Earl Aelfheah

You really need a hobby. This doesn't remotely suggest what we all know you're trying to suggest.

Driving into a wall at 20 mph is an example of dangerous driving. The cause of the dangerous driving is another matter. People expressing shock, disbelief, or concern at a car turning onto it's roof on a residential street, seems perfectly understandable to me. What is not, is rushing to minimise / or downplay it. With tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our roads every year, we are in danger of becoming inured to it - a car on it's roof in a residential street is not something that should be considered unremarkable, or just 'one of those things'. The suggestions that hitting a bollard that is on a pavement is unavoidable is concerning. It's not unavoidable. It's not even difficult to avoid. Most people don't drive into things on the pavement. As usual, Rockets is hugely inconsistent, repeatedly claiming to be very concerned about anecdotes of push bikes 'nearly' crashing on other threads, whilst seeking to minimise a car on it's roof in a residential street (something that has actually happened) on this one.

Nope.

I do not agree. If your vehicle is overhanging the pavement as you turn, and you're unable to see what's on the pavement, then you are driving dangerously. The same is true if you're reversing.

Still can't say what it is you actually want - beyond boring on across multiple threads. It's just one long tedious tantrum.

A bollard on the pavement does not represent a 'dodgy obstruction' when driving.

After 5 years? You think 'opposition is growing'? Do be serious. I get that you're aggrieved that you didn't get your way, and determined to paint the square as some sort of dangerous, dystopian, hellscape (it's not, it's actually quite a nice space). But 5 years on and it's just relentless, undirected, simmering resentment. You still can't actually say what you want. You don't want to reverse it, you just seem to want someone to say you were right. OK. The council behaved appallingly and the square is awful. Do you feel happy now?

Yes, you’ve said. What does that mean? It obviously doesn’t mean at the ballot box. They have already stood for re-election and won. They haven’t broken the law, so there is no legal sanction I can see. You have said before that you are not calling for the road layout to be reverted back to how it was before. So again, what is it you are demanding happens? Or as I suspect, are you just going to moan endlessly across multiple threads to zero effect?

Why don’t you just read up on what representative democracy is, how it works and the difference between a consultation and a referendum? I have already explained this so you're going over old ground again and, as usual, deflecting. Well that's ironic. You dodge the question, by claiming that asking it is deflection. What is it you actually want, if not to reverse the changes made 5 years ago? You want them to stand for re-election on their record? It's already happened? You want them 'censored'? For what? How? What does that mean? You talk about ‘taking the fight to them' - I hate to tell you, but the 'fight' ended half a decade ago. All you're doing is endlessly complaining and trying to justify why your inability to move on isn’t just the unhealthy fixation it appears to be. What do you actually want?

This is just nonsense. I don’t want Reform in power, but if they’re elected I’m not going to claim it’s anti democratic. No one says you have to be happy about the changes made to the road layout many years ago now. But when you say you want people (both councillors and their 'cheerleaders') held accountable, censored, or 'disciplined', what does that mean? Councillors have stood for re-election and won. There is no evidence that they acted outside of their powers or broke the law. People who enjoy the square are perfectly entitled to. You’ve stated that you don’t want the scheme reversed, so what is it you want?

It's on the pavement. No one should be driving their car on the pavement.

I haven't said that Rockets must support the changes that were made years ago to the road layout on Calton Avenue. I've just asked that he stop insinuating that Southwark have somehow acted outside of their powers, or in ways that are undemocratic. They have not. I also think that half a decade on, if he isn't actually calling for the decision to be reversed, and can't say what he wants to happen in response to his grievance, then it really is just pointless noise. Again, what is it he wants?

They get their democratic mandate through elections. We don’t have a system of direct democracy where you get to vote on every decision. This is basic stuff. You still haven’t said what it is you actually want.

You still seem to think that the council needs to have a referendum in order to make changes legitimately. They do not. You really should Google ‘representative democracy’.

No, I don't think it's fine. but firstly I don't believe they have done and secondly, if that is your belief, recourse is through the ballot box. To suggest they do not have a mandate, because you don't agree with a decision they've made (even though they've been returned to office since that decision), is just nonsense. It's not that they don't have a democratic mandate, it's just that you don't agree with what they've done and are unhappy that they were re-elected. Don't try to wrap it up as though it's anything more than that. You're just upset that you haven't got your way. Well that is how democracy works sometimes.

You've said you want people to be held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - not just unspecified councillors but also their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois'. What does this mean? You're clearly not satisfied with councillors being held accountable at the ballot box - as you know they have stood for re-election since the Dulwich LTN was implemented and increased their majority. So if not the ballot box, if not through legal routes (despite your insinuations there is no evidence they've acted outside of their authority), what is it you're actually calling for? I don't agree. They have a democratic mandate, the power and authority to implement such schemes, and they're held accountable through a legal and regulatory framework and through the ballot box. You say they don't have a mandate because a consultation is actually a binding referendum, or should be treated as one in it's absence. This is just ridiculous. It seems that you are just upset that you didn't get what you wanted and that the council got re-elected. That's it. It's just an endless, pointless grievance, with no resolution that you can articulate.

I don't know much about the CPZ, but if they haven't followed the statutory consultation requirements then there is a clear example of how they might be held accountable for procedural failures. But I'm more interested in Rockets continued insistence that the Dulwich LTN (now more than half a decade old), was implemented without proper authority in some way and his calls for the council and their supporters to be 'held accountable'. I'm fed up with the insinuations and the nonsense. @Rockets what does this 'accountability' actually look like in your mind? Legal action? On what grounds? Mob justice? Against who? What is it you actually want, if not accountability through the ballot box?

They specifically committed to implementing the recommendations of their climate emergency citizens jury in their manifesto (you should read the recommendations). They also specifically committed to making Southwark safer for walking and cycling. You may not agree with these commitments, but they’re very clearly there. Again, no party is expected to itemise every individual initiative. Whether one says they have a mandate to manage roads, or a requirement to manage roads is semantics. The point is that it is entirely their responsibility. They don’t need to hold a referendum on every street scheme and it’s ridiculous to infer that they are somehow acting outside of their purview. A consultation is not a referendum or some sort of binding vote. We have local elections. Re. the Dulwich LTN specifically, it had already been implemented at the time of the last election. They were returned to office. To suggest they have no mandate is absolute rubbish. I understand that you didn’t get your way over a road layout change and that years later you feel an ongoing sense of grievance, but the constant suggestion of foul play is so boring. If you think they broke the law or acted outside their powers in some way, take some action. You keep saying there must be accountability (for the council as well as 'their supporters and cheerleaders') - what does this mean? You’re not happy with the council being democratically accountable at the ballot box, and God only knows what 'accountability' for their supporters means. What are you calling for?

Moaning years after it took place, that a consultation exercise wasn’t treated as if it were a referendum, when it clearly wasn’t one, is ridiculous. Since the Dulwich LTN was implemented Labour have stood for re-election and been voted back in with an increased majority. It is nonsense to argue that they don’t have a mandate to govern (which includes continuing to manage local roads).

You're doing a great job of challenging the stereotype of 'raise the colours' supporters there 'Cheeky'.

They have a mandate from the electorate to manage local roads. That’s the vote we had. A consultation exercise is not a vote. The fact that you cannot grasp this is bizarre. A consultation exercise is not a referendum and your criticising it on the grounds that it hasn’t been treated as one is ridiculous, and very boring.

Yes I understand that you want consultation exercises to be treated as if they were referenda, but they are not. And as I pointed out, what you wish was true is irrelevant to what is true. We have a system of representative democracy. They have a mandate to make decisions on behalf of the electorate for the course of their elected term. They don’t need to constantly renew their mandate in relation to every individual initiative. We don’t live in a direct democracy, so constantly complaining on the grounds that the council haven’t acted as though we do, is pointless.

Just Google 'representative democracy'. They don't have to and they don't generally, run referenda on individuals schemes. A consultation is not a popular vote. This is just a basic fact of our democratic system, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.

I haven't suggested that everyone at these 'demonstrations' is racist (although certainly there are some people with histories of violent racism who have been involved in organising the 'raise the colours' campaign). I do think that the demonstrations are fundamentally xenophobic in nature. Clearly there is a fear that immigrants pose a particular risk to children and others. I think this is misguided and we know that some of it is being driven by misinformation, false 'research reports' and made up data (by the likes of the 'centre for migration control', a front for Reform). No one wants a hotel used to house asylum seekers who are being held in limbo for long periods of time. But attacking the asylum seekers and setting fire to hotels isn't making that point.