Rockets

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?

What is First Dulwich? I think you are, again, falling into the narrative trap by trying to suggest people are against measures to reduce road traffic. This is wrong and part of the attack on anyone who dares oppose them. I think you will find the dissenting voices are against the methods being used to reduce road traffic (especially those that merely dispace rather than reduce road traffic). Well go take a look at your last post on the DV closure thread....you, and your cohort, are always desperately trying to create a link between opposition for LTNs and far-right/Reform support. I think you have mentioned Reform more than anyone else on this forum.

Spot on @Penguin68 and we all know that the next phase of the council/LTN apologist playbook is to then accuse those who voice their opposition as somehow being a far-right Reform supporter. It's all so predictable and pathetic.

@malumbu only if you fall into the trap of foolishly thinking that if you oppose LTNs then your motivation is purley political. Which is another utter nonsense narrative perpetrated by those who hate to hear any opposition to something they support and a desperate attempt to dampen dissenting voices. Which clearly hasn't worked.

@DulvilleRes well sorry to disappoint you but I have affiliation to any local political party nor OneDulwich. You keep making these veiled suggestions that I somehow are but you're going on nothing more than a hunch. My conscience is clear: that I post here with no vested interest, no links to any group that is involved in the debate. I very much suspect there are more than a few who post on here in whose interests it is to try and deposition anyone who dares challenge the nonsense decisions made by the council and the blinkered and undemocratic way they have behaved over the last 5 years. Clearly, there are some who only bleat on about accountability and transparency when it suits their agenda. Look what happened when I mentioned the name of the controversial Dulwich Society Transport sub-committe lead and their award winning work as an active travel lobbyist. All of which was publicly available on the DS website and in media published articles yet someone asked for the name to be removed. Knowledge is power and for too often the council, and their apologists, have been happy to try and hide ensure people are not aware of what actually has been going on. You should be thanking people like me and the likes of OneDulwich for ensuring our elected leaders are held to account. One suspects some of the hypocritical ones on here would be happy if this wasn't the Labour party that was in the spotlight.

I am glad you have clarified that because what you said did suggest you had heard it from someone on the inside, perhaps be clearer next time? But, to be honest, if you are assured by an statement from a politician that poses more questions than answers then you must have more faith in politicians than many of us! Time will tell who is right because clearly the council is funding the refunds within the next month.

I have always suspected there were some council insiders/party members on this thread. Who assured you? Are you now the official spokesperson for the council on this thread? Also McAsh refers to contractors (plural). Is there more than one? If so, how did more than one contactor make the same mistake?

Well they are, until they reclaim it off the contractors - which, as anyone with a modicum of business sense will know, is a lot easier to say than do (especially if someone from the council did sign-off or had oversight of the letters). If it was easy I am sure the council would not be having to issue the refunds themselves would they - so until such time as they get the money back the council are down £500,000 - are they not?

If you believe everything a politician tells you in the media then good luck to you....you're either very, very trusting or a big fan of theirs... There is more than enough in the statement McAsh put out to suggest it might not be plain sailing...the contractors are unlikely to sit back and take a £500,000 hit because McAsh says so in a statement. But, to be honest, you were picking an argument with @Penguin68 and anyone who properly read the statement could tell @Penguin68 was right and you were wrong.

And nowt to do with this thread so why post it? Come on @malumbukeep it on topic, you have been warned sbout this before.

The wasting money is though isnt it.....if they are unable to recover the full costs of the refunds then clearly they have £500,000 less to waste on projects like Dulwich Square, which have been funded by their over zealous, and seemingly now erroneous, fining of car drivers. Clearly someone at the council wasn't keeping tabs on what their agents were up to....

...after they, the council, have paid the refunds...which is exactly what @Penguin68 was saying.

@march46 I think you need to re-read it. McAsh's quote does seem to suggest that the council will repay the fine this month and will recover the costs of those refunds from the contractors (I doubt that part will be done within a month) - interesting use of plural there in his quote - is there more than one contractor involved? I do suspect it may not be clear cut that the council gets the full cost of refunds there could be a fight ahead because McAsh's quote does also say they are strengthening checks with the contractors - which suggests they may not have been strong enough in the first place, especially as the fines are issued in the name of Southwark Council - so was anyone from the council checking/signing this stuff off? Councillor James McAsh, Southwark's cabinet member for clean air, streets and waste, said: "We have reviewed all other notices and found no further issues. "We are also strengthening our checks with contractors to make sure this does not happen again. The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors." The council issued 10,422 penalty charge notices to people caught on CCTV driving in bus lanes, but the the wrong legislation appeared on the notices. It said: "We will reimburse all motorists and refunds will automatically be applied to the accounts of those affected within the next month."

Does StreetScan use the same data source as the numbers Sadiq showed recently on crime across London- where he claimed an annual drop of 13% in theft from person across London? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62nqvzzq79o

The Sydenham Hill cycle lanes are a very visual reminder of the nonsense of the council policy regarding cycle infrastructure. A massive white elephant if there ever was one. Very much a case of: if you build it sometimes they won't come. An utter waste of tax-payers money - one does wonder how much it cost.