DulvilleRes

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 The irresponsible thing would be to leave the outdated rules as they were.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?

So who are OneDulwich and who funds them? They purport to be a community organisation, but no one on these threads knows who they actually are, or if they do, are unwilling to share the information. But they still post their press releases - this I find baffling in the light of the accountability these posters demand of people whose views they don't share. Some of the names I've gleaned potentially associated with One Dulwich appear to be engaged in extending their influence into the Dulwich Society at the next AGM on 20th May. Of course, it is always hard to know exactly who One Dulwich are, as their leadership and structures are completely opaque, so this 'grouping' may or may not be formally One Dulwich. Measures proposed by the current Dulwich Society leadership which this 'grouping' appears to be resisting include the ability to have online AGM's, which is a modern step to allow older people/ people working away to vote, and also they appear to be resisting anonymity for Dulwich Society members taking part in committees looking at traffic issues. The reason why Dulwich Society wants this anonymity is so that the chance of such members getting trolled online is diminished. Given the abject personalisation of some local issues on these threads, and the real-life intimidation of some pro-LTN people by persons unknown in the past, Dulwich Society's current stance on this looks reasonable to me. You would have to question why someone wouldn't want it.

How would you know it is 'most roads' Rockets? Have you been out there pounding the streets, or any other source of knowledge?

Rockets – it is a great loss to One Dulwich that you haven't spoken to the people behind the lobby group, as you are so clearly a trendsetter when it comes to the LTN debate. You were posting about the Public Accounts committee/ National Travel Survey report a full month before One Dulwich’s latest missive highlighting it. I’m just puzzled, that as someone concerned with local democracy, that you have no knowledge or curiosity as to who might be behind the work you are promoting, especially in the light of the critical attention you pay to the credentials of anyone who might put forward a pro LTN point of view. I genuinely don’t understand this disparity of approach. The Daily Mail has been fairly regularly covering the Dulwich LTN issues, and recently describes one of the former local Conservative councillor candidates as a ‘local campaigner’. This would certainly correspond with pattern of LTN - related questions that the former Conservative councillors have been formally asking at a town hall level. Those questions are closely aligned to One Dulwich concerns. It could all of course be entirely co incidental, but is it possible that the ‘campaign’ referred to by the Mail is One Dulwich? As an aside, One Dulwich seem to have the ear of the Daily Mail. I find it quite surprising that hyper local stories seem to find their way into the paper quite regularly, especially in light of the fact that journalism, even at the comparatively wealthy Mail, is very much on the back foot these days. A lot of the news cycle is actually driven by PR culture, of interest groups reaching out to the papers. Again, there is no way of knowing how the Mail picks up its stories, but the question could be asked - is there some kind of connection between the two?

There is a vast difference in the scale and impact between One Dulwich and any other group you mention. As far as I am aware, the likes of Clean Air Dulwich have never posted their press releases directly on this forum, frankly most people reading this would be scarcely aware of their existence. In contrast, the Roads and Transport section of the forum at times resembles a One Dulwich public information channel, the topics debated mirror what appears to be a campaigning strategy for One Dulwich, which in turn also has a huge overlap with some of the very current questions that former Conservative candidates for the last local election are formally asking Southwark Council. A quick Google search reveals this. I am a huge supporter of local debate and democracy, and on that basis, I do have an issue with One Dulwich's lack of transparency. British politics at every level has been blighted by unaccountable and shadowy lobby groups, and I think it is in the local public interest we have some sense of who is actually pulling the strings in One Dulwich and where they get their cash from. If the Conservatives continue to run for local and national elections campaigning heavily on local traffic issues, the question can be asked, would they unwittingly or otherwise, benefit from One Dulwich's campaigning spend? I would ask One Dulwich myself some of these questions, but I saw what happened to local people who were in favour of LTN's who put their heads up. The personal targeting and intimidation from a person or persons unknown from the anti-LTN lobby was on such a level that the Police had to get involved; it was life-changingly nasty for some of the people targeted in such a way. This was on a level of seriousness for which there is no equivalence with anti-LTN signs getting pushed over, unacceptable as such behaviour was. One Dulwich as I recall rightly condemned the intimidation of the pro-LTN lobby, but given the complete opaqueness of them as an organization, I just don't know who I am dealing with, and thus rightly or wrongly reluctant to put my name out there. What is clear is One Dulwich supporters on these threads have no problems with relentless personal attacks on local councilors and academics, which is something I've always found unsettling, and certainly not in keeping with what I think should be the tone of a local discussion forum, or indeed any wider sense of neighbourliness. So, given the seemingly very close proximity of One Dulwich activists and some of the people who post on these threads, I am asking them again in the spirit of openness in local democracy - are former/ future Conservative councilor candidates involved in One Dulwich? Where do they get their funding from? I would ask serious questions of anyone closely aligned with the In the One Dulwich agenda over a sustained period who didn't know at least some of the answers, or was too incurious to ask.

As ever, the devil is in the detail of the report that One Dulwich are quoting to thinly imply that the LTN's in our area aren't working to increase active travel. The report is a national one, and goes to some lengths to describe the financial challenges that councils are working under as an impediment to progress. It also says that the data could be patchy cycling infrastructure could be inconsistent across the country and investment was very localised, so a national survey was “too diluted to reflect what is happening on the ground" However, the relevant London section, unchallenged by the Public Accounts committee says Since the introduction of School Streets (timed restrictions on motor traffic) and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (restrictions on through traffic in residential areas) in London there has been growth in localised cycle and scooter use. This would be backed up locally by recent research that shows that Southwark has the second highest cycling rates in London, which would suggest that whatever our council are doing is working. So I think One Dulwich quoting from the report the way they do in their press release is disingenuous. I think there is a public interest in knowing who is backing One Dulwich - it is clearly a well funded operation, all those placards, posters and a well maintained website don't come cheap. Whether unwittingly or otherwise, the One Dulwich agenda is one that the Conservative party has identified as a vote winner. It could of course be entirely co incidental, and I have no problem with people campaigning for local issues they believe in, but I do have an issue with transparency and people being honest about who they are and their motives. If local senior Conservatives are involved, especially those who have run for office or plan to do so, I think we should know, so local people can make their own minds up as to who they are dealing with.

These are simple and pertinent questions - who are One Dulwich and who funds them? Given that they are a local political organisation, in that they were recommending how people should vote in the last local elections, I think this is something that as a local resident, I would like to know. If they have nothing to hide, why the lack of transparency? One Dulwich's supporters on these threads expect transparency from everyone else, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. I would also question why One Dulwich should post their press releases on these threads, as if they are some kind of community organisation. Their lack of transparency really doesn't merit that status.

It is disingenuous of One Dulwich to pull this England-wide report on Active travel, drawing on data from the likes of Leicester into the specifics of Dulwich. The local data simply doesn't exist to say the LTN's have failed to promote active travel, especially cycling. Many people posting on here report an increase in the numbers of people cycling in our neighbourhood. So who are One Dulwich? Who are their funders and leading lights? Despite many times of asking, no one on these Transport threads seems able to answer the question, despite pushing their agenda. What is known is a strong alignment between the anti-LTN lobby and local Conservatives, and what is known is nationally, local Conservatives mimic local newspapers to put over what is essentially their own political agenda. It is also known that the Conservatives are banking heavily on 'The War On Motorists' to try and win votes. Are we being trolled?

Given this is a South London forum, I would have thought this is more relevant to a discussion about cycling https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/southwark-among-london-boroughs-with-highest-rate-of-cycling/ Southwark has the second highest rate of cycling in London. I would also question the tired old assertion that cycling is white middle class men. In my experience it is predominately young, and approx 35 - 40% female.

Not sure where all this 'cycling has peaked' is coming from. I took this picture this morning at the top of Brixton Road. It is the same or more crowded every day, and that could also be said for coming into town via the Elephant. There is a much bigger range of people cycling since the lanes have been put in as well - clearly they give people confidence.

If we are talking locally - i.e cycling in Southwark, are there any numbers on that? I have been for years cycle commuting into town the length of the borough, and my experience is that cycling has increased exponentially. I would agree with Earl - there are consistent virtual cycle traffic jams on some of the lights. I am also staggered at how many cyclists come through the Dulwich Square junction, especially getting their kids to school, including some of our local well known people.

Who are the principal shakers and movers behind One Dulwich? Who funds them? Despite asking on this forum, no one seems to know, including the people who slavishly post their every utterance. So much of the campaigning by the anti-LTN lobby is focused around transparency – when it comes to themselves, not so much. What is known is the local Conservatives fought the last local election on pretty well the single LTN issue, and leading local Conservatives were actively involved in anti-LTN groups in the run-up. In this context, I found this article very interesting – as a campaigning tactic, local Conservatives across the country have been mimicking local newspapers and obscuring their true identity while doing so. https://bylinetimes.com/2023/08/24/fake-newspapers-sent-by-political-parties-should-be-banned-voters-say/ When I read this it brought to mind the uneasy feeling I sometimes have reading the Roads and Transport section of the East Dulwich Forum, (the same feeling I get when a One Dulwich flyer arrives in my letterbox) - some posters profess they aren’t Conservative activists, but their long-term words and actions, their knowledge of local politics and relentless criticism of the council on every issue are virtually indistinguishable from what you would expect from a local Conservative activist. It could of course be that it is just a remarkable overlap of views and interests, but the question I ask myself is - are we being trolled?

What a desperate non story the parking ticket is. At work I have contractors putting in parking tickets all the time which they have incurred on the job. The worst you can say is that it is a grey area. This story is just further proof that all issues around cars, LTN's, parking are being politicised for motives other than the ostensible ones at hand. My view is that it has been going on for years locally - it must actually be quite inconvenient for some that now the the motoring culture wars are being so openly owned by the national Conservative hierarchy.

The academic ripping down an anti LTN petition isn't a great look. But is it the LTN smoking gun that some of the posters on this thread claim it is? I'm not convinced. My understanding is the academic didn't do all the studies and she didn't do them alone. The article I read doesn't time date when the incident occurred. It looks recent to me, so that being the case, it would post dates the studies. She defends herself as a moment of madness, for which there could be all kinds of reasons. If there is an issue in her work, I'm sure it will be reviewed by her peers and employer, who will be closer to the facts than any of us will be. The thing I've found most revealing about this whole situation is the papers that chose to run it - the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. In recent years they have comprehensively aligned themselves to culture war issues. I notice that, as far as I am aware, they weren't running stories about how in leafy Dulwich, the Police had to be involved in the sheer and sustained level of nastiness of the direct intimidation some supporters of the LTN's experienced at the hands of those of an anti LTN persuasion, but they chose to run one on an expert falling down. So it is fair to say that the anti LTN cause is of considerable interest to the right wing press. I also note that a lot of the anti LTN campaigning locally has taken on an unnecessarily culture wars hue - some of the stuff I've read about the cabal of lycra clad cycling eco warriors in cahoots with the Council could, in my view, easily have fitted the rhetoric of the Daily Mail. The local Conservatives ran virtually their entire recent local election campaign on the LTN single issue and lost. It always struck me as an interesting choice by the local Conservatives, when there are so many other local issues. So, my questions remain - in whose interests is it to keep cranking up the LTN issue? Who funds One Dulwich and do their leading lights have strong political affiliations they aren't telling us about? One would hope that it is the apolitical community group it purports to be, but it really is a mystery to me, and If anyone has further information on this, please do share.

Thanks to all of you attempting to answer my questions on who are the shakers and movers of One Dulwich, and who funds them. I'm a bit surprised that no one seems to have any answers - threads on this forum sometimes kick off with the latest One Dulwich press release/ update, or those updates often feature within threads to the point where, as far as the LTNs are concerned, the EDF can feel like the One Dulwich public information channel. Yet when it comes to any information about One Dulwich, no one seems to know anything, or if they do, they are unwilling to share. This puzzles me, as this incuriosity sits in contrast to the huge attention to detail shown by anti- LTN posters of poring over Southwark Council data or the technical merits of measuring strips. Why would those opposed to LTN's not want to find out a bit more about the people, motives and finances of the organisation they seem to espouse and support? I'm never comfortable with an organisation that purports to be some kind of popular movement, but remains opaque. Rightly or wrongly, it makes me feel I'm not being levelled with. Is One Dulwich all that it seems? Only further information would tell.

One Dulwich clearly seeks to influence local politics - their website still contains analysis of how to vote opponents out. The public criticism from some of those in the anti-LTN lobby of local elected councilors has been unrelenting, and at times personalized and very unpleasant. Councilors and supporters of the LTN's have in the past been physically targeted in or near their homes by people with anti-LTN views, to the point that the Police had to get involved. There were months of vandalism and graffiti of LTN infrastructure, and at one point I actually stumbled across a bloke with a balaclava and dressed in black trying to pull a barrier down. I have found it all very unsettling, and given this broader context, I think One Dulwich, which purports to be a grassroots organization, owes the community a bit of transparency and accountability. So, who funds One Dulwich? It is a relatively expensive operation, with all those billboards and leaflets. Who are their principal shakers and movers? Are those shakers and movers aligned with a particular political party? Does one political party dominate? It is all very opaque. I've asked the question before, and no one seems to be able to provide an answer.

One Dulwich is an apolitical grassroots campaign Where is the evidence for this? What is clear is that prominent local Conservatives have been in the past heavily involved in the anti LTN lobby, and ran their last local election campaign on virtually that single issue - and lost. Who are the One Dulwich officers/ active members? Where does the funding come from and are the accounts visible to the local community? Are there One Dulwich meetings open to all? How are One Dulwich decisions arrived at - a democratic vote of supporters? Maybe I have missed something, but I have yet personally to see any answers; perhaps someone on this thread could illuminate. Until that happens the question could be asked - does One Dulwich have a lack of the kind of transparency and accountability that they constantly demand from the council?

The question can be asked - does it suits some people with a political agenda that isn't always apparent to keep banging on about LTN's? The issue got overtly politicised at the last local election with the local Conservatives ( one of the candidates co founded a local anti LTN group) running on virtually this one local issue, and they didn't win. That would indicate that locally this isn't quite the burning issue that some posters keep making it out to be.

I think the enhancements are great - it is a real pleasure to see families/ young people enjoying them today. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, it gives visitors and locals alike the option to meet, sit out and enjoy the lovely neighbourhood and unseasonably good weather without having to spend £3 on a coffee. The future plans look even better - I love the ambition of creating play areas and public art.

The anti-LTN lobby, as I recall, during the consultation gave the advice to anyone with negative feedback about the LTN's to go for the 'remove them completely' option, as they didn't like the framing of the questions. The Council went ahead anyway and put in a number of significant improvements. What has made this whole issue so difficult to make constructive progress on is it has always felt overtly politicized. The relentless targeting of the councilors - sometimes physical in the form of graffiti near their homes/ the stalker style pictures of them - the local Conservatives seemingly campaigning on the LTN's as a single issue and the opaque 'Vote Them Out' group has felt at times to me like it has come from another place than simply finding the best solution to a local issue.

Partygate is a deeply local issue - local people were adhering to the rules in sometimes desperately harrowing circumstances, while Johnson was breaking them and then lying about it. There are some things so grievous in public life that they can't simply be sidelined. I might have missed something, but I'm still waiting for the local council election Conservative candidates views on this local issue.