Rockets

They were unconscious...good grief....you're relentless. No it's not...it's a sick, childish attempt to make a joke about someone else's misfortune. It's beyond pathetic and it projects a very negative image but if it works for them and they think it makes a pint then great...for the more rational in the real world it may be seen differently!

No @Earl Aelfheah what I have a problem with is when people try to make a vested-interest joke like the OP did at the expense of someone who could well have been harmed in an accident - it's childish, unnecessary and paints the posters in a very poor light. Dulwich Roads did it too - it's pathetic: Again, you seem to be Dulwich Road'ing it by embellishing it massively - who said anything about 20mph - I said under 20mph. ALso I am not sure if anyone has ever been charged with dangerous driving when they were unconscious due to a medical emergency - the police were far more concerned with the well-being of the driver. Embellishing again. How have I minimised it? These tactics are laughable.

Some very interesting data from the Met following the recent Dulwich Village ward meeting. Just look at the massive increase in theft from person and how that compares to neighbouring wards.

Does anyone know what actually happened? I suspect not so all of this back and forth is nothing more than idle (maybe hopeful?) speculation. Only the person driving knows what happened - the rest is just noise. I remember when Dulwich Roads went on one of their 20mph/how does this happen/dangerous drivers everywhere tirades around a car accident. What actually happened? The driver had a medical emergency, pulled over as they were felling unwell and then the medical emergency took hold they drove into a wall at under 20 mph. Dangerous - yes (thankfully no-one was injured). Dangerous driving - no.

@Earl Aelfheah I know you'rea big fan of data and if you look at the first DV consultation and compare it to the most recent one the level was opposition was actually grown. So yes, I am very serious. Stimulated by 5 years of lies, manipulation and wasting tax-payers money. That's what people are angry about. I am happy that, even you, can finally acknowledge this - are you happy our elected representatives behaved that way? Do you now trust them now in light of this? Perhaps now you can see why so many are still aggrieved by the way this all came about and happened - that the views of local residents were ignored in favour of active travel lobbyists and groups.

She is done for. She has become an embarrassment to the party. It was only just over 12 months ago she had the issues with the sale of her house in Stockport and the electoral register. She can’t be trusted and will be gone soon I suspect and if you’re going to set yourself up as the party Rottweiler calling out Tory sleaze you had better hope no sleazy accusations land at your front door (in Hove or at any of your other properties). She is damaging Starmer’s already weakened credibility and becoming a distraction and people will no longer trust her - she knows it’s only a matter of time.

Hey @march46 you may have to adapt your chart - didn’t the % of people opposing the DV measures actually increase between the two consultations? What if you’re not at the top of the hill yet? Folks from outside the area may like it, a majority of those who live in the area oppose it - therein lies the issue - whose interests are the council protecting - us local residents or noisy lobbyists from outside the area and often outside the borough. What was it Peter Hill Wood once famously said after a tetchy Arsenal AGM: Thank you for your interest in our affairs!

What despite the fact that that was exactly what I just said....? Do you not actually read previous posts? Yes and maybe at the next local elections they can't lean in to a protest vote about the government and maybe people look at what is happening in central government (see Angela Rayner today) and say...you know what, these folks are treating us with contempt nationally and locally - maybe I will make a protest vote against them too. To be honest the only way I see them being unseated locally is if one of the Tories or Lib Dems withdraws from the race. Remember, ignorance (within the electorate) is bliss for elected officials. What politicians hate is when people are aware of how they have been behaving and the people hold them to account. So you should be thankful that there are people on there and groups like OneDulwich who are helping make sure local constituents are up to speed on what has actually been going on. This is what frustrates some folks - is that five years on people are still talking about it and angry with the way the local community has been treated by our elected officials. The active travel lobby seem to want to do everything rather than acknowledge what has actually been going on - why? Because they are the ones benefiting from it - some local folks are actually making a living from the roll-out of LTNs and then going out of their way to try and stop the very debate about their effectiveness.

Well I have already answered it previously so hardly dodged the question have I? Maybe take a look back at what I said in response to your last few questions on this. Ha ha, well clearly the fight did not end half a decade ago - it had barely even started half a decade ago but clearly you are of the opinion that once the measures went in they were here for good - despite the legal requirement for consultations (this was the first deception by the council as, if you can cast your mind back that far, they installed the measures for, ahem, "social distancing" purposes exploiting a loop hole in the emergency measures handed to them). I can assure you that people who actually live in the affected area still talk about it today. In those 5 years the council has misled and wasted huge amounts of tax payers money on something the majority of local residents do not want. So all I want is for the council to be held accountable for how they have treated their constituents and for the active travel lobby usual suspects to admit that the council may have used underhand tactics to get these measures through. Neither of which, I hasten to add, I think will actually ever happen! 😉

Re-read my post...it's clear what I meant - not that a political party being elected as being anti-democratic but if they started doing this after election with something you folks didn't approve of then I suspect you'd be all over it and taking the fight to them. I have already explained this so you're going over old ground again and, as usual, deflecting. But as @CPR Dave explains...Labour (or maybe it's just politicians of any persuasion or of any rank), has always seemed to struggle with accountability. How Angela Rayner can be in this position again after the Stockport home "I took expert counsel" issue is anyone's guess but it is of huge embarrassment to her, the party and the PM and I suspect she will have to go (and I do wonder whether it is folks within the party who are leaking this stuff to knee-cap her political aspirations as part of the on-going and future battle within the party).

This is exactly the point. If this were to happen I suspect many will suddenly turn from being game-keeper to then being poacher and moaning about the erosion of democracy. There is a huge amount of blinkered hypocrisy on show here.

You were the one who claimed the council had a mandate for these changes....which they clearly do not and you cannot offer anything to counter that. In fact, the majority of local constituents oppose the changes....the fact the council ploughs on despite this is something other than representative democracy in action...

Can you show us where the council has anything more definitive and compelling than the consultation results to determine whether they have a mandate to do this? No I am upset that the council, repeatedly, erodes the democratic process by doing things against the wishes of the majority of local constituents and that some stand back and congratulate them for doing so as that has far-reaching long-term implications, especially in light of the current political mood-board. You may be happy to turn a blind eye to this happening for things you support but don't come moaning to us if political parties start doing it with things you don't like using the model deployed for LTNs - because that is what always happens.

@Earl Aelfheah what you are fed up with is that this won't just be swept under the carpet - you're annoyed that those who live in the area are still annoyed by the way the council and their cheerleaders have behaved during this whole process and that people are still talking about it. You, and other council cheerleaders, would be much happier if the noise from the, ahem, "small vocal minority" had just died out. You're all upset that OneDulwich keeps this atop the local agenda and you resort to trying to demonise them and anyone who dares have an opinion that differs from yours. Look at your use of "mob justice" - a not so veiled insinuation that I am calling for stocks and public floggings in the Square of councillors and the active travel fan-bois. Come on - be better than that - it's so transparent what you're doing, a bit like the repeated accusations from the usual suspects that OneDulwich is funded by some fascist cabal hell bent on world domination via opposition to LTNs (one at a time) - it's really time some people grew up and distanced themselves from the playground name-calling tactics. Clearly, the only accountability (if there ever is any) will be at the ballot box because the council has steadfastly refused to take any responsibility for what they have done (to be fair Labour councils tend NEVER to take any accountability for their actions when things don't go well) and have repeatedly tried to mislead the general public (seemingly with great effect given even you came on here trying to claim majority support for the DV LTN when the polar opposite was true but buried beneath the headlines fed to you by the council). What is abundantly clear is that the council do not have a mandate from local residents for the LTNs - they have, however, decide to proceed regardless and spend huge amounts of tax-payers money on them. Perhaps they will get away with it but perhaps, if more people are aware, there will be an element of accountability at the ballot box - seemingly the only recourse available to those who have felt ignored and misled. But, at the end of the day, this is politics for you and why so many people distrust politicians of every political leaning now.

But they very much don't have a mandate for it. Therein lies the point. They have the power but not the people's agreement - despite what some of their most beloved supporters claim. Probably never...well not until folks stop trying to tell us that the council have a mandate to do these things or that the council gets held accountable for their actions. For many of those of us who live in the affected area there is a sense of injustice and they will never dissipate.

So you admit now there was no manifesto pledge on LTNs? Good, we are getting somewhere. As @first mate states the council very much did pledge to put constituents at the heart of every decision they make. So answer me this; what barometer on public opinion does the council have on local residents' views towards the LTNs? To be honest the only bizarre element of this is that you are arguing that some woolly worded manifesto blah blah blah that doesn't even mention LTNs somehow usurps polling of local residents in specific relation to their views on specific LTNs. A blank strategic manifesto does not give you a mandate for specific tactical implementations - your argument is massively flawed. You seem to have been hoodwinked by political spin at its absolute best.

But clearly the consultation results show that they do not have a mandate from local people for the DV LTN (for example) - do they? I do not need educating on representative democracy; perhaps you do on interpreting results of consultations. The numbers are really very clear. The council has decided to ignore the results of the consultation and that is their prerogative because, as you repeatedly say it is not a referendum, but they absolutely DO NOT have a mandate from local people for those measures. And here is a reminder of said results with Return it to the Original State as the overwhelming majority:

@Earl Aelfheah in lieu of a referendum a consultation is the only measure we have to present actual data on whether constituents support the council's actions i.e. whether they have a mandate from the people for their plans. Clearly, when it comes to LTNs the overwhelming majority are not giving the council the mandate - the consultation results speak for themselves in that regard - the data is there in black and white.

Do you think they are hoping the government changes the rules so they don't have to do any sort of consultation?

Nope I am not. A mention of any sort of road scheme would probably have been a good start but, of course, they failed to mention anything of that ilk - just woolly-worded manifesto statements that they hope gave them cover to roll out whatever they really had plans for. Look, every political party does it - make bold statements that mean nothing in terms of tactical execution then say - oh but we referenced these in our manifesto. The weakness comes when they then run a consultation and then the vast majority oppose their plans - which then clearly tells them they do not have a mandate. Then they have to decide the political impact of ignoring their constituents. Southwark did not have a mandate to roll out the majority of these measures from their constituents - that much is clear and obvious and to try to claim otherwise is mischievous at best.

Well that is often the starting point for any negotiation! I am intrigued that if this is multiple contractors (as the article and statements suggest) how more than one of them can make the same mistake. Time will, indeed, tell what really went on here.

@Earl Aelfheah I think you need to clarify that it was Cllr McAsh who said that the council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors - so, bearing in mind he is a politician you should probably take that with a pinch of salt as I very much suspect that if the contractors don't think they have done anything wrong then it won't be a simple as getting a refund. Clearly, until such time as any monies are recovered, then there is a hole in council finances.

@malumbu during family arguments if someone presents to you a view that you do not agree with do you default to calling them a fascist or right-wing? Just wondering...... They don't have a mandate. They have the power and control but they didn't campaign on any of this so trying to retrofit claims that they have a mandate is inaccurate and misleading. In fact, I think they claimed in their election manifesto materials that they would work with, and listen to, local communities and the local community has soundly rejected all of the measures they have put up for consultation so any imagined mandate they, or you, thought they had was thoroughly, overwhelmingly and categorically rejected. They chose to ignore that feedback from their constituents and I suspect they did that rolling the dice that it would not backfire at the next election.

Still digging I see.

Righto, so you haven't bothered to ask OneDulwich any of the pressing questions you have? @malumbu since engaging with One Dulwich have you been physically targeted.....Honestly, @DulvilleRes it's getting ridiculous - you are creating narratives to justify your own blinkeredness and prejudice. But if you haven't bothered to ask them surely it is only your perceived/imagined opaqueness - if you haven't asked the question how can you expect to hear an answer? So you are applying prejudice to anyone involved in OneDulwich and you are presuming they are some sort of anti-LTN violent vigilante? Honestly @DulvilleRes I hope you are an island of one when it comes to this attitude because if everyone tarred groups of people with the same brush due to the actions of one then the world would be a very unsavoury place indeed. Well yes of course but do you have any evidence that that is the case or is that just a hunch/wild guess/desperate wish? And you have to be very careful as I think your starting to drag yourself into potentially troublesome defamation territory. But it's ok for you to just make the veiled accusation you just did? Righto.....my hypocrisy radar is at 14 now.... The problem is that, as far as many on here are concerned, you are throwing around baseless accusations hoping desperately that something sticks. Why? Because you don't like the fact there is majority opposition to the measures you so clearly love and I think everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why you are doing this. Bravo to One Dulwich as they are clearly really upsetting folks like your good self by exposing the hypocrisy of those who support the measures!