts covering this area The RTA 1991 was the first statute which decriminalised certain traffic offences, including parking enforcement Continuing to put forward incorrect and false information which deliberately misleads others only serves to undermine your position

perhaps...but the democratic way to introduce a policy is to hold a consultation which provides residents with the option to object to the introduction of a CPZ The unilateral imposition of a CPZ in the manner proposed by Southwark Council is neither democratic nor fair It is however underhand, duplicitous and lacking in any integrity. I wonder and have posted elsewhere as to whether or not it is legally valid - it may or may not be but there appears to be at least 5 pieces of legislation that apply to this area of law and requires a competent lawyer to opine. The proponents of this policy are also those that argue for a "Just transition" - yet they also support the most egregious and regressive of taxes for such a transition which are the subsidies levied on all (primarily) electricity and gas bills to pay for renewable energy such that the least well off in society pay for it. In simple terms, this is because the renewable subsidies apply equally to each unit of electricity or gas consumed by everyone. They are neither means tested nor proportional and so the least well off pay significantly more than the better off. That is not to say that renewable subsidies are illegal, bad or not required - but the fact is that are highly regressive and also deliberately hidden so that people don't understand who is paying them, how and importantly, who's disadavantaged. Don't expect any of Labour, Lib Dems, SNP or the Tories to put that in the campaign leaflets or ever to explain it to the public.

Rollflck you seem very confused, aka muddled As stated clearly in the Act, it's a civll matter not a criminal matter Secondly, the Act clearly states the local authority is obliged to follow the guidance published by the UK govt i.e. this is a legal obligation The transport plan may well be required by the GLA however, there are at least 4 or 5 other pieces of UK legislation that apply here incl. HA, RTA, NRSWA and the IA It is not surprising that there could be conflicting legal obligations and council policies. The fact the Southwark has a plan and the Mayor has approved it does not mean that is is legally compliant with all UK legislation. Selectively and subjectively choosing something that supports your position only serves to undermine any argument that you may have as it's clearly neither objective nor grounded in law. Further evidenced by your last point as research of modal shift is irrelevant to any judicial review as this is only concerned with a question of law and specifically whether or not a local authority (Southwark Council in this case) is acting outside of its legal authority. Hence, I refer back to my original post wondering if there's a competent lawyer who understands the web of legislation who can opine.

it's a question of law, not of implementation a quick, non-legal review suggest that it is clearly not in line with the UK govt's "Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions In particular, just to cite two examples of non-compliance: 1. it is not fair to the motorist 2. it is principally a revenue raising exercise The London Mayor's transport plan is secondary to UK legislation and must be in compliance with that, not the other way round

is there a lawyer who can advise at a high level as to the legal basis upon which Southwark Council can implement a CPZ such as this and the routes available to challenge it, if any? It strikes me as possibly being "ultra vires" but that's a question of law And certainly disproportionate to anything to do with traffic management thanks in advance