Rockets

Southwark Labour's new tagline is now: For the money from the many! It really amazes me how far socialism has come from its for the people beginnings that loads of folks come on here defending the council for doing this. I do think Corbyn managed to detach elements of Labour from their sociaist principles that some are struggling to shake off. If it was the Tories doing it they would be up in arms....#theblinkerednatureofpoliticstoday Bottom line is Southwark is spending huge amounts of constrained money on purging money from their own constituents and it is utterly shameless and utterly indefensible...

But don't for one minute believe that the aforementioned things are what the council is trying to reduce - all they want to do is raise revenue. And they have gone out of their way to try to create parking pressures in the Dulwich area (extension of double-yellow lines to the legal maximum a few years ago). £11.5m is an absurd amount of money to spend on a contract with a third -party parking enforcement company when the council bleats on and on about reductions in council budgets and a cost of living crisis - around £9m of that is funding the 48 new traffic wardens - many of whom are circling Lordship Lane daily like vultures..... Yes Joseph parked in front of the hospital as Mary was giving birth but upon appeal the council said that giving birth to baby Jesus was not grounds for them to overturn the parking fine on their donkey. The donkey had also inadvertently passed through the Dulwich Village LTN camera zone twice on its way and had also paused, momentarily, in a CPZ parking bay near Melbourne Grove as Mary was having a contraction. In total the council issued four fines, doubled them because Joseph had not received the fine notification in the post because the local postal service was appalling, and Cllr McAsh said (allegedly): "A donkey emits more emissions than a bicycle so we cannot agree to over-turning the fines - Mary and Joseph should have used one of our rentable cargo bikes because you can leave those anywhere without any form of recourse. The good news is Mary and Joseph's fines now take the council's Punish The Hard-Working People of Dulwich (They All Send Their Kids to Private School You know) accumulator to over £20m - a new record - hurrah - that'll learn them." He went on to, allegedly, add: "I am a socialist not a marxist, honestly...why doesn't anyone believe me..we really, really, really are socialists - we'd like to thank APCOA for their help in achieving our goals!"

You're right Malumbu,.life moves on...and in Southwark life moves on with a million new ways for them to take your hard-earned money from you. The whole point of this thread is the fact there are swarms of parking wardens now descending on Lordship Lane. Why? Because Southwark has spent £11.5m of our money on securing more parking wardens to police the CPZ zones that there is absolutely zero need for (except of course if you are a council desperately trying to drain every £ from your constituents). And the laughable thing is they claim to be socialists....

The problem is Malumbu that with the increased number of wardens the pressure mounts on them to issue tickets and they may throw tickets around where discretion and a sense of seasonal goodwill may have prevented them from issuing them previously as they look to make sure they hit whatever quota they have. The way councils do this is incredibly underhand and snake-like way - the fact the council has spent £11.5m of tax-payers money to then raise more money from issuing fines to the very people they represent is ludicrous. But I did get in an Addison Lee recently where a driver said he had an airport pick-up in Greenwich and he pulled up outside the person's house and got a £100 fine for doing so as it was being monitored by CCTV. He showed me the letter and it confirmed he had stopped for 45 seconds but it costs him £100 - and this is someone who works very hard to earn £100. It's shameless really.

Yes they signed a £11.5m contract with APCOA on the basis of area-wide CPZs so now they have more wardens than parking zones to patrol so they are all hang around Lordship Lane hunting for victims!!!

Is anyone going to the CPZ meeting at the Library tonight?

Ha ha...hilarious if true that Dale Foden said the 23 question government questionnaire would take too long to fill out....perhaps the government needs to send Southwark an FOI request to get the info......;-) https://twitter.com/DulwichCleanAir/status/1735209490436280806?t=kPRrvZtTB4da5RZIzAz5lw&s=19

Who are they pandering too with these proposals, they seem utterly pointless and a complete waste of money as do very little to change the junction. Is this some sort of legacy vanity plan for the Village councillors? The council has wasted so much money on this junction and on each occassion it has made things worse. Remember the first bit of meddling they did to "reduce emissions" and their own research showed it had the opposite effect and increased emissions. Its becoming an expensive joke - perhaps it needs a plaque paying respect to the huge amount of tax payers money buried with whatever changes they put in!

Walked down Court Lane today and certainly saw no signs of the parking pressure the council is oh so keen to try and convince themselves and us exists - huge swathes of empty parking spaces. In fact the only time i see any parking pressure is during the weekends and that is on a small section either side of the park as parents vie for a space that doesn't require their budding sporting star to walk too far after their match!

That is the council's perspective as they are calling out speeding cyclists as a problem that needs addressing with the new design of the junction.....so it seems a lot stronger than perspective....maybe you can accuse them of being anti-cyclist...or maybe just acknowledge there might be a problem ;-). That's because I live nearby and walk through there most days and dodge the speeding full kit wallies most weekends.........because I am, well, a local resident. The problem many of us local residents have is when people like to pass judgement or involve themselves and meddle in things from afar when they clearly know very little about what is going on and then challenge our observations as somehow wrong or warped to a certain narrative...;-)

I noticed that in the Dulwich Square consultation plans the council's proposals include: Separating pedestrians, cyclists and motorists; reducing cyclists' speed through traffic calming Clearly the council are acknowledging that there has been a problem with cyclists' speed through that pedestrian priority layout.

Did you do something to be taken off his Christmas Card list - had you perhaps responded to a consultation with a response the council did not approve of? 😉

But I dont think you need to be a resident to create a green dot. If this is based on the OHS map (or whatever it was called) anyone could place a dot with a request/comment on something to do with any road they chose. LCC used to encourage people to make comments in an attempt to sway council decisions whether they were a resident in the area or not. I bet you the council doesn't know/won't share where the people who posted the comments are from. It's a page from the active travel lobby playbook (that councils are more than aware of) of influencing local matters.

Is it just me or is anyone else struggling with what benefit there is of these changes - seems to be a lot of money being spent on doing very little indeed to the existing design? I wonder how much this exercise is costing (and how much has been spent thus far) and whether that money could be put to something more valuable to the local community like sorting out the Lordship Lane/East Dulwich Grove death-trap junction? Dulwich Square is becoming an expensive white elephant for the Southwark tax payer!

Do we know that these are requests from residents? If I remember rightly anyone can leave feedback on the interactive map they have used to collate some of that "evidence" - you don't have to be a resident of said street to leave feedback - would be interesting to know how many of them are from local residents as the way they position it in the document it doesn't suggest it is resident feedback: The green dots on the map below indicate where we have received requests for parking restrictions: Bottom-line is much of what the council are presenting as "evidence" is not something people in the area recognise as a problem and I very much hope that people mobilise against the council and say a firm no to the proposals and the council understands the weight of feeling against them - this has nothing to do with active travel or climate change and everything to do with revenue generation - a new tax for those that rely on cars.

There is also a lot of fox poo around and I sometimes think dogs take the rap for their 4-legged feral friends - sometimes a case of mistaken poo identity!!!!

And it looks like they have also got to the section between Townley and the rest of Lordship Lane as it was a lot clearer over the weekend.

The consultation is now live and it has a yes/no response to two questions: Do you agree with the proposed parking zone in your area? Do you want controlled parking on your street? Having a yes/no response is progress but, remember, the council has given itself an out by saying that even if there is an overwhelming negative response they can still force a CPZ on residents. And I think that is what they are gearing up for with the "evidence" section and I suspect they are using that to force their plans through. Look at the "parking stress research" they have done for the area - not something I recognise as, to me, there seems to be very little parking stress in the affected area yet the council's "research" which took place over two days (allegedly between 7am and 7pm on a Tuesday and Thursday) tells a very different story.

Latest One Dulwich update... Campaign Update | 10 Dec Dulwich Village Junction Update The Council has just issued a “consultation” on the re-design of the Dulwich Village junction (phase 3). Southwark has taken no notice of the views of local people. Public feedback on phase 2 asked for the junction re-design to prioritise access for key workers and those with disabilities and to consider the problem of displaced traffic. This hasn’t happened. The junction is still closed to all but emergency vehicles. There is still no access for the frail, the elderly and those with disabilities who depend on their cars for mobility. Traffic is still being displaced on to surrounding roads where families live and where children walk and cycle to school. This is not Streets for People. This is Streets for Some People. Please see our detailed comments. As this “consultation” ignores feedback from the local community, we suggest you fill in and return the survey but ignore question 6 and answer “1 (not at all)” to questions 7 – 12. And do please use the comment boxes to emphasise that the community rejected this 24/7 closure in the original consultation, and that the wider area will continue to suffer, not benefit, from it. The deadline is 17 January 2024. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team

Malumbu the thread is not about licensing..... As someone who cycles a lot (sorry to disappoint you Earl!) I think any measures to encourage cyclists to conform to rules is a good thing. Granted, there are not many cyclists going over 20mph and policing it is impossible but there are too many who cycle who think the rules of the road don't apply to them (red lights, pavement cycling etc). Unfortunately, as we have seen in the car world, sometimes more draconian measures are required to get the message across to everyone about how people are supposed to behave. P.S. Earl I don't read the Daily Mail, again, sorry to disappoint you but your attempts to pigeon hole me as some right-wing looney are not even close, and again a well-worn name calling tactic used by many......but never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that! 😉 P.P.S Malumbu, Peter Walker "a serious journalist"...only if you like your active travel coverage bread buttered on one side! 😉

Feel free to involve them but don't base future policy and decisions on their input alone (or use them to tip the balance in your favour) when you can't convince adults that live in the affected area to support your ideas...which Southwark Labour is doing and has done.

Remember they said that the mandate for Southwark-wide CPZs was a document that was born out of "research" conducted with a large proportion of school children and students in the north of Southwark.....so this could well be part of a "consultation" thay will determine what measures we get forced upon us in future ...;-)

Earl, your argument was that bikes do not need to comply to speed limits because of their kinetic energy compared to cars which is an utter, utter nonsense and so flawed and blinkered it is laughable. Given your stoic refusal to answer the question why you think speed limits should not apply to bike we must presume that it is on the basis of "kinetic energy" and your assumption that being hit by a bike is better for you than being hit by a car. I am sure anyone hit by a bike takes real solace from that....

And as i explained this is wrong. It is a 20mph limit on restricted roads which are roads which have street lights no further apart than 200 yards which takes in a lot of rural areas. Your use of "built-up areas" is misleading. Because yours is not a reasoned response. Of course impact force is relevant but your defence of bikes not having to honour the speed limit on the basis of the kinetic energy of being hit by a bike rather than a car is ludicrous. We hear it time and time again from the cycle lobby that somehow being hit by a bike isn't an issue. Nonsense, absolute blinkered nonsense. Ah, I thought you meant conversion kits rather than conversion kits that are then retrofitted to go faster. Maybe be a bit clearer next time perhaps? Ha ha, that's a bit rich....;-)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...;-) Now where is that face palm emoji...;-) .