Latest One Dulwich update

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The consultation did not show that the majority of local residents were against the LTN.

The most recent one did, despite the council making it very difficult for anyone to object (which interestingly they were forced to change for the CPZ consultation and look how that went for them). I will dig out the responses for you when I have more time so you can enlighten yourself.

 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Not for the first time, you’ve confused a ‘consultation’ with a ‘referendum’.

Ha ha...the language used by councils when they see the results of a consultation and need an out to ignore the views of locals...;-) Did you not notice how this only became a thing once the consultation had been run....one wonders why!?

Earl you can bluster all you like but you cannot ignore the fact the council closed the junction to emergency services and put lives at risk and resisted all calls (from the emergency services) to open it for them. Surely you can't defend that  or are you willingly turning a blind eye to that too?

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it,

Ha ha, which kind of begs the question then why so many of you get so vexed by One Dulwich? Surely you could compartmentalise their work if the above was true? I suspect it has a lot to do with the accountability that they are forcing and the fact some don't like it.

Edited April 28 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

There is no equivalence between One Dulwich purporting to be a local organisation speaking for local people, and actually properly constituted organisations such as The Dulwich Society. A 3 -second google search reveals the openly published names of the trustees of Dulwich Society, so I can make my own mind up as to whether these individuals are coming at local issues with a particular slant. I can read minutes of their meetings online, and whilst I might not agree with their every position, I can have confidence that they are an open and fundamentally democratic institution. There is absolutely nothing similar in terms of publicly accountable information to be found about One Dulwich - no idea of who is behind it, who pays for it ( it is clearly expensive), and on what basis they make their decisions. 

Given the Police involvement in the intimidation of people with a public pro-LTN view ( for which there is no equivalence in terms of severity of any incident for those with an anti-LTN point of view), I can fully understand why, for Dulwich Society's traffic sub- committee only, they want a bit of online anonymity. I also find it slightly disturbing that when The Dulwich Society current leadership asked the 'grouping' pushing for changes within it for a meeting to discuss their concerns, they refused it. Given the recent experiences of organisations such as The National Trust, the question can be asked - is something similar going on here? 

 

[Rockets]

17 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

Given the Police involvement in the intimidation of people with a public pro-LTN view ( for which there is no equivalence in terms of severity of any incident for those with an anti-LTN point of view), I can fully understand why, for Dulwich Society's traffic sub- committee only, they want a bit of online anonymity.

But you don't think the same protection should be afforded to those on the anti-LTN side...? Given the witch hunt some are be conducting to unearth which local residents are involved (see numerous examples on this forum), given the vandalism of the anti-LTN signs and interference with cars, labelling of anyone who opposes as some sort of petrol-head facist and given even Anna Goodman's tearing down of an anti-LTN poster you still think you only want anonimyity for those on one side of the argument?

Does that not seem slightly hypocritical...it's why your first post on this issue entertained so many of us - it seemed ever so one-sided and summed up the challenges anyone who opposes the measures has to fight?

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets : No one has changed the definition of 'consultation' or 'referendum', or switched the terms. They are different things and have different meanings. You can even check this in a dictionary if you're not sure about it.

Regarding the most recent consultation (at least the one I assume you're referring to), it was about the design of the Square. It was not a consultation on the existence of the LTN itself, despite (again rather desperately and a little embarrassingly) some people pretending it was, and encouraging others to do the same.

As for One Dulwich, I think what vexes people has been very clearly articulated, and very conspicuously ducked by those cheerleading the latest missive:

Firstly, they're claiming that people are accidentally driving through the square because of bad signage / lack of clarity. This is both ridiculous and ironic. Ridiculous because no sensible person could possibly believe it to be true, and ironic because they've objected to any updates to the layout (instead trying to turn a consultation on the design into a rerun of the LTN consultation itself, which closed several years ago as noted above).

Secondly, they've claimed that someone has been pressurising the emergency services, yet fail to say who, or how. You seem to have suggested it may be the involvement of the 'far left' 😄

Anyway, It's all very tedious. If you want to improve signage, engage in that conversation, instead of trying to reopen debates that have finished. If you're going to claim intimidation of the emergency services, you probably want to give details and have some evidence. And if you think someone can drive through the square by mistake, you may want to question what you consider to be safe and competent driving. 🤣

 

 

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

There's a simple solution, let's have a referendum on the LtNs and Dulwich junction that is restricted to residents living within a mile of it. (This stops outside interference by organisations for either side)

Then let's see if there is support for or against it and have a legal binding agreement that the results are respected and acted upon by the council. 

Sounds fair to me or are people scared of discovering how strong feeling is either way ? 

[ab29]

25 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@Rockets : No one has changed the definition of 'consultation' or 'referendum', or switched the terms. They are different things and have different meanings. You can even check this in a dictionary if you're not sure about it.

Regarding the most recent consultation (at least the one I assume you're referring to), it was about the design of the Square. It was not a consultation on the existence of the LTN itself, despite (again rather desperately and a little embarrassingly) some people pretending it was, and encouraging others to do the same.

As for One Dulwich, I think what vexes people has been very clearly articulated, and very conspicuously ducked by those cheerleading the latest missive:

Firstly, they're claiming that people are accidentally driving through the square because of bad signage / lack of clarity. This is both ridiculous and ironic. Ridiculous because no sensible person could possibly believe it to be true, and ironic because they've objected to any updates to the layout (instead trying to turn a consultation on the design is a rerun of the LTN consultation itself which closed several years ago, as noted above).

Secondly, they've claimed that someone has been pressurising the emergency services, yet fail to say who, or how. You seem to have suggested it may be the involvement of the 'far left' 😄

Anyway, It's all very tedious. If you want to improve signage, engage in that conversation, instead of trying to reopen debates that have finished. If you're going to claim intimidation of the emergency services, you probably want to give details and have some evidence. And if you think someone can drive through the square by mistake, you may want to question what you consider to be safe and competent driving. 🤣

 

 

LTN is s**t. I live on LL and the traffic, noise and air pollution has never been worst since this ridiculous vanity project was introduced. It has to go - and it will. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

What other matters of policy would you have decided by referendum, or is it just the one you feel strongly about? 🙄

We live in a representative democracy for good reason. After Brexit I thought this would be even clearer. We’ve had local elections since the LTN came in and those who introduced it were returned to office. You may want to revisit a debate that finished 3 years ago, but it isn’t going to happen. You need to move on.

…still no one willing to defend the claims in One Dulwich’s latest missive I note. 😂

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 No one has changed the definition of 'consultation' or 'referendum', or switched the terms. They are different things and have different meanings. You can even check this in a dictionary if you're not sure about it.

Prior to the LTNs do you have many examples where the results of consultations were not acted upon? Seems to me the council is picking and choosing when they action the feedback from their constituents.......

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Regarding the most recent consultation (at least the one I assume you're referring to), it was about the design of the Square. It was not a consultation on the existence of the LTN itself, despite (again rather desperately and a little embarrassingly) some people pretending it was, and encouraging others to do the same.

Have you looked at the results from that, if not, tale some time to have a look, its quite enlightening..it seems the majority do not think the changes will have the desired effect....but you know it's not a refendum so the council has chosen to ignore the feedback of constituents. They must be assuming full responsibility for ignoring residents feedback- clearly they think they know what's best for us. If it all goes wrong let's see if they take responsibility!

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

was not a consultation on the existence of the LTN itself,

Earl, here's a question for you (and i know you wont answer it but lets see)...why do you think the council has never asked a yes/no question to local residents about anything to do with the LTNs - wether they exist or whether we think the changes they have suggested (using our money) are needed/worthwhile?

53 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

There's a simple solution, let's have a referendum on the LtNs and Dulwich junction that is restricted to residents living within a mile of it.

Or a consultation with a yes/no answer but we all know why. I still laugh that the council had to re-run the CPZ consultation with a yes/no answer and finally had to listen to their constituents...they took a hell of a spanking! They have been cheating the system for years and getting away with it.

32 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We live in a representative democracy for good reason.

So does that not apply during consultations then? (P.S before you answer take a look at the definition of a consultation as provided by the Local Government Association).

[Spartacus]

47 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What other matters of policy would you have decided by referendum, or is it just the one you feel strongly about? 🙄

We live in a representative democracy for good reason. After Brexit I thought this would be even clearer. We’ve had local elections since the LTN came in and those who introduced it were returned to office. You may want to revisit a debate that finished 3 years ago, but it isn’t going to happen. You need to move on.

…still no one willing to defend the claims in One Dulwich’s latest missive I note. 😂

Sounds like you are running scared of the idea Earl, come now with so much debate over what is a consultation /referendum surly it's a simplel way of settling the argument 🤔 

[Earl Aelfheah]

45 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl, here's a question for you (and i know you wont answer it but lets see)...why do you think the council has never asked a yes/no question to local residents about anything to do with the LTNs - wether they exist or whether we think the changes they have suggested (using our money) are needed/worthwhile?

They have. They asked in the original consultation. I’ve talked about it above. Around 3000 people (57% of a self selecting sample), were against the scheme. But the point you seem to be struggling with is that it wasn’t a referendum. We don't routinely have referenda on matters public policy in the UK (Brexit aside). We elect people to make decisions and then we judge the quality of those decisions in the round, and either re-elect them, or kick them out. That’s representative democracy.

It’s not a good idea imo, but happy to listen if you do want to make the case for the routine use of referenda in matters of public policy. Not so much if you just want to use it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about.

Still ducking the question I’ve posed to you more than once now on claim of inadequate signage and intimidation of emergency services I note.

22 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Sounds like you are running scared of the idea Earl, come now with so much debate over what is a consultation /referendum surly it's a simplel way of settling the argument 🤔 

I actually think the majority quietly support the local LTN. The local elections suggest that most people either support it, or don’t feel strongly enough either way for it to stop them re-electing those who oversaw the implementation (even though opposition voices touted the local elections as a referendum on the LTN). Polling across London suggest most Londoners support them generally.

Again, I don’t believe in routinely holding referenda on matters of public policy. There are many reasons for this but that's another thread. Hopefully any sensible person reflecting on it for a second will understand the reasons why it wouldn’t be desirable. As above, if you're just interested in using it selectively for a single issue you feel strongly about, I'm not really interested.

....Still waiting for someone to defend One Dulwich’s claims as laid out above. 🥱

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

1 hour ago, ab29 said:

LTN is s**t. I live on LL and the traffic, noise and air pollution has never been worst since this ridiculous vanity project was introduced. It has to go - and it will. 

@Earl Aelfheah do you find living on a busy and polluted road funny? Why? I simply can't afford moving away - is this amusing and if so, why?

[Spartacus]

Ahh, the local election where even if Labour said they were going to slaughter all first born, people would still have voted for them to stick one to Boris snd the tories 🤣

You really can't take that as an endorsement for a scheme that felt marginal compared to how people felt about bigger issues..

[Rockets]

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They have. They asked in the original consultation. I’ve talked about it above. Around 3000 people (57% of a self selecting sample), were against the scheme.

To which one do you refer - the original OHS consultation from 2017?

BTW here are the guidelines on consultations: Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. 

 

It seems the voice only apllies if constituents agree with the council's proposals...if they disagree thays when they claim "this was not a referendum". 

27 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Certainly polling across London shows most Londoners support them generally.

...you forgot to mention that the polling was conducted amongst those who live WITHIN an LTN...an important, perhaps deliberate, ommission on your part..

Edited April 28 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Ahh, the local election where even if Labour said they were going to slaughter all first born, people would still have voted for them to stick one to Boris snd the tories 🤣

You really can't take that as an endorsement for a scheme that felt marginal compared to how people felt about bigger issues..

Perhaps not. But I would return to the question I posed above:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

What other matters of policy would you have decided by referendum, or is it just the one you feel strongly about? 🙄

We have a system of representative democracy and if you want to debate it's pros and cons, start a thread on it.

…and still no one willing to defend the claims in One Dulwich’s latest missive? Come on, there must be someone? 😂

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

LTN is scam and has to go 🙂

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Consultation is technically any activity that gives local people a voice and an opportunity to influence important decisions. It involves listening to and learning from local people before decisions are made or priorities are set. 

Yup. It involves listening before decision are made. It's not a referendum. Personally, I think it's good that 3,000 angry people don't get to dictate public policy, but we'll have to agree to disagree I guess (as an aside, if you actually look at the detail of the responses from the original consultation, they are all over the place. People saying they want to stop rat running, but also don't want to restrict through traffic for example).

The council took account of the responses to the consultation, alongside data, expert opinions, commitments they made to the wider electorate etc. Then they made a decision and stood for re-election on the basis of their actions. You may not like it, but that's our system.

Any chance you're willing to defend One Dulwich's claims now?

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

LTN means discriminating against those worst off - traffic, noise and air pollution is being pushed off to the main roads  where most vulnerable live on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shoebox]

Perhaps the issue is that Southwark don’t listen. They didn’t take account of responses. The proposed CPZs for west Dulwich  stopped when the Council was threatened with a judicial review. Not before. Whatever consultation process was worse than flawed with McAsh arguing that because they were in power, they had a mandate and didn’t need to listen to anyone’s views, rendering any democratic process void.

The criteria for LTNs was high population density, high public transport usage and low car ownership so Dulwich Village was a perfect candidate…not. Just a coincidence but I believe some councillors live within the scheme 

Edited April 28 by shoebox

[Rockets]

25 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you actually look at the detail of the responses from the original consultation, many responses are all over the place.

Which original consultation? 

 

25 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The council took account of responses to the consultation, alongside data, expert opinions, commitments they were elected on etc.

Err be careful with the expert opinion and data part.....if you think the cycle lobby and Aldred et al is the sole source of sound opinion on such issues! 😉

14 minutes ago, shoebox said:

Whatever consultation process was worse than flawed with McAsh arguing that because they were in power, they had a mandate and didn’t need to listen to anyone’s views, rendering any democratic process void.

And this is where they fell foul of the law and had to re-run the consultation. It actually casts huge doubt on a lot of previous consultations (including the latest DV one) as they do not pass the legal watermark because they do not provide a yes/no response. The council are terrified of a judicial review because, I suspect under legal advice, they know they cheated the system in many previous consultations.

Do you remember when the council claimed they had a mandate for the CPZs because of some seriously dodgy research conducted with a large tranche of students in the north of the borough in 2018.....

Edited April 28 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

I tell you what, I've answered every question you've posed to me on this thread so far, so before you deflect any further, why don't you address the simple questions I've put to you several times first. Here, give them a go:

Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how?

Do you genuinely believe that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the square due to inadequate signage?

 

[Rockets]

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how?

No idea. Ask One Dulwich

 

30 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Do you genuinely believe that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the square due to inadequate signage?

No. There are two seperate issues. I believe some cover their plates deliberately (delivery drivers etc) and a number are confused by signage. I spend a lot of time in that area and have only ever seen one car drive through and it was an elderly couple who were incredibly confused (and subsequently very apologetic to an angry cyclist who was calling them all the names under the sun).

 

Some questions for you to answer now:

1) Which consultation are you referring to?

2) Did you agree with the council's insistence on keeping the junction closed to emergency vehicles despite the emergency services telling them it was delaying response times?

 

3) At a time of funding crisis do you think £1.5m is a good spend to redesign a junction and those redesigns:

- potentially increase emergency vehicle response times

- do nothing to stop persistent number plate covering offenders

- do nothing to slow cyclists at a pedestrian area

 

Edited April 28 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 minutes ago, Rockets said:

50 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how?

No idea. Ask One Dulwich

Hold on a minute, aren’t you the one posting regular updates from ‘One Dulwich’? 

[Rockets]

Yes, but as I have said before I have nothing to do with their organisation (other than subscribing to their updates which I then post on here).

Sorry to disappoint you.

I await your answers....

[Earl Aelfheah]

55 minutes ago, Rockets said:

a number are confused by signage

I would suggest that anyone accidentally driving into the square is not paying due care and attention. If you disagree, I would be interested in what you consider a basic level of competence behind the wheel.

30 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes, but as I have said before I have nothing to do with their organisation (other than subscribing to their updates which I then post on here).

Sorry to disappoint you.

I await your answers....

Are you a member or a ‘subscriber’? Is there a difference. Does anyone know? 
Who is alleging there has been pressure put on the emergency services (not you, you’re just neutrally posting ‘updates’ 😂). It is all very transparent and accountable isn’t it 🤣

 

Edited April 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

50 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I would suggest that anyone accidentally driving into the square is not paying due care and attention. If you disagree, I would be interested in what you consider a basic level of competence behind the wheel.

No I don't disagree. I wasn't condoning drivers getting confused and the debate on whether refresher tests should be taken is a long one and is something probably for a Malumbu- thread!

 

52 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you a member or a ‘subscriber’? Is there a difference. Does anyone know? 

I take it you never entered your details as someone agreeing with their sentiment but lots of Dulwich residents did and as part of that you get their email updates. So no, I have nothing to do with tje group beyond one of those two thousand dots on their website as a "member" is me!

 

Now, are you going to answer my questions or pretend you never saw them....p.s. we have seen this tactic before - happy to throw questions but not happy to answer some yourself...