LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

March46 - nice try but no cigar. Far more likely is that the photo used is a Southwark News file photo from when they sent a reporter down to a lot of the protests some years ago. I very much doubt Richard Aldwinkle had anything to do with the selection of the image to illustrate the Southwark News article......

[march46]

Laughing at the thought the Southwark News send a reporter to take a photo of a handful of protestors. It’s much more likely they take their own photo, and Richard sends them a news piece. 

[Rockets]

March46 - nope, sorry you're wrong. Southwark News often sends reporters (especially Herbie) to Dulwich to cover stories. I have spoken to him in Dulwich Square when he was doing an article on the latest money-wasting vanity project. He had camera in hand and was offering to take pictures of those with whom he spoke to (not many did for fear of retribution and interestingly he said he has received threats after posting articles deemed critical of the council's LTN plans etc)

 

I bet if you call Southwark News and ask them where the picture is from they will say it is a file photo taken by one of thier reporters. They'll probsbly even let you buy a copy. I reckon if you look back at their stories on LTN protests you will find the article where the original picture appeared a few years ago.

You might really, really hope Richard had sent that picture in but that's not the way newspaper publishing works I am afraid. 

"Sends them a news piece".....send me a private message if you are keen to learn how the newspaper industry works and how stories get generated.

Edited Sunday at 18:52 by Rockets

[Rockets]

March46 - here you go...the picture was also used in an articles in:

 

July 2022:

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/around-south-east-london/lambeth-handed-out-22-million-of-ltn-fines-last-year/

 

December 2021:

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/shocking-filler-ltn-outrage-in-dulwich/

 

And prior to that in May 2021:

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/dulwich-demonstration-as-council-reviews-low-traffic-neighbourhood/

 

This is how file photos get used!

[march46]

The same photo with the offensive ‘All Streets Matter’ slogan was used in multiple Southwark News article. That’s hardly a gotcha moment Rockets, more a reflection of their lazy journalism.

 

[Rockets]

On 14/09/2024 at 20:18, march46 said:

Speaking of things that haven’t aged well, I notice the offensive ‘All Streets Matter’ slogan in the photo that made it into the latest Southwark News article from Richard Aldwinkle (aka Mr One Dulwich).
 

Didn’t they issue an apology for that after it was pointed out to be very distasteful? You’d think Richard would supply a better photo. 

But it is a gotcha moment for your previous comment suggesting your "evil adversary" Richard Adwinkle had supplied the photo.

 

Maybe with the lack of fact-checking you did before posting that comment you could get a job on The Guardian! 😉

 

But in all seriousness I am glad your ire is now being directed at Southwark News.....

 

[march46]

Sharing 3 links with the same photo doesn’t prove your point. It shows the lengths you’ll go to try though.

Edited Monday at 16:18 by march46

[Rockets]

I think it most certainly does prove my point - that it is a file photo that Southwark News uses to illustrate articles, no doubt taken by one of their own reporters, and not something that Richard Ardwinkle sent to them.

Unless, of course, you also think Richard Ardwinkle sent them the photo to help illustrate their article on Lambeth handing out £22m in LTN fines......the article I flagged from July 2022 which he wasn't even referenced in!!!!!

I am happy to go to great lengths to take you to task on spreading falsehoods. Your clumsy attempt to try and accuse someone you clearly despise illustrates the lengths you will go to to try and demonise people you don't see eye-to-eye with - it seems to be the go-to tactic on Page 1 of the pro-LTN handbook of "how to deal with people who may not agree with our ideology".

We have seen it hundreds of times before since this all began and it's sad that people feel the need to descend to this. I do laugh however when I read these things and then see people on the pro-LTN side bemoaning a "culture war".

 

 

[first mate]

Couldn't agree more Rockets. The obsession with Richard Aldwinckle borders on weird and attempts to demonise him or those who in any way question the wisdom of local LTNs is telling. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

The same photo with the offensive ‘All Streets Matter’ slogan was used in multiple Southwark News article. That’s hardly a gotcha moment Rockets, more a reflection of their lazy journalism.

I think that's very unfair. Southwark News (and @Herbie Russell Southwark News in particular) does a good job in covering local news stories, which isn't easy considering how little money is in local news publishing these days.

I do think OneDulwich gets a soft ride and a disproportionate amount of coverage considering the tiny number of fanatics that share his views - but to be fair "most people indifferent to road closure 4 years ago" isn't much of a story.

Equally, I don't see why Southwark News should not print a file photo that includes protestors' signs repurposing a white supremacist slogan.

[first mate]

Don't think they are indifferent. Many of us that have found ourselves questioning the wisdom of local LTNs and CPZ would not vote at the council elections on those issues alone- but it does not make us "indifferent" just powerless it seems to stop the council's single- minded pursuit of its agenda, eagerly supported by some equally myopic and fanatical stakeholder/ supporter organisations.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

considering the tiny number of fanatics that share his views

*in your opinion....

2,000 local people who registered their details seems to suggest other points of view may exist!

Edited Monday at 20:55 by Rockets

[march46]

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/a-thousand-voices-cry-out-against-dulwich-ltns/

At least Richard Aldwinkle gets a photo credit for supplying this one, in fact two in one piece!

Edited Monday at 22:29 by march46

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

2,000 local people who registered their details...

Source that there are 2000 of them and that they're local...? OneDulwich. 🤔 

Odd that if there are so many of them and they are so opposed to the road closure that only 1000 of them bothered to vote for the Tory candidates who stood on an anti-LTN platform. The Tories' share of the vote fell from the previous election. This was in the ward that had the highest turnout in all of Greater London. When the rubber hits the road, opposition to a road closed 4 years ago doesn't actually seem to be motivating local voters (that actually verifiably exist) and it might actually be a vote loser.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_Village_(ward)

[first mate]

7 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Source that there are 2000 of them and that they're local...? OneDulwich. 🤔 

Odd that if there are so many of them and they are so opposed to the road closure that only 1000 of them bothered to vote for the Tory candidates who stood on an anti-LTN platform. The Tories' share of the vote fell from the previous election. This was in the ward that had the highest turnout in all of Greater London. When the rubber hits the road, opposition to a road closed 4 years ago doesn't actually seem to be motivating local voters (that actually verifiably exist) and it might actually be a vote loser.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_Village_(ward)

Because most people opposed to local LTNs are not necessarily Tory supporters, despite efforts to portray them that way. Nor, do most tend to vote on a single issue. At the last local election few had the stomach to vote for a local Tory candidate when they knew any victory would have been spun as support for the national government.

Plus, Southwark Labour were pretty much silent on LTNs etc, indicating they knew they were not popular and counted on voters having other equal or greater concerns.

Locals are not indifferent, they have been stitched up by the current council and its fanatical supporters who are pressing on with their agenda, come what may.

I cannot believe, in a cost of living crisis, that posters here think spending millions on reconfiguring a small area of road space in Dulwich Village is okay.

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Source that there are 2000 of them and that they're local...? OneDulwich. 🤔 

Yup.

The irony is not lost on me that you are posting this one post after March46 posted a link to an article that has these pictures in it - that "tiny number of fanatics". There are more people at that protest than have ever attended one of the Dulwich Square jamborees, in fact more people than all of the Dulwich Square events have managed to muster collectively - but, you know, by all means keep questioning the number of local residents against these measures.

http://southwarknews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/image-500x242.jpg

 

 

9 hours ago, march46 said:

At least Richard Aldwinkle gets a photo credit for supplying this one, in fact two in one piece!

Thereby validating exactly what I was saying about your original post. I presume you will be issuing an apology to Richard Ardwinkle for the accusations you made against him in your post (I think I know the answer to this already)?

[first mate]

Those pictured protesting here are most likely local residents. The cyclists we see supporting the millions of pounds Dulwich Square creation are as likely to be London Cycling Campaign supporters, not locals at all.

[Rockets]

I think you are right and this is where the councillors seem to be de-prioritising the views of the constituents they pledged to represent and why so many locally are angry with them and why that anger towards them is not subsiding. 

They bleat on about having no money and then find millions to spend on Dulwich Square (which they are clearly rushing through to make "permanent" so it is hard to undo the changes).

Political hypocrisy at it's finest.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

5 hours ago, first mate said:

Locals are not indifferent

Apparently there are 2000 locals that are highly motivated by this issue...but not enough to make a difference to their vote, while the party that went balls to the wall on opposing LTNs got a smaller share of the vote. That just doesn't stack up.

[alice]

Lifetime Labour voters would never vote Tory. Why do you persist with this illogical ‘proof’

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

So now the suggestion is that there are so many "lifelong Labour voters" that are so annoyed about the road closure that...they voted for Labour in greater numbers on a larger turnout than the election before?

That just doesn't stack up either.

It wasn't even a Labour ward before 2018... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_Village_(ward)

[Rockets]

The Lib Dems were also campaigning to have a pragmatic discussion and approach around LTNs during the council elections. One of them should have stood down to galvanise the vote - if the Tories had stood down I suspect the Dulwich Village result might have been very different.

3 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

So now the suggestion is that there are so many "lifelong Labour voters" that are so annoyed about the road closure that...they voted for Labour in greater numbers on a larger turnout than the election before?

That just doesn't stack up either.

It wasn't even a Labour ward before 2018... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_Village_(ward)

This is know as the "champagne socialist" effect! 😉

[Spartacus]

Simple solution Billy 

Let's have a referendum vote locally on a single issue 

Keep the square or reopen the junction. 

No politics involved as its then not about Labour or Tory supporters.

Only locally registered people (addresses within a mile of the square to allow those who need to use it have their say) and the results are binding to the council. 

Then we can finally see if it really is,  as you claim, a minority voice!

Are you up for it or scared of the results ? 

 

[first mate]

Southwark Labour know that, as Alice says, lifelong Labour voters or even those on the fence would not stomach voting in a Tory council on a single issue. As many here also know, people rarely vote on single issues in council elections.

Nonetheless, Labour knew very well that there is plenty of local opposition to LTNs, so they kept their spending plans very quiet in that regard. 

There is still no good answer as to how this 'green' council is happy to rent and ruin our park spaces while it gifts millions to an already wealthy area to have a piece of main thoroughfare turned into a 'square'. A space in which to "socialise" they say, when there are massive parks, numerous restaurants and a gallery on the doorstep.

As Spartacus suggests, let's have a referendum on what has become a sticking point for many. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 13:07 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh for crying out loud. The filter was put in place over 4 years ago. I don't believe for one second that replacing the square with queuing traffic would be an improvement at all. Why on earth would we hold a referendum on taking space away from pedestrians and reallocating it to cars? Just drive round, it takes a few minutes longer.