DulvilleRes

It is the season for a ghost story as well as a panto @Rockets The irresponsible claims you have made about some rising crime wave attributed to Dulwich Square have been comprehensively debunked by facts, and I think we all owe @Earl Aelfheah and others a debt of gratitude for persistently not letting you get away with it on this and across a range of claims you make. I wonder at what point your constant level of factual inaccuracy and misleading statements, coupled with a complete inability to ever admit you might have got it wrong, ceases to be any kind of local debate and just becomes trolling. Your concern for mental health doesn't seem to extend to the relentless criticism extended to named individuals on these threads by yourself and others, whilst you of course dish it out from behind some online avatar. Some of the people named and shamed on these threads aren't even politicians, and it wouldn't surprise me if this disproportionate response to local issues has had life-changing consequences for those concerned. Debate on these transport threads has now been reduced to about 10 people, and at times it feels more like being on the receiving end of a political campaign being waged via another guise. No wonder few people want to engage.

But maybe there is an increase in paranormal activity - did a poltergeist PCSO police officer knock on @Rockets door and tell him there was? Maybe it is the only explanation for a police officer no one else saw.

@Rockets - you were moaning a year ago because the council used Indian sandstone rather than British sandstone on Dulwich Square, and launched into your habitual tirade against the council and councillors for doing so. The Indian sandstone used on the Square is less slippery than its British equivalent - so, what is it that you actually want? Sandstone that does the job, or sandstone that increases the chances of falling over? Or is the only consistent view you have is finding some way to put the boot into the council?

An interesting way to characterize you simply being fact-checked. As is continually necessary.

Earl is indeed on a roll of brilliant fact checking, the overall result of which has been a decrease of unchallenged factual inaccuracies and misleading statements on these threads. Long may he keep it up. Yet again Rockets, you have been proved wrong - out of respect to your fellow posters, why don't you just admit it? That way we could have a measured and mutually respectful debate, instead of constantly having to counter what feels like propaganda.

These are encouraging stats, and bear out the huge uptake in cycling I've been witnessing over the past couple of years. I had a situation recently in Kennington where there were so many cyclists waiting at the red cycle lane traffic light, that some at the back like me didn't actually get through when it turned green, and had to wait for the next phase. That just wouldn't have happened even 5 years ago. The stats really do put to bed some of the nonsense that has been spouted on these threads that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result. Any of us properly out and about knew what was really happening. I think the cycle infrastructure has encouraged more cautious users onto the road, even in winter.

This is a fair point Glemham, although I don't think it is as straightforward as it looks. In essence, the Scheme of Estate Managment 'tithe' goes into maintaining the area, and the costs associated with that, such as planning consents and the like, and as you rightly point out, is ostensibly ring fenced. However, it seems likely to me that the results of the 'tithe' would impact on the level of commercial rents the Dulwich Estate are able to command, and how much they get when they sell off a piece of land - it is after all a prime area. The 'tithe' is in my view ultimately, even if indirectly, a contributor to the Estate's ability to generate a surplus. Of that surplus, 85% is directed at the private schools, which seems at odds to me with the spirit of simple instruction of the original Edward Alleyn will to 'educate 12 poor scholars' He didn't suggest they should go to Eton on bursaries. I think the Estate need to be doing far more for local state schools, who are all struggling with estraordinarily tight budgets. I also feel on a personal level uneasy in potentially contributing in any way to an institution such as Dulwich College where the question can be asked - are they struggling to manage successive generational waves of toxicity? The evidence that the Guardian has amassed from the Farage period looks pretty damming to me, and I find the more recent allegations deeply unsettling, although clearly they have been subject to less scrutiny.

In addition to what are facts, libel and defamation laws also have a number of built-in protections for free speech, such as honestly held opinion and public interest considerations. Perhaps posters should actually try and get an understanding of the law before accusing people of breaking it.

That is a fair point. However my understanding is at some point in the 19th century the Estate got the terms of the Edward Alleyn will changed to enable it to help support the private schools. The current Dulwich College itself was built on the proceeds of the land the Estate sold to the railway companies. Clearly I can't second guess what Edward Alleyn would want 400 years on, but I do think it is an open question as to whether things are the right way round - overwhelmingly the proceeds of his wealth supporting privileged education, and some bits round the edges going towards state provision/ private scholarships.

Dulwich College governance issues always remind me that many of us are helping subsidise the school via what we have to pay to the Dulwich Estate. The original Edward Alleyn will, which bequeathed the Dulwich farmland that forms the basis for the Estate, made for the provision of '12 poor scholars' - I'm not sure propping up a school serving the world's elite in its many guises was what he had in mind.

I actually think Earl has done us all a public service here. For years Rockets pumped out factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and because of Earl's diligent work, he has been properly and comprehensively fact-checked. Long may it continue.

This is interesting - Rockets is happy to attempt to 'out' other people on these threads, but when it comes to himself, not so much!

it isn't an area of my expertise, but logic would dictate that you are most likely doing a lot more than 20 mph to end up on your roof. The thing that strikes me about both pictures I posted is that it is lucky there were no pedestrians around when either crashed - in the case of the car on its roof, someone could have been walking up the grass verge, and for the white car someone could have been on that traffic island. It does put debate around speed limits in context.

This one from April this year - similarly, I hope no one was too badly hurt ...... and this one from August this year. This was a driver attempting to evade Police.

Only your 'interpretation' of the data has been comprehensively de bunked. What does that say about any party that tries to run with this fake narrative that there is some correlation between crime and the LTNs? Also, what does it say about anybody who is desperately trying to establish it as a talking point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?