One Dulwich have met with Cllr McAsh

[Bic Basher]

Comparing OD to the Taxpayers Alliance isn't helpful in this debate.

As previously mentioned, there have been supporters of removing the LTNs who have then gone and voted Labour in the last council election regardless of their standpoint over them.

[first mate]

29 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

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?

You mean a number of us posting on this forum? Has it occurred that is because none of us are members? Don't know what you mean by a fake forum name? I have posted on here under the same name for many years.

if you want to know about OD's funding and internal structure then ask them. I doubt you'll find the answers from anyone here.

Again, Cllr McAsh met with them and listened to what they have to say, so he at least feels they have questions which need addressing.

I think we have now probably established that those querying local LTNs on this forum are mostly not Tories, not petrol heads, do cycle and walk, do care about the environment. 

 

[Spartacus]

50 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

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?

Maybe, and here's a shocker, but maybe they aren't forum members as their world doesn't revolve around the EDF 

I could be wrong but that's the most likely possibility.🥸

[Rockets]

But what do people mean by members? I signed the petition, does that make me a member, I presume it does? Or do people mean the people organising it?

 

Are people being shamed by admitting they support One Dulwich because this seems to be the direction of travel? 

Cllrs McAsh, Newens and Leeming know who met them so perhaps those so concerned should ask them to confirm it wasn't Boris, Farage or Clarkson.

 

And let's be honest the pro-LTN lobby seemed to have near exclusivity when it came to fake names - Manatee, BooHoo etc. I do wonder whether the people behind that are still posting under their original names, certainly some of the postings are similar.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Rockets

[Penguin68]

I'm sorry to have to wade in here, but to build a conspiracy theory around One Dulwich and its membership is just a waste of time; this is a very local issue of no interest outside the locale; this is not where conspiracies start. It's a bunch of people (probably more than just a literal handful) who didn't like the initial proposals (probably for a multitude of different reasons) and then found themselves under attack from a number of both local and non-local people, some with with an ideological axe to grind, some who just had different priorities and/ or views about limits of personal freedom.

Is it political? - yes of course it is - that's the definition of politics, is it 'Political' - probably not or if so only so far as the 'official' council proponents are following themselves a clear political (and in their last but one manifesto) line, so opposition tends also to be Political opposition.

The fact that the apparat would only engage (initially) if the group gave full disclosure of membership, finances etc. suggested a certain Putin-esque approach to exercise of local democracy and opinion.

Local 'political' ('being involved') activism is probably and in general a good thing - those who fear it I tend to believe are also not too keen on local democratic expression either (save by them, of course). 

Which does not condone actions which transcend democratic discussion and sloganizing.

[Rockets]

As we were saying about the bad behaviour from some on the pro-LTN lobby even those supposed impartial academics are at it...deary, deary, deary me....such a bad look (sorry to have to post a link from the Torygraph) and you wonder why we throw doubt on their "research". Anna Goodman has apologised but she should not be allowed near any research projects in relation to LTNs, the funding for the projects reviewed and a huge asterix put next to any work she has ever published. She has just confirmed what many of us suspected...

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/01/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-anna-goodman-removes-poster-cctv/

Edited July 2, 2023 by Rockets

[malumbu]

Christ it's getting desperate now.  Tory press looking for every bit of dirt.  We will be hearing stories that Starmer was a naughty boy as a student working in France next.  But Rocks, surely even you would agree that this is for broader  discussion on the LTN thread.

So hands up who has never done anything impulsive in their life.  My crime was to remove an anti vaxing poster from the community notice board outside Sainsbury's at the Plough.  Shutting down free speech eh?  

Edited to add, in fact someone did post it on the Lounge so perhaps one of you would like to delete.  I'm not the internet police just pointing it out.....

Edited July 2, 2023 by malumbu

[first mate]

Disagree. The behaviour looks considered and calculated rather than impulsive, she initially holds herself back when another shopper enters and pretends to be doing something else, before returning to take the poster down.

Surreptitiously removing posters displayed in shops or deliberately trying to get threads lounged. Similar behaviours in a way. Hmmm. Totally accept, not every pro LTNer will behave this way.

Roll on Cllr McAsh's response on missing/flawed data etc.

 

[Rockets]

But Mal, at the time of you removing the anti-vax poster were you being championed as an impartial academic, part of an organisation being paid £1.5m to, impartially, report on the success, or otherwise, of the vaccines and someone who had been accused of having a vested interest in the vaccination scheme?

 

What Anna Goodman has done is ludicrous and completely invalidates any of the claims around her impartiality. Her actions show she is anything but impartial and doesn't want there to be any resistance or debate around LTNs. 

 

Those are not the actions of someone who should be entrusted to report fairly on the matter in hand. But the problem with relying on activist researchers is that they tend to remain as activists and put that ahead of their research responsibilities.

 

Just a few posts up we have people lamenting the vandalism of planters and the actions of a minority of the anti-LTN lobby and the criticism of said academics and then this breaks - one of the leading researchers being touted by so many of the pro-LTN lobby, and pro-LTN media, as proving the success of the programmes being caught red handed. It leaves a lot of egg on the faces of those who backed Dr Goodman's research and pleaded that she was impartial - this is a massive "gotcha".

 

What was she thinking, someone in her position should not have been so foolish? And I am not buying the impulsive defence being touted, she knows what she is doing and this has been happening a lot in the area. I wonder if others are now looking at CCTV to see who else might have been behind this.

 

I suspect this will likely ensure that people really question the validity of her research and put pressure on councils to review research provided by her (she did the Calton Avenue cycling research for example) but ultimately make Cllr McAsh's job more difficult because she let the side down. What if, for example, some of the missing data One Dulwich have asked for had been collected by her?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by Rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 01/07/2023 at 14:00, first mate said:

You mean a number of us posting on this forum? Has it occurred that is because none of us are members? Don't know what you mean by a fake forum name?

Sorry - "fake forum name" - I meant that practically all forum users (including me)  use fake names to post on here. I probably could have explained that better - sorry for any confusion.

I don't see why the comparison to Taxpayers Alliance is so upsetting. They're both groups that position themselves as speaking on behalf of large groups of people, that demand total transparency from others, and yet are not very forthcoming about their own funding and operation.

Does OneDulwich actually have "members" at all? 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[DulvilleRes]

Thanks to all of you attempting to answer my questions on who are the shakers and movers of One Dulwich, and who funds them. 

I'm a bit surprised that no one seems to have any answers - threads on this forum sometimes kick off with the latest One Dulwich press release/ update, or those updates often feature within threads to the point where, as far as the LTNs are concerned, the EDF can feel like the One Dulwich public information channel. Yet when it comes to any information about One Dulwich, no one seems to know anything, or if they do, they are unwilling to share.

This puzzles me, as this incuriosity sits in contrast to the huge attention to detail shown by anti- LTN posters of poring over Southwark Council data or the technical merits of measuring strips. Why would those opposed to LTN's not want to find out a bit more about the people, motives and finances of the organisation they seem to espouse and support?

I'm never comfortable with an organisation that purports to be some kind of popular movement, but remains opaque. Rightly or wrongly, it makes me feel I'm not being levelled with. Is One Dulwich all that it seems? Only further information would tell. 

[Spartacus]

Hi DulVilleRes 

Guess the only course of action is for you to approach one dulwich and ask the questions directly. 

It may well be that whilst people post their updates that they have seen, they are not part of the group.so can't answer the question.

If you do find the answers you seek please post them on the forum so that everyone can see. 

[Rockets]

To be fair does anyone know, or care, who is behind Clear Air Dulwich, Clean Air For All Dulwich, Dulwich Roads or Mums for Lungs or any number of the various lobby groups there are involved in this debate?

 

It seems to me that people fixate on trying to establish who is behind a group when they don't agree with their position and they use it as a tool to try and position them as some shadowy organisation with links that go beyond the local community they purport to represent. There have long been rumours about many of the aforementioned groups and the links, of many of those supporting LTNs, to the council but no-one has ever been able to prove it (although of course Cllr Pollack did get caught with his, shall we use Anna Goodman's term "impulsive", long running social media programme using the @SouthwarkYIMBY account to abuse and deposition residents in another part of the borough in a issue over housing).

 

As I said previously if Cllr McAsh, Cllr Newens and Cllr Leeming were happy to engage with One Dulwich so they must have established that they are who they say they are and are representing local residents (am I right in thinking Helen Hayes refused to meet with them until she established who their supporters are?) - especially Cllr McAsh who was very explicit about only responding to constituent questions when he communicated via the forum in his role as Goose Green councillor. 

 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

35 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Guess the only course of action is for you to approach one dulwich and ask the questions directly. 

I think the OneDulwich Twitter account was asked this in the past but declined to answer it. Perhaps the person operating the account missed the question. To be fair, there is a lot of rubbish on Twitter.

Going back through the Twitter account, it looks like there's only ever been one person publicly associated with OneDulwich as its co-founder. That person is something of a frequent letter writer to the newspapers, sometimes on behalf of OneDulwich and separately on behalf of Dulwich Alliance. (OneDulwich has said it supports Dulwich Alliance's position, but presumably is not supposed to be the same as Dulwich Alliance). OneDulwich also claims to represent 1100 supporters... 🤔

[first mate]

Interesting to see efforts to wrench the thread around to 'who are One Dulwich?' and 'some if you must be hand in glove with them' but not a single peep about the quite extraordinary behaviour of Dr Anna Goodman caught on CCTV surreptitiously taking down an anti LTN poster in a local shop?

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but I do not think anyone on this thread is actively involved with OD. A number of us are interested in hearing answers to questions they have posed to the Council via James McAsh. 

OD have rather usefully asked questions a lot of us would like answers to. Whoever or whatever they are does not invalidate those questions.

So do those of you who are so interested in exposing OD as dodgy or shady or whatever it is you have in mind, not the least bit bothered about what Anna Goodman did, given her fairly central role in producing data to support LTNs?

[Rockets]

DKHB - and to be fair, if you are able to ask a question to the One Dulwich twitter account that is more you can do for many of the other accounts - who only allow those they follow or they have replied to to engage with them! 😉 

 

Yes, not many people coming on here to defend Anna Goodman today (I am surprised Peter Walker didn't cover it as an exclusive - most other things from that group get his undivided attention! ;-)). In fact, many of the pro-LTN lobby seem to have lost their voices. 

 

I was interested to read that she claimed to the Daily Fail that she was "engaged with local LTN schemes" but that she "maintains a professional standpoint when conducting academic research". I wonder what she means by engaged - surely being engaged in any local LTN scheme (either for or against it) would be a massive conflict of interest given her role and the "impartial" nature of it and something she would have been encouraged to avoid? 

I wonder if Anna did the honourable thing and resigned from her role on the LTN review project today or whether she got lots of #solidaritycomrade messages from her friends and supporters and then helped arrange a boycott of the shop that dared release the footage.....;-) 

 

In all seriousness her actions do pose a big dilemma for the £1.5m LTN review as she has been one of the lead researchers and, surely, nothing can now be published in her name and she has tarnished all of her work to this point? I wonder if everyone involved in the project will be asked to declare any conflicts of interest as a result as it is very embarrassing for the funders of the programme.

 

It is also a headache for Cllr McAsh in his new role because a lot of the data on cycling numbers in East Dulwich came from her research (which I hasten to add was roundly criticised at the time by many) - I wonder if One Dulwich will be asking him whether that research cannot now be considered impartial?

 

 

 

[Froglander]

What road does the brazen poster removing Anna Goodman live in?

[first mate]

6 minutes ago, Froglander said:

What road does the brazen poster removing Anna Goodman live in?

Okay, I know I was one to raise the issue of her behaviour but with hindsight I have little doubt the individual feels awful. It must be pretty embarrassing for her.  I'd prefer to focus on the bigger picture.

The key thing here is the questions being asked about local LTNs and specifically data used to justify them. I really hope Cllr McAsh has the courage to  really look at this carefully and ensure data is up to scratch and has been handled independently and impartially by those involved in collection and analysis.

[CPR Dave]

That video is shocking. It makes me wonder if she stole anything else from inside that shop.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12255731/amp/Moment-university-academic-tears-anti-LTN-petition-poster-shop-near-south-London-home.html

[malumbu]

Sorry I am lost, I thought this thread was about a meeting between a single issue group (One Dulwich) and the local authority.  We've now had three people post the same story about an academic.  I'll discuss that on the wider LTN thread, ie on the Lounge, where it is rightly put, where all of you can click on (surely everyone is computer literate on this site).

So back to the point of the thread.  From my understanding, One Dulwich will support timed closing of roads to help reduce pollution, carbon emissions, road safety, make them active travel friendly, get kids out of cars, reduce car use, reduce the number of cars and make Brexit work.  It sort of says that on their Website.  With such widespread and community friendly, environmental friendly and health friendly policies what's not like?

From my understanding from the Southwark Website LTNs refer to closing roads to road traffic.  Timed closures are not strictly LTNs

The One Dulwich in principle supports the timed road closures around the Dulwich area.  Sorted.

(getting community buy in will merely kick the can down the road for another generation, there will always be a group of drivers who will be disadvantaged/portest).

Right back to Anna Karenina or whatever she is called.  See you in the Lounge.

 

 

 

[Rockets]

Mal, no what this thread shows is that slowly but surely the playing field is starting to be levelled and some of the things we have been saying, that many of you have been challenging us on for tne last three years. are being proven to be 100% true. And the downfall has been concocted, accidentally, by the very people who were instrumental in plotting and executing LTNs in the first place - it looks like the power, and the unwavering support from their supporters, went to a few people's heads and they couldn't help themselves and showed their true colours (TFL bullying, Turney Road submission debacle, Anna Goodman).

The last few months haven't been the greatest for the pro-LTN lobby - the house of cards is looking a little precarious right now.

 

 

[DulvilleRes]

The academic ripping down an anti LTN petition isn't a great look. But is it the LTN smoking gun that some of the posters on this thread claim it is? I'm not convinced. My understanding is the academic didn't do all the studies and she didn't do them alone. The article I read doesn't time date when the incident occurred. It looks recent to me, so that being the case, it would post dates the studies. She defends herself as a moment of madness, for which there could be all kinds of reasons. If there is an issue in her work, I'm sure it will be reviewed by her peers and employer, who will be closer to the facts than any of us will be.

The thing I've found most revealing about this whole situation is the papers that chose to run it - the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. In recent years they have comprehensively aligned themselves to culture war issues. I notice that, as far as I am aware, they weren't running stories about how in leafy Dulwich, the Police had to be involved in the sheer and sustained level of nastiness of the direct intimidation some supporters of the LTN's experienced at the hands of those of an anti LTN persuasion, but they chose to run one on an expert falling down. So it is fair to say that the anti LTN cause is of considerable interest to the right wing press. I also note that a lot of the anti LTN campaigning locally has taken on an unnecessarily culture wars hue - some of the stuff I've read about the cabal of lycra clad cycling eco warriors in cahoots with the Council could, in my view, easily have fitted the rhetoric of the Daily Mail.

The local Conservatives ran virtually their entire recent local election campaign on the LTN single issue and lost. It always struck me as an interesting choice by the local Conservatives, when there are so many other local issues. So, my questions remain - in whose interests is it to keep cranking up the LTN issue? Who funds One Dulwich and do their leading lights have strong political affiliations they aren't telling us about? One would hope that it is the apolitical community group it purports to be, but it really is a mystery to me, and If anyone has further information on this, please do share. 

 

 

[heartblock]

Who runs Clean Air Dulwich?

Well I do know actually and they do not live on a boundary road...but I think all this ‘who runs’ business is not the point.

The traffic on certain so called ‘boundary’  roads is unacceptable as these are also resedential roads and school roads.

Bus routes have been affected.

So if a pressure group can gather information, look at research and apply some review of methods and statistics that have not been peer reviewed in the academic research published, then that is a good thing? No one should be reticent at having their research or methodology reviewed and it’s vital that our public transport systems are not negatively effected by interventions.

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

That's partially true, but OneDulwich claims to be a group that represents local residents, and that's the basis on which its repetitive and disingenuous questions on data should be entertained for years on end. But is it actually a group or just a guy with an email address and a knack for PR? 

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

in whose interests is it to keep cranking up the LTN issue?

Evidently not the Tory candidates' - they positioned the last council election as a referendum on LTNs, and were demolished. The very local community has kind of taken a decision on this issue through the medium of elections...

[Rockets]

DulvilleRes - but it does nothing for the claims of her impartiality does it? You can't behave like that if you want to be perceived as impartial in your research. Rush of blood to the head, impulsiveness is no defence  - it is not the behaviour of anyone who should be trusted to report impartially on LTNs. Also, the bigger story is her admission that she has been "engaging" in LTN issues locally - if that means campaigning positively for them then it is a huge conflict of interest and one she should have been smart enough to recuse herself from and steer well clear of.

You can try to brush it under the carpet all you like but what she did has given all those who have suspected that her research is tinged by pro-LTN bias a smoking gun in the form of video. And why do the media report on it - cos it is a "gotcha" the classic "don't bring me a story about a dog biting a man but one of a man biting a dog"?

Of course the Torygraph and Fail report on it because their readership relate to it and click on it. The same is true on why Peter Walker and the Guardian would report on her findings at length to celebrate LTNs and why they didn't report on her indiscretion. Media is not impartial and writes stories, not based on the newsworthiness, but whether it resonates in their echo chamber.

Given we had a Southwark pamphlet dropping through our door today announcing the plan for borough-wide CPZs in the next year I suspect the noise will ramp again. And guess what....yup...the council is running a consultation on CPZs....and guess what...it's as skewed in it's questions as the last ones have been.....here we go again....