One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[Earl Aelfheah]

The people who are campaigning to remove restrictions on car use, and replace them with nothing, are campaigning for an increase in car use. Let's just be very clear about that.

In all the areas where 'One' groups have been successful in removing LTNs, they have followed it up with... nothing. Traffic has increased and they've all slunk off into the shadows.

If you care about bus times, those with mobility issues, inactivity and road danger, why not support the removal of on street parking, the widening of pavements, bus lanes that operate 24/7, segregated bike lanes, restrictions on supersized SUVs (for example)? People like @Rockets have spoken against all of these things at different times I believe, as well as opposing LTNs. It makes it very, very difficult to take claims that they want to reduce car use seriously.

Likewise, calls for 'more data' or 'more research' when they manifestly refuse to accept any of the existing evidence, also feel very hollow.

If, as it appears, you really just favour more, unencumbered car use, why be shy about it?

Edited June 30, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[Nigello]

Bus lanes absolutely do not need to run 24/7. It’s pernicious and hectoring on the part of TfL and councils and sometimes increases the amount of particulates due to the resulting traffic queues. I don’t have a vehicle of any kind (and haven’t since 1999), no bicycle and walk and take buses mostly so I’m not a petrol head by any means. I just favour pragmatic interventions over dogmatic totalitarian approaches. 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Likewise, calls for 'more data' or 'more research' when they manifestly refuse to accept any of the existing evidence, also feel very hollow.

The 'existing evidence' is locally flawed - locally base lines were not taken, or, where taken, were taken during the Covid lockdowns when 'normal' was anything but. There is no continuity of evidence locally which shows results which are in fact comparable - so any conclusions drawn are almost certainly flawed - and we know that the measurement system for traffic levels is inaccurate because the measurement methodology used is admitted by the firm supplying the equipment not to work for slow or standing traffic. 

The 'intent' of LTNs was twofold, to reduce health impacting pollution derived from traffic (excess CO2 does not damage health except in very enclosed spaces) and increase levels of public health by encouraging 'active' travel - i.e. walking or cycling (not using enhanced e-cycling). Traffic measurement (if undertaken properly, which this isn't) is a proxy for these outcomes but not a true measure. As LTNs and the expanded ULEZ overlap if air quality measurement were being taken effectively and consistently then it would still not be possible to distinguish ULEZ from LTN impact - and improvement of public health through walking etc. is necessarily demonstrable only following long-term study.

It is worth noting that in Dulwich 'active travel' was already noted as being in the higher bracket for London areas.

What the proponents in the main of LTNs are is not in fact pro-health as anti-car - hence their focus on the proxy measures.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

21 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

...any conclusions drawn are almost certainly flawed - and we know that the measurement system for traffic levels is inaccurate...

This is just the repetitive data nihilism that he - I mean, OneDulwich - has pursued for years now: you can't prove this with data, or if you can prove it with data there isn't the data, or if the data exists then it isn't accurate, or if it is accurate then it's not the right data, or if it's the right data then there isn't enough of it, or if there is enough data then it's not analysed correctly...

And this wibbling about requests for increasingly esoteric data from McCash is part of the same predictable playbook. It is an attempt to beat this dead data horse for more years. Whatever they are given, it won't be enough or it won't be right or they won't be printed in the right font. 

The data will never be enough to satisfy them because this tiny clique is not actually interested in the data. 

[Penguin68]

If you are going to make claims (and by gum you do) that the data shows that all is right with your world, then you really must allow those grown-up who have spent careers deriving and using data to comment when the data collection analysis and reporting methods do not meet the criteria used by actual bona-fide researchers. Which includes e.g. relevant base-lines and reliable and consistent data collection methods. 

And which also includes measuring the values which are claimed as important and not proxies for those values. 

Evidence suggests that neither side in this debate ('are the LTNs introduced in Dulwich effective in achieving the stated aims to do with public health') are 'tiny cliques'. To claim otherwise is simply a debating point. Neither are either side evilly motivated.

But to argue against all those who ask for properly collected and reliable data for 'our' Dulwich LTNs that (in bold) they are not actually interested in data - when many, if not most show a surprisingly good grasp of what data and data collection should be (and what is good, and flawed statistical analysis) would be to fly in the evidence at least that these critics are data savvy. And thus may even be interested in data.

And I don't believe, though I am happy to stand corrected, that any of those in the opposite camp to you (that is, those who want 'proper' data for Dulwich) have ever argued that there are not LTNs in existence somewhere which have delivered against their promised intention (or at least, seem on the way to doing that).

Do remember that, until they had the chance to introduce LTNs in a crisis where public debate was not required,  Dulwich failed the criteria set by Southwark for LTN introduction. We should have been on the bottom of the pile, not the top! If Southwark's original analysis for LTN priority introduction was originally correct, then its argued failure in Dulwich (by those who hold opposite views to yours) is hardly surprising.

[Rockets]

Ah, we're back to the small vocal minority de-positioning again are we.....it seems the pro-LTN playbook is being dusted down again....here we go again....didn't seem to work the first time so I don't suspect it will this time.

 

And Earl I have been very clear on my position on what I think needs to happen over the years on this subject and I think the only way to properly, and fairly, deter car-use is means-tested road pricing. All of your suggestions about removal of on-street car parking, widening of pavements, 24/7 bus lanes, restrictions on super-sized SUVs (something I do agree with I hasten to add) is just the stuff of fantasy as it is utterly impractical in the real world - and a real world, for right or for wrong, that has become so car dependent it's roots are embedded in the infrastructure of the country.

 

The notion as well that current bus delays are being caused by too much traffic might be factually correct but it is actually because many bus lanes have been repurposed to support more cycle infrastructure thus forcing buses to share the road with other vehicles  - and this is where I have a big problem as this sort of disruption to other transport methods can only be justified if the transition to cycling is in the 100s if not 1000s of % - it currently stands at 13% growth from 2019 to 2022 - that's not nearly enough and we can't keep blindly following the  Will Norman "build it and they will come" mantra - they aren't and they won't. P.S. Why does Will Norman even have Walking in his job title - he seems to care not one jot about that - you only ever seem to see him on a bike or talking about bikes?

 

I do wonder if the anger of many of the posters being directed at One Dulwich is actually meant for Cllr McAsh for daring to entertain them - the council has stoically refused to engage and him doing so seems to have been the trigger for many to go on the attack. The fact that Cllr McAsh is entertaining a discussion and taking a pragmatic approach to this seems to be really angering a lot of pro-LTN supporters - perhaps they know where the skeletons are hidden and what he might find if he goes looking! 😉 Cllr Rose leaving may be the catalyst for change the council has so needed for a long time.

Penguin - you are absolutely right - by Southwark's own measure Dulwich was the last place you put an LTN but it became a local councillor vanity project and no-one in the senior echelons of the council had the gumption to see what might the negative implications of the project might be - they allowed themselves to be led by the pro-LTN, pro-cycle lobby. Additionally,  if you told me 10 years ago that a Labour council would repeatedly ignore the pleadings of emergency services about their LTNs I would have not believed you - but this is the mess the council got themselves in over this issue, 

 

I think the Turney Road closure debacle shows just how out of touch elements of the council are - to even submit that proposal shows they lost all grip on reality - one day we will no doubt find out who was pulling the strings in the background.

[Bic Basher]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I do wonder if the anger of many of the posters being directed at One Dulwich is actually meant for Cllr McAsh for daring to entertain them - the council has stoically refused to engage and him doing so seems to have been the trigger for many to go on the attack. The fact that Cllr McAsh is entertaining a discussion and taking a pragmatic approach to this seems to be really angering a lot of pro-LTN supporters - perhaps they know where the skeletons are hidden and what he might find if he goes looking! 😉 Cllr Rose leaving may be the catalyst for change the council has so needed for a long time.

Councillors are supposed to represent everyone, not just a clique which was happening under Rose's reign being in charge of streets.  I was dismissed by the two Dulwich Wood Cllrs at the height of the introduction of the LTNs when I raised my concerns when the other Cllr representing my ward asked if I'd been provoked by an anti LTN group rather than looking at the real concerns residents have where I live.

Labour can't afford to be complacent as seen in yesterday's Newington by-election where Labour won, but saw a 15% swing to the Lib Dems in what is considered a Labour safe seat.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Bic Basher

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets - you have defended SUVs before, and supported the removal of pavement widening on Lordship Lane (which was in place during COVID). There is absolutely no reason why the bus lanes on Lordship Lane couldn't be made 24/7, and it is the case that buses are regularly held up where there is not space for two vehicles to pass due to parked cars. You have railed against cycle lanes / increases in cycle infrastructure, claiming that they are ineffective and that cycling is falling in London. 

What is notable, is that you have created multiple threads, in order to keep your campaign to spread misinformation about data and research into LTNs at the top of the main thread (despite being asked not to by Admin), whilst not creating a single thread to campaign for the road pricing you now claim to support. 

I would bet my front teeth that if the LTNs were removed, you wouldn't switch your energies to campaigning as hard for road pricing as you do for removing restrictions on car journeys. If I'm wrong, why are you not doing so already?

The actions of 'successful' One groups (who have all fallen silent as soon as they have had LTNs removed and traffic has returned to higher, pre-LTN levels again), has demonstrated that their claims to care about reducing car use were nothing more than weasel words. I have very little doubt the 'One Dulwich' are any different.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

And Earl I have been very clear on my position on what I think needs to happen over the years on this subject and I think the only way to properly, and fairly, deter car-use is means-tested road pricing. 

And since that is 10+ years away at best, your solution is simply to do nothing until then?
This is all just textbook "retain the status quo", kick the can down the road, make it someone else's problem while confidently claiming to support measures to reduce car use knowing that nothing you suggest is going to happen in a meaningful timeframe.

It's the One... playbook (derived directly from climate change denial) of wanting a perfect solution that disadvantages no-one, is completely equitable to all, receives 100% approval, and requires that no-one really changes anything because it'll all be dealt with for us. Policy perfectionism. Since you can never have a perfect policy, it's all just pie in the sky.

If road pricing were to come onto the political agenda tomorrow, there'd be some further reason why that is not the answer. We've seen it with ULEZ expansion - oh it's sort of the right thing to do but not now because we're in a cost-of-living crisis / oh we support the principle but what about the poor/elderly/disabled/shift workers/those that can't afford a new car/those that rely on their older car... 

[Rockets]

Earl - in what context did I defend SUVs? And the temporary pavement widening measures were in for so long it was actually hampering traders. If you had been bothered to find something other than things to attack me with you will also read that I was very supportive of segregated cycle lanes, that I felt Lambeth did a much better job facilitating social distancing on pavements than Southwark did and was challenging the council on why they had not installed more bike parking infrastructure on Lordship Lane during the pandemic.

Hey, but that doesn't suit your narrative does it - you are starting to look foolish now and seem to want to just pick a fight and are cherry-picking and deliberately misrepresenting a lot of what I, and other people, have said - you're going to have to try a lot harder than that as that tactic is a well worn path. And you have the gall to suggest I am the one spreading misinformation.

And you are now misrepresenting what Admin said about threads.....so maybe check back and take a look at their guidance...

It is inevitable that this thread will soon be lounged so you can rejoice then, pat yourself on the back for a job well done, but it won't get away from the fact that One Dulwich is engaging with Cllr McAsh - something you all seem to be so terrified of.

Personally I think you're just angry because I challenged you on your 40% cycle growth stat that was clearly you spreading  mis-information....;-)

 

10 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

And since that is 10+ years away at best, your solution is simply to do nothing until then?
This is all just textbook "retain the status quo", kick the can down the road, make it someone else's problem while confidently claiming to support measures to reduce car use knowing that nothing you suggest is going to happen in a meaningful timeframe.

It's the One... playbook (derived directly from climate change denial) of wanting a perfect solution that disadvantages no-one, is completely equitable to all, receives 100% approval, and requires that no-one really changes anything because it'll all be dealt with for us. Policy perfectionism. Since you can never have a perfect policy, it's all just pie in the sky.

If road pricing were to come onto the political agenda tomorrow, there'd be some further reason why that is not the answer. We've seen it with ULEZ expansion - oh it's sort of the right thing to do but not now because we're in a cost-of-living crisis / oh we support the principle but what about the poor/elderly/disabled/shift workers/those that can't afford a new car/those that rely on their older car... 

Come on Ex- you've been on this thread long enough to know I have posted a lot of ideas - some of which you even agreed with so don't get drawn into Earl's negativity rat hole. But there you go throwing climate change denier into the equation - all you have to add is fascist petrol-head Jeremy Clarkson Tory and then you have the full-house of pro-LTN name-calling!

Anyone who dares object to the LTNs has had to put up with this childish nonsense for three years and it paints the pro-LTN lobby in a very, very negative light.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets If you care about people with restricted mobility, why would you not support the widening of pavements (oh yeah, according to you it harms business.. you would support it in principle, just not practice)? If you are concerned that buses are being held up, why not support 24/7 bus lane operation, or the removal of parking on the high street, so that buses don't have to constantly stop to pass each other (again, you support in principle, but not practice... I see a pattern)? Why only talk about making local car journeys easier, if you're really in favour of reducing car use? 

I can't really be bothered going through all your old posts @Rockets, but on bike lanes (for one example) you've said

Quote

"Anyone who spends any time travelling around central London can see for themselves that there are congestion hotspots due to the provision of ever bigger and under-used cycle lanes.

But isn't that part of the nudge approach so many of these schemes embrace - increase congestion to convince people to find another way of travelling?

 

Quote

I think the reason the pro-cycle lobby ... can see where it is leading with the rumours of a massive drop in cycling in 2021 to below pre-pandemic levels. They know that when the cycling figures for 2021 get published the narrative could change against them very quickly and there could be increased political pressure to justify any continued investment in such measures.”

...As with everything car related, you have hedged and obsfucated, but have on multiple occasions tried to deflect criticism of SUVs too:

Quote

“..part of the issue as well is that people are getting bigger (taller) and so cars are too. Compare the original mini to the modern mini. Also, as you rightly point out bigger cars are favoured by people with families - car seats and their attachments are about as wide as the original mini!!”

 

Quote

“I agree that many SUVs are unnecessary but I am sure there are a variety of reasons why people buy them”

 

Quote

“In the US I am not surprised SUVs are killing more people because a Ford F150 or Cadillac Escalade are beyond ludicrously and unnecessarily big and if one of those hits you you don't stand a chance because of the height of the engine grill. They make Range Rovers look small.” [it's a problem in the US, not here]

I can't find the multiple threads you've created campaigning for a system of road price charging, but I'm sure they're there somewhere... somewhere..

Edited June 30, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

Earl A - you are spending a lot of time and energy on this forum.  But it’s wasted. no one is changing their minds. Dulwich LTNs served one single purpose- to make the wealthiest and healthiest even more healthy and wealthy. Nothing you have ever posted disproves that. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

I love a good conspiracy theory. 

Maybe Earl A has been sent by the World Economic Forum, the Masons or even more perfidious - Southwark Cyclists. How come the Bilderberg Group doesn't get blamed for stuff any more? They used to be all the rage.

[Rockets]

Earl - honestly, you are starting to embarrass yourself now.

 

Anyone can paste a section of a discussion and make accusations without the context and by posting those supposed offending posts you have validated my point entirely, and made yourself look a bit desperate and daft.

 

Nowhere do I defend SUVs (but I notice how you, probably after reading the posts and realising you don't have any ammo, you have now changed your accusation to be one of "deflecting criticism of SUVs") -  I mean you've even been daft enough to post where I say "many SUVs are unnecessary but I am sure there are a variety of reasons why people buy them".

 

Every one of those posts I stand by and are completely in context with the conversations that were happening at the time and do nothing to undermine position but by posting them you do look awfully petty and somewhat obsessed.

 

But, you know, do keep trying....I am sure you can find better ways to spend your time but if it makes you happy keep going....

[malumbu]

Alice I don't fit this category.  So why aren't I offended by LTNs?  I'd love to know your theory.  Others have inferred that I am a lycra clad eco warrior.  I'll take that as a compliment.  I expect most in the area have already become accustomed to road changes.  As they have done with earlier changes.

[first mate]

Well, to get this back on thread, Cllr McAsh has stated he will look into the data. He gave OD a hearing. Some of us feel that is a positive step.

I also felt Penguin made a great point in an earlier post.

5 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Do remember that, until they had the chance to introduce LTNs in a crisis where public debate was not required,  Dulwich failed the criteria set by Southwark for LTN introduction. We should have been on the bottom of the pile, not the top! If Southwark's original analysis for LTN priority introduction was originally correct, then its argued failure in Dulwich (by those who hold opposite views to yours) is hardly surprising.

 

[heartblock]

I’m also glad someone is at least listening, if something can be done about the appalling traffic every morning on Croxted and ED Grove that makes bus journeys awful and pollutes these roads used by 100s of school children - who walk past idling traffic at the most congested time of the day, then that must be a good thing.

Those on here seemingly arguing against local residents discussing this on a local forum, or who seen to think this problem doesn’t exist are either very selfish or conflating their beliefs about people like me who think the unmentionables have made a negative impact on the health of ‘boundary’ rd residents.

We all realise that they are unlikely to be removed, so please let us residents on these congested roads discuss on the forum how Southwark can improve the lives of everyone who lives and uses our roads.

It’s not a conspiracy, we are not car-loving-anti-vax-global warming-denying-Farage-loving-motor-heads, we are not a homogenous group of labels, there are teachers, artists, academics, nurses and from all different political persuasions and perspectives.

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

48 minutes ago, heartblock said:

Those on here seemingly arguing against local residents discussing this on a local forum

To suggest that opponents of LTNs are being silenced is a weird kind of persecution complex, given that One Dulwich (and their proxies) have been banging on about this stuff for years, with leaflets, and posters, and banners, and a zillion threads each a hundred pages long on here. There was also an election that the Tory/OneDulwich candidate positioned as a referendum on LTNs...and a decisive result in favour of LTNs. The (cough) passions of the frequent flyers on here are not representative of wider reality.

To be fair, you individually have always come across as entirely reasonable, fact-based and genuine. 

[heartblock]

On 28/06/2023 at 07:33, Jenijenjen said:

These myriad threads regarding LTNs are dominating this section of the forum which before these tiresome incessant posts on the subject was varied with many subjects up for discussion.  Now the subject of LTNs dominates, other ED issues don't get a look in and people really can't be bothered with this section of the Forum any more.  I only visit purely out of habit.  As I've said before, I don't have a view on the LTNs, I can see pros and cons, my  gripe is that the subject has changed the nature of the forum from a stimulating place for local discussion to a borefest.

 

On 28/06/2023 at 08:35, Jenijenjen said:

It would have been more appropriate to post this information on the LTN thread in the Lounge, not given a thread of its own in the ED Section thereby creating an inbalance of subjects discussed.

I didn't say anything about opponents of LTNs being silenced.

I said 'Those on here seemingly arguing against local residents discussing this on a local forum' as you can see by the individual above, who is desperately trying to get this lounged.

This discussion is about many things including Cllr McAsh's response including the subject I am alluding to 'he would look at the issue of bus delays on LTN boundary roads like Croxted Road, Dulwich Common (the South Circular) and East Dulwich Grove'.

People vote for many different reasons - I am a Green Party member and vote Green, I don't agree with every policy but for most of the policies. I was never tempted to vote Tory despite agreeing with one policy - my neighbours voted Labour despite having anti-LTN posters in their windows. It was not a referendum on LTNs, but I think you know that. Why does Clair and Ian and Nish 'bang on' about LTNs still, because they walk their kids down Croxted Rd every morning, despair at the slowness of the number 37 bus or have to close all their windows in 30 degree heat because of traffic fumes at afternoon 'rush' or idle hour as I like to call it.

I know that LP council will never remove LTNs - so not worth campaigning on - a lost cause. But we are allowed to campaign on making  our 'boundary' 'sacrificial' roads safer, more pleasant to live on and easier and safer to travel by bus and foot on - Is that OK for everyone ?? mmhhh??

The Centre for London stated - Recognise the sacrifices
Change will always disadvantage some people, even as it helps others. Denying this - in either the engagement or the launch phase - will simply cause distrust. It's usually better to acknowledge that some people will be worse off in some ways as a result of any change, and, where appropriate, to thank them for accepting a change which will
make things better for their neighbours

I don't want to be thanked - I want Southwark to do as they promised in their manifesto

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by heartblock

[Bic Basher]

That's just it, I'm also not a petrolhead who wants to drive wherever I want, I use public transport, walk and cycle and have an interest in transport and politics in general and recognise how LTNs affects other modes of transport used by people like me who don't have a car.

Being on the front line of the LTN boundary roads, I'm able to see how it's affected my neighbours and my mother as I mentioned earlier in this thread has developed breathing problems in the last 2 years or so as traffic has increased as more people return to work in person.

However I support the bike element of micromobility as a way of getting people to use alternative means of travelling without having to use a motor vehicle as it can be a much faster way of getting around East Dulwich than using the local buses that get stuck in traffic especially on Lordship Lane (retail area end and between Dulwich Library & Dulwich Common) and the South Circular.

Yet there are people who have no real choice but to use a car as their main method of being mobile and active, along with those who use public transport who have slower journeys because of congestion and 20mph speed limits which are perfectly fine for residential streets, but not for main roads.   DKHbilly disagrees with me on that point, but it's my personal experience that I have to leave extra time to travel on a bus not just to central London, but to King's for appointments or to travel to Peckham even if the roads are clear.   On a bike, I can get to Rye Lane or Denmark Hill in 15 mins from the Melford Road end of LL.

[DulvilleRes]

One Dulwich clearly seeks to influence local politics - their website still contains analysis of how to vote opponents out. The public criticism from some of those in the anti-LTN lobby of local elected councilors has been unrelenting, and at times personalized and very unpleasant.

Councilors and supporters of the LTN's have in the past been physically targeted in or near their homes by people with anti-LTN views, to the point that the Police had to get involved. There were months of vandalism and graffiti of LTN infrastructure, and at one point I actually stumbled across a bloke with a balaclava and dressed in black trying to pull a barrier down. I have found it all very unsettling, and given this broader context, I think One Dulwich, which purports to be a grassroots organization, owes the community a bit of transparency and accountability. 

So, who funds One Dulwich? It is a relatively expensive operation, with all those billboards and leaflets. Who are their principal shakers and movers? Are those shakers and movers aligned with a particular political party? Does one political party dominate? It is all very opaque. I've asked the question before, and no one seems to be able to provide an answer. 

[first mate]

I do not believe the majority consistently questioning the efficacy of local LTNs on this forum are members of OD. Despite the terrible things that organisation is alleged to be involved with by some on here I would query if an elected Councillor would agree to meet them, if all those allegations were true and evidenced. Anyhow, many lobby groups attract the odd extremist and crackpot... 

The salient bit of information is that Cllr McAsh has agreed to look into the missing data aspect, among other things. The purpose of this thread is to let others know and update on progress.

 

 

[Rockets]

Dulville - to be fair, similar accusations can be levelled at many of the more extreme idiots on the pro-LTN lobby as well (tearing down the signs of those opposed to the measures, the actions of Tyre Extinguishers, the posters stuck on people’s cars on their driveways). There are idiotic extremists on both sides of argument but the marked difference seems to be that you don’t see the anti-LTN lobby condoning the actions of the idiots on their side. Whilst, and take a look at the thread on Tyre Extinguishers or the XR camp on Peckham Rye, many on the pro-LTN lobby seem to support and condone the actions of some of their more extreme colleagues - seemingly happy to turn a blind eye to anything that matches their ideological viewpoint.

 

if you take a straw poll of some of the posters on here there is far more nastiness, aggression and childish name calling from the pro-LTN lobbyists - you don’t have to scroll far up in this thread to see examples of it. Why? Because someone dared challenge them on something they are ideaologically wedded to.

Funding sources are an important question and I have no answer in relation to One Dulwich but that track is also a “right wing conspiracy” trope often used to bash anyone who dares to challenge LTNs. If you support the LTNs you can approach the council to get funding for your events and campaigns (as we have seen locally) but this is not a route open to anyone who challenges them as the council will refuse to fund.

 

For a long while councillors and MPs refused to engage with One Dulwich, citing things like needing to know who all their members were, a measure I very much doubt they apply when someone wants to engage on a subject the council or MPs support.

 

So good on Cllr McAsh for breaking the “no engagement” policy that we have seen for so long. Will anything come of it, unlikely, but good on him for at least talking to them and those 2000+ people locally who support them.

 

 

[heartblock]

I’m sure there are unpleasant people in many aspects of life but really? Let’s just keep to the thread rather than than going back nearly two years ago when someone leaned a placard against a wall and some stupid youth on a moped was abusive and unpleasant in a cafe because he wanted to ride his moped through a closed road.

Once an old lady kicked my dog... all old ladies are animal haters...

jeez! 

I will be writing to James anyway about safety issues on ED Grove, I’ll also ask him about the pledges about traffic and pollution on Croxted, ED Grove, Grove Vale and Lordship Lane and report back.

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by heartblock

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I do not believe the majority consistently questioning the efficacy of local LTNs on this forum are members of OD.

The remarkable thing about OneDulwich is that no-one has ever copped to being a member (even using a fake forum name) . Is it like the Taxpayers' Alliance?