Latest One Dulwich update

[first mate]

Thing is, as we now know, CPZ, LTN (and Dulwich Sq) all interlinked, so showing how LCC in cahoots with Labour has successfully managed to get both measures installed locally, against the will of the majority of residents consulted, can be placed in threads on local CPZ, LTN or Dulwich Square.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, but can anyone explain why these ‘updates’ by who knows who, moaning about the LTN, aren’t being posted in the LTN thread? 

7 minutes ago, first mate said:

against the will of the majority of residents consulted

This is factually incorrect btw. The majority of those who responded is not the same as the majority of those consulted. Also, Southwark Council’s published report Appendix D – Dulwich Review Consultation Report dated August 2021, states that "from a survey of 7,542 people (of which 209 were void responses), 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative. Aims include road safety improvements, tackling climate change, reducing through traffic and providing more space for social distancing. The Council decided to modify the scheme in response to feedback received."

Edited Monday at 09:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Because, as just explained, they are all interlinked and One Dulwich addresses those links.

5 minutes ago, first mate said:

Thing is, as we now know, CPZ, LTN (and Dulwich Sq) all interlinked, so showing how LCC in cahoots with Labour has successfully managed to get both measures installed locally, against the will of the majority of residents consulted, can be placed in threads on local CPZ, LTN or Dulwich Square

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

No. Whoever it is writing 'one dulwich campaign updates' is talking about LTNs. They should be posted in the LTN section .

Edited Monday at 09:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No. Whoever it is writing 'one dulwich campaign updates' is talking about LTNs. They should be posted in the LTN section .

Are you the Forum Police now? 😅

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s not me constantly running to admin. 

People are already free to sign up to these tedious ‘updates’ if they’re interested. At the very least (if you insist on reposting them), put them in the right section.

Edited Monday at 10:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

43 minutes ago, first mate said:

 

Thing is, as we now know, CPZ, LTN (and Dulwich Sq) all interlinked, so showing how LCC in cahoots with Labour has successfully managed to get both measures installed locally, against the will of the majority of residents consulted, can be placed in threads on local CPZ, LTN or Dulwich Square

People are free to subscribe to any groups, whether One Dulwich or those with influence/ contributing to the agenda of the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee. Posters are also free to contribute to threads, however hard you try to censor those views.

The above is relevant to this thread because One Dulwich gives voice to those locals who object to/question imposition of an agenda by a council seemingly overly influenced by cycling lobby groups like LCC. 

[Rockets]

And the fact is that some on here come complaining about One Dulwich are actually part of an organisation which seems to have become increasingly politicised. You know what they say about "those who shout loudest have the most to hide....."

[Earl Aelfheah]

50 minutes ago, first mate said:

People are free to subscribe to any groups, whether One Dulwich or those with influence/ contributing to the agenda of the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee. Posters are also free to contribute to threads, however hard you try to censor those views.

The above is relevant to this thread because One Dulwich gives voice to those locals who object to/question imposition of an agenda by a council seemingly overly influenced by cycling lobby groups like LCC. 

How is suggesting that views on the LTN be posted in the LTN thread 'censorship'? 

Edited Monday at 10:56 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And the fact is that some on here come complaining about One Dulwich are actually part of an organisation which seems to have become increasingly politicised. You know what they say about "those who shout loudest have the most to hide....."

Yes and by some accounts in quite recently, which makes inclusion of that information all the more relevant.

[DulvilleRes]

it might come as a bit of a disappointment , but I'm nothing to do with any Dulwich Society transport sub committee, and I don't know anyone who is. However, as one of 100's of people who turned up at the Dulwich Society Annual General Meeting, I was was somewhat baffled to be greeted at the door by 2 of the former prospective local Conservative candidates peddling some rule changes that sniffed somewhat of the 'Restore Trust' machinations the National Trust has had to endure in recent years.

My bafflement deepened when when one of their senior Conservative colleagues got up in the room and alleged Dulwich local Conservatives of using underhand tactics when it comes to local issues. Suffice to say the rule change tendency, operating in whatever guise they were in, were soundly beaten, which I found heartening. However, it did focus my mind on lack of transparency in local politics, which given the general degradation of standards in that regard nationally and internationally, is something I feel is worth posting about. 

So Rockets - you've told us you have no idea who is behind One Dulwich. Why aren't you interested in finding out? The group you support purports to be some kind of grass roots community organisation, but you literally have no idea or no interest in their provenance, and seemingly no interest in it. That says a great deal about where you are coming from, and your respect for properly open and informed debate. I'm sure readers of your industrial scale postings bear that in mind in assessing your pronouncements. 

[first mate]

I reckon if One Dulwich were being awarded and proclaimed as anti LTN and CPZ campaigner of the year by something like the 'London campaign for increasing cars on our roads', plus enjoying multiple meetings with local Dulwich Councillors and then seeing their vision turned into a reality as the cash strapped council ignore local consultations against but somehow find resources to build lots of new roads with free parking, then yes, I think we would all want to take a closer look. 
 

As it is, One Dulwich is a voice, a perspective, that is all. It feels to many locals that the imposition of many of these road changes has been extremely undemocratic, high-handed and paternalistic.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

it might come as a bit of a disappointment , but I'm nothing to do with any Dulwich Society transport sub committee, and I don't know anyone who is.

Ha ha...given you obsession with who is behind One Dulwich do you not think you should know who is on the transport sub-committee of an organisation you are a member of given they are setting transport policy for the Dulwich Society - something you clearly care a lot about....? 

BTW was it you who asked admin to redact Laurie Johnston's name from the thread when I told everyone about her active travel lobbying work for LCC etc? If not, any idea who it might have been and why they were so keen for it to be redacted......?

3 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

However, it did focus my mind on lack of transparency in local politics, which given the general degradation of standards in that regard nationally and internationally, is something I feel is worth posting about. 

On this were you aware of the presence of the local Village Labour councillors in the transport sub-committee meetings?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 years 🤣

[ab29]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

5 years 🤣

and?

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

5 years 🤣

Earl can't even get that fact right!!!!

[first mate]

Perhaps it's one of those alternative 'facts'.

[Earl Aelfheah]

My bad, just a mere 4 years, 7 months 🤣🤣

Give it another 5 months and it’ll all calm down

[Bicknell]

i dont think it will