LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

I haven't given money to One Dulwich as yet, as I don't agree with all of their ideas, but if they are going to legally challenge the consultation process and the oversight process and the lack of implementing policy to mitigate the EqIAs (that was poorly done and carried out after the 'temporary' measures were put in) I will certainly contribute from my rather meagre salary that hopefully keeps both myself and my partner with disabilities warm and fed this winter in our little flat on ED Grove.

LTNs create HTNs in areas that can least afford traffic, noise and air pollution in terms of physical & mental health, financially , transport links and as carers of others.

[KidKruger]

Let?s Trade Neighbourhoods.

[northernmonkey]

I anticipated that One Dulwich would inflate the estimated numbers, but was anticipating something along the lines of 500 given that the reality was more around 250 even when you include those from Hackney and other boroughs who are protesting in general rather than specifically re Dulwich.

But 1000??? This really is just One Dulwich showing that what they say can?t be trusted really. Delusional!

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Latest OneDuwlich update....we made the BBC

> News.....! ;&)

>

> Our protest against the Dulwich road measures

>

> An estimated 1,000 people living in and around

> Dulwich ? young families, cyclists, older people

> and those with disabilities ? took part in our

> peaceful protest on Saturday 16 October. Thank you

> to everyone who came. You can see coverage on this

> BBC local news item here, and we will be putting

> up clips on social media and on our website

> shortly. Speakers included clean air campaigner

> David Smith (also known as @LittleNinjaUK on

> Twitter) and representatives from One Dulwich and

> the Dulwich Alliance.

>

> Cllr Rose?s decision

>

> Just before our protest, we discovered that the

> call-in by Lib Dem councillors on Southwark?s

> Overview and Scrutiny Committee ? that is, their

> request for Cllr Rose?s decision to be reviewed ?

> had been turned down (see this report in the South

> London Press). We have asked the Council to

> explain why, and are waiting for their response.

> As far as we know, this means that there will now

> be a 21-day statutory consultation period before

> the traffic orders can be made permanent. We have

> written to Southwark asking them for information

> about this ? so far, we can find nothing on their

> website.

>

> What next?

>

> 1. We will be holding further protests in other

> parts of Dulwich over the next few weeks, which we

> hope will be good news for those of you who

> weren?t able to come on Saturday because of half

> term. Details to follow. Let?s double the size of

> Saturday?s protest and get even more media

> coverage.

>

> 2. We will also be asking you to respond to

> Southwark?s 21-day statutory consultation with

> very specific objections to all the measures over

> the whole Dulwich area. Again, more to follow once

> Southwark have provided details of the timeline.

>

> 3. Please keep emailing your local councillors,

> decision-maker [email protected] and

> your local MP, reminding them (i) that two-thirds

> of those living and working in all three Dulwich

> LTNs who responded to Southwark?s consultation

> opted for all the measures to be removed, and (ii)

> that the council?s current refusal to listen may

> be reflected in the results of the local elections

> in May 2022.

>

> 4. If, at the end of the 21-day consultation

> period, Southwark continues to ignore local

> demands for a fair scheme that fulfils all its

> obligations as a local authority, we will ask our

> legal team to advise on the best course of action.

> Thanks to your generous donations to our fighting

> fund, our legal team is reviewing all the

> paperwork and stands ready to move quickly.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> The One Dulwich

[Spartacus]

Northern, were you there and did you do a head count or can you otherwise prove the numbers are inflated ?

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> I anticipated that One Dulwich would inflate the

> estimated numbers, but was anticipating something

> along the lines of 500 given that the reality was

> more around 250 even when you include those from

> Hackney and other boroughs who are protesting in

> general rather than specifically re Dulwich.

>

> But 1000??? This really is just One Dulwich

> showing that what they say can?t be trusted

> really. Delusional!

>

>

>

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Latest OneDuwlich update....we made the BBC

> > News.....! ;&)

> >

> > Our protest against the Dulwich road measures

> >

> > An estimated 1,000 people living in and around

> > Dulwich ? young families, cyclists, older

> people

> > and those with disabilities ? took part in our

> > peaceful protest on Saturday 16 October. Thank

> you

> > to everyone who came. You can see coverage on

> this

> > BBC local news item here, and we will be

> putting

> > up clips on social media and on our website

> > shortly. Speakers included clean air campaigner

> > David Smith (also known as @LittleNinjaUK on

> > Twitter) and representatives from One Dulwich

> and

> > the Dulwich Alliance.

> >

> > Cllr Rose?s decision

> >

> > Just before our protest, we discovered that the

> > call-in by Lib Dem councillors on Southwark?s

> > Overview and Scrutiny Committee ? that is,

> their

> > request for Cllr Rose?s decision to be reviewed

> ?

> > had been turned down (see this report in the

> South

> > London Press). We have asked the Council to

> > explain why, and are waiting for their

> response.

> > As far as we know, this means that there will

> now

> > be a 21-day statutory consultation period

> before

> > the traffic orders can be made permanent. We

> have

> > written to Southwark asking them for

> information

> > about this ? so far, we can find nothing on

> their

> > website.

> >

> > What next?

> >

> > 1. We will be holding further protests in other

> > parts of Dulwich over the next few weeks, which

> we

> > hope will be good news for those of you who

> > weren?t able to come on Saturday because of

> half

> > term. Details to follow. Let?s double the size

> of

> > Saturday?s protest and get even more media

> > coverage.

> >

> > 2. We will also be asking you to respond to

> > Southwark?s 21-day statutory consultation with

> > very specific objections to all the measures

> over

> > the whole Dulwich area. Again, more to follow

> once

> > Southwark have provided details of the

> timeline.

> >

> > 3. Please keep emailing your local councillors,

> > decision-maker [email protected]

> and

> > your local MP, reminding them (i) that

> two-thirds

> > of those living and working in all three

> Dulwich

> > LTNs who responded to Southwark?s consultation

> > opted for all the measures to be removed, and

> (ii)

> > that the council?s current refusal to listen

> may

> > be reflected in the results of the local

> elections

> > in May 2022.

> >

> > 4. If, at the end of the 21-day consultation

> > period, Southwark continues to ignore local

> > demands for a fair scheme that fulfils all its

> > obligations as a local authority, we will ask

> our

> > legal team to advise on the best course of

> action.

> > Thanks to your generous donations to our

> fighting

> > fund, our legal team is reviewing all the

> > paperwork and stands ready to move quickly.

> >

> > Best wishes,

> >

> > The One Dulwich

Maybe they meant attendance over the whole 90 minutes, I wan't there for all of it. But were you keeping watch northernmonkey? Not that I'd know one way or the other. I see there is a twitter post saying on a day when all political activity and campaigning was suspended, all the Labour councillors were attending their conference, weren't they? I heard this secondhand in Lordship lane, don't know if it's true.

[march46]

It's hardly shocking news that One Dulwich grossly overestimate figures.

More like 250-300 people from what I saw. Will they be cleaning the graffiti off the signs or is the council going to have to do that?

[ab29]

And I wonder if cyclists who have vandalised 'No cycling' sign in Horniman Gardens will be cleaning it any time soon.

[Nigello]

And - pet peeve - Dr Bike could take away the free ad after his or her laying on of hands to bikes and trikes! Left alone they usually fall off and create litter - same goes for all those house sale/missing cat signs taped to trees and lampposts that stay until the wind takes them, looking ragged and pin-rusted before that for weeks.

[Spartacus]

march46 Wrote:

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

> It's hardly shocking news that One Dulwich grossly

> overestimate figures.

>

> More like 250-300 people from what I saw. Will

> they be cleaning the graffiti off the signs or is

> the council going to have to do that?

>

> https://i.imgur.com/HCAjbWB.jpg

I've heard a rumour (admittedly on twitter) that the sign was altered before the protest, not on the day and if true you can't tar the protest with that brush!

And again, did you do a head count on the day or are you supplying a best guesstimate?

I think that without a formal or informal head count then it's hard to prove or disprove how many people attended over the 90 minutes but what can be proved is that neither the council

(Officers or councillors) or our local MP were there to see the strength of protest at the schemes

[Metallic]

Actually off the point of OHS. Councillor Rose and pals have gone off the trail so no one knows what is happening. What we do know is that the Dulwich Community is horribly split and it won't recover whilst younger people make older people feel everything to do with choices, AQ, having to drive, is all their fault.

[DulvilleRes]

I thought 250 - 300. I did a partial headcount, as I was genuinely interested, and then 'zoned' it up when I got to 100 according to space occupied. Anyone who was there will know that that was the accurate figure range. Trying to suggest it was 1000 is just a bit silly.

[Rockets]

I heard that the 1,000 figure was determined after someone from One Dulwich found the secret formula the council uses to determine modal shift figures for their reviews!!!! ;-)

[goldilocks]

Even looking at the photos on twitter shown by the anti LTN accounts shows that there were no where near 1000 people there. The area covered looked to be up as far as the end of Harold George on the Square side and then in front of the chemist on Dulwich Village side and across the road.

Did One Dulwich use the Donald trump approach to crowd quantification?

[slarti b]

@DulvilleRes and @NorthernMonkey

Whether it was 300, 500 or a thousand, it was still a signifcant turnout for Dulwich, not an area know for its demonstrations, and on a morning which until about midday had been drizzling and wet. And remember this was also the start of half term when many residents with families may well have gone on holiday.

And, despite the weather, the turnout completely dwarfed the number of people who attended and supproted the propaganda concerts funded and marketed by council taxpayers money.

But, as we know from the figures in the consultation that Southwark tried to conceal, the vast majority of local residents are agasint the DV junction closure so the high turnout is not really surprising.

It is a shame our local councillors, or indeed other Southwark Labour councillors, seem to have been unable to attend the event to hear the concerns about displaced traffic and the frustration of so many people about the undemocratic and biased process used to push it through.

[goldilocks]

But wouldn't you agree Slarti, that sending out messages stating 'an estimated 1000 people' calls into question One Dulwich's grasp on facts. What does it matter if it was 300 vs 1000? Think its just the blatant lies that matter really.

[Rockets]

I think what matters right now is that there is a concerted effort by the pro-LTN supporters to try to discredit everything One Dulwich does - all of the usual suspects are posting to Twitter saying how awful the demonstration was, how it blocked the road (when it didn't), how there was graffiti (when many think that graffiti has been there for some time - certainly I had seen that daubed on one of the signs prior to Saturday), how there wasn't 1,000 people etc etc.

It really goes to show just how effective One Dulwich and the other groups are - they have galvanised support against the LTNs and the pro-LTN lobby is trying to attack them at every opportunity (seemingly going out of their way to create falsehoods to enable them to attack those people protesting at the Junction).

All that shows is that the anti-LTN lobby groups are being much more effective than the council, and its supporters, thought they would ever be. Power to the People and all that!!!!

P.S. For my two-penneth worth I reckon there were 500+ people there on Saturday.

[Galileo]

Isn?t it only the start of half term for private schools - I think most state schools are still in this week.

[slarti b]

@golidilocks.

You ignore, of course my main point, that the demonstration shows much higher support for OneDulwich than for keeping the junction closed.

As for the numbers, they are different estimate, crowd counting is not easy. I woudl esimate over 500 people.

And given the stream of erroneous, biased and misleading propoganda produced by Southwark in support of its schemes over the last couple of years I don't think you need ot be careful about accusing others of lies!

[legalalien]

one of the Charter North parents mentioned to me last week that their Oct holidays have changed to match the independent schools - not sure if true or not. DVIS still seem to be in this week.

Galileo Wrote:

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

> Isn?t it only the start of half term for private

> schools - I think most state schools are still in

> this week.

[Kept thin]

It seems Dulwich Village was a popular venue for collective demonstrations in the 1930s.

?The NSL held a number of meetings in Dulwich on the corner of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village, outside Dulwich Library on Lordship Lane and sometimes inside when permission for the use of St Barnabas? Parish Hall in Dulwich Village was refused).?

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

> @DulvilleRes and @NorthernMonkey

> Whether it was 300, 500 or a thousand, it was

> still a signifcant turnout for Dulwich, not an

> area know for its demonstrations, and on a morning

> which until about midday had been drizzling and

> wet. And remember this was also the start of

> half term when many residents with families may

> well have gone on holiday.

>

> And, despite the weather, the turnout completely

> dwarfed the number of people who attended and

> supproted the propaganda concerts funded and

> marketed by council taxpayers money.

>

> But, as we know from the figures in the

> consultation that Southwark tried to conceal, the

> vast majority of local residents are agasint the

> DV junction closure so the high turnout is not

> really surprising.

>

> It is a shame our local councillors, or indeed

> other Southwark Labour councillors, seem to have

> been unable to attend the event to hear the

> concerns about displaced traffic and the

> frustration of so many people about the

> undemocratic and biased process used to push it

> through.

[Metallic]

Kept thin Wrote:

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

> It seems Dulwich Village was a popular venue for

> collective demonstrations in the 1930s.

>

> ?The NSL held a number of meetings in Dulwich on

> the corner of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village,

> outside Dulwich Library on Lordship Lane and

> sometimes inside when permission for the use of St

> Barnabas? Parish Hall in Dulwich Village was

> refused).?

> --------------------------------------------------

>

That is a stretch too far. Talk about casting aspersions. No need to have said that AT ALL.

[legalalien]

And the point of that post is what? To suggest that the protestors have something in common with national socialists or to suggest that the proponents of DS are setting it up as a memorial to national socialists? Either is inappropriate / pointless / a bit juvenile.

[Penguin68]

Measuring numbers at a protest (or any other event), particularly one that extends over a longish time and where people can be expected to come and go (and anyway move around) is always very difficult - indeed estimating numbers in general is problematic. People take up much less space than you might expect. So I wouldn't beat too large a drum about number estimates from those puffing or dissing the event. Unless they're trained in this, wild guesstimates are the best you're going to get.

[Kept thin]

Just responding to another post which claimed DV is not an area known for its demonstrations when factually it was .

? Whether it was 300, 500 or a thousand, it was still a signifcant turnout for Dulwich, not an area know for its demonstrations?

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

> And the point of that post is what? To suggest

> that the protestors have something in common with

> national socialists or to suggest that the

> proponents of DS are setting it up as a memorial

> to national socialists? Either is inappropriate /

> pointless / a bit juvenile.

[legalalien]

Yeah, right.