Earl Aelfheah

@heartblock - I'm sorry to hear you feel that way for what it's worth.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > being unpleasant on Twitter > > Shock Horror ;) Twitter is an absolute swamp.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrahrah. > > I did not 'resorted to name calling' - would've > been kicked out or reprimanded (at least) by the > Admin if I did. > > Name calling: "the use of offensive names > especially to win an argument or to induce > rejection or condemnation (as of a person or > project) without objective consideration of the > facts" (Merriam-Webster dictionary). > > I did not use offensive names - if you think I > did, when and what was it?. @ab29 - Just off the bat - you have called me ?arrogant and selfish? a ?know-it-all, arrogant cyclist? suggested that I ?don?t care about anyone else? (using ALL CAPS) and accused me of suffering from a ?complete lack of empathy? (again using ALL CAPS). It?s possible to have different, but still honestly held, views. Most people on this forum express their views passionately, but keep to discussing the substance (e.g. @Rockets and others) rather than resorting to ad hominen attacks. I mean, it's up to you how you express yourself of course - but it's a bit rich to then moan about people not being respectful.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The photographing of people?s homes calling > neighbours hypocrites and worse by CAD followers > was highly unpleasant by the way. I see a CAD > follower then went around Dulwich Village > photographing private family houses and posting it > on Twitter with equally unpleasant text. > Please stop! Yeah, I do agree this isn't on.

ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Patronising tone of many of the pro-LTN > supporters shown on this forum is infuriating and > frankly, disrespectful. Hi Ab29 - I am sorry you feel abandoned. But it's a bit rich to talk about others being disrespectful when you've repeatedly resorted to name calling on this thread.

"We have made numerous proposals to Southwark as to how the individual measures could be adapted and improved, and how the overall scheme could be rethought, so that it can fairly achieve our shared goals of reducing traffic on all our roads, improving air quality and promoting active travel." Can we see the alternative proposal that "reduces traffic, improves air quality and promotes active travel"? Have they* published it? "Would you be happy to back a party that didn't share their manifesto?" - No I wouldn't. This is my problem with One Dulwich. *Who does fund and run the multiple 'One' groups.

One Dulwich are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact. @Rockets - do you think One Dulwich are being prevented from articulating an alternative? That they would prefer timed closures, but are being forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And by Boris? warm words, he?ll be back ?in public > service? soon enough Yep, and he continues to draw his taxpayer funded ?80K a year as an MP in the meantime.

@heartblock - to be clear, I was only referring to ?One Dulwich?. @Rockets - It's notable that the other 'One' groups ('One Ealing', 'One Wandsworth', 'One Oval' etc.) have followed the same pattern - They start out by stating that they're in favour of active travel, of reducing car use, etc. They suggest that they're not against change, but want sensible alterations to current schemes. They grow local support and then campaign for the reversal of all changes and a return to the previous state. It's instructive in my opinion that all of the 'One' organisations end up campaigning for the removal of LTNSs without putting forward an alternative that would actually increase active travel, reduce car use, or meet any of their other stated aims. This is the dissembling I referred to. We don't know how these organisations are funded, who runs them or how they're linked. They claim to be unrelated, grassroots groups and they clearly are successful in building local support. But you can see from their websites, the materials they put out, their campaign tactics and the way many of their supporters encourage people to come out against road changes in different neighbourhoods on social media, that there is co-ordination. I have a lot of time for those wanting to discuss how we might change / improve things, but I'm becoming increasingly cynical about these 'One' groups. They appear to be well funded and co-ordinated and whilst they have encouraged many local people to join up, aspects of their funding and governance remain opaque. I don't think it's unfair to question this. Arguably, they show some of the hallmarks of an 'astroturfing' outfit. But regardless - I simply don't buy the idea that they're being forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

They aren?t asking for timed restrictions. They are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact. I don?t buy the explanations for how they are being prevented from articulating an alternative, how they have been forced, unwillingly, to campaign for a return to the previous state.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The anti LTN group from what I understand is to > have sensible measures put in such as timed > restrictions instead of the permanent closures The anti LTN group are asking for a return to the previous state. In other words, the removal of any restrictions on car use. They also say they want to reduce car use and pollution and encourage active travel. They don?t quite state it such stark terms, as it would seem a bit contradictory, but instead dissemble and obfuscate a fair bit. Perhaps they mean it and do believe that the best way to get people out of cars is to make driving easier and more convenient, who knows? There are others who are supportive of changes, just not these ones and that would seem a reasonable thing to debate, but to be clear, One Dulwich are calling for a return to the previous state. Clean Air Dulwich seem to be implying that this seems a little disingenuous and the owners of big cars who are campaigning for the removal of any restrictions on car use, may not all be interested in reducing car use, as they claim. I don?t necessarily agree with their post, but considering ?anti- LTN? campaigners on Twitter regularly call anyone expressing even qualified support for LTNs racist and accuse them of being complicit in the death of children living on main roads, it seems fairly mild in comparison. Also, I do suspect that at least some of those wanting to remove all road closures might be at least partly concerned about inconvenience. For some reason you never, hear this being given as even part of the reason that people want to remove restrictions.

I love the fact that everyone is calling it a private matter. Even though the video is from his offices at 3 in the afternoon on a Thursday. He also hired his 'long term friend' using taxpayers money. He also broke the social distancing rules that it was his role to create and enforce. How is it not about what he was doing in his job exactly?

Can the council do something about the cars that are overhanging the pavement on Beauval Road? You seem to have approved drop curbs, so that gardens can be paved over for cars that don't actually fit in them.

Turns out he has been lying to his wife too.

Andrew O?Neil has walked away after 2 weeks. So much for the Captain going down with the sinking ship.

Ah, OK.

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The old library wlll be split the other half will > be callows locksmiths. Do you mean the library up by the Plough, or by the Station?

So half a decade from the referendum result how's it looking?

All this 'voice of the voiceless' stuff from people like Hartley Brewer, Farage, Ferrari etc is so tedious. They seem to be constantly gobbing off about how they're being silenced. Oh if only it were true.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > dreadful clutter this

An eco chamber for the hard of thinking

@Rockets - agreed.

I think we're a long way from 'complete cycle domination' so I wouldn't worry about that. Motor vehicles on the other hand do dominate the vast majority of public space, so there is quite a bit of scope for some rebalancing.

One thing I think everyone can probably agree on, is that the lack of data / baselining and ongoing monitoring is extremely unhelpful.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Without a doubt people living on EDGrove, LL, > Grove Vale and Croxted are suffering more and > longer periods of idling traffic since the 5 LTNs > went in. The constant denial of our lived > experience is tedious and for vulnerable people > dangerous. I know that Rosamund Kissi Debra is > constantly trolled .... even attempts at no > platforming her due to her lived experience of > LTNs causing even more pollution and traffic on > the roads that contributed to her loss. > > Please stop telling us we are either lying, have > some sort of perception issue or that we are so > dim we can?t recognise an increase in idling > traffic. Even the council in its traffic report > pre-Covid stated that traffic WOULD increase and > congestion WOULD increase on our roads as a result > of other rd closures. > > I would have some passing respect for people if > they were honest and just admitted that they know > that there is an increase in congestion, but they > think the benefits for the LTN residents is worth > our sacrifice. I'm not suggesting anyone is lying. I think that we have been through a long period of lockdown during which traffic was significantly down. It is possible that traffic has increased above pre-COVIOD levels now and that LTNS are responsible. I am not convinced that is the case, although I can't say categorically that it's not. What I do think is that any change is not an indisputable fact / as self evident or undeniable as often suggested. It's a shame we don't have better data as I suspect there is naturally going to be a degree of confirmation bias on both sides of the argument. It's possible for people to have different views / perceptions without anyone being a 'liar'.