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 January 20 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 January 20 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 January 20 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 January 20 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]

On 20/01/2025 at 15:14, 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 <admin - removed> 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......?

On 20/01/2025 at 15:14, 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?

 

Edited January 25 by Administrator
Removed name. I do not want people working for a charitable position to have gossip and conspiracy theories about them on a public forum which can be found using a Google search. Discussion about the charity itself is fine, but individual names are not.

[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

[DulvilleRes]

On 20/01/2025 at 18:16, Rockets said:

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 <removed>'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......?

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

 

What an absurd observation. Why would admin delete someone's name because I asked them to?

My guess is it would be only the person themselves who can ask to have their name deleted, in which case, given the track record of real -life intimidation from some person or persons unknown from the anti-LTN lobby to people who oppose their views, maybe she feared for her safety? And before you go further down your excitable conspiracy rabbit hole, I don't know her and have never spoken to her, so I am just speculating.  

Elements of the anti-LTN movement seem to have quite the record for personally 'outing' people, especially women, who might have a view that conflicts with their dreary culture war narrative. People who support the LTN's and what they are trying to achieve have in the past been physically targeted in their homes, and some incidents have required Police involvement. I'm not suggesting you personally Rockets have been involved in that, but maybe you should think twice before gleefully bandying around names of your neighbours, especially those who don't put themselves up as politicians. 

Edited January 25 by Administrator
Removed name

[snowy]

^^and this is the reason why the person who hosts the Regents Park inquest on their website, asked me not to post it here. I believe they mentioned something along the lines of 'doxxing Ricks', whatever that means.

[first mate]

@DulvilleRes Deflection and culture war, right there.

Edited January 25 by first mate

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

My guess is it would be only the person themselves who can ask to have their name deleted,

Perhaps Admin could confirm?

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

Elements of the anti-LTN movement seem to have quite the record for personally 'outing' people, especially women, who might have a view that conflicts with their dreary culture war narrative.

No-one has outed the sub-committee chair and their work in the active travel lobby....it's all published public record - Dulwich Society published minutes and then search for thier name and you'll read about their work and awards for active travel lobbying. Someone clearly doesn't want the link to be acknowledged and that's fair enough - I am not going to go all conspiratorial but that does seem a little odd don't you think? The name keeps being redacted.

Clearly something very odd has happened in the Dulwich Society and some don't want  a debate about it.

But DulvilleRes you are being utterly hypocritical as someone who comes on here demanding transparency over who is behind OneDulwich, you have also thrown names onto this forum about who you suspect it might be. And then you post the above - is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?

What this all goes to show is the very point that I was trying to make. There are some who demand transparency -but only when it suits their agenda.

 

2 hours ago, snowy said:

^^and this is the reason why the person who hosts the Regents Park inquest on their website, asked me not to post it here. I believe they mentioned something along the lines of 'doxxing Ricks', whatever that means.

Of course they did - we believe you, millions wouldn't! 😉 Perhaps share the link to the website to which you refer and we can see for ourselves?

[ab29]

 

Campaign Update | 30 Jan

Greenwich LTN in the news The Daily Mail reports that the new LTN in Greenwich was opposed by more than two-thirds of those consulted, is badly affecting local businesses, and is diverting traffic on to roads that were already congested. Sounds familiar? More local campaign groups join us As we reported in our last update, One Dulwich have been working with Social and Environmental Justice to bring together grassroots campaign groups from all over the country to call on the government to change the law on LTNs.  Since The Times published our joint letter, more local groups have joined the original fifteen. We are now waiting for a response from Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander to our request for a strict regulatory framework for both new and existing traffic management schemes, in order to ensure that local authorities 1) do not disadvantage groups with protected characteristics, and 2) cannot implement or maintain schemes that do not have community support. Better signage needed at the closed Dulwich Village junction At a meeting of the Met Police’s Safer Neighbourhoods Panel on 27 January, there was discussion about poor and confusing signage at the closed junction, and how this impacts the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. If you have concerns or suggestions, please contact [email protected]

[DulvilleRes]

On 25/01/2025 at 10:43, Rockets said:

But DulvilleRes you are being utterly hypocritical as someone who comes on here demanding transparency over who is behind OneDulwich, you have also thrown names onto this forum about who you suspect it might be. And then you post the above - is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?

Never happened. I've never actually name-checked any individual. The point here is people who might be pro-LTN have been actively targeted to a serious level which has necessitated Police involvement, I have seen no evidence of that happening to anyone in the anti-LTN lobby, so the threat level is not comparable.

So I wouldn't blame anyone, especially if they aren't putting themselves up there as a politician, from wanting to protect elements of their privacy. This is what I find so disturbing about elements of the opaque shape-shifting anti LTN lobby - there has been a real nastiness involved at times, which feels completely out of keeping with any notions of community.  

The Dulwich Society, as a community-based, well-run apolitical organisation, does publish transparent accounts of who they are and what they are up to. One Dulwich, in contrast, which tries to present itself as some kind of community group, has failed to answer any questions about any undeclared political involvement and would appear to continue to refuse to answer questions as to who funds them.