Rockets

But, by your own argument, Dulwich Roads did send out inaccurate misleading information that suggested, inaccurately, that someone had died. Thanks for validating that for me because some of your cohort were arguing that hadn't happened. So, please Dulwich Roads - engage brain before posting, even Raeburn agrees...;-)

So Raeburn if you're claiming that is a correction (but the intent of that tweet, which is sent over 5 hours after the first is clearly to correct the location) then you are validating my original argument that Dulwich Roads needs to take more care with their posts and establish more facts before sending out disturbing misinformation, are you not?

Over 5 hours after the original tweet they corrected the location. It seems only those on the anti- side intepret a "person under covers" retweeted as "tragic and horrific" as a fatality then (except HorrifedofHH of course as they interpreted it as a fatality too)......oh well we clearly read things differently...

Yeah and the more they twist and turn and try to provide some completely unplausible explanation and throw laughing emojis like confetti they look more and more ludicrous. The best course of action would have been for Dulwich Roads to say, sorry we made a mistake and we got it wrong. But no, they just try to argue their way out if and then look very cultish in their behaviour and all of their content gets pigeon-holed by the more rational folks accordingly moving forward.

How would you interpret this....that they were having a nap perhaps? Interested to know what your immediate reaction is when you read that.

Malumbu, your response was utterly predictable. But also telling because they alluded to the fatality - caused by the tweet from Dulwich Roads.....face palm emoji! Honestly, this thread just shows how difficult it is to get those fully embedded on the pro-side to be rational about this stuff.

DulvilleRes - I think the crux of the issue remains - you don't like it when anyone dare question your grand plans. You want an open (or closed!) road and nothing challenging your views of doing things. Unfortunately for you we live in a democracy and groups like OneDulwich are very much part of that process. A process you are just going to have to live with. Power to the people and all that! There's certainly a nasty streak/fanatacism amongst many on the pro- side of the argument there is a long list of nasty posters on here (LTNBooHoo, LTNManatee, MrChicken and now seemingly DulwichRoads) and, at times, the attitude and tone has been amplified by some councillors.

Malumbu, someone on X sent out a tweet saying there was an accident on the A205 and a person “was under covers”. That, I am sure you will agree, normally suggests someone was tragically killed in the incident. That tweet from a handle akirahoshi0 (the original address of the tweet can still be seen in the replies if you click on Read 4 replies) on the below but the tweet is now unavailable. Dulwich Roads then retweeted that post (the one referring to a person under covers) to their followers referring to it as a “horrific and tragic crash”. The incident happened outside Oakfield School and Dulwich Roads’ retweet caused significant concern, especially for those with children at the school. No-one died but rumours started circulating that someone had. A local newspaper called the police to confirm details of the incident and the police had to put on record that there had been “no fatalities”. A day later an X thread was still talking about death of pedestrians (see HorrifiedofHH’s post). So I was imploring DulwichRoads to engage brain before tweeting as their post had caused a huge amount of concern as the information they posted was misleading to say the least. Not unreasonable I am sure you will agree. But, as you can see from their reaction over a month later (someone alerted them to this thread so they obviously felt compelled to have their say) they don’t think they did anything wrong - other, more rational, people may disagree with them and agree that a more measured approach in future may be wise.

Yeah some people are still waiting for some contrition from you for the distress you caused with your original post that wrongly suggested someone had died outside a school...but, you know, as you said: "THE TWEET REMAINS!" Perhaps it would be good if you move on from your fanatical obsession of ambulance chasing accidents so you can post, often inaccurate and poorly researched information/conclusions about the cause/outcomes of accidents. The ghoulish relish with which you do so is quite disturbing.

Or maybe just use a trolley and a big box! But it is somewhat concerning is it not that even if you did replicate the trolley and box then, according to the traffic wardens, you could not actually move it anywhere......hmmmmmmm..... Seems somewhat ambiguous does it not?

Here you go...fill yer boots...it's only a few days old so plenty for you to post!!!

Brilliant thank you!

Malumbu - you seem a bit torn on this one - one the one hand you're taking the position of "Rockets having a go at the council" and then one sentence later you admit "yes, it's very ambiguous". Why is it a matter for government - it's the council's sign......the government didn't put the sign up or collects the revenue?

Ali - many, many people have fallen foul of that - it's a very lucrative revenue spot for the council and a few people have posted about the "what actually constitutes loading" as it is very ambiguous - I am not sure how anyone loading or unloading can be with their vehicle for the duration - unless they were just leaving whatever they were unloading on the roadside. Clearly the sign should be clearer but it probably makes a lot of revenue for the council.

I stand corrected on the narrow bike chicane as work is now taking place to narrow the pavement on the cottage side of the road to accommodate the new cycle track to, I suspect, smooth the curve. Interestingly, the road is now closed to all vehicles (including cycles) as they do the work closest to Calton Avenue and there is a clearly signposted diversion for bikes around Dekker Road.....that very few bikes are actually respecting...most choosing to cycle along the narrow footpath in front of the bookshop.....

Is there a way in now from that end now or do you have to go in via College Road or the Sydenham Hill entrance? We like nothing more than an autumnal/winter walk up to the Wood House but wondering now which way is best from Dulwich?

So sorry to hear this and I hope your dog makes a full recovery.

There you have it folks....were we expecting anything else from someone who is clearly putting their own ideology ahead of any sensible and pragmatic approach to their outreach? A bit like Just Stop Oil protestors, some people just don't know when they're actually doing their cause more harm than good by their blinkered fanatical actions. The fact the person who tweeted the "person under covers" has since deleted the tweet that Dulwich Roads created the panic with speaks volumes. At least that person is smart enough to admit the error. The "none of our followers alerted us to a problem" is just laughable - the police had to confirm that no one died due to their post. Let's just hope Dulwich Roads learns from this episode and takes a more sensible approach to posting...but given their all too predictable response on this thread alone (BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!!!) I very much doubt they will - they seem not to care about anything other than their own personal agenda, which is a shame because what they are trying to do is a good thing which is seriously tarnished by approaches and attitudes like this.

I will, stop using the T-word when you stop displaying T-like behaviours……do you think everyone who doesn’t agree with you is right-wing - it seems to be your go-to name-calling for anything and everything where someone dares to express an opinion that differs to yours? Just because I think VAT on private schools is a short-sighted dog whistle policy that may create chaos and cost more money than it will raise doesn’t make me some right-wing bigot - unless of course you think the NASUWT also suffers from right-wing leanings because they have expressed the same views as me….

Malumbu - you clearly didn't read the Guardian article I posted so I recommend you do as it answers many of the points you raise - https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/05/doubts-grow-over-labours-vat-plan-for-private-schools I will ignore your comments on 2029 because you're either trolling or being incredibly childish.

Unfortunately whilst making my way to said meeting point I was crossing the road opposite the library and was hit by a cyclist pulling the manoeuvre seen by the lady at 2.25 in barybyonabike's latest instalment of bad cycling that he posted 3 days ago... In all seriousness it is amazing how many times that junction features in his rogue's galley!!!

BTW your claim of the data shows an overall reduction in traffic - where are you getting that from - I know the council claimed that but did they provide any data as the dashboard doesn't give you the function to look at the overall volume for all roads they monitored? Remember those percentage figures are compared to the volume of traffic pre-Covid so a 1% increase on EDG is a far greater volume of traffic than a 1% decrease on Townley. What their own charts show is that the council's grand plan has failed - that all the LTNS have done is displace traffic. On the basis that Cllr McAsh said that the measures could only be considered a success if traffic reduced for everyone then clearly they have failed. Again what data because the dashboard certainly suggests some roads have seen increases whilst others decreases - which is displacement is it not?

Earl, it is perhaps no surprise to anyone that you (and via likes folks like Malumbu, March46 and Snowy) come running to Dulwich Roads' defence - it's like some predictable pavlovian muscle memory response (i.e. we must defend our brothers-in-arms come what may!). It's pretty clear to anyone that if you retweet a post about someone being under covers after an accident and then use the words "tragic" and "horrific" in your own tweet to your followers that you cannot then be surprised that people interpret that as a death. Now, layer on top of that the fact that this happened outside a school (and school with a site on each side of the road) and I am sure a few parents may follow Dulwich Roads and it doesn't take a genius to see how this caused panic and why the police had to confirm there were no fatalities. If you're going to position yourself as a "community effort" as Dulwich Roads does then perhaps they need to consider the impact tweets such as this might have on that community. All I asked was for them to engage brain before tweeting - to think of the impact a tweet may have if you put it into the public domain. A rabid and rapid fire and forget policy because you are desperate for content to further your ideology will land you in hot water - you will get things wrong and you may spread mis-information that has negative impact on the very people you are trying to engage with. Which is exactly what Dulwich Roads did but, you know, they still stand by their tweet so read into that what you will.

Just leaving this here....

Doubling down - interesting approach and speaks volumes. Tragic when retweeting a tweet that references a person under covers = death. You clearly thought someone had died and couldn't wait to tweet about it. You are the one responsible for creating the impression that someone had been killed outside a school. You created so much distress that the police had to put out a statement confirming no fatalities. Are you proud of that? Does it not tell you something that the person who tweeted the "person under covers" has now deleted it? You need to be more responsible and think of how your posts might be read. Maybe find yourself someone who can take a step back and help you review your posts for you to ensure you don't do that again - get a fact checker!