Rockets

I think some tactical voting is needed to send a message to Tooley Street that they cannot ignore their constituents any longer. A handful of independents could start the revolution! It's clear Labour are abusing their continual almost one-party state rule and for the benefit of everyone there needs to be some tangible opposition.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets - I'm no expert on council meetings > although I know the basic governance processes > from working with / for councils but the whole > point of a Scrutiny Committee is that the person / > people responsible for that policy are there in > the room to answer questions about it. This would > apply for transport matters, housing developments, > planning approval (councils often have a separate > committee specifically for that actually), > financial matters... > > No good questioning the policy if the people > responsible for it aren't in the room to be > questioned. It's a good thing they're there, not a > bad thing. > > For example, if the Overview & Scrutiny Committee > are going to look at the councils accounts, you > want the Chief Finance Officer in the room to > explain / justify / answer questions about it. No > good them hiding in an office somewhere saying "as > it's about my work, I can't be there". It's > imperative that they are there! But Cllr Newens is part of the Scrutiny Committee no matter what they are scrutinising so that's what led me to question whether she recuses herself and is replaced by a reserve if she has a vested interested in the items being scrutinised. I don't think she is invited because they are talking about LTNs, she is invited as she is one of the members of the Scrutiny committee.

Does anyone know why some roads would be getting deliveries yet others would have had nothing for so long?

Is that where this falls down then because there are so few cross-party members - it becomes partisan by virtue of there being so few opposition members? The fact that Cllr Newens gets to sit as part of the committee reviewing how the council has handled the LTN deployments in her own ward seems utterly ludicrous. Does she recuse herself from matters involving LTNs?

What annoys me is that there seems little appetite for anyone to fix the problems we are experiencing - everyone in the Royal Mail is great at giving the excuses but we never hear about what solutions are being put in place to fix it or when it will be fixed - the lack of post for so long across a whole area is a shamefully poor reflection of the postal service - it's no longer fit for purpose, people post things on the understanding that the items will be delivered within a certain timeframe and that is the contract they take with the Royal Mail when they buy a stamp or pay for postage. The fact that this is affecting a large swathe of South East London shows that something is totally broken within the system. We have not had any post for getting on a for a month and all of our neighbours and most in the area are in the same boat - how long can this be allowed to continue?

Did I hear correctly that the old bank in Dulwich Village might become an Ivy Brasserie?

Nope - I did see a postman last week and my hopes were lifted but they never arrived on our street. Perhaps one of the councillors can tell us what is being done to resolve this issue - I know Helen Hayes was intervening last year but it is getting beyond a joke now - how long before we can expect all the missed pre-Christmas deliveries or has Royal Mail given up ever having to deliver them?

What does the Overview and Scrutiny committee do - I see a number of the members are actually the pro-LTN protagonists within the council so isn't a bit of a pointless exercise?

And in case Cllr McAsh missed the questions posed on the other thread before it met its untimely end there are some questions that it would be good for him to shed light on: 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 3) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? 4) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21? 5) When was the Sep 21 monitoring captured - was it at the beginning of the month before the private schools went back or at the end of the month during the fuel crisis?

Admin - surely that's a yellow not a straight red? I think you could have warned people rather than locking the whole thread - it seems a bit knee-jerk but we appreciate you have been under pressure to lounge the thread so perhaps we should have self-policed a little more!

It's utterly mindless to post that on twitter - what was he thinking? It could well come back to haunt him - that stuff never disappears. I suspect half of Southwark Labour have liked it....if Cllr Williams has liked it is shows the attitude problem goes all the way to the top...more and more they act as if they are untouchable.....May 5th may come as a shock to a few.... I am amazed as well that someone sensible in Labour hasn't had a quiet word in his ear to say it needs to be deleted.

It is, in fact, incredibly stupid to post that on twitter but as we have seen time and time again from many councillors all they care about is their own echo-chamber and seem to lose all sense of reality when it comes to talking to like-minded individuals. He thinks it's funny, and I am sure his comrades would be all rolling about laughing at the message on his jumper but he wouldn't be happy if a Tory councillor was wearing a jumper that was saying "F*** teachers" so why is is it acceptable for him to target any group no matter how despicable you think that group might be? But given some of the people he looks up to refer to their opposition as s**m you can see how this happens. There's an air of aggression in politics nowadays and people in public office should be engaging brain before posting - Cllr McAsh has made a serious error of judgement here and I am not sure his school would be overly happy if their pupils were following him on twitter to see one of their teachers posting that. I understand personal views etc on twitter but you are still representing both the council and the school in your bio - show some class and don't drag your profession and council office into the gutter. The fact Cllr Williams has liked it speaks volumes - perhaps he will claim he didn't see the profanity on the jumper, nor the finger sign on it too! I can see the funny side, I just don't think someone in Cllr McAsh's position should be posting it onto a public twitter channel when he has no idea who will see it. And the fact Malumbu thinks anyone who has an issue with this is suffering a sense of humour failure just shows how some people will try to forgive anything within their own echo-chamber and highlights the point I was making earlier. As the Manics so wonderfully said: If you tolerate this your children will be next My worry remains that is the council are treating their constituents with such contempt over LTNs what else are they doing and what else will they do in future?

Metallic also raises a very good point about why so many of us are asking for the detail behind the data. All we have from the council is that the monitoring was done in September 21 but we need to know when it was collected because at the beginning of the month the local private schools had not gone back and at the end of the month the fuel crisis was resulting in a massive reduction in car and vehicle usage. So it is vital that information is shared so people know what the council is comparing. This is why Cllr Williams promised to share that data but has yet to do so.

Wow - had missed Cllr McAsh's Xmas twitter post: https://twitter.com/mcash/status/1474732079938158600?t=FOR6wsnJTMOsIBiLoc4dKQ&s=19 I suspect if a non-Labour councillor had posted something like this there would be outrage from the likes of Cllr McAsh trying to get them cancelled, contacting their employer to say is this appropriate for a primary school teacher and representative of the council to be posting this. But it seems if you are a Labour councillor (or for that matter opposition front bench member) you can do what you like, say what you like without any form of recrimination.

Same today with the Tuesday collections - everyone has put them by their brown bins but none have been collected.

I think we pretty much have that model here: - council installs measures it has struggled to get support for on the basis of the need for emergency social distancing caused by Covid - council engages in tick-box "consultation" process because it has to by law - "consultation" process demonstrates overwhelming local opposition to the measures in their current form - council issues highly flawed monitoring data and summary reports that hail the measures as a "success" - council leader promises to share methodology, timings and raw data used to collate the reports but never does - council proceeds regardless and makes the decision to make them permanent which we all knew was going to be the outcome the moment they put them in under the ludicrous guise of the need for social distancing Malumbu - be careful what you wish for. Just because you think these measures are great doesn't mean you should be celebrating the way Southwark have gone about this because next time they might be employing the same under-hand tactics to railroad something through that you don't like......and before you know it the people have zero influence on anything the council wants to do and that is a very dangerous precedent. Respect for the democratic process should be the no.1 protected priority within all local, regional and national authorities but it seems Southwark likes to bend the rules to their advantage if it suits their political agenda.

It's getting beyond a joke now. It's worse than it has ever been, it's as if they have just given up delivering letters. We haven't had any for a couple of weeks now and we know that come the second week of Jan a huge bundle of letters will drop through the door, many of which were supposed to be delivered during December. I thought councillors and MPs were supposed to have already intervened some months ago to get this resolved?

Second that! Hope you had a good one all!

What a great idea Malumbu....let's us know how you get on. But wait, as a Lewisham resident it would be a bit pointless you writing to Southwark as you don't actually live in the borough..;-)

Yup, that's your explanation but even you say it is your "understanding" so you're not sure either. Maybe Cllr McAsh can put this to bed once and for all by answering a few questions: 1) Where is the Jan 19 data from (for what purposes was it collected and from which point was it collected as it is not the same location as the Sept 21 monitoring point)? 2) What methodology was used to arrive at the Sept 21 figure? 3) Why does the EDG Central chart say: the Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility and what adjustment took place and why? 4) Why was the decision taken to add the EDG Central monitoring point in Sept 21?

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > redpost Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why don't you do something positive and submit > an > > FOI request instead of endlessly complaining on > > this forum? > > There is no need to do that - the raw data and > detail on the methodology and analysis is all > freely available on the council website already! > This whole "we need more data" talking point is a > load of old tut. > https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i > mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review? > chapter=4 But it's not is it....look just three or messages earlier there's a debate going on between myself and Goldilocks as we try to unravel what has been done with the EDG Central numbers - no-one can work it out. Given you are so enlightened by the info shared by the council perhaps you can tell us how the council has gathered the EDG Central data? ........nope didn't think so, this is why the council, none other than the council leader, promised to share the raw data and methodology because without it you can't make sense on how they arrived at their numbers. Nothing has been shared. It seems the only people happy with the level of detail shared are those whose agendas are validated by them. "Hurrah, victory is ours - who cares where the numbers came from or whether they are accurate."

I say "beleive" you say "understanding" - you see nobody knows and by releasing the reports without the back-up detail the council has just allowed us all to come to our own conclusions as they have not provided the transparency to back up their report. I did read somewhere that the Jan 19 site is in a different location to the Sep21 location, perhaps Cllr McAsh could confirm. It would also be good to get some clarity on how the Jan 19 and Sep19 figures were arrived at - what is modelling, what is actual data from comparable locations as by adding that additional site in Sept21 there may be an element of double-dipping going on in the conclusions.

A lot of data has been adjusted and the EDG Central chart carries the caveat that: Pre-implementation data for Jan 2019 has been adjusted to September 2019 levels to ensure compatibility All the other charts say: Pre-implementation data has been adjusted to Sep19 levels to ensure compatibility Now it might all be completely justifiable but the complete lack of communication and transparency from the council on this (unless you are some of the select insider groups being briefed on it) means there are questions that need to be answered. I think it is why Cllr Williams promised to share the methodology and raw data - which of course has yet to happen.

SE22_2020er Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James James James - what on earth do you think > you're doing - are you mad?! Just because schools > have broken up and you've got a few free minutes > on your hands - don't get involved!!! > > There are several different people (I resist the > urge to write "oddballs") who have posted over > 1000 times on this thread alone. They have > somehow managed to keep this "conversation" going > for 283 pages and I fear that they're just getting > going! They will ensnare you, twist your words > and their tenacity knows no bounds. > > Honestly - for your own mental health stay away > and let the madness continue unabated. > > Escape whilst you still have the chance - or at > least ask to meet them face-to-face and watch as > they drift into the shadows! :-) Proof is you ever needed it that some members of the pro-LTN lobby don?t want the council engaging with anyone other than themselves??. #manyatruewordsaidinjest P.S. One Dulwich, the Dulwich Alliance and the Melbourne Grove traders would happily jump at the opportunity to meet face to face?.they have all asked numerous times but any time a councillor goes to that area they apparently get whisked into pro-LTN supporting houses along Melbourne Grove.

Legal I believe the EDG Central data from Jan 19 was from a different location (has the council clarified where it was?) and then was "adjusted" to create Sept 19 numbers. That adjustment seems to have been adding MG numbers to EDG numbers to create a much bigger number of cars to deliver a "reduction" in numbers compared to new Sept 21 data from the new site on EDG Central that had not been previously monitored. But it looks like this is based on modelling rather than actual data as the council charts clearly show no data was collected at the EDG Central point in Sept 19 and there is a disclaimer to that effect on the EDG Central slide. If you use the Jan 19 figures alone from the old monitoring point then there has been no reduction. The creation of the EDG Central monitoring point seems to have only been done to create the narrative for the U-turn as it seems odd adding it in so late into the process and going to such an effort to create the Sept 19 figures. I don?t think the council has done this anywhere else have they? Perhaps Cllr McAsh or one of the council's spokespeople from Melbourne Grove would like to clarify as it is beyond confusing...;-)