Rockets

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!

Dulwich Roads - please engage brain before posting - put your ideological obsession to one side and think about how your posts might be interpreted. Your offending post (where you used the words horrific and tragic) as you retweeted a post where someone said there had been an accident outside a school and there was a person under covers (which I see has now been removed) is utterly reprehensible and caused undue concern amongst the parents of pupils at Oakfield School. The police had to issue a statement to confirm there were no fatalities because of your post such was the level of panic and concern it created. Is that what you consider a good measure of success? Try harder in future to engage in fact-based rather than narrative-based posts and don't be so quick on the trigger finger before establishing what actually happened and any consequences.

Oh Bridget....deary me more ludicrous dog whistling...meanwhile back in the real world the NASUWT is urging Labour to delay the plans because of a worry of redundancies in the private sector that will be lost to teaching forever....there is far more at stake than embossed stationery. A seriously foolish post from an MP.

A mile is a long way when it comes to the council's attitude towards spending..... Honestly, were there ever two images that perfectly summed up Southwark Council..... The council and it's cheerleaders should be ashamed #forthefewnotthemany

But Earl, come on - how are One Dulwich misrepresenting the council's data - which you can see below. What message does the council data send you? And just imagine what it would look like if Croxted was reported accurately and they'd bothered to monitor Underhill....I am pretty sure this is not the grand vision promised by the council.....in fact in Cllr McAsh's stated view this must be considered a failure must it not? https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/streetspace/traffic-data-analysis

Malumbu - you do it all the time. Let people be critical - Southwark is big enough to defend itself and doesn't need a resident from outside the borough trying to come to their rescue - let them be accountable for their actions and their behaviours.

Trinidad, when you posted yesterday I thought to myself "be careful you'll upset Malumbu". And behold.... The irony being Malumbu is Southwark council's number 1 fan and self-appointed protector of their reputation and doesn't even live in the borough! 😉

And your point is what exactly...at least we are talking about Dulwich Square and keeping it on subject, ahem....

What does it show then? You would acknowledge, surely, that if there was displacement the roads that have shown significant increases in traffic since pre-Covid would be the ones expected to show an increase?

So, in other words, you don't have any examples. The one you cite is interesting in itself because I am not sure you can claim that as mis-information as they are presenting their conclusions and backing the rational for that conclusion with the council's own data. Interesting to note that they also flag how the council may have (deliberately?) used erroneous data in their monitoring figures to help massage them. Given Cllr McAsh said that the measures could not be considered a success if all roads did not see a reduction then, by his own bar, the council dashboard reveals that is has failed - those East Dulwich Grove increases over pre-Covid/pre-LTN monitoring are shocking . https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/data-confirms-failure-of-dulwich-ltns

Which mis-information in particular? If you respond with any examples, I would suggest it's not on the scale of the misinformation programme run by the council and their supportive cheerleaders around the "success" of said LTNs.

I agree, there are too many intangibles at play to be able to say what has, or hasn't created, the increase in crime in the whole ward. I do think there is a debate to be had whether quieter streets with fewer cars mean that certain types of crime are easier to commit and allow targeting of victims. The current modus operandi of crash for cash only really works on quieter streets and it is no coincidence that areas around the DV LTN are being targeted by criminals. On phone snatches and knifepoint robberies the argument could be made that because there are more people walking around the quieter streets then that part explains the rise in crimes of that nature (which aren't happening on Dulwich Square but on the surrounding streets. Overall, in the Dulwich Village ward, crime is on the way up, is the highest it has been in the three years of monitoring available on the police website, and it is being driven by certain types of crime - I don't really care what the cause is but what the solution is because it is Dulwich residents (all of our neighbours) who are often on the receiving end of what can be terrifying encounters that can have lasting impact.

I think the council are targeting those with particular issues.