DulvilleRes

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.

What an absurd observation. Why would admin delete someone's name because I asked them to? My guess is it would be only the person themselves who can ask to have their name deleted, in which case, given the track record of real -life intimidation from some person or persons unknown from the anti-LTN lobby to people who oppose their views, maybe she feared for her safety? And before you go further down your excitable conspiracy rabbit hole, I don't know her and have never spoken to her, so I am just speculating. Elements of the anti-LTN movement seem to have quite the record for personally 'outing' people, especially women, who might have a view that conflicts with their dreary culture war narrative. People who support the LTN's and what they are trying to achieve have in the past been physically targeted in their homes, and some incidents have required Police involvement. I'm not suggesting you personally Rockets have been involved in that, but maybe you should think twice before gleefully bandying around names of your neighbours, especially those who don't put themselves up as politicians.

it might come as a bit of a disappointment , but I'm nothing to do with any Dulwich Society transport sub committee, and I don't know anyone who is. However, as one of 100's of people who turned up at the Dulwich Society Annual General Meeting, I was was somewhat baffled to be greeted at the door by 2 of the former prospective local Conservative candidates peddling some rule changes that sniffed somewhat of the 'Restore Trust' machinations the National Trust has had to endure in recent years. My bafflement deepened when when one of their senior Conservative colleagues got up in the room and alleged Dulwich local Conservatives of using underhand tactics when it comes to local issues. Suffice to say the rule change tendency, operating in whatever guise they were in, were soundly beaten, which I found heartening. However, it did focus my mind on lack of transparency in local politics, which given the general degradation of standards in that regard nationally and internationally, is something I feel is worth posting about. So Rockets - you've told us you have no idea who is behind One Dulwich. Why aren't you interested in finding out? The group you support purports to be some kind of grass roots community organisation, but you literally have no idea or no interest in their provenance, and seemingly no interest in it. That says a great deal about where you are coming from, and your respect for properly open and informed debate. I'm sure readers of your industrial scale postings bear that in mind in assessing your pronouncements.

I continue to be intrigued by your relationship with One Dulwich. You have consistently posted their press releases, and I've never seen any divergence of view between you and them. Could you point me to anywhere where this has happened? With your industrial level of independent posting on traffic issues, not to mention research, you really should think about setting up your own anti -LTN/ anti-Council campaign, maybe call it Uno Dulwich as a homage to that overlap in views. I am a member of the Dulwich Society; I greatly look forward to reading their missives about open gardens so I can enjoy getting tea and a scone in someone else's posh backyard. The historical insights are great. No one who is remotely active in the society would have a clue as to who I am, and I couldn't tell you the names of anyone involved without looking them up. But that is the point - I can look them up, and form a view as to the kind of organisation it is - the view I have is they are a well-run and transparent community body. This is more than I can do for the opaque, unaccountable and politically active One Dulwich, who purport to be some kind of community voice, but there is no way of knowing who they are, who funds them or whether they are as widely supported as they claim. Nor does Dulwich Society post their press releases on these threads.

Rockets – it is a great loss to One Dulwich that you have no link with them, as you are so clearly a trendsetter when it comes to the LTN debate. A year or so ago you were posting about the Public Accounts Committee / National Travel Survey report a full month before a One Dulwich’s press release highlighting it. As a keen scholar of local politics, can you shed any light on the strange case of the disappearing Conservatives? Once leading local Conservatives were fronting anti-LTN organisations, but have now seemingly vanished into thin air, only popping up to ask LTN-related questions of the Council, which often echo the concerns raised by One Dulwich. You have such an impressive grasp of names when it comes to local figures who support the LTNs, forever name-checking them - do you know what has happened to the local Conservatives? Have you ever seen them connected with One Dulwich in any way?

The anti-LTN lobby could do us all a favour, and actually answer the questions that have been consistently put to them as to who is behind One Dulwich, and who funds them. They pride themselves on their 'citizen journalism' ( despite its many factual inaccuracies and misleading statements) and yet either lack the skill or the curiosity to find out. I certainly bear that in mind whenever one of their new anti-council 'revelations' comes to light. The other alternative explanation is of course that they aren't being truthful in their claims that they have no idea who is behind One Dulwich, so the then question is - are we all being subjected to a massive and sustained troll? This article from a few months back always comes to mind when I read this section of the forum, about Conservatives in other parts of the country mimicing local papers https://bylinetimes.com/2023/08/16/conservatives-caught-publishing-fake-newspapers-again-as-party-mimics-defunct-local-outlet/ A potential similarity being that there is a possibility that political campaigning is going on around local traffic issues in an untransparent manner. Could that be what is happening here? I was at a major public event last year where a prominent local Conservative openly called out her Dulwich colleagues for what she alleged were using underhand tactics in local issues. If it isn't the Conservatives, might it be Reform? The evidence would suggest that is doubtful, but the point is we don't fully know who this opaque group One Dulwich is. Maybe with so much local interest now in getting these questions answered, the anti-LTN lobby on these threads might be able to do that? There should always be debate about local issues, but you would hope it to be done openly and transparently, and in good faith.

Also prominent local Conservatives were very active in the early days of the anti LTN movement, but seem to have vanished without trace, only popping up now and then to ask formal LTN related questions of the Council. Could they be involved One Dulwich, or indeed even posting on these threads? In the interests of transparent local politics, it would be great to know. Is their ghostly presence, not daring to speak their name, stalking these threads? At times the multitude of culture war style threads started on this forum start to feel to me less of a local debate and more of a campaign. it would also be great to get to the bottom of who funds One Dulwich. it isn't a cheap operation to run - each of those estate agent style boards costs £6 and upwards ( let us hope they opted for the eco friendly versions), plus the costs of a website, printing and the like. With so much political discourse generally degraded by misinformation, I'm sure most local people, whatever their views on issues, would welcome transparency on how any debate is conducted.

Couldn't agree more with this one. No one knows who runs One Dulwich, and who funds them. Their cheerleaders on this forum have consistently claimed they don't know, but they demonstrate huge knowledge of local politics, post their press releases and continue to parrot their attack lines which overwhelming end in a critique of Southwark Council and/ or individual councilors. These same posters refuse to answer any questions about potential political influence within One Dulwich, despite evidence that there is an alignment between issues championed by One Dulwich, and formal questions raised to the Council by local Conservatives. Any other significant local group, such as The Dulwich Society, I know or can find out who they are. They have open and transparent procedures, and I can find out how they are funded, but there is virtually nothing publicly available about One Dulwich, apart from a website that doesn't answer these questions. This does not feel to me to be good faith and transparency in local debating, and with so many unanswered questions hanging over One Dulwich, I am constantly surprised that admin allows their press releases to be posted on this forum.

That poster declines to answer any questions that might help solve the mystery of the disappearance of local Conservatives when it comes to fronting up local concerns about traffic issues. They used to be all over it, but now they are nowhere to be seen, apart from popping up now and then to ask official questions of the council that overwhelmingly overlap the issues One Dulwich and anti LTN posters on these threads raise. Could it be that the Conservative Undead are stalking these threads? Could a desire to stoke up a spurious culture war around traffic issues that might have electoral advantages be a motive for multiple topics? It could of course all be co-incidental, but until these well informed on local politics posters start providing some transparency, we may never know.

There has still not been a shred of evidence presented that there is some kind of deliberate Southwark policy to 'bend the rules' to generate income from fines. It defies logic - to pull off some deliberate policy in this regard, as suggested, would involve a systemic conspiracy at many layers of the council - a public and accountable organisation - that just isn't plausible. Until you can present some proper evidence, instead of chucking out supposition based on a camera position, the impression is you are just creating a smear.

What is your actual evidence that the Council design the restrictions with revenue generation in mind, and that they are happy to 'bend the rules'? I've not seen a shred, and as such, this allegation looks like culture war/ urban myth nonsense.

As has been explained to you, ad nausem, Dulwich scores lower than other parts of the Borough, because of the lack of density of housing. However, that is not to say that it isn't well served by public transport. Three major rail stations within 15 mins walk, plus decent bus routes. You really should try spending time in other UK cities to understand just how well-connected we are. As a keen commentator and observer on local politics - so many of your posts end with a critique of the council - I have a question for you in return; when it comes to the LTN's, and the campaigning against them, where have all the local Conservatives gone? Prospective Conservative council candidates used to head up campaigns such as the Dulwich Alliance, and then suddenly they seemed to evaporate from public view, although funnily enough they do still end up asking official questions of the Council on the issues raised by One Dulwich. In the interests of transparency in local democracy, maybe you could shed some light on this?

A common response by Rockets when called out on factual inaccuracy. When the evidence is staring you in the face you are wrong, why not just admit it?

Couldn't agree more. This local forum feels like it is being subverted by culture war nonsense of dubious political origin. Smart move by admin to split off the roads and transport stuff, it feels like less and less people can be bothered to engage with it

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.