Hitmyhat

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'around 30 people'... > > > One can only assume that the other 16 people were > camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time the > photo was taken. Either that or the usual 'report > double the number of attendees' approach is doing > some heavy lifting there. That is the only comment you have? This was older and disabled people telling Southwark Council how difficult their lives have become because of the LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about numbers??

Also at the Cabinet meeting was a deputation from Age Speaks, older and disabled people trying to get their voice heard and a demo outside Tooley Street too.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's striking that while castigating the council > for being slow in releasing the raw data, > OneDulwich is happy to make assertions and > speculation that are unsupported by data. For > example, in that post there, it suggests traffic > inside and outside the LTN may have increased, > that the "true" net effect of other schemes has > been understated etc. Other "issues" it raises are > easily explained e.g. Q: why do the consultation > and travel data show different results? A: because > the group of people who responded to the > consultation (anyone with an Internet connection) > aren't the same as group of people making real > life journeys through Dulwich. > > As a private pressure group accountable only to > its funders, that is of course OneDulwich's > prerogative. It's not a publicly funded body like > a council. > > Has OneDulwich published the origin of its funding > or is that still in the dark? Really?! Yes, you are right Southwark Council is a publicly funded body which makes it all the more egregious that the transparency Cllr Kieron Williams, the leader of the council, promised has not happened. The council has not explained its methodology or provided the promised raw data so what it has published remains ?assertions and speculation that are unsupported by data.?

The Blue Badge exemptions are only available to Southwark residents so any Blue Badge holder living in Lambeth, for example on Rosendale Road or the Lambeth side of Croxted Road cannot get an exemption! The same applies to Blue Badge holders from anywhere other than Lambeth who need to visit someone within the LTN. Just because a Blue Badge holder doesn?t live in Southwark doesn?t mean their disability magically disappears when they enter Southwark. And what about all those with considerable mobility problems who don?t quite qualify for Blue Badges? The criteria for Blue Badges are very strict and people can have severe mobility problems but not be able to get a Blue Badge.

Although there are plenty of ways of making our views known to our councillors, they are not listening. You dismiss the results of the consultation saying it was not a referendum and yet talk about other ways we can make our views known. Why would those other ways be more valid and why would the councillors be any more likely to listen? (Which, by the way, they don?t!) If the standard you demand is a referendum then that is what the council should give us, although it does seem a dreadful waste after spending all that money on a consultation, which by your logic (and clearly in the council?s view) was pointless.

According to Southwark council?s figures the response rate to the consultation was in fact 37%, which is very similar to the usual turnout for a local election. (The last local election turnout was boosted by the fact it was held at the same time as the EU referendum). Whilst your argument is partly that a consultation is not a vote/referendum and does not therefore count, it seems rather spurious as the only mechanism by which people could make their views known was by the consultation. If the only way that the council will listen to the views of its residents is by holding a referendum, then that is what it should do. It strikes me however that this is just a question of semantics. You also claim that because such a small proportion of those eligible to express their views (in my view, vote,)did not do so, the Council is entitled to ignore their views but that argument would make local government, and some general elections, invalid. Is that really a sensible approach? It seems to me that such an argument undermines our democratic process. It also seems to me that these are rather desperate and unconvincing attempts to justify ignoring the will of the majority in order to force through an unpopular policy.

I think that disabled people and older people whose lives have been made so much more difficult by these schemes and those on The boundary roads who are suffering so much more congestion and pollution find it incredibly sad that the schemes might continue!

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Artemis - the council, as a result of listening to > the consultation, is going to allow emergency > vehicles through Dulwich Square. > > I thought it was great that people were out > protesting, as other posters have pointed out, > that right is currently under threat. The time I > was there, it felt pretty well run, though I do > find the incessant graffiti on signs a bit > depressing. > > A few people have mentioned why weren't the > councilors not there, and whilst I can't speak for > them, I wouldn't blame them for not coming. Even > in the last couple of days I heard of one of them > being targeted at their home address by person/ > persons of anti LTN sentiment. Over the summer, > the Police have had to be involved with anti LTN > people getting targeted. Clearly, this might be > down to as little as one individual who has no > formal affiliation with the anti LTN groups, but > it is fair to say aspects of this local issue have > been surprisingly nasty. > > Listening to what I did of the speakers and > looking around the attendees, I was surprised how > relatively upmarket it all felt, and how the > demographic skewed over 50 - very few young people > there, and very few people from a BAME background. > It didn't really reflect the make up of the > borough as a whole. Given the demographic of > Dulwich, this is probably to be expected, but it > didn't feel like some kind of broad-based > egalitarian inspired uprising to me, as some of > the anti-LTN rhetoric suggests. A cynic driving by > who didn't know some of the complexities of the > issues might be forgiven for thinking 'The rich > folk of Dulwich want to keep driving their cars'. > > I'm hoping that the sensible adjustments the > council has proposed are implemented - emergency > vehicle access, Blue Badge holder access - and > have had time to bed in, the LTN's might be seen > as part of the radical shift we're all going to > have to make to address the climate crisis. Given > that the UK contributes only 1% of the global > carbon emissions, it does feel like a long hard > road ahead, but fair play to the Council for > trying to do something. It would be great if they > were given a chance. From what I saw there were plenty of people of all ages there, children included. But as older people (a protected characteristic) are disproportionately disadvantaged by the LTNs I could understand if more of them protested. Btw there were also a lot of disabled people, another protected characteristic, who are also being indirectly discriminated against by the LTNs.