DulvilleRes

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?

Rockets – do us all a favour and apply your famous research skills before you start dishing out serious allegations of defamation. There is no defamation going on. In English law, your allegations don’t even meet the most basic criteria, let alone ancillary protections for public interest debate. I’m not going to get into some fatuous online legal debate with you or anyone else, but you should be doing better than this, so please desist. I’ll be giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually don’t know or understand the law, I would hope that it isn’t the case that you are throwing out allegations in an effort to chill scrutiny and debate.

Who is 'we' Rockets? I thought you were on a one person crusade detached from any political party or lobby group.

I noticed that - at one of the junctions on the way into town around Kennington Park, there were 35 - 40 cyclists queued up waiting for the lights. I also think some motorists in the traffic- jammed adjacent cars might take note, it was clearly the quickest way to get around yesterday apart from the train. The traffic was so heavy on Brixton Road that initially forgetting there was a strike on, I thought there had been an accident up ahead - it was solid.