DulvilleRes

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.

The trustees of Dulwich Society reported a huge surge in membership in the weeks leading up to the Special General Meeting. Who these new members were, it is hard to say. However, if the influx was in support of the group of Dulwich Society members looking to extend their influence via the SGM, it failed; they were comprehensively outvoted. Whether co incidental or not, there is a heavy overlap of names between this minority grouping within the Society, and local activists in anti LTN issues. Were they One Dulwich? With an organisation as opaque and unaccountable as One Dulwich are – in stark contrast to the Dulwich Society – it is hard to say. it constantly surprises me that One Dulwich's cheerleaders on this forum seem to know nothing about how they are run, or crucially who funds them. It is hard to take these cheerleaders seriously when they seem unable or unwilling to ask or answer basic questions such as this. I found it extraordinary that this grouping in Dulwich Society pushing for change refused to meet with the trustees to discuss their concerns, opting instead for an expensive Special General Meeting; this indicates to me a certain kind of needlessly combative approach to what is fundamentally an apolitical local charity. This perception was reinforced by the conduct of some supporters of this grouping in the room – hectoring, aggressive and ultimately unneighbourly, and certainly a hostility you wouldn’t want to tolerate in any organisation. Whilst I can’t talk for the trustees, as regards resigning, if they took the view that actually something extraordinary was happening to much loved local institution that was best dealt with by the Charity Commission, I wouldn’t blame them. But the end result was in my view a triumph for local democracy. The modernising of the Society’s rules that the trustees supported, giving the possibility of a degree of protection from online trolling for volunteers working on traffic issues, and making the Dulwich Society more inclusive by having the possibility of online General meetings are most welcome.

Split from Latest One Dulwich update topic Another missive from the shape shifting anti LTN lobby, who continue to claim some kind of mandate to talk for the Dulwich community. They were comprehensively defeated this week in their efforts to extend their influence into the Dulwich Society at a Special General Meeting ( with an attendance of over 300) they had instigated by a factor of over 2 to 1. This is further indication to me that far from the popular front their literature suggests them to be, they are a vocal activist minority. The meeting was interesting on many levels. A section of Dulwich Society members, many of whom feature regularly in raising the traffic issues that One Dulwich highlight with the council, were pressing for a number of rule changes to the Dulwich Society, one of which would strip the possibility of anonymity for Dulwich Society volunteers who contribute to the traffic subcommittee of the charity. As a properly run charity, the Dulwich Society publishes minutes of its meetings and operated with a level of transparency that I don't see in the anti- LTN lobby. The trustees continue to publish names for the overwhelming majority of their business, but when it comes to contentious local issues with a history of harassment, they want the option in very limited instances to protect their volunteers. Almost as if to illustrate this need in live action, one supporter of these potential rule changes actually loudly ‘outed’ the surname of a speaker in the meeting who expressly stated she didn’t want to use her surname to protect her from potential online trolling. The local Conservative presence pressing for these rule changes was strong – two of the most prominent local members of the party were working the queue on the way in to drum up support, and formally spoke in the meeting. The trustees of Dulwich Society revealed that they had tried to engage with them in person over the proposed rule changes over a period of months, but they had refused, opting instead for a costly Special General Meeting, which distracted from the actual work of the charity. The stress the trustees experienced dealing with these issues over a period of months was evident – one seemed close to tears talking about the strain it put on his family. The most extraordinary moment came when a former Conservative mayor of Lambeth stood up and accused the Conservatives driving these rule changes in the Dulwich Society of using divisive tactics. I don't doubt that people opposing the LTN's have a range of political views, as has been illustrated on these threads, but could it be that local Conservatives, who lost the last local elections despite campaigning on virtually the single issue of the LTN’s, see that stirring up local feeling about traffic issues might be a path to electoral success?

There is no equivalence between One Dulwich purporting to be a local organisation speaking for local people, and actually properly constituted organisations such as The Dulwich Society. A 3 -second google search reveals the openly published names of the trustees of Dulwich Society, so I can make my own mind up as to whether these individuals are coming at local issues with a particular slant. I can read minutes of their meetings online, and whilst I might not agree with their every position, I can have confidence that they are an open and fundamentally democratic institution. There is absolutely nothing similar in terms of publicly accountable information to be found about One Dulwich - no idea of who is behind it, who pays for it ( it is clearly expensive), and on what basis they make their decisions. Given the Police involvement in the intimidation of people with a public pro-LTN view ( for which there is no equivalence in terms of severity of any incident for those with an anti-LTN point of view), I can fully understand why, for Dulwich Society's traffic sub- committee only, they want a bit of online anonymity. I also find it slightly disturbing that when The Dulwich Society current leadership asked the 'grouping' pushing for changes within it for a meeting to discuss their concerns, they refused it. Given the recent experiences of organisations such as The National Trust, the question can be asked - is something similar going on here?