DulvilleRes

The references to the 1956 Clean Air Act are interesting. This act was brought in to improve air quality after 12,000 people died during and in the aftermath of London's 1952 Great Smog. The act was resisted by people who felt they had a right to coal fires, despite clear evidence that something had to change for the public good. It really does feel that there are parallels with today's pro-motoring lobby, many of whom profess an interest in improving air quality, but seem unable to offer any real solutions.

As pointed out, the Gilkes Residents Association did a survey of vehicles that didn't move, which then evaporated after the introduction of the CPZ, so it isn't an opinion. You can of course keep ignoring this inconvenient fact to your narrative. If a vehicle is taxed, it can stay on an open parking street as long as it likes, so it isn't abandoned. As I suggested, take a walk down the Crescent, and see what a road looks like without being clogged by cars - I think a lot of people in whatever road they are in would settle for that. Also it isn't my road.

You are presented with evidence that crowded streets could well be in part caused by semi-dumped cars. If you were concerned about local issues and interested in finding real solutions, instead of an unremitting attack on virtually anything the council does, you might actually take an open-minded and fact-based approach. If, as happened in Gilkes Crescent, a large number of dumped vehicles disappeared after the introduction of a CPZ, this has clear ramifications for other streets. Instead you ignore the evidence, as I suspect it is inconvenient to your unrelenting and dubious anti-council agenda across a range of issues.

Cars are semi-dumped on local streets, that is simply a fact. Prior to the CPZ, local residents in Gilkes Crescent did a survey of the cars that never moved. Since the introduction of the CPZ, they are no longer there. The evidence would point to people from outside the area using the free parking as storage for a buying and selling side hustle. As I said, take a walk down it, it is a street transformed.

If the residents of Melbourne Grove vote for a CPZ, they are likely to see a very positive transformation. All those semi dumped cars that clog up many streets will disappear. Just a walk down Gilkes Crescent, which voted for a CPZ, is a revelation.The entire environment of the street is vastly improved.

If the CPZ does goes through, all the evidence points to the fact that the residents of Melbourne Grove can look forward to a transformed street. Any semi-dumped cars will go, put there by people who use free parking streets as storage for their buying and selling businesses, who will be forced to move their vehicles. Take a walk down Gilkes Crescent, a street that voted for the CPZ, and see the difference.

Holding power to account? Commendable sentiments. Why don't you now try to find out who funds One Dulwich? Democracy has been nearly destroyed by unaccountable or questionable political funding of various opaque lobby groups and campaigns. One Dulwich is a relatively expensive operation. Your views and concerns have been consistently closely aligned with One Dulwich, but strangely, when asked, you seem unable to share this information or too incurious to find out. Is your commitment to holding power to account a little one-sided?

Peter Walker in the Guardian has written very well on this in article this week. he says No one becomes a saint when they start pedalling, and my long-held idea is that the very same people who zoom through a red light on a bike will also speed in a car, recline their seat as the meals are served on a plane or push past to get the last seat on a train. They are multi-modal nitwits. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/30/jeremy-vine-cyclists-bike-road-rage-abuse-drivers-politicians The article is also very strong on the absurd culture war waged on cyclists, particularly on his local forum

Thank you very much will try those great recommendtions

Looking for a brilliant tailor/seamstress to alter the length of an evening dress with a train

The evidence from Gilkes Crescent, which voted for a CPZ, says otherwise. Before the CPZ the street was a byword for anti LTN campaigners saying everyone owned 2 or 3 cars, and it was indeed a rammed street. After the CPZ, all the parking pressure is gone. According to people who live there, there were large numbers of cars semi-permanently parked up - often people buying and selling cars as a side hustle - these have all gone. Take a walk down it, the transformation is staggering.

I have no idea of the ins and outs of this one, so we only have your word for what has happened, something which frequently in the past has been subject to 'reader added context' style interventions across a range of topics. However, if true, from your description, this is exactly what a well-run transparent organisation does if it perceives something that runs against it's constitution. That is in stark contrast to One Dulwich, who no one actually knows what it really is. Is it like Farage's Reform, and constituted as a private company? Certainly something that it would have in common with Reform is that many are claiming that they are hugely exaggerating their level of support. I find it deeply puzzling and in many ways potentially misleading that the One Dulwich website represents itself as a broad-based community organisation, campaigning for, amongst other things, transparency and democracy in local politics, yet these very important questions go unanswered. This same sense of opaqueness and the sense I feel of things not quite adding up applies to some of the posters on this forum. They claim they have no idea or no interest in who might behind One Dulwich, and yet demonstrate a detailed knowledge of local politics and a relentless anti-council agenda that would suggest being political activists. The sustained attack lines and strong alignment with One Dulwich's pronouncements suggest a campaign. They might of course deny this, and say it is all a massive coincidence. Whatever the truth, I have no issue with people engaging in local politics, but the question remains is it being done transparently on this forum, and in the good faith manner a local debate between neighbours should be?

You are fond of the catch phrase 'Power To The People'. I suggest you modify it to 'Power To The People Who Fund One Dulwich, who I have no idea who they are' Any comparison between the opaque One Dulwich and properly constituted local organisations like Dulwich Society is fatuous.

Why don't you yourself check for Tory influence in One Dulwich? According to One Dulwich's mission statement on their website, they are campaigning for transparency and democracy in local issues - surely they would welcome any inquiries from one of their most tireless cheerleaders as to their provenance. While you are at it, you could ask them who funds them. it is a simple question, which they don't answer, and you seem in no hurry to answer yourself, despite having been asked for months. This has always struck me as a puzzling, and it certainly does provide a little context as to how seriously anyone should take your pronouncements.

Never happened. I've never actually name-checked any individual. The point here is people who might be pro-LTN have been actively targeted to a serious level which has necessitated Police involvement, I have seen no evidence of that happening to anyone in the anti-LTN lobby, so the threat level is not comparable. So I wouldn't blame anyone, especially if they aren't putting themselves up there as a politician, from wanting to protect elements of their privacy. This is what I find so disturbing about elements of the opaque shape-shifting anti LTN lobby - there has been a real nastiness involved at times, which feels completely out of keeping with any notions of community. The Dulwich Society, as a community-based, well-run apolitical organisation, does publish transparent accounts of who they are and what they are up to. One Dulwich, in contrast, which tries to present itself as some kind of community group, has failed to answer any questions about any undeclared political involvement and would appear to continue to refuse to answer questions as to who funds them.