One (part of) Dulwich

[first mate]

11 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

lol

"Rejoice in our socialist council, giving to the rich and taking from the poor."

 

 

I think this is known as "playing the man and not the ball". Plus, the implication that if you so much as dare to question or criticise the council, this is proof you are a gas guzzling, Tory. Come on DKH. 

I do find it odd in a cost of living crisis that our Labour Council can find millions to spend on the creation of Dulwich Square in one of the wealthiest parts of the borough. I would be less surprised but equally questioning if this had been the decision of a Tory council.

It is the council that decides and who are accountable for those decisions.
 
 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I think this is known as "playing the man and not the ball".

lol

"being a very political politician (now Socialist not Marxist) [McCash] may just be trying to buy time, as you say, while presenting different faces and 'takes' according to his audience; has anyone else noticed how borderline besotted Margy Newens appears to be with him, when she chairs the Scrutiny sessions?"

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/329019-southwark-wide-cpz/?do=findComment&comment=1641314

 

 

[first mate]

Surely you are not suggesting I have the same power, reach and influence as Cllr McAsh?
 

Cllr McAsh is, for now, the Cabinet Member in charge of the Streets for People policy, so it is legitimate to comment on how he handles the decision making process and optics around that. 
 

I think a number of us wondered why he had changed from describing himself as Marxist to socialist? It is relevant to know what ideology may be driving his political decisions.

Anyway, you still haven't revealed who"Mr One Dulwich" is? You and others have referred to this mystery individual a number of times. I am surprised you are keeping his identity under wraps.

[Rockets]

Dulwich ward councillors are a weird mix of marxists and champagne socialists....they don't tend to mix well...and neither are really the best examples of socialism!

 

It does seem very ironic that at a time when the council was trying to convince everyone their funding was being slashed by the government that they could waste so much money on Dulwich Square...but what's that saying about socialism and how great it is until you run out of other people's money to spend.

Edited August 19 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

Given that a lot of people from right across the borough, 60% of whom don't own a car, will benefit, I would say improving the public space for all to enjoy is a great use of cash. The constant stream of people who enjoy the area as it stands - having a coffee or a picnic on the benches, meeting friends, seems to have been completely missed by the development's critics. Even in the depths of winter, I've seen young people sat out there chatting. It promises to be a great addition to the civic space.  

[first mate]

But with so many local venues, not to mention the large parks replete with free seating, just a few minutes down the road, you can't seriously mean there was a pressing need for this space?

[Rockets]

And perhaps those without a car might have wanted something, you know, a bit more accessible for those without a car...

 

Honestly....

 

It is really amazing how some will try to spin the council's obsession with wasting tax payers money on that junction as to some benefit to everyone in the borough....it's all getting a bit desperate (and laughable) now.

Edited August 20 by Rockets

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 19/08/2024 at 15:07, first mate said:

I think those in favour of LTNs, CPZ etc, have to stop framing it as a left/right thing.

lol

 

On 19/08/2024 at 17:53, first mate said:

a number of us wondered why he had changed from describing himself as Marxist to socialist? It is relevant to know what ideology may be driving his political decisions.

  

[first mate]

On 20/08/2024 at 12:09, DulvilleRes said:

 Even in the depths of winter, I've seen young people sat out there chatting. It promises to be a great addition to the civic space.  

This is really seen as adequate justification for spending millions on the space? 
 
As for people across the borough visiting. Really? I just cannot see people making Dulwich Square a must see destination. They will pass through to go and visit the shops, the pub and restaurants, the parks, and the famous Picture Gallery. They will pass through because many will have to, it is one of the routes into DV.

10 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

lol

 

  

DKH, it is the council and Cabinet member in charge wot make the policy therefore they are accountable, you cannot really get away from that, no matter how many "lols" you post 🙂
 

You still have not revealed the identity of your "Mr One Dulwich"? I have asked quite a few times now?

Edited August 22 by first mate

[Penguin68]

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

They will pass through because many will have to, it is one of the routes into DV.

Or, if they are in private vehicles, not.

[first mate]

Well, no but it is or was a major access route into DV, hence the negative impact on those with mobility issues.

[raptortruckman69]

No it was a major access route THROUGH dv not into it. I don't need to know who one Dulwich is, I support him because he wants the junction opened up again just like me. I don't want to have a long detour just to get from one side of the village to the other.

We don't need more space for people to hang out. That's what parks and gardens are for. We don't need cafe space either. We need more road capacity for cars.

[malumbu]

Heavens, views like this make it less likely that it will be reversed.  Have a walk sometime.  Buy a bicycle, we could go on a nice ride into town or Greenwich.  Get a train or bus.  I went through the transformation and thoroughly recommend it.

[Penguin68]

And troll feeds troll... 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

23 hours ago, raptortruckman69 said:

 I don't need to know who one Dulwich is, I support him because he wants the junction opened up again just like me.

Fair enough!

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Heavens, views like this make it less likely that it will be reversed.  Have a walk sometime.  Buy a bicycle, we could go on a nice ride into town or Greenwich.  Get a train or bus.  I went through the transformation and thoroughly recommend it.

OMG 

Does that make you a born again cyclist preaching the gospel of Janssen ?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Janssen

Edited August 26 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

You will have to help me on this one as I usually give up after the first paragraph of a link if it appears irrelevant.

But happy to be tarred with a moral high ground brush.  

Edited August 26 by malumbu
Edited for clarification

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

You will have to help me on this one as I usually give up after the first paragraph of a link.

This explains a lot...Peter Walker loves readers like you! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 25/08/2024 at 11:29, raptortruckman69 said:

No it was a major access route THROUGH dv not into it. I don't need to know who one Dulwich is, I support him because he wants the junction opened up again just like me. I don't want to have a long detour just to get from one side of the village to the other.

We don't need more space for people to hang out. That's what parks and gardens are for. We don't need cafe space either. We need more road capacity for cars.

I actually like this comment. It's refreshingly honest. 

On the detour point, it's around a 2 - 3 minute diversion from Townley road to the Village at most; Just to put things into perspective.

Edited August 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Kathleen Olander]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I actually like this comment. It's refreshingly honest. 

On the detour point, it's around a 2 - 3 minute diversion from Townley road to the Village at most; Just to put things into perspective.

And all those 2-3 minute diversions for every vehicle adds to the pollution!

[malumbu]

As does the way many generally use their vehicles, the only time some are concerned about pollution is when they are inconvenienced.

Good news, for me at least, is the new government not getting involved in Sunak's silly culture wars, car drivers vs humanity.  Worth reading beyond the second paragraph: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v8d4lvjryo

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I actually like this comment. It's refreshingly honest. 

On the detour point, it's around a 2 - 3 minute diversion from Townley road to the Village at most; Just to put things into perspective.

You're reacting to a troll who is probably someone who posts on here in a pro-LTN capacity and recently set-up a fake account to post such pearls of wisdom - the clue is in the user name!

 

And the detour argument is the most flawed logic there is and why displacement is such a huge issue with LTNs - people don't stop using their cars they just drive further, thus increasing pollution. It's the Achilles Heal of the LTN!

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

You're reacting to a troll who is probably someone who posts on here in a pro-LTN capacity

Another conspiracy theory... 🤔

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

And all those 2-3 minute diversions for every vehicle adds to the pollution!

Not really. A huge number of journeys in London are very short (around a third are under 2km). Some people who may have driven to pick up a coffee from the village, will now walk. That's why traffic across the whole area actually fell.

The point is, that for those who do have to, or still want to drive, the extra time is pretty minimal. This isn't a particularly bold intervention, it's a small nudge.

The outrage at such a timid attempt at reallocate a tiny amount of public space several years on, really does tell you how out of control car dominance / entitlement has become.

Edited August 28 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

To correct my earlier post reporting that the Labour government was leaving it to decide to local authorities what was best, government can and should do more to encourage and enable councils to take action.  Funding will be available under sustainable transport programmes, until the last decade governments were talking the talk if not walking the walk, Earl's example above being a pretty good one, but a combination of Covid and the impact on government coffers, and Suank, reversed much of the previous commitments.

Sadly I can't give links as whatever ministers said pre 2020 is wiped off the web, there may be references in the media and you can get some stuff in the national archives.

Heaven knows what happened with regards to meeting statutory air quality roadside concentrations of pollutants.  Government was ordered to sort this out by the Supreme Court in 2015, but it has long since gone quiet from the centre.