Earl Aelfheah

I'm still furious that they stopped cars driving through Dulwich Park in the 60s.

😂 and there you have it: ”give me money to stop some changes” ”what changes’” *silence*

…But would waste more on reversing it 🤔

Imagine still being fixated about a change of road layout and the creation of a small pedestrian space outside the shops / cafes (enjoyed by nearly everyone) more than 4 years on… oh we don’t have to 😂

This has taken me down a little rabbit hole. Target’s are still operating online. Seem to import all manner of weapons. The ‘about us’ bit of their website states: ”Our motto is : we always behind our products because “we are manufacturer and exporter”.number one choice for those who seek guality “Target Arms”” Nothing screams quality like several typos and the misspelling of ‘quality’. Really liked inside72

I kind of thought they might have sold real ones, but it sounded improbable looking back. Was it all strictly legal? I guess you must be able to purchase guns legally for sport. Seems even weirder! 😂 Found a picture of it online

I remember a shop selling replica guns / air pistols up the far end of the lane. Weird.

Not so much a vocal minority as a slightly pathologically obsessive minority. Imagine still being fixated about a change of road layout and the creation of a small pedestrian space outside the shops / cafes (enjoyed by nearly everyone) more than 4 years on. You complain about the cost, but it's largely the result of all the ridiculous obstacles that the council has to navigate to try and appease the network of 'One' groups, and associated online 'war on motorist' fanatics. Indeed you’re now calling for a change to the whole system of local government and referenda on all local decisions - perfectly rational 🤣. And again on the cost, you would have the whole thing ripped out so that a pleasant pedestrian area can be replaced by a line of idling cars? I genuinely think you may need to consider moving on. There are some more important things in the world than your 'right' to shave maybe 3 minutes off a car trip to the village. Perhaps just suck it up, or like many others, switch to walking or cycling to the village instead.

Oh for crying out loud. The filter was put in place over 4 years ago. I don't believe for one second that replacing the square with queuing traffic would be an improvement at all. Why on earth would we hold a referendum on taking space away from pedestrians and reallocating it to cars? Just drive round, it takes a few minutes longer.

Yeah, ridiculous to expect someone asking people for money to support legal action objecting to something to detail what it is they're actually objecting to 🤣

Yeh, but it's boring. You're pretending not to understand the difference between a consultation and a referendum and again going on about road changes in Dulwich - a subject you have droned on endlessly about for years and started multiple threads for already. It would be good if the OP on this post would simply clarify what their objections are to which elements of the three proposals in Lambeth before asking for people's money.

You're on the wrong thread.

Eh? I thought this was about three schemes being proposed in Lambeth? The road layout changes in Dulwich are over 4 years old - having trouble moving on?

I personally think East Dulwich is a great place to call home. It's not cheap, and yet plenty of people chose to live here, so I can't be alone in thinking so.

You may not like it, but this is exactly why we live in a representative democracy - People will agree on a desired outcome, but endlessly disagree on the means. That's why you need people whose full time job it is to consult with a variety of experts and stakeholder, review data and make decisions on behalf of those they represent (decisions which would otherwise be mired in disagreement and inaction forever). A system where you hold referenda on every scheme, is one where nothing ever happens. As Malumbu says above, you would never get any new infrastructure, no nuclear power stations, no new housing developments, no new roads, bike lanes etc. If you don't like the decisions they make, or they fail to deliver their objectives, you can vote them out.

That's your belief. But the fact is that they stood on a manifesto entitled 'Greener, safer, fairer' which is very clear of their intention to address issues of road safety, health, environment and sustainability. They were elected on that basis and under a representative democracy that means developing schemes that deliver on those commitments. If the electorate feel that, given a reasonable opportunity to improve things, that they have failed to do so, then they get to vote them out. That is our system. The idea that any time they want to trial something, or implement a new scheme that they have to hold a referendum is a way of ensuring that literally nothing every changes. You're calling for a NIMBYs charter of permanent inaction. Which of course you know.

Did you read their manifesto? It was literally called 'Greener, safer, fairer'. Page 17 'Clean air and healthy streets' talks about car free streets, and creating 'healthier, safer and greener streets for walking and cycling' ...amongst other things. Whilst it's true that it doesn't list every individual scheme it might seek to trial in future (which would obviously be ridiculous) - it's intention to address issues with car dominance is made quite clear.

The idea that we should hold referenda every time the council wants to do something is ridiculous. Google 'representative democracy' if you don't understand our system (in short, our elected representatives lead / make decisions on our behalf and if you don't like what they do, you get to vote them out). Re. Southwark, they've also been very clear about their ambitions to reduce car use and increase active travel for some time. They've been returned to office on that basis and are now trailing schemes which seek to deliver on their committments. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/climate-emergency/reaching-net-zero/our-plan-for-net-zero

Lambeth have been very clear about their ambitions to shift towards more sustainable transport ("At least 85% of journeys in Lambeth are made by walking, cycling or other public transport modes by 2030"), and to reallocate kerb space away from car storage / parking. See the link I posted above to their climate action goals. There is almost no change that could ever be made if a consultation was treated as a referendum. They are very clearly, objectively, different things. To pretend not to understand the difference demonstrates wilful ignorance.

We are also missing a number of letters. Yesterday I also had a Royal Mail guy hand me a parcel that was for someone on a completely different road. I had to run out and stand in front of his van in order to hand it back (he clearly was not going to take it back easily). I don't know what's going on, but they seem to just want to dump the stuff anywhere and run. It's a really, really poor service.

I don't know how realistic those prices are. But I have heard people saying prices can't possibly go any higher and that the market has topped out for at least 20 years. Like I say, that doesn't necessarily mean these will sell, but I've stopped being surprised at what people will pay for a house in London.

So you think a consultation is a referendum? That a few hundred people should be able to block all and any change, even if it impacts thousands of people? Even if tens of thousands may have elected the council on a promise to make positive change? We live in a representative democracy. Lambeth have been very clear about their policies around sustainability, transport and the environment, and stood for re-election on that platform. https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/Climate-action-goals.pdf

GOP didn't say that those who had not responded to the consultation supported the scheme. You are correct that one can only state that the majority of those who did respond expressed opposition. This is NOT what is being stated by the 'action group'. They claim that 67% of residents oppose the changes, which is simply not true. They also make a number of other, completely false or unevidenced claims in their literature. most egregiously imo, claiming that there will be an increase in collisions of over 1000%+. It's been stated many times before, but a consultation is not a referendum. It is not the council's job simply to take instruction from a minority of people who feel very strongly on a topic, especially when that instruction is to change nothing. There are clearly issues around these streets that the council does need to fix.

If you want to be that close to Lordship Lane, it's unlikely you'll get a big garden.

Wow, that's the most misleading headline. It didn't show an increase, except for at a handful of monitoring sites at specific times, which it accepts were down to weather. The council is openly hostile to ULEZ, and yet: "When comparing the data with 2022, the report concludes: “What cannot be seen at present is an overall lowering in pollution levels that can be directly attributed to the implementation of Ulez in outer London.” Meanwhile, serious, London wide monitoring shows clear and significant reductions in air pollution.