Rockets

Court Lane and surrounding streets are always good - in fact, many are already putting their decorations up now.

Mal, what are you going on about? The point I was making is that, like Boris, regional mayors often use their roles to springboard to bigger jobs. If you spend the whole time picking fights (ostensibly on behalf of your constituents) with the government of the day (who happen to be your political opponent) and then the moment the government changes to your own party and you stop fighting (on behalf of your constituents) then you look like a bit of a hypocrite and clearly you were only fighting because it suited the party agenda. The TFL funding issue looks like a prime example of this and, to be honest, the last thing Labour HQ need right now is a regional mayor kicking off and fighting on behalf of what is right for their area.

FM do you have the link to the session?

So given the below what happened between the letter Sadiq sent begging for money to the Tories and the £250m or so he will be asking Labour for.. ...and politicians wonder why no one trusts them anymore... Ahead of the last government’s autumn statement in November last year, Khan had said in a letter to then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt that Transport for London (TfL) “needs £569m in capital support for 2024/25 to support critical network upgrades and investment in critical road assets”. He added: “Failure to secure this funding would put vital upgrades at risk and be detrimental to long-term infrastructure investment in the capital’s transport network, with consequential negative impacts on the wider UK economy.” However, asked earlier this week what he will be requesting from the new government, Khan said: “I’ll be asking for north of £250m. The £250m we got last year was before the £22bn black hole in the government’s year-to-year expenditure.” So does this mean then that if he gets £250m then critical infrastructure upgrades are at risk and there will be negstive conseuqences and if so why isn't he fighting for more? And if you think Sadiq (like his cohort Andy Burnham) don't have political aspirations beyond city leadership then you are very much mistaken...I mean, it's not as if previous mayors haven't used it for bigger personal goals! 😉

So he isnt doing any negotiation this year then? Or is he negotiating like the haggling scene in Life of Brian this time round? This isn't looking for dirt - it's highlighting hypocrisy.

BBC News - Mayor halves transport funding request from Budget https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dp7w6p775o Amazing how the narrative has changed with a new government...is Khan still fighting for Londoners or rolling over and putting party politics and his own political aspirations ahead of what Londoners need? This seems to be one hell of a u-turn...so what gives?

Has RaptorTruckman gone full circle?

Malumbu, correction - this thread is about dangerous and concerning misinformation being circulated by Dulwich Roads. P.S. it's probably a good time to remind you that you have posted in all of those said threads on numerous occasions and have been a major contributor....just saying....

P.S. there are also two big red cyclists dismount signs on the approaches to the pavement outside of the cheese shop in Dulwich Square, no doubt put there by tje council for those cyclists that, ahem, missed the road closed and cycle diversion signs. Needless to say this morning many cyclists were missing the cyclist dismount signs too as they tried to squeeze their way through in front of the cheese shop.

And Dulwich Roads has been back onto this site again in the last 24 hours but is, again, resisting the invitation to share the content of the tweet they retweeted..... One can only wonder why......

One of the responses asks whether bins are left in dangerous positions by the refuse collection teams so I suspect Veolia is going to get a ticking off!

Permitted to ignore...surely morally obliged to obey? This whole...the rules don't apply to us... is nonsensical. In fact, the Dulwich Square signs are mandatory Road Closed signs with yellow cycle diversion signs - making them very much mandatory.

I am pretty sure Southwark have said that the new Dulwich Square has been re-designed to, amongst other things, slow cyclists - I am pretty sure it was in the consultation documents. And the whole advisory defence is a one-way street for guidance to become mandatory.

I see Dulwich Roads has been back to the site but has not posted or responded to the request to share the content of the tweet they retweeted. Let's see if they do...if I was a betting person I know what my money would be on..... P.S. Raeburn, you came on here defending Dulwich Roads on the basis they tweeted a "correction". By doing so you validated my very first point that Dulwich Roads needs to engage brain and fact check before sending out incorrect and misleading information - thus agreeing with the subject of this thread.

Okey dokey Raeburn....whatever you say....

Not according to Dulwich Roads slide - was 2019 just a particularly bad year for deaths caused by cyclists? There seems to be a lot and they killed more than motorcycles and mopeds 50cc and under.

Goodness me Earl, I posted that exert because of what HorrifiedofHH says in reference to the “pedestrian fatalities” which was HH’s response to the misinformation that someone had been killed in that accident fanned by Dulwich Roads retweeting of the “under the covers” tweet. So you, like Raeburn, are admitting they made a mistake by tweeting the eye witness account without doing any fact-checking whether someone was “under covers”. Great, one by one you are validating my position that they need to take more care to prevent posting misleading info on their thread? We finally agree but, boy, it took us a long time to get here - I was right all along! No I accuse them of using news on accidents as a way to create awareness of their cause but they do not fact check what actually happened/happens and do not take a responsible approach to posting. Do I think they have a ghoulish fascination with accidents? Yes. Can I understand why an activist takes that approach? Yes. Do I agree with it? No, because in their keenness to make their point they are getting things wrong that, as in this case, causes undue concern to many in our community. I still think it would be good for Dulwich Roads to share the tweet they retweeted so everyone can see for themselves - I wish I had taken a screenshot because when people see it the rational amongst us will see the point I was making. They initially reported that there had been a “horrific and tragic” accident and they reported this by retweeting a tweet that said “someone under covers”. Over 5 hours later (at 10.30 a night) they then tweeted a correction on the location of the accident and then addd that someone had been taken to hospital; over 5 hours after their first tweet on the subject. The damage was already done by the first tweet. Also note the HorrifiedofHH post talks of a pedestrian death the day after Dulwich Roads’ tweet, so clearly their “correction” did nothing to quell the rumours of a death.

No they retweeted the "person under covers" tweet and amplified that and extended that tweet's reach by retweeting it to their followers with the message about it being a "horrific and tragic crash" which led many, not unsurprisingly, to think someone had died. In turn, this led me to suggest they needed to engage brain before tweeting and try to establish facts before sending this stuff out because no-one had died (which the police had to confirm due to the amplification of the message that suggested someone had). I am struggling to understand why so many struggle with this...it's not difficult... That was a clear distraction technique by you but, for the record, I don't think that person was right with that conclusion and no, I do not support the narrative that the LTN caused the crash. There you go, see how easy it is to be pragmatic and take a sensible approach to things, maybe some others should try it!

No, when you post a tweet it links to the realtime version of the tweet, so when I posted the link on here the "under the covers" tweet was showing. When the "under the covers" tweet was made "unavailable" so it would no longer show on here but the trail was still there with the user name of the person who tweeted the "under the covers" tweet. The user name has since disappeared (since Saturday) but you can still see the imprint left by that retweet - "You're unable to view this Post etc"

I linked to the Dulwich Roads tweet and that tweet showed the content that they retweeted (the "person under covers") and it was showing until that post was made unavailable. I also notice now that the original tweet link from user akirahoshi0 has now also been removed from the Dulwich Roads tweet in the last couple of days - is someone trying to cover their tracks?

Yup and the original tweet was live then.

No, when I first posted the tweet was available. It has since been made unavailable. One wonders why....

Let's see how you feel about that if Dulwich Roads shares the original tweet they amplified. It was very clear to all what Dulwich Roads was implying (deliberate or not) with their tweet. I very much Dulwich Roads suspected someone had died but cannot bring themselves to admit that their tweet was misleading as a result. The fact the original tweet is now unavailable speaks volumes. I suspect the person who put it out realised it was wrong and was causing distress and took action to address it. Probably because folks from your side of the argument keep posting on it......as you try to provide excuses for Dulwich Roads whilst attacking me for asking them to be more thoughtful about the impact of the posts they make and to engage in a bit of fact checking before posting.

Dulwich Roads, this thread wasn't talking about road safety but the inaccuracy of your retweet that created the impression someone had died. Why don't you share the full context by sharing the original tweet you amplified that created so much distress.....? Then people can decide for themselves. This whole thread is asking you to be more responsible, to check your facts before posting inaccurate, misleading and incredibly disturbing information. You purport to be community-led but seemingly have no issue scaring said community if you think it helps validate your particular viewpoint. P.S. the more you argue the more irrational you look - this might explain how you got into this mess in the first place as you are letting your passion/obsession cloud your decision-making.

Especially when retweeting a post that claims "someone under covers". But apparently the pro- lobbyists speak a different language to everyone else especially when they are trying to avoid saying "yup, sorry we got it wrong". But accountability has always been the Achilles Heel for so many on that side of the argument.