Rockets

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!

I don't think you should make light of it and use it as a point scoring exercise - bad taste and all that - you have no idea what either caused it or the outcome was, someone could have well been badly hurt. Speculation is not at all helpful and jumping to conclusions, without knowing the facts, is a fool's exercise.

@Dogkennelhillbilly an accident of this severity probably isn't something you should be making light of.....

I think questioning the funding source (whether there is a funding source or not) allows some to lean-in on the shadowy-cabal narrative as they try to undermine the work OneDulwich do by alluding to a conspiracy theory. When you actually look at the OneDulwich page clearly they are against the measures and are the thorn in the side of the local labour party, councillors and council but their content is not particularly political in nature. In fact, ahead of the last local elections they ran an article entitled Where Do Local Candidates Stand on the LTNs: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/where-do-local-candidates-stand-on-the-dulwich-ltns and they sent the same email to each candidate and then posted their/their party responses. The only two parties not to respond were the Labour Party and Women's Equality Party. It probably speaks volumes that no-one from the Labour Party responded when responses were posted from the Lib Dems, Tories and Green Party. Clearly there are those who would really love for One Dulwich to disappear, for the fives years or so since the measures were installed to be enough for people to forget how the council treated their constituents and clearly the "who is behind them and funds them" narrative is a continuation of the demonising of them. But the challenge is that they are clearly here for the long-run and many of us love how they try to hold local councillors, the council and the active-travel lobby to account. I, and many others, think they are providing a tremendous community service but there are clearly some in the community who would much rather they didn't - these are probably the same people as those who screamed about "a small vocal minority" in the early days of the opposition. Such people must look at the results of the DV LTN consultation and weep as it is clearly a "large local majority" who oppose the measures. I wonder @DulvilleRes have you ever reached out to OneDulwich to ask them to answer your questions - they have a contact page where you can email them?

You tell us, you're the one utterly obsessed by them. To many of us they have done nothing to suggest they are anything other than a community-led action group fighting what they see as a council-led injustice - an injustice that the majority of local residents (according to the council's own consultation) also agree to be an injustice.

One Dulwich Campaign Update | 31 Aug Department for Transport ditches LTN guidance On 16 August the Daily Telegraph reported that the DfT are to ditch guidance requiring councils to obtain community consent before introducing or retaining LTNs. In response, One Dulwich and Social & Environmental Justice wrote to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander on behalf of 15 community campaign groups, representing tens of thousands of UK residents, asking her to reconsider. This was reported in The Times on 20 August. We reminded her that councils have frequently imposed LTNs on local communities without their consent – 89% of those carrying out consultations according to The Times – in many cases after public surveys showing that two-thirds or more wanted them removed. This was the case in Dulwich Village, East Dulwich and Champion Hill. Why would any government minister want to abandon a policy that increases democratic accountability? New leader of Southwark Council says that residents know best In July Champion Hill councillor Sarah King replaced Kieron Williams as leader of Southwark Council. After Cllr. King announced that, under her leadership, Southwark Labour would be “defined by trust: trusting our residents who know what is best for their local areas”, One Dulwich and several Dulwich residents’ associations wrote to her asking her to work with us to find practical ways to mitigate the most damaging impacts of the LTNs and to improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. We await her response. Cycling on pavements There are growing concerns about the increasing number of pedestrians experiencing near misses from cyclists riding on pavements in the Dulwich area. This is a particular problem at the Dulwich Village/Court Lane/Calton Avenue junction. E-bikes and e-scooters ridden at speed are especially dangerous. Please raise this issue with Cllr. Natasha Ennin, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Neighbourhoods ([email protected]), emphasising that cycling on pavements seriously endangers the most vulnerable in our community, especially small children, people with mobility problems and those with poor sight or hearing loss.

And you have a problem with that why? I suspect it is because you don't like what OneDulwich posts and that you would be much happier if there was no spotlight shone on what is really going on and no opposition to the council's measures. It clearly really annoys some people that groups like OneDulwich are still here reminding people that they don't have to roll-over and accept everything the council forces on them, often, as with the DV LTN, against the will of the vast majority. I think this is called democracy in action!

Only seemingly misleading in the minds of those who think what the council and the active travel lobby peddle is 100% accurate.....

So you're not denying any of the things I said then? The problem for you is that I am just a citizen with zero link to any political party or OneDulwich...but a local citizen who has bothered to look into what was happening...what is it that they say...knowledge is king and all that....? The problem is that you bleat on about who runs OneDulwich and this appears to be nothing more than a distraction technique and really it is what has been going on within the Dulwich Society that is actually of far more interest to local people. There is actually far more evidence suggesting parts of DS have become way, way more politicised. Then throw in the links to regional active travel campaign groups, local online active travel lobby groups and local councillors and political parties and it doesn't take a genius to see what has been happening here. I very much suspect that the demand for anonymity for the DS sub-committee chair is nothing to do with alleged threats and much more to do with some not wanting people to be able to put the pieces of the conflict of interest jigsaw together. But, you know, according to some OneDulwich are the real problem and thing local people should be concerned about......talk about hypocrisy....

I am sorry @DulvilleRes but my hypocrisy radar is at number 12 right now...what were you saying about shadowy, opaque organisations? Was the chair of the sub-committee asking for anonymity after said sub-committee put out a statement of support for the DV LTN that the Dulwich Society had to correct and state DS was neutral as far as the council's interventions were concerned? The same sub-committee chair who was the London Cycling Campaign's Active Travel Campaigner of the Year in 2020 and involved in many of the groups lobbying the council for more measures. Some active travel groups actually claim said person has been instrumental in getting the council to roll out such measures? Some might say this was a conflict of interest, would they not, given how DS helps mould Dulwich life and the work they do with the council? A conflict of interest, I hasten to add, that often did not appear on minutes from DS meetings. I think we believe them more than you on that one to be fair! Were you involved in the DV LTN cycle counts per chance.... 😉

@march46 perhaps you can send the link to it?

I see they are removing the existing pedestrian refuge....to say this feels like overkill is a massive understatement. Another council white elephant waste of tax payers money replacing a perfectly functioning existing solution. Can anyone come up with a commonsense reason why this is needed and not snigger when they tell us? That is not a difficult road to cross.

Isn't there a pedestrian refuge there at the moment - does anyone ever have any problem crossing Townley - it can be a challenge at the junction of Lordship Lane but everywhere else there seems to be no problem at all. Are they also doing this to try and make it difficult for the school coaches to park there as you lose a lot of parking space with a pedestrian crossing? Southwark seem to be going a bit pedestrian crossing mad and I sense they are using them as a bit of a trojan horse and not actually for the purpose for which they were designed - it's getting like the old Milton Keynes and roundabouts urban myth that during planning a roundabout was signalled by a brown circle and the planners kept putting their coffee cups on the map which left brown circles everywhere!

Apologies I got that wrong - it's actually 2,100 now. And there we have it..."the new right". Just because someone challenges or disagrees with you does not make them right-wing - this has become the weak go-to defence for so many - the first resort for those who do not have a rational argument. If someone dares to disagree with you then demonise them, call them names to accuse them of being something most people don't want to be accused of - that'll surely make them stop. By doing this it really highlights the weakness of those doing it but unfortunately it seems to be the go-to for so many. On a much broader level I actually think this approach is worryingly accelerating the growth of the far-right because people say "well if you think that you must be far-right" and the far-right latch on to that: demonisation often fuels populism. Nobody 'outed' the chair of the transport sub-committee. In fact, I am sure you read their name in the Dulwich Society newsletter or minutes of their meetings - all of which are published publically. Their involvement as an award winning active travel campaigner was written in numerous media articles. The fact someone didn't want that link to be made on this forum in relation to the Dulwich Society controversy suggests they someone has something to hide, don't you think?

But still objecting to the council's interventions....per the DV consultation results which were majority against the measures if you remember.

Yea and I am more than happy to use any of the gems I unearth from doing some research. The 1,600 or so emails they say they have from local residents registering their objections to the way the council are handling things. Let's be honest, if there was no community support I very much suspect they would have given up by now- if you remember at the time a number of groups were set up (for and against) yet only OneDulwich is still here. Are you referring to the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committe by chance? You haven't declared whether you have links to any local active travel lobby group or political party? Any particular reason for that? I have none, can you say the same?

Because perhaps we aren't utterly obsessed by it because we believe it is a community-action group? You spend so much time trying to deposition them and refer to them as "shadowy and opaque". What I think you really mean to say is you hate the fact there is a community-led action group opposing something you love and you are trying your hardest to bad mouth them. One suspects you haven't got any arguments against what they say so you have resorted to name-calling. It's utterly pathetic and shows what a great job they are doing because they're upsetting people who are happy to stand by and turn a blind eye to council manipulation of process. Bravo to them! Let's be honest, if there weren't similar local action groups like them then Lambeth would have got away with what they tried to do in West Dulwich. Meanwhile your beloved Dulwich Society is mired in controversy because active travel campaigners were accused of infiltrating the society and trying to speak on behalf of it in relation to the DV LTN. Yet, we are the ones who you allege back a shadowy and opaque organisation - the moment I mention the award-winning active travel campaigner (from Dulwich Society public documents and media articles) who was part of the controversy and someone asks for their name to be redacted from the posts on this forum......hmmmm. You then try to suggest, repeatedly, I have some link to OneDulwich or a political party and insinuate that is my agenda. Well it's not. As I have said 1000 times before when you have tried to make those accusations I have no links to OneDulwich or any political party. Can you say the same?