LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[alice]

There seems to be a huge wave of almost identikit proposts in last couple of days.

[Rockets]

DC - Streets for People doesn't appear to have any affiliation to Camden either.

I have felt for a long time that there are a lot of pro-closure lobbyists commenting on consultations they have no business commenting on.

One wonders how much external interference there is on our consultation process as well. I know One Dulwich has been concerned by that for a long time - and rightly so.

Maybe this is why Southwark refuses to put a proper registration process in place to determine who has been leaving comments.

Julie has been caught red-handed!

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DC - Streets for People doesn't appear to have any

> affiliation to Camden either.

>

> I have felt for a long time that there are a lot

> of pro-closure lobbyists commenting on

> consultations they have no business commenting

> on.

>

> One wonders how much external interference there

> is on our consultation process as well. I know One

> Dulwich has been concerned by that for a long time

> - and rightly so.

>

> Maybe this is why Southwark refuses to put a

> proper registration process in place to determine

> who has been leaving comments.

>

> Julie has been caught red-handed!

Low and behold @Rockets shifts the goal posts - yet again.

So first, you refer to *petitions* saying Julie Greer has suggested people sign something in Camden as if that is somehow corrupt - or equivalent to (just as bad as?) the One Dulwich petition accepting unverified signatures.

What's your point? Both as bad as each other? So admitting One Dulwich petition was invalid?

Then - I show the example you've given is not corrupt because it *specifically asks the question and therefore gathers the data* as to where commenters live. In fact it asks a number of specific questions as to what people's interests might be.

And instead of saying OK fair enough...

You shift the subject onto *another* means of gathering information (commonplace map??) used by Southwark council.

And, as always chuck in a pile of speculative hyperbole on top - 'maybe she has a home there' (oooh! because she's a wealthy selfish LTN supporter) and 'has been caught red-handed' erm caught red-handed doing what exactly?

Stick to the subject. Cut the hyperbole. And we might actually find some common ground.

Meanwhile I'm off for a glass of wine this is really tedious. Cheers!

[malumbu]

Sorry for not posting today, went out for a lovely bike ride in Kent, and ended up speaking to various people known and unknown as like most suffering from not enough human contact.

Wondered what others thought about the concept of rewarding motorists for 'good' behaviour - see posts on Saturday. It would be good to hear from and anti LTNers as well as the pros. Maybe some common ground as DC refers to above?

[Rockets]

DC - you know as well as I do that it is a very bad optic that one of the council's pro-closure lobbyists and closest allies is encouraging people to get involved in a consultation they have no reason to be involved with. It is clear to everyone that is the point here and it adds fuel to the fire that this is a tactic being used by the pro-closure lobby.

It is an incredibly daft post to put on twitter given Julie's involvement in the Dulwich LTNs and her relationship with the council. It's the type of post that makes council's reassess their association with certain individuals.

It adds further weight to the concern many have that pro-closure lobby groups actively encourage this type of activity - the same accusation has been laid at the door of cycle lobby groups from outside the area in the past.

I think this is further evidence that the council needs to properly engage with and poll the views of all local residents in the Dulwich area in a way that allows no room for misinterpretation. It sounds like you think that might also be needed to sort the wheat from the chaff so at least we agree on something.

And please, don't try to play the goalpost card as you are part of a lobby group who have more goalposts than an Aussie rules football pitch! ;-)

Enjoy your wine!

[malumbu]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

"MPs should allow local government to get on with it, and concentrate on the big picture." Is part of the problem that Councils are also taking it upon themselves to concentrate on the "big picture" rather than focus on the wants and needs of their constituents, and the "populism" you describe is a reaction to that i.e. people expect local councillors to listen to and represent their views in a way that they understand MPs generally cannot - and this expectation is not being met?"

So that gives me carte blanche to get my MP to wade in to local, issues outside their constituency - here's my starter for 10: Average speed cameras on Forest Hill Road and Brenchley Gardens, reducing the traffic lights to one on Lambeth Bridge Road roundabout; changing parking enforcement from catching the easy targets eg people outstaying their time on or near shopping streets, to those regularly parking on double yellows, on pavements, outside stations, particularly later in the day when they know there is no enforcement, removing those silly lights on FH Road/Dunstans Road, and a Zebra Crossing by FHR surgery. Yes, even I have traffic related rants. But I expect my MP wouldn't thank me if I pursued them continually over every issue I have.

PS ignore this post as more interested in my previous one.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - not sure you should be going to Kent with your bike and chatting to people under the current lockdown rules. All exercise is supposed to be taken in your local area.

Anyway, despite the fact you have seemingly broken lockdown rules ;-), I completely agree that the carrot is a far better way to influence change than the stick and the suggestion of incentivising people to ditch their cars is a good thing.

My view from day 1 has been that we need to make improvements to transport and cycling infrastructure to entice people out of their cars but given the poor transport infrastructure in place (especially around here) that is a long-term strategy. Also whilst I agree road-pricing is a sound way to try and manage the macro issues it is laced with challenges - the most important being that the ability to drive cannot be just the reserve of the wealthy and those who can afford it. Maybe if you adopt a model like the Finns do for traffic violation fines (that the fine is based on your earnings) then maybe that model becomes fairer to all.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

"one of the council's pro-closure lobbyists and closest allies is encouraging people to get involved in a consultation they have no reason to be involved with"

You mean Camden's transparent online consultation process? In a free country? I thought you supported democracy.

"It is clear to everyone that is the point here and it adds fuel to the fire"

Its not clear because its a fire that some people here (not mentioning anyone) spend an inordinate of time trying to stoke up with obfuscation, speculation and hyperbole.

"a tactic being used by the pro-closure lobby"

Or a perfectly legal and transparent process in a free country?

"daft post to put on twitter given Julie's involvement in the Dulwich LTNs and her relationship with the council"

Everyone is free to openly support the LTN if they want to. Again, its a free country.

"certain individuals"

Are we back to pro-closure mafia again?

"the same accusation has been laid at the door of cycle lobby groups"

Yes it seems to surprise some people that cycle lobby groups support cycle routes.

"I think this is further evidence that..."

Your p.o.v. is not 'evidence' any more than mine is.

"the council needs to properly engage with and poll the views of all local residents in the Dulwich area in away that allows no room for misinterpretation"

So petitions without postcode verification are therefore meaningless. Can we put that one to rest now?

"don't try to play the goalpost card as you are part of a lobby group who have more goalposts than .... bla bla"

You have no idea who I am or if I am part of any groups (tut tut speculation again) and which goalpost have I moved?

"Enjoy your wine!"

Thanks! I will :)

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone is free to openly support the LTN

> if they want to. Again, its a free country.

Interesting you say that yet you also said in an earlier post:

"As pointed out above by @March46 the commonplace feedback is open to corruption, as was the petition against the closures which didn't request postcode verification."

So which is it, people who don't live locally can get involved regardless of which side their support land on or they can't ?

I'm nightly confused by what you actually want DC !🤔

[alice]

An excellent point Spartacus.

[Rockets]

Yes I do mean CAMDEN's transparent online consultation process, which one presumes is in relation to CAMDEN issues for which the CAMDEN council wants to garner feedback from CAMDEN residents to make decisions which impact CAMDEN residents....are you getting the message yet....;-)

I am sure you will no doubt claim that Julie Greer and the lobby group that brought it to her attention via Twitter have a deep understanding of those junctions in CAMDEN and are aware of all the local issues in play in CAMDEN and can share their in-depth knowledge. Or is it that they just want to manipulate and destabilize the process by throwing comments into the mix? It certainly looks far more like the latter and seems to be a tactic being employed by the pro-closure lobby.

Maybe it's what we have to expect and live with in age of the The Closure Cult ;-)

[Spartacus]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe it's what we have to expect and live with in

> age of the The Closure Cult ;-)

I've searched desperately for what "the closure cult" sang

I was hoping for "driving in my car" , "fast car" or "I drove all night" but instead it was "get out of my car"

Disappointing 😱😂😂

[DulwichCentral]

Dear Spartacus, Rockets & Alice

Rockets accuses JGreer of encouraging illegitimate response to a Camden consultation.

Camden council have set up a feedback site asking where respondents live. It's up to Camden council what info they want. They are gathering data with the mechanism in place to understand where respondents come from. (If this bothers you all so deeply why don?t you complain to Camden council?)

A person responding from outside Camden is not ?destabilising? the process. It is part of the process.

The commonplace map is open to corruption - single respondents posting multiple posts.

Petitions that don?t require postcode verification can be signed by people outside the area as per the first Southwark petition against the measures. Southwark have since added a feature whereby you have to register to sign. This indicates they want to limit petition responses to local residents only (UNLIKE CAMDEN).

People on both sides of the argument involve themselves in London-wide LTN issues - it is up to each council whether they choose to mitigate against this (or not) in their feedback methods.

However, if a local 'victory' is declared (such as 'Dulwich has Spoken') without recognising the limitations or parameters of the data-gathering method employed then I see that as problematic - or disingenuous. Don't you?

Yours

DC

Member of the Closure Cult, regular attendee at **TOP SECRET** congregations at the Sacred Site of Dulwich Square on a full moon landing on Wednesdays where we sacrifice one of those fluffy dice things to the god of LTNs

But sssssshhhh! Don?t tell anyone.

[Rockets]

DC - but it certainly is a very clear sign of underlying trends that pro-closure lobbyists actively encourage other like-minded individuals to involve themselves in consultations that they really have no valid reason to input into. So, my point has been made and clearly validated - so thanks for your help in doing that.

On the subject of Dulwich has Spoken I actually think that was a very clever move by the Alliance to get to the data on the Commonplace site (wherever it came from ;-)) before the council did. The council have been very clear on numerous occasions that the vehicle to register comments for local residents was the Commonplace website. Now I agree that the Commonplace site is not a sophisticated mechanism to determine local sentiment to the closures as the site is rife for manipulation (from both sides) but the fact that the assessment by DA suggests an overwhelming number of the comments are against the closure is interesting.

Pair that with the fact that the council has retrenched and had a bit of a u-turn on their use of Commonplace (as a means of assessing local sentiment) since the publication of the analysis by DA also speak volumes - in fact probably more so than the analysis itself. So job very well done DA! And let's be honest they are only using the tools the council has given them to make their point so you cannot be critical of them doing that. But as we have seen time and time again, any evidence presented is automatically de-positioned and belittled by the pro-closure lobby.

Unfortunately, if the council tees it up as part of the measurement process you cannot then be moan when a group of concern local residents takes action to assess the information contained within the tool. The pro-lobby groups are more than capable of doing their own assessment, as is the council, but as yet nothing to counter the data presented has been put forward.

Of course, this all started when you de-positioned the 729 people who put their postcode in to a council system to register their opposition to the closures. Do you not actually start to get the feeling that there is a lot of negative sentiment towards these closures across Dulwich?

Just out of interest, how do you think the council should assess and determine what Dulwich residents feel about the closures as every tool the council puts forward you seem to be unhappy with (only when it confirms your worst fears, I hasten to add)? Maybe we can find some common ground on your suggested way forward.

And thank you for acknowledging the existence of the secret meetings in Dulwich Square - is it true that they take place in a room upstairs in Au Ciel - and is it true that the room is constructed solely from second-hand cargo bikes and recycled bike tyres and that it is festooned with Southwark Cyclists' cycling jerseys each of which carries the logo of a planter and the postcode of past LTN deployment successes? But let's be fair, Au Ciel's food is so good I may have to join the cult just for the purposes of enjoying the heavenly meeting break snacks ;-)

[malumbu]

I was fortunate enough to see the Cumbrian group It's Immaterial who's big hit was "Driving Away from Home" - a homage to a drive from Liverpool to Manchester up the East Lancs Road. And belatedly after never seeing Sniff and Tears, an acoustic solo set before lockdown including "Driver Seat" by Paul Roberts and Les Davidson from the band.

I can do further posts on train, plane, cycling and walking songs

[DuncanW]

I thought It's Immaterial were from Liverpool??

Great song though. Used to get played a lot in house/balearic clubs in the late 80's.

And much later, a dance act called Dab Hands built a track around Driver's Seat which was pretty effective. I won't post the YouTube link here as it's a bit off topic.

[DulwichCentral]

@Rockets thinks it's 'very clever' to interpret incomplete data to suit an agenda.

There we have it.

[Spartacus]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Rockets thinks it's 'very clever' to interpret

> incomplete data to suit an agenda.

>

> There we have it.

But that's what you have been doing by saying its only a small minority and going on about the pressure to get rid of cars

As there's been no other formal or informal consultation (as you are dismissing the streetspace common place and other petitions) then you are only interpreting your hearsay and views of like minded people.

Simple solution is a transparent, defined and fair consultation where the rules and assessment criteria are known in advance.

But you never seem to agree to that. Why is that DC ? Are you afraid that you will find yourself in the minority ?

[malumbu]

OMG wrong gig, I was thinking of 'It Bites' who I saw in Liverpool supporting the Icicle Works.

I saw It's Immaterial with the wonderful Black (Colin Vearncombe rip) both supporting Wah Heat at Lanchester Poly. Now that is showing my age.

Yes Its Immaterial were from Liverpool. Sadly the vinyl is very scratched as we had an old music centre with a poor stylus when I lived off the Aigburth Road. Don't think the other bands have any connection with trains planes and automobiles but I can check.

[Rockets]

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @Rockets thinks it's 'very clever' to interpret

> incomplete data to suit an agenda.

>

> There we have it.

Oh deary, deary me.......the straw clutching reached epic levels! ;-)

Let's just agree to disagree.

Still waiting for any sort of constructive comment or thoughts you have on the way the council tries to make sure all the views of all residents being impacted are taken into account. How do you think they should manage it?

[Metallic]

Well now, seem to be getting clues about real names.

However, if I see one more thing saying everything one side posts is anecdotal, and that the other side only post facts, I may have to eat three Bounty bars to make myself feel better.

[legalalien]

Red Bounty bars or blue ones? In the hope that the debate may split along different lines for a change - I am firmly in camp red.

[Rockets]

Camp Blue for me - not a fan of dark chocolate.

[Spartacus]

I guess this is appropriate as a choice for chocolate (sorry DC, may not be up your street 😱)

[legalalien]

Just watched the first half of the Education and Local Govt Scrutiny Commission meeting tonight live on YouTube. A Q and A with the cabinet minister for Equalities. Was interesting, discussion about the importance of gathering data from communities; not just paying attention to entrenched interest groups (ie diversifying the consultation base) and some questions about equality / air quality from Cllr Ochere which were pretty much batted away and not answered. I hope he perseveres.

ETA: just rewatched the first 40 mins or so of this. I found it pretty uncomfortable viewing in a number of respects. Link here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OYVTKN_5AR8. Will leave people to form their own views.

EATA: I found this development in Tower Hamlets quite interesting - residents writing to local councillors to demand that they be heard and ask that councillors not be ?whipped? on Liveable Streets issues https://www.eastendenquirer.org/2021/02/bethnal-green-residents-demand-their-councillors-stand-with-them/amp/?__twitter_impression=true