ED_girl123

As author of the original post I am just going to step in here. I feel like as much constructive conversation that could happen around this has been achieved. 1) a reminder that it is upsetting/a plea for people to Edit or remove their sign (whilst waiting for new ones)in the light that it upsets many of the people they share a community with 2) recognising that some people don?t see a problem with it 3) but ultimately DA has apologised and is correcting the issue regardless 4) though the original text was taken from a speech where the phrase was not isolated, but it has since been isolated which brings strong resemblance by phrase coined by white suprematist ?all lives matter? 5) accident or not, who wants their actions to appear to be like that of/ or sympathise with white suprematists? No one. Hence a decision has been made to remove the slogan. 6) the two discussions can happen in parallel. No slogan does not mean no change on the road issue. Fixing the road issue can exist without this slogan. (Evident by the new posters in print) Only doing this because I think the discussion is going round in circles, people are misunderstanding each other, and don?t want this to be an unpleasant discussion. Thank you for everyone who got involved, and provided answers to what?s been done about it since. I truly hope that anyone who didn?t understand the backlash against it now does. Have a lovely evening x

smooch, I believe this has all been discussed if you scroll up a little. Black lives matter/all lives matter (the associated far right backlash to blm) was undoubtedly a factor in this even sounding like it had a "good ring to it". I don't really see how it's detracting if I am honest...no such thing as bad press hey when it comes to publicity...

ab29- Hahaha, I am sorry to burst your point, but I *am* one of the people who has had increased pollution right in front of their home as a result of the road blockages. Things in life are rarely exclusively true- the phrase can be offensive, and the blockages can be causing issues/disruption. In fact, my original post tried to serve both, by saying keep the poster, just cross out the words. "A smokescreen" suggests its an unworthy/false distraction, to that I would say the response from many who have been offended by it suggests otherwise...

ab29, I am afraid that way of thinking can lead to trouble..just because the problem doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not valid. That same thinking could be used to excuse a lot of things we now commonly regard as wrong. If someone says "ow that hurts!" when you press their bruise in error, you stop. Not because it hurts your finger, but because it hurts them. It costs nothing to be kind! (or coincidentally, cross out three words on a poster) ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have no problem with the slogan 'All streets > matter' - they do. Some people are trying to > create problems where there are none.

Legalalien I completely agree that it shouldn't be us and them, hence why I offered that maybe people could consider crossing that one line out. That being said, if people feel hurt or offended, they are fully within their right to step away and withdraw support. I don't think Lowlander proved your point in that sense. There is freedom of speech, freedom of actions, but that does not mean freedom from consequences.

@Spartacus I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that "all streets matter" was no way inspired by the phrase "black lives matter"or the associated "all lives matter", and is just coincidental use of three words. It's clearly a play on the phrase. I am not claiming that people will confuse the two, but I do think its disrespectful to hijack a phrase that is in the favour of saving human lives (or dismissing them), to explain an inconvenience of having to take a different driving route. It's been one of the most prominent issues in the news over the past year, so I think to claim it's unrelated is untrue. I hear your point about my analogy (though I think it is a little pedantic). Phrases/slogans like these which relate to current events are pretty rare, which only serves my point that its unlikely a coincidence. Perhaps if someone used "reclaim our roads" (for this same road blockage issue) in light of Sarah Everard's death when women were saying "reclaim our streets", it would too be considered disrespectful. It undermines the original cause, and attempts to level the issues by using same phrasing. And I don't think you'd hear anyone saying "are we not allowed to use the word reclaim anymore?? Its only three words!"

Not sure if this has been brought up previously, but I am seeing an increasing number of posters (east dulwich grove- Dulwich village end...looking at you) with several signs saying "all streets matter". I cannot begin to express how disappointing this is to see, and so many supporting it! One house I passed had 5 posters in their windows!! For those who are unsure of why this is offensive, imagine a "remember your reusable carrier bags" campaign, with the tagline "lest we forget". Whether you agree with Black Lives Matter or not, I think we can all recognise that it was born from real-life events where real human lives were lost. The phrase All Lives Matter was created to discredit that. To compare it to streets being closed (particularly in a bid to provide cleaner air) is entirely inappropriate, inconsiderate, and shows ED/Dulwich to be a very ugly and unsafe environment, especially for people of colour. If you have a poster up, please even consider just crossing out that one line on the poster. It costs us nothing to be considerate of others, but it costs others if we choose not to.