Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I often post stories from the BBC news website, I have no idea who is in charge of the website 

At a guess, I'd say the BBC runs the BBC website. It's a formally-incorporated organisation that publishes extensive and exhaustive detail about how many employees it has, who its officers are, how it is governed, how it's funded, how it intends to ensure fairness and neutrality in reporting, and how it fixes things when it doesn't.

In every respect, completely different from "OneDulwich", and a terrible comparison.

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

I always throught there was something fake about the anti-LTN posters on this thread who would post One Dulwich press releases and endlessly about traffic issues, but would then claim they had no idea who was behind One Dulwich and who funded them. 

Ha ha, why does this not come as a surprise to anyone.....

Far more likely is what really upsets you is that someone is providing some opposition to the measures you support, you'd be far happier if your agenda could be activated without anyone able to say a word against it. 

Thank goodness for One Dulwich.

  • Like 2
4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

In this age of fake news and relentless bullshit, reposting claims from non-transparent sources is actually a bad thing.

Agreed Billy, however a grass roots campaign organisation like one dulwich is only on your list of "fake news" because you can't identify the owner and you don't like what they say despite it being legit with a slight spin on it. Much in the same way that LCC says legit things with a spin on it!

What do you want, Mr one dulwich to come out so you can attack the man or woman behind it and not their views ? 

  • Agree 1

Clearly a lot more than makes you and others who attack them feel comfortable with....the relentless attacks on OneDulwich show just what a thorn in the side they have become for the pro-lobby (most of whom, if the rants on here are anything to go by, seem not to like any balance in the debate or any opposition to their grand plans).

  • Haha 1

If 'One Dulwich' is really just one person, and not a group of people, then I would suggest that those who spend their time attacking him (or her) should watch out - if just one person can achieve this 'against' the might of Southwark Council do you really want him, or her, going up against lonesome you (although of course the 'antis' are just as anonymous and 'non-representative' as they point out One Dulwich is). 

  • Agree 1
3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

 ' the 'antis' are just as anonymous and 'non-representative' as they point out One Dulwich is). 

Agreed that I am anonymous and unrepresentative of anyone else, just like OneDulwich is. 

3 hours ago, first mate said:

You seem equally, if not more, unsure.

Agreed there is a lot of uncertainty about what OneDulwich really is.

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

 if just one person can achieve this 'against' the might of Southwark Council 

What objective has OneDulwich achieved in the last 4 years of complaining? The LTN remains in place and apart from a few pro- and anti-hobbyists bickering on the EDF, the rest of the world has moved on.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
30 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

What objective has OneDulwich achieved in the last 4 years of complaining? The LTN remains in place and apart from a few pro- and anti-hobbyists bickering on the EDF, the rest of the world has moved on.

The original LTNs were introduced under emergency legislation and without any means for anyone to object - they were acts of dictatorship, effectively. Since then the council has tried to extend the LTNs and has tried to introduce a universal CPZ across Southwark. Through local actions much of these attempts, which were not 'authorised' by emergency legislation have been effectively resisted, and One Dulwich, amongst others, can take the credit for this. Protesters have at least forced the council to act legally, something they had been resisting. For many (including all those cheerleading attacks on anti-LTN groups) the rest of the world evidently hasn't moved on, or you would not be so desperate to shout down your opposition.

  • Agree 2
4 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

What objective has OneDulwich achieved in the last 4 years of complaining? The LTN remains in place and apart from a few pro- and anti-hobbyists bickering on the EDF, the rest of the world has moved on.

Accountability. The council was acting with impunity, forcing it's plans on residents without following the correct procedures - it's clear they used Covid rules as the trojan horse to ram home plans they had no overall local consensus for.

And remember, the council was forced to re-run it's CPZ consultation because they were not fulfilling their legal obligations (as none of their previous consultations did either) and we can than groups like One Dulwich for that. Whilst the council continues to ignore local public views towards their measures and rolls them out anyway a line has been drawn in the sand and if there is ever an investigation into whether the consultations were legally binding then a lot of the councillors will be called in to discuss their role in it.

By far the best thing One Dulwich has done though is really annoy some of the pro-LTN campaigners on here - the amount of hours some on here spend whining about who is behind it etc is brilliant and again shows what a great job One Dulwich are doing - the fact they really make some irate is brilliant to see!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
21 hours ago, Rockets said:

By far the best thing One Dulwich has done though is really annoy some of the pro-LTN campaigners on here - the amount of hours some on here spend whining about who is behind it etc is brilliant and again shows what a great job One Dulwich are doing - the fact they really make some irate is brilliant to see!

This is missing the point. The main problem with One Dulwich is the one you begin your post with... accountability. The anti- LTN lobby demand it of the council, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. 

In the absence of any clear information as to who One Dulwich are and who funds them, they feel having more than the taint of a wider unstated and undeclared political project. Funnily enough, the majority of names that pop up formally questioning the council on issues championed by One Dulwich are local Conservatives. Are they one and the same, or merely aligned interests? Who knows. 

My view is politics generally in recent years have been poisoned by opaque and unaccountable groups with undeclared agendas and murky sources of funding, and until One Dulwich and their cheerleaders come clean as to who they are, that suspicion will remain that they are just another one of those. This perception is reinforced by the fact that the punchline to so many of the One Dulwich cheerleader posts is an attack on the council or councillors. It is actually disturbing how personal these attacks can be. It is barely credible in my view that those who post so vociferously on these local issues don’t have more information on who is behind One Dulwich than they are letting on. 
 

  • Agree 1
3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

This is missing the point. The main problem with One Dulwich is the one you begin your post with... accountability. The anti- LTN lobby demand it of the council, but when it comes to themselves, not so much. 

That's one way to spin it.....until you rationalise it with the fact that OneDulwich only came into being because of the lack of transparency and accountability from the council and councillors over a lot of these measures - they lied from day one and those who felt they were being taken for a ride by the council engaged with One Dulwich because it gave them a voice.

People were annoyed because the council would tell anyone that would listen (catalyzed by the pro-LTN lobbyists and cheerleaders) that is was a small vocal minority of residents who opposed the way the council were handling themselves - it was anything but a small vocal minority and that's why so many local residents signed up on the One Dulwich website.

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

My view is politics generally in recent years have been poisoned by opaque and unaccountable groups with undeclared agendas and murky sources of funding, and until One Dulwich and their cheerleaders come clean as to who they are, that suspicion will remain that they are just another one of those.

But you're happy with the council to have an incredibly cozy relationship with pro-active travel lobby groups and to manipulate engagement processes, ignore constituents to get the result the lobbyists want?

  • Agree 1

My biggest problem with One Dulwich is that they are consistently spreading pretty outrageous misinformation on their website with zero accountability. Much of it is then amplified by a handful of monomaniacs via this forum.

The fact is more than four years on, the scheme has broadly proved itself successful (reducing traffic, increasing active travel and creating a well used, low traffic route connecting ED to the Village and a number of schools).

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 1

I can't be bothered going down that rabbit hole / don't have time right now. But for example, the headline 'Data confirms failure of Dulwich LTNs' and all that follows in it, is absolutely false. There are numerous other examples. It's very tedious and of course, they're completely unaccountable. 

So, in other words, you don't have any examples.

The one you cite is interesting in itself because I am not sure you can claim that as mis-information as they are presenting their conclusions and backing the rational for that conclusion with the council's own data. Interesting to note that they also flag how the council may have (deliberately?) used erroneous data in their monitoring figures to help massage them.

Given Cllr McAsh said that the measures could not be considered a success if all roads did not see a reduction then, by his own bar, the council dashboard reveals that is has failed - those East Dulwich Grove increases over pre-Covid/pre-LTN monitoring are shocking .

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/data-confirms-failure-of-dulwich-ltns

Edited by Rockets
  • Agree 1

Why should One Dulwich be accountable to anyone? If it's just one person then his or her 'accountability' is no different from any private poster on these boards, that is, nil. If it is a group of people (as I believe it is, even if fronted by one individual) then it is accountable only to its members.

It's not like a Council, which is accountable to the residents of the borough and its electorate, who are its paymasters via Council tax.

  • Agree 1
4 hours ago, Rockets said:

So, in other words, you don't have any examples.

The one you cite is interesting in itself because I am not sure you can claim that as mis-information as they are presenting their conclusions and backing the rational for that conclusion with the council's own data. Interesting to note that they also flag how the council may have (deliberately?) used erroneous data in their monitoring figures to help massage them.

Given Cllr McAsh said that the measures could not be considered a success if all roads did not see a reduction then, by his own bar, the council dashboard reveals that is has failed - those East Dulwich Grove increases over pre-Covid/pre-LTN monitoring are shocking .

https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/data-confirms-failure-of-dulwich-ltns

I gave a specific example. They claim in that 'news' article that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows.

They also say in another post of the same data, that it is unreliable.

It's all the same inconsistent, incoherent, or down right untrue nonsense, that's regurgitated across the multiple 'anti-LTN' threads on this forum. 

Little point in going down this rabbit hole though frankly, as you've already repeated every talking point One Dulwich has ever published on their website ad nauseum. And it is very clear (from your own admittance) that you will only ever give credence to information you believe aligns to the view you already hold.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
49 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is not what the data shows.

What does it show then? You would acknowledge, surely, that if there was displacement the roads that have shown significant increases in traffic since pre-Covid would be the ones expected to show an increase?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...