Rockets

Legal, thank's for the clear guidance on how to find it. BTW Goldilocks etc - how on earth did you find that - it's hardly intuitive - did someone tip you off or send you the direct link to it? Even following the link from the LTN page you'd need to know where to find it once you arrive at the page. I also noticed the Champion Hill reference on that dataset. Interesting to note as well that for Sept 21 they have posted a number of sets of traffic covering each week yet only one for Sep 19 with those inflated traffic numbers. Still not convinced this is anything other than modelling - the council have been very clear, on numerous occasions, that no monitoring was in place before Sep 21 on East Dulwich Central - they aren't doing that for fun - there is a reason for that - we just have to work out what it is!

Just because there is a number on a map (which I still can't find I hasten to add) doesn't mean it is based on actual data. Are you really saying that the Sept 21 data is definitively, 100% actual data from an actual monitoring strip down in Sept 21 because someone added the council's number it onto an interactive map (amongst a lot of other numbers like the number and location of trees on a road)...? Unfortunately your argument is massively undermined by the council's own smoking gun per [www.southwark.gov.uk] ....No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021 I don't see why you struggle to accept this - the council has been clear from the outset that there was no monitoring in place on EDG Central prior to Sept 21. That is not s typo. A proof reading error or an oversight. You can try to spin it any way you like but it just doesn't wash I am afraid. The council has been consistent. The graphs they used in both the LTN Monitoring Study and FAQs and the Data Collection Timings document show Jan 19 and Sep 21 - no sign of Sept 19 anywhere. In the main monitoring report it states, clearly,: This is a new site for data collection, having started in September 2021. Or is this all one big collection of proof reading errors......if so then you can throw every other part of the report out if it is laced with similar errors as that seems pretty fundamental.

No I couldn't find the layer to show the info - there seemed to be a lot of options but not one of them showed the monitoring data. How do you get to that data - I would like to have a look? Are you saying that this is your proof - because the number appears on a clickable council map that that is definitive proof that there was actual monitoring? And you put this above the council repeatedly saying both that there was no monitoring at that spot prior to Sept 21 and that they adjusted Jan 19 figures recorded on another section of EDG to create the Sept 21 figures for EDG Central? You seem to be desperately trying to prove that Sept 21 EDG Central numbers are actual monitoring numbers when the growing weight of evidence shows that it was not - that the Sep 21 figure was derived from council modelling. Additionally, EDG Central only has a fall if you use the phantom Sept 2019 monitoring data as the pre-Covid numbers. If you use the Jan 19, factor in the Covid traffic reduction number then there has been an increase - which brings it, not surprisingly, in line with the other two sections of EDG and, trend-wise, with every other road monitored by the council. But we all know that EDG Central is so foundational to the residents of the Melbourne Grove (and other surrounding streets) to help them try to prop up the local councillors and this terrible LTN plan they put in place. Without it, there is little in the way of upside.

Errr, really....you honestly think that the council writing No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021 in their most recent report...is an error that was somehow missed in proof reading.....and you accuse us of conspiratorial theories.... The council has repeatedly stated that there was no actual monitoring at EDG Central prior to Sep 21 - they have been consistent with that. Just because you don't want to believe it's true doesn't mean it's not true. From day 1 the weight of evidence, from the council's own numerous reports, has shown that there was no data collected on EDG Central prior to September 21 - why do you think that is not true - what evidence based rational are you hanging it on? Look, we know that you desperately want "proof" that the LTN's are working but you really are fighting a losing battle. The EDG Central "reduction" you keep touting just goes to expose the folly of the council's approach. They have misled you and you continually use their data but the data actually does you a disservice as it is so easily dismissed as utter nonsense. The bottom-line is this (and this according to the council's own dashboard https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis): 3 of the 9 monitored roads have seen an increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels.... That rises to 4 of 9 if you remove the council's modelled data for EDG and use Jan 19 as the base. If you then factor in, say a 15% reduction in overall traffic, then it hits about 7 of 9 of the roads monitored would have seen a net increase in traffic compared to pre-Covid levels. Doesn't look at all rosy does it? But this is the reality. Also, I note with interest that Underhill is no longer being monitored...one wonders why.......;-)

Errrm...except for this which appears as the last line on paragraph two here...https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis ....No data collected for East Dulwich Grove Central prior to September 2021 So, where did they get the pre-Covid number of 15,000 vehicles on EDG Central...I tell you where - their modelled numbers....come on really, it's time to admit defeat...the numbers you tout for reductions on EDG Central are not fact but based on modelled data....modelling I hasten to add that worked wonderfully in favour of a reduction.... BTW which interactive map are you referring to.....?

Goldilocks - no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true - there was no actual count on EDG Central in Sept 2019 - those figures were modelled. So, in fact, are the only thing not based on fact..... Let me explain to you what the council has done.....they have taken the Sep 19 modelled numbers as the baseline for EDG Central pre-Covid levels but look the Sept 19 modelled figures jumped massively for some, unexplained, reason. Jan 19: 12408 *monitoring from a different, unspecified, location around EDG Central Sep 19: 15316 *the modelled numbers that magically jump by nearly 3,000 to give the council the reduction you tout and now used as the baseline for pre-Covid traffic levels on EDG Central Sep 21: 12675 the number quoted in the initial monitoring report but they now seem to be claiming 12,730 Oct 21: 12016 Nov 21: 12421 Dec 21: 10,746 Jan 22: 12414 Notice in the graphs here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis how the only one with no figures prior to Sept 2021 is EDG Central - why? Because there was no monitoring there before then. I think what is really shocking is that the council still has not factored in the overall reduction in traffic across the whole of the borough into their analysis so they are comparing a pre-Covid number with a post Covid number and not factoring in the fact that there are fewer vehicles on the road per se. The council estimated at least 7% less traffic across Southwark as a whole due to Covid so you start factoring that in and the results of the LTNs are actual like-for-like increases on many, if not most roads, in the area. How Cllr McAsh's words at the beginning of this about LTN's only being classed as a success if there are reductions on all roads are coming back to haunt him now!

All, please be careful. My wife had her phone stolen for the second time in about 8 months today at the junction of Dovercourt and Townley. She had noticed a group of three young boys on bikes (all three were black, between 12 and 15 years old, dressed in black hoodies, black trousers riding black bikes - they all dress identically and ride the same bikes to make it difficult to ID them) riding around Woodwarde. She turned down Dovercourt, thought they had cycled off and once she got to the bottom of the road took her phone out and one of the boys rode up behind her on the pavement and took it. When she called the police to report it they said they were aware of a gang targeting the Townley/Dovercourt/Woodwarde/Court Lane and there have been an increase in incidents reported in the last few days. Apparently this is the same group who were targeting Lordship Lane but have now moved to areas with less CCTV - there has been a 70% increase in reported crimes in that particular area and the majority are mobile phone thefts. The police know who they are and said one of them is 12 years old. Please be careful everyone - they are targeting women walking on their own using their phones.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why on earth would someone be sectioned for taking > part in a protest against the continuing use of > fossil fuels? > > It isn't the people protesting who are insane > 😡 Repeatedly sitting in the road in front of traffic refusing to move is the type of behaviour to get you sectioned....regardless of what the motive is. Interesting to see if this police tactic is repeated at future protests...XR want to he arrested so if you don't give them what they want and threaten to call an ambulance for them is a smart move.

Threatening to call an ambulance could be a masterstroke by the police. XR are anti-establishment and want to be arrested and want to make it as difficult as possible for the police and court system to process them. I can't imagine XR want to be a burden on the NHS and I reckon if you get taken to hospital enough times for sitting in a road they could probably section you which would be a gar more effective way of stopping repeat offenders! Also I can't imagine bragging about going to hospital and being sectioned holds the same cache at the Peckham Rye camp as being arrested...

I loved this bit... Asked about the controversial roadblocks which have seen ambulances blocked off, activist and nurse practitioner Anna Bunton said their policy was to let ?blue lights? through when possible. She added that pollution causes health problems, which helps justify when ambulances are inadvertently stopped. .....that's a great justification for blocking ambulances on blue lights.....one day they might return to Terra firma from their low earth orbit....;-) Do you think Sparrow and Wolf are their real names....;-)

So it is sanctioned by the council.......a list of rules...my goodness...if it turns out the portaloos have been provided by the council at tax payers' expense then we really do know the council is utterly out of control.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "For goodness sake even the Green party says it is > counter productive" > > As Waseley has pointed out, this is not a true > reflection of Caroline Lucas' views quoted in the > BBC article. The following are extracts from the > article where she is directly quoted: > > "I am sorry that it has come to this and that this > is the only way that people feel they can make > their voices heard." > > ... > > "Personally for example, if you are going to try > and stop Tube trains moving around I think that is > counterproductive. > > "I think that being on the streets of London has > been shown to be a way of capturing people's > imaginations. > > "People have joined those protests who have never > protested before. They are doing it because they > know we have to leave new fossil fuels in the > ground. > > "The International Energy Agency says that, the > latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > Change) report says that, and yet this government > and this energy strategy... is foreseeing getting > out even more oil and gas from the North Sea, that > is frankly immoral and the UN general secretary > said that is frankly both morally and economically > mad." > > Note she only believes attempting to stop tube > trains is counter productive. Given Sadiq's and Caroline Lucas' comments do you think they got wind of some of the tactics XR were planning to employ this week and fired a warning shot across their bows? They have targeted the tube before (remember when one of the XR protestors jumped on top of a tube and was sumarrilarily removed from it by builders who didn't take too kindly to him trying to stop them getting paid for they day!). I think this is the first time the Green's have accused XR of counter productive actions so something is happening. They are probably seeing that the extreme measures XR employs is having a negative impact in focus groups and polling.

Jenijenjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The council has been accused of SO many things > that anything more is likely to be water off a > duck?s back. The Council?s letter states ?XR has > given a number of assurances in relation to noise, > behaviour and leaving the park as they find it? > and at this stage we really can?t prejudge the > outcome. Would a formal agreement really make any > difference? How is that turning a blind eye going for the council....? This is what turning a blind eye enables.... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-61057845 For goodness sake even the Green party says it is counter productive.......this is the lunatic fringe being empowered by people who somehow think their cause is honourable....when the Green party says it has become counter productive you know they are doing long-term harm to the issue.

They are not there because they fancy a few days in Peckham Rye, they are there to muster from other parts of the country before "bringing London to a grinding halt" with illegal protests and disruption. You're basically greenwashing anarchists...just look up their founders' comments on subjects like the Holocaust and rape. Another one of their founders admits to driving a diesel car....go figure........not a group I would want to be associated with.

But the suffragettes' shift to a more collaborative approach was part of affecting change wasn't it? It might be one facet but it is a very important one and that is the point I am trying to make in relation to XR. P.S. Congrats on your PHD by the way!

But HP it is an important part of the story that public opinion swung in their favour and they actually achieved their aims when they focussed on supporting the country's war efforts rather than a campaign of disruption. One wonders when the penny might drop for XR that disruption is not actually getting them anywhere.... I also wonder how many of the XR groups campaigning for no more fossil fuels were, or would have been, part of the groups campaigning for no nuclear in the 1980s or part of the protests around nuclear expansion about 10 years ago...that's partially what got us into this mess.....hindsight hey.... It seems many of their members love a protest but offer little in the way of solutions.....

Didn't the suffragettes suspend disruption activities during the First World War and put their efforts towards aiding the war effort and that was the thing that actually swung public opinion in their favour and then got them the political leverage for change? I think this is the point many of us (and Sadiq) are making - XR is a fringe group that uses illegal methods that are harming the cause and discussion not helping it. The court of public opinion is clearing against XR and their various splinter groups and I suspect as they ramp their disruption activities this week from Base Camp Rye so they will do even more harm. If you think supporting them is somehow going to make any positive progress good luck to you.

Yes but some of us can acknowledge the need for action against the existential threat to our species without the need to go and break the law, cause massive disruption to innocent people or superglue ourselves to electric trains - I think that's called intellectual evolution! ;-)

I actually think XR do more harm than good - they turn people off the climate debate by their ludicrous protests - they seem to live in an alternate universe where there is a simple answer to everything - and they have scored more own goals in their short existence which has actually made them a bit of a laughing stock (Emma Thompson takes pride of place in that one followed closely by the one who superglued himself to an electric train) - some of them don't actually seem to know what they are protesting for/against and many seem to come from very privileged backgrounds (seemingly Oxfordshire seems to be the breeding ground for them!). In the same way Swampy created a negative perception of environmental protestors XR are doing the same and it seems even Sadiq agrees.... Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the actions of Extinction Rebellion protesters could ?discourage? others from joining the fight against climate change. Mr Khan said: ?One of the things that those who feel passionately about [climate change] have to do is to win over public opinion at the same time as putting pressure on the Government. ?My concern is some of the actions of XR discourage people from joining the campaign and don?t affect Government policy. I think all campaigning, protests, should be peaceful, lawful and safe, and I?m concerned that some of the tactics being used are counterproductive.? It is clear Southwark should not be allowing them to camp on Peckham Rye and should be doing their utmost to disperse them. Why should the council be supporting groups of protestors who are travelling to London who are coming here to cause havoc in London via illegal activities for a week and make Londoners' lives a misery to make a point that everyone already gets?

Well, they haven't been behaving very well thus far, they were at it today closing Tower Bridge and even Sadiq said their protests are counter-productive. Yet a few miles south Southwark are providing them a place to "regenerate" after their attacks - it's ludicrous. They are promising to grind London to a halt over the next week so the camp must be related to these efforts: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/08/extinction-rebellion-fossil-fuels-protest-grind-london-halt https://www.bigissue.com/news/activism/extinction-rebellion-london-protest-roadblocks/

I wonder if Emma Thompson will be jetting in first-class from LA to join the protest like she did on the Oxford Street sit-in.....ahem..... XR engage in illegal indiscriminate tactics designed to disrupt everyday life for many - there is no way the council should be encouraging that by giving them somewhere to base their attacks from. XR has spawned Insulate Britain and the Tyre Slashers (or whatever they are called) all of whom follow the same disruption tactics. Whether we agree or not with the over-riding aims of the groups the problem is the council set a precedent by allowing this to take place. And it is not just the cost to the council, this will likely require policing and there is a high chance we will see protests by XR in the local area that will cause massive disruption to everyone. So whilst a lot on here say...yes I will be welcoming them...would they say the same if it was a group they did not agree with? I suspect not.

If it is authorised then the council needs to explain why; XR are not a group they should be supporting or encouraging.

Yeah I suspect that if you or I went and pitched a tent on Peckham Rye for a few weeks the council would be less than pleased and would be doing their utmost to move us on. Travellers would not be afforded the same leniency. I am also concerned that people with a point to prove against XR might also be attracted to the park to make their feelings felt/disrupt the camp. Can we expect XR protests/disruption to be taking place in the local area during the duration of their camp - are they going to try and target roads like the A205 for example? The council should really be doing their utmost to not allow them to camp but I suspect XR know the law and how long they can stay before the authorities can get orders to move them on - I think the reference to common land might be quite telling. Owners of larger cars in the area might want to get themselves a portable type inflator just in case XR decide to bring their tyre deflating mates along with them.....

Admin - could you clarify where people are falling foul of the not sticking to the topic? On previous occasions the deviation has been clear and obvious - now it is much less so and the last two pages of posts pretty much all reference LTNs and between your two warnings all of the posts are in relation to the LTNs (unless of course some of them have been deleted). We all want to be respectful of the rules but it seems the forum members have been doing a good job self-policing and staying within the subject matter of the title of this new thread. Could you help clarify the rules of engagement please?

And this comment from DulvilleRes sums up, very succinctly part of the problem: "I do know a lot of people, however, who are looking to do something about the kind of world they will leave their kids." Once people start thinking about all kids rather than their own we will finally be able to make some progress. LTNs clearly benefit some kids not all...