DulvilleRes

A cynic might say that one possible reason the anti-LTN lobby bang on about Dulwich Roads on these threads (even though Dulwich Roads don't post their press releases on here) is to distract from their own litany of factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and to try and create some form of false equivalence. Despite the fact that the anti- LTN lobby are regularly called out for their inaccuracies, I have yet to see an apology for them.

So, you aren't interested in knowing who your spokespeople are? Not interested in One Dulwich's utter lack of transparency? Not interested in the fact that the bulk of questions raised by One Dulwich bear an uncanny resemblance to the questions raised in person by prominent local Conservatives? Not interested in the fact that at the fact that one local senior Conservative recently castigated her colleagues in a large local public meeting over adopting underhand tactics when it came to local issues? It is important that local issues are raised and debated, but I would have thought you might have had some interest in transparency in local democracy. In the context of politics being subverted nationally and internationally by opaque and unaccountable interest groups, I find the lack of curiosity many anti-LTN posters show as to what might be happening on their doorstep baffling. Seriously, get a grip. I can't see much evidence that One Dulwich reflects a significant level of local support at all - we only have their word for it. That is a kind offer, which I appreciate.

Another spectacular own goal from the shadowy and opaque One Dulwich and their cheerleaders on this forum ( who somehow know all the minutiae of local politics, but weirdly don't know anything about One Dulwich) - all this endless criticism of the council and individual councilors merely reinforces the suspicion that permanently cranking up traffic issues/ LTN issues is a political project. The bulk of official questions to Southwark when the anti-LTN lobby do break cover are from prominent local Conservatives Whatever the rights and wrongs of Indian sandstone, had the council got local sandstone they would be moaning about the fact it is more slippery / it costs too much. If One Dulwich really are the community-based organisation they profess to be, just show some respect to their neighbours and answer the basic questions as to who they are and who funds them.

This feels like classic distraction technique by the anti LTN lobby - who still haven't answered the most basic questions asked of them by their neighbours as to who funds them, and do they represent deeper political interests that they aren't divulging. On a number of occasions Earl has picked up on serious factual inaccuracy and misleading statements from them, and all this pedantic and inaccurate argument back feels like just a way of trying to casting doubt and throwing up dust. It is very hard to take the anti LTN lobby seriously as any kind of local commentators or representing any strand of opinion if they can't answer basic questions. I think a large number of people are sick of opaque and unaccountable groups trying to steer the agenda locally and nationally.

Great to see you take an interest in complete factual accuracy. I'm looking forward to you applying it to the stream of factual inaccuracies and misleading statements that the anti-LTN lobby put out, so that they don't have to be constantly fact-checked and corrected by people on this forum.

Literally no idea, but they aren't posting their press releases on this forum, are they? So they form no part of this active discussion The issue here is we have a string of posters regularly putting up One Dulwich press releases on these transport threads, writing in huge detail on local traffic issues, which at times mirrors those press releases, and in a manner that suggests a strong engagement with local politics. The posts are frequently characterized by an attack on the council, and worse in my view, deeply unpleasant personal attacks on the local councilors. Yet they claim they know nothing about who One Dulwich are, and who funds them. This feels to me scarcely credible. The reason why it matters is you would expect debate on a local discussion forum to be conducted in good faith, and something feels not right in that regard. It may of course be entirely co-incidental, but this perception isn't helped by the fact that recently a senior local Conservative was castigating her colleagues in a public meeting for using alleged underhand techniques when it came to influence in local issues. Quite apart from issues of openness in local democracy, the reason why it also matters is local journalism across the country is in crisis, and because of the lack of resources, a lot of reporting on local issues relies on press releases or trawling local forums for stories. The often highly questionable claims of the anti-LTN lobby have on occasion winged their way unchallenged into the local press; the one that always sticks in my mind is the hilarious claim that 1000 people turned up to the 2021 Dulwich Village demonstration. To believe the hype put out by One Dulwich, you would think they are some kind of local popular mass movement, the evidence points otherwise, and towards a world of spin. All credit to the posters on here who tirelessly fact-check some of the factual inaccuracies and misleading information put out by the anti-LTN lobby.

Why don't you first answer the basic questions you've been asked many times first? - Who are One Dulwich? - How are they funded? - Do they have any close involvement with local Conservatives? if you are unable to answer any of the above because you aren't involved in One Dulwich and know nothing about them, why is it that you take such a keen and sustained interest in the issues, demand accountability from the council, yet regularly post the One Dulwich press releases unquestioningly? Do you not feel that this is a strange approach when it comes to establishing facts and data, especially when the claims of the anti LTN lobby have come under question on a large number of occasions? As regards misleading statements, a decent starting point is the 10th November press release last year, subject to a good deal of too and fro at the time. Funnily enough you were trailing the issues that ended up in the press release a few weeks ahead, so clearly you are a trailblazer when it comes to local traffic issues, and great loss to One Dulwich that you aren't involved with them.

This is missing the point. The main problem with One Dulwich is the one you begin your post with... accountability. The anti- LTN lobby demand it of the council, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. In the absence of any clear information as to who One Dulwich are and who funds them, they feel having more than the taint of a wider unstated and undeclared political project. Funnily enough, the majority of names that pop up formally questioning the council on issues championed by One Dulwich are local Conservatives. Are they one and the same, or merely aligned interests? Who knows. My view is politics generally in recent years have been poisoned by opaque and unaccountable groups with undeclared agendas and murky sources of funding, and until One Dulwich and their cheerleaders come clean as to who they are, that suspicion will remain that they are just another one of those. This perception is reinforced by the fact that the punchline to so many of the One Dulwich cheerleader posts is an attack on the council or councillors. It is actually disturbing how personal these attacks can be. It is barely credible in my view that those who post so vociferously on these local issues don’t have more information on who is behind One Dulwich than they are letting on.

I always throught there was something fake about the anti-LTN posters on this thread who would post One Dulwich press releases and endlessly about traffic issues, but would then claim they had no idea who was behind One Dulwich and who funded them.

Great to be reminded of the Dulwich Village demo photo dating back to 2021, at which the anti LTN lobby claimed there were a 1000 people in attendance, when barely a third of that number actually turned up. Since then there have been a litany of factual inaccuracies and misleading information from the anti - LTN lobby, which really does not inspire confidence in One Dulwich's unsubstantiated claim of widespread support. I'm puzzled that some of One Dulwich's cheerleaders on this thread are so blindly confident in their assertion that they have 2000 registered supporters, when at the same time they tell us they have no idea who is behind One Dulwich and who funds them. The lack of diligence when it comes to establishing facts is baffling. All the evidence is the anti LTN lobby is a vocal minority - would be local Conservative councillors stood in the last local elections on virtually this single issue, and were soundly beaten. Funnily enough, it is these same names who keep cropping up when it comes to formally asking questions of the council on the local traffic issues discussed on these threads. Could it be that the anti LTN 'crusade' is in part fuelled by a hidden political agenda?

No need to ask, it is pretty clear who some of the people are behind it, as the organisers have actually given their names on the fundraiser. In terms of transparency in local democracy, credit to them for doing so. This is in stark contrast to One Dulwich, where we're still waiting for some clarity on who they are, and who funds them. It is really such a simple but important couple of questions, and it is puzzling that no one who supports their stance on these threads knows, or is curious enough to ask.

Given that a lot of people from right across the borough, 60% of whom don't own a car, will benefit, I would say improving the public space for all to enjoy is a great use of cash. The constant stream of people who enjoy the area as it stands - having a coffee or a picnic on the benches, meeting friends, seems to have been completely missed by the development's critics. Even in the depths of winter, I've seen young people sat out there chatting. It promises to be a great addition to the civic space.

I find it is staggering that One Dulwich's cheerleaders on this forum tell us that they don't know who One Dulwich is, or who funds them, and despite demonstrating a keen interest in the minutiae of local politics, are too incurious to find out. That doesn't stop them posting their at times dubious press releases. What is consistent about many of the anti -LTN posters on this forum is the punchline of whatever point they are making is often some critique of the council and/ or the Labour councillors. The question can be asked - are Dulwich traffic issues being permanently and artificially hyped up to serve a political agenda? All the evidence points to One Dulwich and their cheerleaders being a vocal minority in the community - most people accept or embrace the changes.

The space is of huge benefit to the whole community. It is already used by people who chose not to sit in crowded cafes, or might struggle to afford to do so. Dulwich is clearly a destination for people who don't live in the area to have some time out, having somewhere large and pleasant to sit in the heart of the village will only help that. The fact that people visit Dulwich only helps with its sense of vibrancy.

A thread on Dulwich Society governance, when actually the thread started in part by asking questions about One Dulwich governance - a strange turnaround. As regards Dulwich Society governance, here is what happened. Dulwich Society several months ago moved to update their rules to what is currently Charity Commission best practise for a charity such as they are – I would think most people would find this responsible governance. The irresponsible thing would be to leave the outdated rules as they were. This update would include the possibility to have online meetings for decision making, or a hybrid in person/ online, and to also raise the threshold for the number of members needed to call a Special General Meeting. The latter would have the effect of preventing a small minority bogging everyone down with potentially vexatious and expensive meetings. The trustees entered into a period of extensive consultation about their proposed changes, where it would appear that people who was later to challenge them, actually agreed with the Society’s actions. The trustees might be forgiven for thinking they were being played when later down the line those people did a 180 degree turn on their position, and then refused, when offered, to discuss their concerns, opting instead for a Special General Meeting. During the Special General Meeting, a former Conservative mayor of Lambeth spoke, and accused her fellow Conservatives, several of whom were the ones pushing for their own rule changes and opposed to the trustees’ position, of employing 'divisive' tactics. I’m not privy to the inner workings of the local Conservatives or any other group, but as an observer, it felt to me that the calling of the Special General Meeting might have been a bit more than simply some concerned Dulwich Society members ‘democratising’ the Society as they claimed, and have the hue of a broadly political attempted intervention into an apolitical local charity. This is certainly what many people in the room I spoke to felt, and the words of the former Tory mayor would reinforce that perception. Clearly the people involved might have a different view. If this is what the trustees felt in deciding their position during the Special General meeting of making it a matter ultimately, if they lost the vote for updating the rules, for the Charity Commission to step in, I wouldn’t blame them. As for all the allegations of Dulwich Society mis-governance, apart from the fact that I think it is aggrieved nonsense, if there is a case to answer there are formal processes open to anyone who feels that way. Anyway, the vocal minority was outvoted by a factor of at least 2 to 1 in every vote, a comprehensive defeat by any measure. Hopefully the Dulwich Society can now get back to the great range of local work it does without these debilitating distractions.