Rockets

I think you hit the nail on the head - if the council can spend a huge amount of money on numerous redesigns of Dulwich Square we have to ask the question why some of that money could not be spent on replacing the footbridge. It seems that the council is happy to throw tax payers money at some projects and not others.

@malumbu oh dear.....the TFL review into their floating bus stop concept clearly isn't aligned to the real world....did you actually watch the video? I doubt it. I am still laughing you are actually trying to defend the actions of the cyclists in that video...denial is not a river in Africa! Anyway before you try to divert this thread it's probably a waste of time putting a pedestrian crossing in the cycle lane in Dulwich Square as clearly very few cyclists pay any attention to them....

Sue, I was correct - Projects in Parks comes from the same pot as CPZ and LTN revenue - the council spent 244,000 on Parks last year from a surplus of £17m....perhaps they could find the money to replace the bridge by using some of that surplus as they spent £2m on LTNs alone......

If the Qatari's decide to retaliate then it's all going off...but I suspect the Iranians are hoping for this - one inaccurate missile and the Qatari's may have to. I think the Iranian leadership is working on fast-tracking their own demise and the Americans and Israeli's planning for regime change, maybe with the many political prisoners the Israelis tried to free from the Elvin prison today. What a mess but clearly Iran was becoming a big threat to not only Israel but many of the other Gulf States and was clearly doing scary stuff with nuclear weapons that required action.

Flea darts...now there's a thing from my past I had long forgotten about - goodness our ! This thread title does always bring a smile to my face as I can't help but think it suggests a campaign to prevent the removal of someone's stash!

I was lobbying for a pedestrian crossing to be put in place in Dulwich Square but by looking at the latest NFBUK video it seems like it would be a pointless exercise...I dare anyone to watch that video and give any sort of defence for that behaviour - and, unfortunately, it appears to be the very large majority of cyclists using that section of road. I love the bit at 0.49 seconds when one of the few cyclists to stop gets rear-ended by another cyclist and the cyclist who stops seemingly has to point out that it is a pedestrian crossing - a clear voice in a sea of overwhelming ignorance. Seems like pedestrian crossings are optional for cyclists....so I take back my request for one in Dulwich Square...it's probably safer without one as pedestrians will approach the crossing disregarding the advice of the Highway Code that they have priority.

BBC News - 'E-bike crash ruined my life - rules need to change' https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70nl7np0v9o

Are you sure? From memory parks is under the same pot that is being funded by the revenue from the CPZs and LTNs. There are two things that stand out in that area now: 1) the urgent need for a pedestrian crossing at the apex of the chicane to try to abate the speed of some cyclists coming down Calton. 2) How the owner of Rose Cottage has had a street sign made proclaiming Dulwich Village Square and put it on the side of their house. I am sure Knight Frank are sharpening their estate agent thesaurus in eager anticipation of being given a shot at marketing the house being proposed to be built in the garden....in the newly proclaimed Dulwich Village Square! 😉

But don't forget it was also enacted to move or close the half a dozen coal fired power stations (like Battersea and Bankside) that were very close to the city centre and were the major cause of pollution.

We are not the only ones: BBC News - Residents feel 'forgotten' after Royal Mail delays https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78n90q8lx7o

To be fair @malumbu you took a global discussion down to restrictions on motoring so maybe you should practice what you preach! 😉

And the riders have been announced.....https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/seven-councillors-formally-submit-bids-for-southwark-council-leadership/

Yeah @malumbu a couple more CPZs and some more journey length increasing LTNs ought to do the trick....

I am pretty sure the letters CPZ and LTN were nowhere near their manifesto. There was no mention of anything to do with transport or active travel in the documents Labour pushed through our door….in fact they were more concerned with telling people how awful Boris was and how a vote for them was a vote against the government….I suspect they may return to local issues this time round but they will no doubt proceed with caution. A protest vote against the government would be funny this time round!

Are you accusing Southwark council of breaking the law? You repeatedly insinuate it. If you have any evidence, then why not have the courage to just say it. Come on @Earl Aelfheah - your not so subtle editing and manipulation of my sentence to try and create an angle to attack me on is really telling.....

No. The problem here is you refuse to differentiate between spin/propaganda and fact and you presented spin/propaganda as fact to suggest there was a majority in support of the Dulwich LTN in the consultation. Clearly there wasn't and the polar opposite was, in fact, true - that there was majority opposition to the LTN. We have seen these tactics so many times before from the pro-lobby - when exposed for feeding people incorrect, erroneous or down right misleading information when challenged they then try to divert attention onto something else. Again, it is this type of behaviour that makes many look more deeply into what is actually happening as they question whether the council and the active travel lobby are telling them the truth or are they just feeding people lies to suit their agenda. The more that decisions like that of the High Court goes against councils and their lobby friends the more evidence there is that some of us were absolutely right to question the motives, lawfulness and execution of these programmes by councils.

This is exactly the issue and such a familiar pattern. People parrot the council narrative and say "look, look you have no argument because the majority supported the LTN", then someone points out that is utter tosh and cite a different stat from the same report and we hear...."time to move on"...this is why people draw parallels with the fascist Trumpian regime and their tactics based on lies, misinformation and distraction. The bottom-line remains that there are some who do not want any accountability because they are happy with the current status-quo and I can guarantee that if it wasn't an issue they supported they would be out in force demanding accountability. It's blinkered hypocrisy and aptly demonstrates why so many people have such an issue with the way many on the pro- side behave - defending the indefensible and happy to turn a blind eye.

@Earl Aelfheah but you chose not to use that did you - why? Because the council had spoon-fed people that there was support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55% stat - out of interest where did you read that stat - was it in the report that then (on page 18) referenced the opposition? One presumes you had not seen the actual opposition detail (or chosen to ignore it) when you made the claim for support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55%. Of course you can't because the figure you were touting as "proof" of support for the LTN was nothing of the sort but was presented by the council as such and repeated it. Absolutely not. I am not the one trying to convince people that there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN based on misleading and erroneous data. I actually bothered to look at the detail the council didn't spoon-feed people.....so my perspective on this is based on actual data from responses and not on spin or wishful thinking. To be fair - you keep posting misleading and incorrect information which was have to correct so you have a role in prolonging this too.......;-) Time will tell if this is a noble resistance or not but the fact people are still talking about it suggests the efforts are worth it - and there's an election coming up soon so, per you, surely it is important to remind people of things councillors have done so they can be judged at the ballot box as there is no other form of accountability.....;-)

Do you actually ever read the posts you respond to, you seem to be uniquely capable to conflate and mislead by twisting what was posted….it’s a remarkable skill!? The way Lambeth behaved in the consultation did not meet the high bar to be considered unlawful but it did come in for criticism which I outlined some time ago on this thread. Maybe go back, read it and then compare Lambeth’s behaviour to Southwark in regard to consultations….striking similarities….coincidence…or shared approach to get their way.? Even in the way they mislead members of the public by presenting data that was deliberately misleading….like your 55% majority support fantasy statement that you shared, incorrectly and misleadingly (perhaps knowingly mischievously), from the council. You see how easy it is to be manipulated if you don’t bother doing any research - most members of the public don’t - it’s why spin is so effective because it allows you to hide and bury the real story which is far more damaging because people don’t educate themselves? It’s fascinating the similarities between Lambeth and Southwark’s behaviour.

@Earl Aelfheah it's clearly much broader than that. I am just glad that I am sanguine enough to question what happened and try to hold our elected officials accountable and not lap up and regurgitate their misinformation (why does that create an image of George Galloway and Rula Lenska!). Time will tell whether anyone is held accountable. The West Dulwich High Court case has shone a bright light on how councils mislead their constituents and manipulate these consultations. If nothing else comes of it councils will probably ensure that they follow proper process and I suspect that will mean many fewer active travel interventions that are not supported by local residents. I am sure you'll agree that is not a great outcome but you'll probably try to blame our side for that as well rather than holding the council accountable! 😉

@Earl Aelfheah it is not for me to determine what censure there should be for councillors who have misled their constituents - the issue of course is that there will likely never be any accountability as politicians of all persuasions tend to close ranks - especially those on the left of the party who like nothing more to refer to each other as "comrade".... Maybe I should throw the question back to you - do you feel there should be any accountability - don't you feel a little played that they selectively fed you the "55% majority support stat" for the Dulwich LTNs that you have been using only to find out it was utterly misleading and the polar opposite of the reality? Doesn't that frustrate you - do you still trust them? I know it is a different borough but do you think there should be some sort of censure against the councillors in Lambeth who wasted huge amounts of tax-payers money on the unlawful LTN and decided to waste even more tax-payers money fighting it in the High Court? Or should people have to wait until the next election?

At some point dont you have to assess 1) whether there is demand for any type of infrastructure and 2) if you install it assess whether that investment has been well spent. We keep hearing...build it and they will come but there seems little analysis of whether that is the case. Again, is there any accountability/analysis of ROI for the investment of tax payers money by our elected officials?

@Earl AelfheahI called for accountability, you seem to be putting words into my mouth, and you suggested councillors are only accountable at times of elections which is beyond nonsensical - they cant do what they want without censure during their term.

Ha ha @Earl Aelfheah you're not mentioning the "majority support" for the Dulwich LTNs anymore....thank goodness...we have some progress! 😉 Southwark councillors agree to a code of conduct when they take office - the 7 principles of that are listed below. SELFLESSNESS INTEGRITY OBJECTIVITY ACCOUNTABILITY OPENNESS HONESTY LEADERSHIP Clearly some of this has been tested by some behaviour from councillors during this process but, of course, whether anything will ever be done to ensure there is accountability is another matter - a culture of accountability needs to start at the top. Southwark doesn't have the best track record of holding their councillors accountable when they have stepped out of line.

@Earl Aelfheah what a load of nonsense - councillors and other elected representatives don't have free reign to behave as they please between elections without any accountability..... Are you trying to convince us that the accountability for the Lambeth councillors involved in the West Dulwich debacle should be the ballot box at the next election?