Rockets

Lavrov and Khan both had hard times spinning their warped narratives in front of live audiences this week! ;-) On an unrelated matter I noticed today that there are two sets of monitoring strips in Dulwich village...one close to the lights at Turney and another set up close to the pedestrian crossing at Gilkes Place and it got me thinking as to why there are two strips there. I can only think that they are monitoring numbers of traffic turning left from Turney to DV but both are regularly under crawling traffic (especially the one closest to Turney) and I wondered whether the placement might have been determined to "inflate" the numbers of cars turning from Turney onto DV - which anyone who spends anytime in DV will know is not traffic heavy.

Remind me where anyone describes the pro-LTN crowd as looney-lefties...... I can assure you there are unsavoury characters on both sides of the argument but for the pro-LTN lobby and the likes of Sadiq to call it out so frequently is nothing more than a brazen attempt to paint everyone with the same brush in a desperate attempt to kill opposition. It's a clear sign they can't make the opposition go away so have resorted to nothing more name calling. It's sad to see an elected representative stooping to such levels and I think it could well backfire - but seems to be point one in the pro-LTN playbook - look even you Malumbu have resorted to repeated childish name calling on more than one occasion on here - a sure sign you ran out of rational arguments!

Oh my....the fact that Sadiq used that to demonise anyone who objects to ULEZ is absolutely outrageous and you can actually see it in his eyes as he says it that he thinks it might have been a mistake playing that card at that time and could backfire and galvanise even more opposition, I haven't seen the full session but I very much suspect he went to "far right. Covid deniers, Tories etc" to distract from the pounding he was taking from the residents affected by it who were giving him a hard time. Given we have a mayoral election again next year Sadiq might be feeling the pressure a bit as his policies come back to bite him. DuncanW - these last few posts validate my point completely on why Southway HAVE to make LTNs be seen to be working. To my earlier point this is why even if Southwark had proof that LTNs were increasing pollution they couldn't remove them because they have to toe the party line. If they (and other Labour run councils) were to remove them Sadiq's policy house of cards would come tumbling down.....ah the beauty of politics...it's always the people who ultimately suffer no matter which party is in control ;-) And yes, I am characterising Southwark council (and Southwark Labour for that matter) as far-left - Southwark have a well-earned reputation for being on the far-left of the party - just look, we have a self-proclaimed Marxist as a local councillor in James McAsh and I refer you to the thread on the in-fighting that went on within the party over Harriet Harman's replacement - /viewtopic.php?t=2249079&hilit=harriet+harman And then there's the influence Party HQ tried to exert on trying to ensure a Momentum candidate didn't get selected in that process: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/labour-dissolves-harman-seat-selection-panel-in-row-over-candidates

Because it is a strategic policy and the far-left of the Labour party always struggle to admit they get anything wrong. And also because I think they really believe that short-term harm will deliver long-term benefits - that they have to live with the harm as the measures "bed-in". But the belief that "evaporation" not "displacement" takes place is looking more and more misguided. I truly believe when Cllr McAsh described what success for LTNs looks like he really thought they would deliver that but they clearly haven't and clearly won't.

Rahx3 - the council pays companies to collect the data and then the data is analysed and presented by the council to support their narrative that the LTNs are a good thing. That data is then collected by active travel lobbyist and ex-LCC policy chief Rachel Aldred and used to create reports (funded by TFL and active travel lobbyists) to try and prove LTNs are working. In these reports she makes huge leaps of faith on the validity on the data being presented to her by councils whose interests it is to prove LTNs are working. That's not close to being independent - you know, I know it, everyone knows it and it is laughable that anyone would even try to claim as much. At what point has anyone been involved in the process that can actually claim they have no vested interest in the outcome?

There was a picket at our kids' school some years ago and many of the children found it very upsetting, not because of any action by their teachers on the picket, but because they were confused as to why their teachers would be encouraging others not to enter the school and felt they were betraying their teachers by entering the school themselves. It's a very difficult one to get the balance right on as children, especially younger ones really can't comprehend what is going on. The school in question asked the picket to move away from the main gates and asked them not to make as much noise (whistles etc) as some of the children didn't like it. They did so and replaced it with very enthusiastic flag waving!

The film industry is in turmoil. The problem is a lack of good films to draw people into cinemas because Netflix et al are the preferred channels to release content. Tom Hanks was saying the challenge for the film industry is a large chunk of their audience (teenagers) is bingeing on a diet of 20 second clips on social media and don't have the patience for films and how do you get someone to sit for 90 minutes when they are used to bite-size content clips.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why the barriers might have been put there in the first place?

Rahx3 - there is no research on that because no-one has paid Rachel Aldred to research it and come to that conclusion! ;-) She is paid to come to the opposite conclusion. The challenge remains that Aldred's research is based on numbers given to her by councils (who are keen to show the LTNs are working) based on monitoring that she, herself, suggests may not be accurate if the monitoring strips are placed close to junctions (she doesn't say this directly but that is the clear from her last report). It's a mystery to me why academics working on this can't ask the councils for details of where the strips are located and determine this - surely that should be part of the due-diligence of any piece of research - there seems to be a lot of "trust in the numbers" which may not be warranted? It's clear a lot of the Dulwich LTN monitoring strips are placed close to junctions and Enfield is the only council to admit that their data is not accurate on the basis of that. So there is a more than a chance, wouldn't you say, that Southwark's monitoring numbers may not be a true reflection of reality and therefore Aldred's research based on potentially inaccurate date?

Clean Air Dulwich are just never happy are they - all that moaning about everything must be very emotionally draining? ;-) Do they ever stop to consider why barriers like that were put there in the first place?

It is telling that in Aldred's latest LTN report she acknowledges the fact Enfield admitted that their counters were not recording accurately under 10kph but she stated that it was presumed other councils has not situated counters close to junctions and therefore the data supplied by the council's for her report was correct. Perhaps she should spend some of the £1.5m she was given to prove LTNs are a rip roaring success checking where the monitoring strips are located and whether, as result, council data is accurate. Anyone can take a brisk walk around Dulwich and see for themselves......

The mother of Ella has said she's against LTNs because they drive traffic onto main roads such as the South Circular which was the cause of her daughter's death. Dulwich Common (and Lordship Lane at the junction of it) have seen increased traffic since the Dulwich Village LTN was introduced as cars which used to filter down Court Lane now get stuck in queues reaching to/from the Village. And forcing yet more traffic down main roads (which I remind you some of our local councillors have suggested is the rightful place for displaced traffic) is going to mean there are many more children suffering from the effects of increased pollution who happen to live on them - this is a point often overlooked/ignored by the pro-LTN lobby - we can't use some roads, and the people who live on them, as collateral damage in the fight for a reduction in pollution - how on earth is that fair?

Malumbu - leaving your old post here with no/little comment.....;-) It's amazing how quickly this post has come back to haunt you and the position you are taking on said subject today...normally you get tripped up/exposed by much older posts ;-)

Armand - the council's intentions were absolutely right - reduce traffic, congestion and pollution are the right thing to do and critical but they put all their eggs in the LTN basket (LTNs are proven to be a very blunt instrument to solve the problem at hand) and when it was clear they were not delivering as advertised (they only reduce traffic for those inside the LTNs and increase traffic for those outside) they doubled-down and began digging themselves an even bigger hole and manipulating the data (if you walk around Dulwich take look at how close the monitoring strips are located to junctions or traffic lights - an absolute no-no unless you want to record fewer cars than are actually using that road). Far/hard left politicians find it very difficult to admit they got something wrong and it has been interesting how more considered and moderate Southwark councillors like Radha Burgess, who acknowledged and opposed much of the LTNs negative impacts, have since left their seats. Statements I see on here from pro-LTN supporters about "the vast majority of people" being able to walk or cycle just demonstrates how blinkered they are. It's the classic "well, if I can then why can't you" mantra and often seasoned with a huge dose of hypocrisy. The discussion normally goes a little something like this: "If I can live my live pottering around Dulwich buying my artisan groceries on my £5,000 cargo bike that I store in my back-garden which I access via my side-return then why can't everyone else do the same....?" "But you still own a car don't you" "Err yes, well I do because I need it to visit relatives in the country/visit my 2nd home in the country/transport furniture to my 2nd home in the country/transport my bikes/emergencies/get my kids to school when it's raining/get to the nearest railway station/drive my kids to their sports games"...and so the list goes on. Dulwich has always had some of the highest levels of active travel for local journeys in Southwark with the large majority of such journeys being walked yet the council decided to target the area with LTNs - only they seem to know the reason why as they had said previously that areas like Dulwich don't make sense for LTNs due to the poor PTAL scores in the area. Granted the intention was probably to target the non-local residents who drive through Dulwich but by putting the LTNs in the council made things infinitely worse for many of the local residents by forcing more traffic down fewer roads - and it is being allowed to continue.

Yes and my use of quote marks was because they would say they are posting in a personal capacity on social media and not in their capacity as a journalist - although those lines are very blurred nowadays anyway as their output in a journalistic capacity on the subject is far from impartial! Of course, there were clearly undesirables who were part of the protest but by tarring everyone with the same brush creates more problems and I do wonder how much the Oxford counter-demo balaclava-wearing folks were in direct response to previous articles and comments made suggesting these demos were infiltrated by far-right extremists. No doubt Walker and Vine's comments (and their were plenty of others from the usual pro-LTN commentators) will have stoked the fire even more for the next protest.

I'm not saying anything DuncanW, but if they were it doesn't mean that they represent the views of everyone who was there so saying that all anti LTN supporters are anti everything is a real leap in your conclusion. Its akin to someone saying that because Jezzer didn't act on antisemitism then all Labour supporters must agree with him... which of course the don't.🤔 It's clear there are unsavoury types who will grasp onto any protest to try and get some publicity and Lozza Fox, David Kurten and Piers Corbyn are very unusual bed-fellows (and who have views that 99.9% of people do not agree with) but there is a concerted effort to paint anyone and everyone who is associated with anti-LTNs as some sort of fascist, Covid-denier, lunatic - a tactic even seen by some pro-LTN supporters on here over the last couple of years - especially around the Dulwich Square protest. The likes of Peter Walker and Jeremy Vine know, all too well, that protests can attract a weird bunch but are more than happy to amplify the narrative that demonises anyone with an anti-LTN agenda - they make "observations" from their keyboards, in their guise as "journalists", without actually being on the ground themselves and determining what the make-up of the group actually was - happily demonising people and fanning the flames because it suits their personal agenda and then, glibly, suggesting if they were an anti-LTN protestor they would be worried that the cause was being taken over by extremists etc..... Meanwhile, there was a counter-protest in Oxford at the same time and look, those pro-LTN supporters seem to have swapped cargo bikes for balaclavas...;-) We see the same demonising tactics with the likes of the Dulwich Roads twitter account locally where every accident is blamed on bad driving before the owner of the twitter account has even tried to ascertain what has happened - demonising all drivers involved in accidents as "bad drivers".

In addition to Spartacus' comments I would say: The LTNs were rejected by locals when they were first presented during the OHS consultations which happened before the pandemic The council then used the cover, and guise, of COVID and the need for "social distancing" to roll-out the OHS plan without the need for a further consultation due to emergency powers There isn't an LTN anywhere that hasn't caused significant displacement of traffic and many of us were concerned, from the outset, that for some of us to have nice quiet roads some of us would have to have even busier roads Not enough "evaporation" of traffic occurs to prevent other roads from experiencing significant increases in traffic, congestion and pollution Since the LTNs went in the council has done everything in its power to suppress any negative sentiment towards the LTNs and has failed to engage with local constituents Local Labour councillors stated, very clearly, that if the LTNs did not lead to a reduction in traffic for every street in the Dulwich area then it would not have been a success - this is clearly what has happened Since the LTNs went in the council has manipulated the monitoring process, reports and and output to create a rosier picture than actually exists The council has divided our community (physically and metaphorically) with these measures and has driven a serious wedge between the council, the Mayor's office and TFL and has been accused of bullying members of TFL - something I would never had expected from a Labour run council At the end of the day LTNs don't ever solve a problem, they make it worse and we should not live in a society where we are happy to move cars and pollution from one person's street to another in the name of "progress" in the fight against climate change

Full court press on the demonisation of anyone daring to protest in Oxford LTNs coming out from the usual suspects.......it almost feels co-ordinated.

Malumbu - please do take time to read and digest my post properly next time before jumping on your keyboard.......my ire is with Will Norman's post not the article..... And no my post doesn't paint me as anything....it is, in fact, your post that tries to paint me as something - which is merely illustrating the point I am trying to make. So many thanks for that - you're always such a reliable bait-taker!!! ;-) As I was saying...there are many on the pro-LTN side who would rather demonise rather than debate.....

And then Will Norman posts this: https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1626168482302664704?t=RfMjVyNrUV_ATge0R0u4Fg&s=19 which again goes to show how there are those who are happy to demonise anyone who dares question their plans.....Will Norman categorising people who challenge the premise of the viability of a 15-minute city (which interestingly the author of the piece does cover) as #absolutenutters is not at all helpful and kind of surprising he choses to use that language. If anyone who questions his plan is a "nutter" then maybe it's a case of the lunatics running the asylum!

!Abhorrent! And to validate my point on the demonising of anyone who dares to question the LTNs......perfect timing March46!!!

Since day one of the LTN debacle both the council, councillors, elected officials and the pro-LTN supporters have been more inclined to demonise rather than debate with anyone who doesn't agree with the path they have taken. There are plenty of examples of this happening in relation to the Dulwich LTNs and this looks like another attempt to avoid any debate with constituents - a worrying trend and not what elected officials should be doing.

But Northern if you read the One Dulwich update it seems clear that this goes far further than an auto-reply from an MP.; that dialogue has been taking place but now there has been a request to see the details of all the One Dulwich "activists". If Helen Hayes chose to use the word activist in any missive about One Dulwich members then that is incredibly worrying. Granted there are those in One Dulwich who, I am sure, are not Labour supporters but there is a very worrying trend happening here. Take the council meeting where Clrr Rose had her "man-splaining" outburst,, both her and Cllr Williams seemed far more concerned that the two representatives had dared to run against them as Tory councillors than the point they were trying to raise with both sitting councillors putting party politics over constituency matters.

I am presuming "activists" is the term Helen Hayes is using to the describe the members of One Dulwich when she is asking for the list of names - which is clear One Dulwich are suggesting is the case? If so is it yet another example of the contempt with which local elected officials are treating constituents who dare have a differing view to theirs....it's a trend we have seen plenty of from our local councillors over this matter since it's inception. They seemingly welcome groups of actual activists who cause harm to London life (XR on Peckham Rye) yet challenge groups of local residents who dare to be concerned about the measures the council's have implemented. Some very dangerous precedents, in terms of conscious bias, are being set if these allegations are true.