LTN Discussion

[Earl Aelfheah]

29 minutes ago, first mate said:

A number of us feel the council has been less than transparent in the way it has handled street changes etc and they have the power to impose an agenda

You may not agree with their actions, but we know who our councillors are, minutes of decisions are all published. You can discuss the issues with them and they are elected and accountable. It hardly the same as someone anonymously setting up a website and sending out emails under a pseudonym claiming to speak for thousands of people.

[Bicknell]

good to discuss issues -- dont understand why some want to close discusssion down on this thread

[first mate]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You may not agree with their actions, but we know who our councillors are, minutes of decisions are all published. You can discuss the issues with them and they are elected and accountable. It hardly the same as someone anonymously setting up a website and sending out emails under a pseudonym claiming to speak for thousands of people.

Apples and pears. A voice like One Dulwich does not have the power to impose an agenda on the electorate in the way the council has. All it is doing is reflecting concerns about what the council has done in imposing an agenda, often against the wishes of those it has consulted. But clearly, you and other cycle lobbyists find this incredibly threatening and, for some reason, want to shut down that voice. Hardly democratic.

[Rockets]

Bicknell and First Mate - completely agree - there is a determine effort by some (who inevitably are on the pro-LTN side of the argument) to try and shut down the argument and they try to do that by any means necessary. It's not in their interest to have a public, democratic discussion about the things they lobbied to have imposed on residents.

Someone like DuvilleRes is happy to come on here and suggest One Dulwich is a political tool but no-one knows who DulvilleRes is, what their links to the Dulwich Society might be, whether they have affiliations to Labour or any other political party. And I really don't care and not advocating that but if you come on here trying to shut down democratic debate on the basis that your opinion is an organisation is party-political only do so if everyone is aware of what your vested interested is.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Someone like DuvilleRes is happy to come on here and suggest One Dulwich is a political tool but no-one knows who DulvilleRes is

DulwichRes is an individual posting their opinion. One Dulwich is part of a wider, co-ordinated campaign effort across the country, claiming to speak on behalf of the community. It publishes no details of it's constitution, funding, or leadership, but does release press statements and updates. That's quite a different thing and very unusual indeed for a legitimate campaign group. 

It is not 'shutting down debate' to ask obvious questions.

Edited January 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Bicknell]

clean air dulwich? friends of dulwich square? not that unusual then

[Earl Aelfheah]

You have a point, although they both appear to be mainly Twitter accounts, as opposed to being part of a national and co-ordinated network of similar groups often quoted in the press etc. The scale, reach and degree of organisation is slightly different. 

Edited January 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I think, looking at their posts, that DulvilleRes clearly has a vested interest or some involvement in the Dulwich Society do they not? And the Dulwich Society is very much at the heart of the debate locally, representing the views of Dulwich residents and currently split between those in support of the LTNs and those not - so they are not too dissimilar to One Dulwich after all. And let me be clear, I don't give a hoot if they are the head of the Dulwich Society but given they seem so focused on the One Dulwich folks it only 

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

DulwichRes is an individual posting their opinion.

And I very much suspect that those posting the One Dulwich updates are also individuals - I know I am as, for full disclosure, I have absolutely nothing to do with One Dulwich - which will no doubt disappoint the usual suspecs!

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And the Dulwich Society is very much at the heart of the debate locally, representing the views of Dulwich residents and currently split between those in support of the LTNs and those not - so they are not too dissimilar to One Dulwich after all

The Dulwich Society (a much better comparator than a couple of twitter accounts) are quite clear on their constitution, publish minutes of decision making, are accountable to members, hold regular AGMs etc. 

I agree that the Dulwich Society and One Dulwich are not too dissimilar, except in their levels of transparency, which are world's apart.

...this is kind of the point. We know nothing about One Dulwich, except that they co-ordinate with similar, equally opaque 'One' groups around the country. Are they all run by the same person, or people? One Dulwich (and the confederation of UK 'One' groups) have all the hallmarks of astroturfing.

Edited January 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I agree that the Dulwich Society and One Dulwich are not too dissimilar, except in their levels of transparency, which are world's apart.

And then I am sure DulvilleRes will be happy to let us know whether they are part of the Dulwich Society and what their interest is in the LTNs.

 

We eagerly await their response.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And then I am sure DulvilleRes will be happy to let us know whether they are part of the Dulwich Society

It's irrelevant if they're posting their opinions, on their own behalf.

 

Edited January 17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

So the same must then apply for anyone posting One Dulwich updates who is doing so on their own behalf? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

So the same must then apply for anyone posting One Dulwich updates who is doing so on their own behalf? 

No. There is a difference between posting your views, and promoting material on behalf of a confederation of UK wide groups who hide who runs them and how they are funded, and who appear on the surface at least to be involved in astroturfing. If you have a view, speak for yourself. If you're posting on behalf of an organisation that claims to represent others, it should have a degree of transparency and accountability. These are not difficult concepts.

[Rockets]

So I am sure you'll be applying that to any research you find where you cannot identify the funding source, or local lobbying groups where you don't know who is behind them - like Dulwich Roads etc?

I am looking forward to you practising what you preach.....

It seems to me that some on here just want to try and silence a group opposing their plans....

[Sue]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

People only ever do this when they have no thoughtful or rational argument! Or they call people names. Either way it's a clear sign of weakness, childishness or madness - take your pick! These are the types of posts you see before celebs say they are: "taking some time away from social media". 😉

And this is why admin does need to step in because if everyone behaves likes this the forum is dead.

I think admin has ways of finding out if someone is, or has been,  posting under more than one forum name.

I don't know if they are 100% reliable ways though!

[first mate]

It's okay, Earl has stopped masquerading as One Dulwich now. In fairness to him, the disguise was not very sophisticated- deliberately, of course.

[Rockets]

But I did chuckle to myself with the picture Earl had used of the driver biting the steering wheel in anger and wondered if it was a selfie from the time they complained to James Barber as they were really annoyed about speed bumps going in and how uncomfortable it was going over them in their car....granted that was a long time ago but my how the worm has turned!!! 😉 Perhaps they are actually a closet petrol-head after all!! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

It’s been nearly 5 years since the change in road layout. The new square a looking great. I can’t believe more than a tiny handful of obsessives would want it ripped out and replaced with a Line of queuing traffic. Long past time to move on. 

[first mate]

On 17/01/2025 at 17:47, Rockets said:

But I did chuckle to myself with the picture Earl had used of the driver biting the steering wheel in anger and wondered if it was a selfie from the time they complained to James Barber as they were really annoyed about speed bumps going in and how uncomfortable it was going over them in their car....granted that was a long time ago but my how the worm has turned!!! 😉 Perhaps they are actually a closet petrol-head after all!! 😉

That is the born again cyclist for you. 

[first mate]

Just noticed that Earl, one of the posters who has complained long and hard about there being multiple threads discussing LTN, as well as repeatedly stating that related changes are 5 years old and to desist, has just now started another thread about LTNs?! Bizarre.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Just noticed that Earl, one of the posters who has complained long and hard about there being multiple threads discussing LTN, as well as repeatedly stating that related changes are 5 years old and to desist, has just now started another thread about LTNs?! Bizarre.

 

Literally making the point about how annoying it is to create multiple threads on the same topic; something you (amongst others) keep defending.

...apparently to suggest that we should have one thread per topic is 'censorship' 🤣

Edited January 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Well maybe not the best way to make your point Earl, it just looks a bit silly.

I think largely threads have been recreated when they were locked. Aside from that, I think you have issue with interlinked topics being mentioned on multiple threads. You object because you feel LTNs, CPZ and Dulwich Square are all completely discrete entities that are completely unrelated. Whereas, we have shown they are all interlinked.

Edited January 20 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Well maybe not the best way to make your point Earl, it just looks a bit silly.

It looks exactly as silly as it is. Glad you now agree that creating multiple threads on the same topic is ridiculous (does this make you guilty of ‘censorship’ though? 😉 ).

Perhaps the anti LTN ‘updates’ can in future be posted to the LTN thread?

Edited January 20 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

I don't know you wait hours for an anti LTN thread and then three turn up at once.  I blame society once people stopped wearing hats.

[first mate]

As I said, LTNs, CPZ, Dulwich Square, One Dulwich, all interlinked, so any could pop up on many of the threads really.