Rockets

I am pretty sure the letters CPZ and LTN were nowhere near their manifesto. There was no mention of anything to do with transport or active travel in the documents Labour pushed through our door….in fact they were more concerned with telling people how awful Boris was and how a vote for them was a vote against the government….I suspect they may return to local issues this time round but they will no doubt proceed with caution. A protest vote against the government would be funny this time round!

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it. Come on @Earl Aelfheah - your not so subtle editing and manipulation of my sentence to try and create an angle to attack me on is really telling.....

No. The problem here is you refuse to differentiate between spin/propaganda and fact and you presented spin/propaganda as fact to suggest there was a majority in support of the Dulwich LTN in the consultation. Clearly there wasn't and the polar opposite was, in fact, true - that there was majority opposition to the LTN. We have seen these tactics so many times before from the pro-lobby - when exposed for feeding people incorrect, erroneous or down right misleading information when challenged they then try to divert attention onto something else. Again, it is this type of behaviour that makes many look more deeply into what is actually happening as they question whether the council and the active travel lobby are telling them the truth or are they just feeding people lies to suit their agenda. The more that decisions like that of the High Court goes against councils and their lobby friends the more evidence there is that some of us were absolutely right to question the motives, lawfulness and execution of these programmes by councils.

This is exactly the issue and such a familiar pattern. People parrot the council narrative and say "look, look you have no argument because the majority supported the LTN", then someone points out that is utter tosh and cite a different stat from the same report and we hear...."time to move on"...this is why people draw parallels with the fascist Trumpian regime and their tactics based on lies, misinformation and distraction. The bottom-line remains that there are some who do not want any accountability because they are happy with the current status-quo and I can guarantee that if it wasn't an issue they supported they would be out in force demanding accountability. It's blinkered hypocrisy and aptly demonstrates why so many people have such an issue with the way many on the pro- side behave - defending the indefensible and happy to turn a blind eye.

@Earl Aelfheah but you chose not to use that did you - why? Because the council had spoon-fed people that there was support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55% stat - out of interest where did you read that stat - was it in the report that then (on page 18) referenced the opposition? One presumes you had not seen the actual opposition detail (or chosen to ignore it) when you made the claim for support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55%. Of course you can't because the figure you were touting as "proof" of support for the LTN was nothing of the sort but was presented by the council as such and repeated it. Absolutely not. I am not the one trying to convince people that there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN based on misleading and erroneous data. I actually bothered to look at the detail the council didn't spoon-feed people.....so my perspective on this is based on actual data from responses and not on spin or wishful thinking. To be fair - you keep posting misleading and incorrect information which was have to correct so you have a role in prolonging this too.......;-) Time will tell if this is a noble resistance or not but the fact people are still talking about it suggests the efforts are worth it - and there's an election coming up soon so, per you, surely it is important to remind people of things councillors have done so they can be judged at the ballot box as there is no other form of accountability.....;-)

Do you actually ever read the posts you respond to, you seem to be uniquely capable to conflate and mislead by twisting what was posted….it’s a remarkable skill!? The way Lambeth behaved in the consultation did not meet the high bar to be considered unlawful but it did come in for criticism which I outlined some time ago on this thread. Maybe go back, read it and then compare Lambeth’s behaviour to Southwark in regard to consultations….striking similarities….coincidence…or shared approach to get their way.? Even in the way they mislead members of the public by presenting data that was deliberately misleading….like your 55% majority support fantasy statement that you shared, incorrectly and misleadingly (perhaps knowingly mischievously), from the council. You see how easy it is to be manipulated if you don’t bother doing any research - most members of the public don’t - it’s why spin is so effective because it allows you to hide and bury the real story which is far more damaging because people don’t educate themselves? It’s fascinating the similarities between Lambeth and Southwark’s behaviour.

@Earl Aelfheah it's clearly much broader than that. I am just glad that I am sanguine enough to question what happened and try to hold our elected officials accountable and not lap up and regurgitate their misinformation (why does that create an image of George Galloway and Rula Lenska!). Time will tell whether anyone is held accountable. The West Dulwich High Court case has shone a bright light on how councils mislead their constituents and manipulate these consultations. If nothing else comes of it councils will probably ensure that they follow proper process and I suspect that will mean many fewer active travel interventions that are not supported by local residents. I am sure you'll agree that is not a great outcome but you'll probably try to blame our side for that as well rather than holding the council accountable! 😉

@Earl Aelfheah it is not for me to determine what censure there should be for councillors who have misled their constituents - the issue of course is that there will likely never be any accountability as politicians of all persuasions tend to close ranks - especially those on the left of the party who like nothing more to refer to each other as "comrade".... Maybe I should throw the question back to you - do you feel there should be any accountability - don't you feel a little played that they selectively fed you the "55% majority support stat" for the Dulwich LTNs that you have been using only to find out it was utterly misleading and the polar opposite of the reality? Doesn't that frustrate you - do you still trust them? I know it is a different borough but do you think there should be some sort of censure against the councillors in Lambeth who wasted huge amounts of tax-payers money on the unlawful LTN and decided to waste even more tax-payers money fighting it in the High Court? Or should people have to wait until the next election?

At some point dont you have to assess 1) whether there is demand for any type of infrastructure and 2) if you install it assess whether that investment has been well spent. We keep hearing...build it and they will come but there seems little analysis of whether that is the case. Again, is there any accountability/analysis of ROI for the investment of tax payers money by our elected officials?

@Earl AelfheahI called for accountability, you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and you suggested councillors are only accountable at times of elections which is beyond nonsensical - they cant do what they want without censure during their term.

Ha ha @Earl Aelfheah you're not mentioning the "majority support" for the Dulwich LTNs anymore....thank goodness...we have some progress! 😉 Southwark councillors agree to a code of conduct when they take office - the 7 principles of that are listed below. SELFLESSNESS INTEGRITY OBJECTIVITY ACCOUNTABILITY OPENNESS HONESTY LEADERSHIP Clearly some of this has been tested by some behaviour from councillors during this process but, of course, whether anything will ever be done to ensure there is accountability is another matter - a culture of accountability needs to start at the top. Southwark doesn't have the best track record of holding their councillors accountable when they have stepped out of line.

@Earl Aelfheah what a load of nonsense - councillors and other elected representatives don't have free reign to behave as they please between elections without any accountability..... Are you trying to convince us that the accountability for the Lambeth councillors involved in the West Dulwich debacle should be the ballot box at the next election?

Those responsible for it. Throughout this whole sorry process one thing has been consistent; the council's lack of accountability to their constituents. They have been happy to ignore, mislead and demonise anyone who dared suggest what they were doing was undemocratic and poorly executed. If any of us behaved the way in our work lives we would be disciplined - in some parts of the council, and amongst their cheerleaders and fan-bois, it seems to be considered a badge of honour. @Earl Aelfheah they managed to convince you that there was majority support for the measures by using the spurious and (deliberately) misleading 55% support stat and burying the actual result of the consultation. You either fell for that or decided to ignore the actual result - I wonder how many more people were hoodwinked in the same way. I am sure Lambeth council thought that they could get away with such behaviour with the West Dulwich LTN but they got caught (not only did the judge find it unlawful but also had real issues in the ways the council were manipulating the process, the consultation and the narrative around it) - but will there be any accountability? Unlikely. The left-wing elements of Labour don't do accountability - it's always someone else's fault - look at Corbyn, he's still banging on about a media conspiracy against him costing him the election in 2019. When I hear people saying....."it's years ago move on"....is a clear sign people know there are things to hide.

Good that you have finally admitted that your "55% majority support" for the LTN consultation nonsense was about as accurate as a pneumatic traffic counter under 10kmp/h - only part of the story and not being close to reality!!! 🙂 But that wasn't the case, per the council's monitoring, on all of East Dulwich Grove was it? Ripping out the square or increasing speeds limits would not make me happy. Holding those within the council, and their cheerleaders and supporters, to account for the un-democratic way they have forced measures against the will of the majority (the results of the consultation spell this out very clearly despite your, and the council's desperate spin) would make me, and a lot of others very happy. Bring it on. Perhaps the council should take the same approach with cycle lanes that it does with abandoned cars....if there are weeds growing on the cycle lane and clear signs that it is not being used then they will remove it for us! I am sorry but no-one can claim that cycle lane is well used - it's an abomination of an active travel intervention and a complete waste of tax-payer's money.

yes @Earl Aelfheah many of us have been saying this to many of your pals who have been very keen to accuse many us of being fascists just because we oppose the council's approach! There's certainly Trumpian fascist traits being displayed by some of your cohort. Oh don't start that again......not all of EDG benefited from this alleged "drop" though did it - which buts were red, was it the other two parts of EDG? By the way. does anyone know why the council removed the monitoring dashboard just when many of the roads started going and amber red when compared to traffic prior to lockdown?

No, you hadn't bothered sharing that information. Perhaps you would be so kind as to share the report as I do not live on Gilkes so am not privy to it? Also I am not familiar with Gilkes - was there a big parking problem there - I know there have been concerns about school drop off and pick-ups but CPZs do nothing to alleviate that? Also, not sure how long it has been since you went to school but nothing just evaporates....it evaporates, condensates and then falls as precipitation elsewhere...but it seems that as you are so happy about how clear Gilkes is (and the council no doubt over the moon they can chalk another street as being an additional revenue source) that what happens elsewhere probably isn't much of a concern. Not necessarily - Southwark have a number of criteria about what qualifies as an abandoned vehicle. If you report it they will visit the car to see if it qualifies - yes they will check if it is taxed or has been registered as SORN but they will also look to see if there are signs it has been left for a long time - disrepair of car, grass or weeds growing around/beneath it, flat tyres, damage to car, missing number plates etc. If so, they will put a sign on it alerting the owner that they have 7 days to contact the council or it will be removed. Did the Gilkes RA advise people to follow that process to have semi-abandoned cars removed before lobbying for a CPZ? Still struggling to understand why anyone would semi-abandon a car, especially on Gilkes Crescent.

But @Earl Aelfheah that one 55% stat showing support for the Streets for People strategy does not back up your claim that there was majority support. There was majority support for the streets for people STRATEGY - and it is exactly that it is a strategy. When you actually bother to look at the detail of the very same council report you can see that the TACTIC of the Dulwich LTN was not supported by the majority as the majority of respondents preferred for it to be returned to it's original state. That, I am afraid, shows majority opposition to the LTN - after all the consultation was on the TACTIC not the STRATEGY. I am sorry but the below means your claim is pure whimsical fantasy and a massive stretching of the truth. Ok, I know you can say "well that's what the council told me in their infographic I read" but you should really do more detailed research and try to cut through the council spin. I remind you it was that type of spin that the High Court judge in the West Dulwich case took a very dim view to. I refer my right honourable friend to the passage above and suggested one might get their own house in order before accusing others....;-) I am sorry but the 55% stat you quoted a proof of support for the Dulwich LTN is the very best example of misinformation. Come on @Earl Aelfheah you're spinning again. My accusation was that some on here seem to have taken pages from the despot dictator and fascist playbook in trying to manipulate facts, deny the voices of anyone who dares be critical of the measures and encouraging people to move on - nothing to see here. Honestly the way some of you argue is very Trump/Vance'esque. I think the "worse at the weekend" is because weekday traffic patterns have changed a lot and has nothing to do with timed restrictions - fewer people are commuting to offices during the week.

Again, the overwhelming weight of more scientific evidence than just your hunch suggests you are, badly, wrong. You're starting to sound like a despot dictator (or someone trying to prop up a regime)....honestly "if everyone that responded opposed, that is academic". Someone put a blue plaque up on this site entitled...."today marks the day democracy died....". It is really starting to creep scarily into Active Travel Fascism now....

What evidence is that because according to the active travel lobbyists on here personal assessments/opinions presented on here cannot be taken as fact...do you have anything beyond your own personal opinion to back that up. Still looking for a rational explanation as to why people doing a car sale ride hustle would "semi-abandon" cars on Gilkes yet seemingly no other road and what the motivation for that is....cars depreciate over time.... Look, we get it. Your street is now much less crowded than it used to be - you are clearly very happy with that but if what you say is true then have you given even a moments thought to what this has meant for other streets nearby or does that not come into your consideration? Do you also realise there is a perfectly good mechanism for reporting abandoned cars? We had one near us, that had been involved in an accident. Someone reported it to the council a notice was stuck to it and then it was removed after a set period of time. No-one thought a CPZ was the best way to deal with it.

Thanks @malumbu.....;-)

@malumbu on what evidence are you basing this on as every consultation, as your good friend Earl can atest, says exactly the opposite?

@Penguin68 completely agree. There is a huge level of hypocrisy from many on the pro-active travel lobby who are happy to preach to others about how they should live their lives but happy to turn a blind eye to their own indiscretions. Happy to tell everyone how they cargo bikes their kids to school (although they moan it tales longer to get the bike out and load the kids in that it used to to walk) and how they drive a Tesla (bought before Elon turned into a facist of course). They are less likely, of course, to talk about the 4x4 they own for trips to their 2nd house in the country due to range anxiety of the Tesla.

@Earl Aelfheah of course it is. You also dodged your question, are you still convinced after the 55% support nonsense you regurgitated that the majority supported the Dulwich LTN? Or have you changed your opinion when presented with actual fact rather than weak council spin? Is the Sydenham Hill consultation the only one left you can claim had "majority" support? Not sure how that gives the council a mandate for the ones in Dulwich do you?

So @DulvilleRes let me get this right...around Melbourne Grove it was commuters driving from Kent and Gilkes Crescent was full of semi-abandoned cars for people running a side-hustle....i always thought car depreciate over time. Have you checked what the roads nearby are like? This is why a lot of us have an issue with the self-centred and selfishness of many who love the new quiet roads but dont give two hoots about the impact it might be having on others. I'm alright Jack, I love my street transformed - who cares what's happening at the end of that street. @malumbu dont know about your cats but mine hardly ever stay put, they go everywhere...;-)

@malumbu maybe don't throw in road closures that create increased congestion...there's always that too isn't there? I am not on a train.....