Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  On 19/11/2024 at 23:55, Kipper_1972 said:

False plates. Runs away from the scene because he can't wait to scam another brand new car off Cahoot (or suchlike)

Expand  

What makes you think false plates?  The photo on the above link https://x.com/DulwichRoads/status/1858796233034182959?s=19 shows the number clearly, MV70CGU, which DVLA has as a taxed and mot'd 2020 1995cc black electric/diesel BMW.  Does that tally?  How is the scam you mention worked?

  On 19/11/2024 at 21:37, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You keep banging on about this Twitter account. Go and bicker with them on Twitter.

Expand  

A cynic might say that one possible reason the anti-LTN lobby bang on about Dulwich Roads on these threads (even though Dulwich Roads don't post their press releases on here) is to distract from their own litany of factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and to try and create some form of false equivalence. Despite the fact that the anti- LTN lobby are regularly called out for their inaccuracies, I have yet to see an apology for them. 

No, I bang on about Dulwich Roads, and others like the OP on this thread, because much of their content is based on ideological hope rather than reality. They post misleading information designed only to further their personal crusade against cars.

 

On that subject, if this is in the hands of a police investigation is Cllr Leeming ok saying this:

20241120_150907.thumb.jpg.aca856c03bae1bfda264cc40ceb1aad2.jpg

Edited by Rockets
  On 19/11/2024 at 21:37, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You keep banging on about this Twitter account. Go and bicker with them on Twitter.

Expand  

You can also direct message them on this forum and save a lot of repetitive posts.

Edited by malumbu
  On 20/11/2024 at 09:56, Rockets said:

No, I bang on about Dulwich Roads, and others like the OP on this thread, because much of their content is based on ideological hope rather than reality. They post misleading information designed only to further their personal crusade against cars.

 

On that subject, if this is in the hands of a police investigation is Cllr Leeming ok saying this:

20241120_150907.thumb.jpg.aca856c03bae1bfda264cc40ceb1aad2.jpg

Expand  

This seems a rather self-serving inflammatory post by a local councillor. I guess he must know exactly what happened or he would not be so eager to comment?

If this was, as is clearly possible, a stolen car then the chances of the driver being found and arrested are remote.  So going on about banning the driver and making him or her pay for the damage is very unlikely actually to happen. Virtue signalling like this is anyway not pretty. 

  On 20/11/2024 at 00:47, ianr said:

What makes you think false plates?

Expand  

It may have been a reference to "cloned plates". The scam works like:

1) present fraudulent documents to dealer to obtain car on credit.

2) find a car that is identical or similar to yours, have plates made up with THEIR registration number, put those plates on your vehicle. 

3) the finance company will realise it's not being paid or the transaction was a scam, but police etc won't be able to find the car because it has someone else's plates on it.

4) either drive around in the car until your luck runs out, or sell it to a mark for cash, or dismember it and resell the parts

 

Perhaps Cllr Leeming is a magistrate in his spare time? Does he know the finer details of what happened to such an extent that he knows that the cause warrants a ban or is he, like so many when they post anything about car accidents, taking a wild guess and speculating? And if he is, in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case with that post (this is not a snarky comment but a legitimate question to anyone who knows the law in relation to such things)? 

Maybe you lot moaning about the social media activity of people you disagree with should actually go onto that social network and argue with them directly there? Banging on about it here is weird behaviour.

...said by the person who started the thread using inaccurate information.....maybe that's why you want the discussion off this forum because it is exposing the very issue we have been complaining about for some time about the way car accidents are treated by those on the anti-car side of the discussion.

Everyone seems very quick to jump to conclusions without ever checking the facts.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  On 21/11/2024 at 09:43, Penguin68 said:

If this was, as is clearly possible, a stolen car then the chances of the driver being found and arrested are remote.  So going on about banning the driver and making him or her pay for the damage is very unlikely actually to happen. Virtue signalling like this is anyway not pretty. 

Expand  

You may be missing a point here, as the inference seems to be it is the fault of the owner for even owning a car that might, in theory, be stolen and driven dangerously/carelessly:)

 

Edited by first mate

The newsshopper report referenced by Rockets refers to a different crash on Dulwich common on Tuesday morning. A 24 reg car was abandoned all day with its front left wheel hanging off, partially blocking the road in the direction of Lordship Lane.

  • Thanks 2

Most car collisions are due to driver error.  Not sure why this is difficult to comprehend.  Making it us and them doesn't help any sensible argument.  I am happy to be labelled as pro safe roads, for all users.  Surely nobody can argue against that?

  On 21/11/2024 at 12:57, Rockets said:

...said by the person who started the thread using inaccurate information.....maybe that's why you want the discussion off this forum because it is exposing the very issue we have been complaining about for some time about the way car accidents are treated by those on the anti-car side of the discussion.

Everyone seems very quick to jump to conclusions without ever checking the facts.

Expand  

Timely reminder that Rockets defines anti car organisations as:

The Department for Transport

The National Highways Agency

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council

The AA
 

who all don't use the word accident.

  On 21/11/2024 at 14:15, se22 said:

The newsshopper report referenced by Rockets refers to a different crash on Dulwich common on Tuesday morning. A 24 reg car was abandoned all day with its front left wheel hanging off, partially blocking the road in the direction of Lordship Lane.

Expand  

Lol, so common and frequent that Rockets can't differentiate between the two...

  • Haha 1
  On 21/11/2024 at 12:48, Rockets said:

Perhaps Cllr Leeming is a magistrate in his spare time? Does he know the finer details of what happened to such an extent that he knows that the cause warrants a ban or is he, like so many when they post anything about car accidents, taking a wild guess and speculating? And if he is, in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case with that post (this is not a snarky comment but a legitimate question to anyone who knows the law in relation to such things)? 

Expand  

Explain " in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case".  Are you saying that by being an elected official he could be prejudicing a future case ? Prejudicing who exactly ? The magistrates or judge or jury ?

We don't know if anyone was injured or worse but given the information that's been shared so far it would not to be the case so trial by jury is pretty unlikely I would have thought.  Therefore it's likely to be a magistrate or judge that decides the fate.  Personally I think there zero chance of any punishment handed out being influenced by post on social media by a local councillor.  I believe that driving bans are mandatory for dangerous driving, maybe not so for the lesser offence of careless driving. 

Isn't this really about you having a dig at Leeming ?

  • Agree 2

No it's about Cllr Leeming posting his judgement on what happened - with his comment "should be banned from driving" he is projecting significant fault to the driver, he is suggesting it was sufficiently dangerous/careless driving to warrant a ban. So, we must presume he either knows the finer details of exactly what happened and the outcome of any police investigation or he is speculating and apportioning blame to the driver. 

 

 

  • Agree 2

Let’s be honest it can only be the latter, i.e. speculation. Still not sure how this is “prejudicing a future case” or why he shouldn’t express his view about the consequences for the driver, whether he is innocent or guilty.

 

Leeming's post came off as making an assumption this was a bad driver who deserved to be punished and foot the bill for damage caused. I'd prefer my local councillor to hold off until in full possession of the facts, especially before using the incident as an opportunity for some self-congratulatory spin.

Ah, Pete, but you don't understand the antipathy towards Southwark Labour councillors!

It's highly likely that there was nefarious activity, alcohol/drugs and/or poor driving.  Reminds me of the footballer Lee Hughes doing a runner after a fatal clash - most likely to avoid a drugs and booze test.  

That's what I think but I won't be called as a witness 

Edited by malumbu

Not at all, it is really distasteful to see a local councillor have such a knee-jerk ( as well as predictably self-serving) response to an incident like this. I also agree with Rockets that it sounds out of the Dulwich Roads playbook, so much so that some of us now wonder if much separates Dulwich Roads and Dulwich Ward Councillors?

  On 21/11/2024 at 20:26, first mate said:

an assumption this was a bad driver who deserved to be punished and foot the bill for damage caused.

Expand  

That is the assumption that any normal person would make upon coming across a smashed up abandoned car that's been driven on the wrong side of the road and flattened a traffic light, yes.

  On 21/11/2024 at 20:31, first mate said:

some of us now wonder if much separates Dulwich Roads and Dulwich Ward Councillors?

Expand  

MV5BNzIxZmIzYjEtZGMyZi00NDAwLWJmODktYTAwOWU2ZjkwZjdlXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg.a79206127973c32181328e66c118e3b5.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  On 21/11/2024 at 20:18, ed_pete said:

Still not sure how this is “prejudicing a future case” or why he shouldn’t express his view about the consequences for the driver, whether he is innocent or guilty.

Expand  

Not sure how you can ban someone from driving if they are innocent....

A local councillor is accusing a driver of driving in a way that warrants a driving ban. Surely it's for the police to decide? Could Cllr Leeming been accused of exerting political pressure on the police to influence a decision?

It seems that for some local councillors, Dulwich Roads and many posters on here any driver who has an accident is guilty by default. And they try to accuse anyone who is critical of cylist bad behaviour as waging a culture war.....some should really take a look in the mirror.....

 

  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The private sector is not going to build a significant amount of social housing. Everyone is very keen for *everyone else* to subsidise construction of social housing. I take it none of the objectors to this scheme was suggesting putting up council tax so Southwark could build more social housing...? Social housing isn't going to appear in serious numbers if the state doesn't borrow money and build it.
    • They must be really desperate to collab with Tesla. Honestly, it's not even the worst thing they've done. I've noticed these sex events happening in the last few months at a place that's supposed to be a restaurant and venue. I was planning my wedding there and was appalled by the setup for those events. When I discovered what was going on, I was disgusted by how they were using the same rooms as 'playrooms' where families are supposed to eat. The hygiene and safety concerns are just unacceptable. We really need to come together as a community to put a stop to this! They're destroying a sacred, Grade II listed building, and it's just not right. The owners need to be held accountable for their actions. It's time for us to stand up and protect our heritage and ensure that these spaces are used appropriately, especially when they should be serving families and the community.   sex events vid.mp4 sex events videe.mp4 Literally promoting it on their Instagram! Only just taken down after scrutiny.     
    • yes, which properly explains why they responded to me on this occassion, as i included the CQC in my response. I have spoken to the Health Ombudsman, and they feel the regulator is more suited to the issues I have raise for more than a year now. welcome aboard. its great to have you on the thread. so sorry you are also experiencing issues. has this been addressed as yet?
    • Tbh most Tesla owners are people who are concerned about the environment and have purchased accordingly- but mr nut job has soured their purchasing- so I actually sympathise with them being associated with such an awful man. But to actively promote the company given the knowledge we now know about him makes utterly unacceptable. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...