first mate

Whatever way you slice it, it does not seem the streets are 'safer' - touted as a major LTN selling point.

Eh? I have never crashed in to a bollard, or been 'done' for speeding unlike some, ahem, posters on here Mal... Sometimes your comments come over as behavioural projection- you know, because you may have behaved in a certain way in the past everyone else must too.

Goodness, you are so very angry about whoever Mr or Mrs One Dulwich is. They seem to live in your head rent free. Why not focus on things like consultation results as a barometer of local feeling about interventions you support? After all, One Dulwich simply echo those views, I think. I do though get that constantly deflecting onto your creation " Mr One Dulwich" helps you and helps you vent ( rather like the person that tore down a poster in a shop, when it said things they disagree with). What about the MGS CPZ and the revised and reduced version, which we were told in council documents was subject to statutory consultation. Well, I can tell you, there has not been one, yet our local Cllr announced in SE22 that it was "all agreed". Does that not seem odd to you?

Driving or heck, even cycling into something may be driver/cyclist error; it may not. I think you know that. Advising me and others to hang up our keys if we don't agree with you ( a now familiar tack) may help you vent but does not achieve much else.

and I notice that two of the loudest voices on here don't actually live in Dulwich or even Southwark) Well observed.

Such as?

Seriously OTT, venting response, that adds nothing.

Sounds a horrible, random attack, quite possibly for social media clicks, or some kind of sick initiation into goodness knows what - it is reported they were filming the incident. I do not really doubt that any of this is true. Perhaps the friend who reported it elsewhere does not want to be identifiable? There has been an emerging issue with different types of anti-social teenage/ young adult behaviour on the Rye this summer and this latest incident indicates a tipping point into something much nastier. The park should be a safe and enjoyable space for all.

Hmmm, wonder how said kids got hold of fireworks in the first place? If provided by adults then highly irresponsible, in my view.

Penguin, do be reasonable, anything that makes driving a car really difficult - or even hazardous, has the thumbs up, from some. After all, people need to make 'smarter' choices.

That is hilarious (not really) but what about all the copious parking for e-bikes and scooters?

What makes you think that the majority of car journeys made at peak time are unnecessary? Cycling works for you. That's great, but people are different with different needs- although I would add that you do use a car for some journeys, don't you? Isn't that a kind of exceptionalism?

Some 4-day party! Sorry, just my view, but I feel random fireworks are really anti-social. If scheduled, with plenty of notice, people who need to can at least escape for the duration (well most people, I guess). I know those who adore fireworks will feel differently, but they can cause so much costly suffering and damage to animals and owners.

So, I guess, your solution, rather like Cllr McAsh', is by using indirect methods build up as much pressure on drivers at peak time as possible, in the hope they stop driving and start cycling?

Does anyone know the reason for the random fireworks over the last few nights?

How awful. After the spate of water bomb assaults by a group of youths a few weeks ago this is bad news.

Attempting to undermine other posters via character assassination really does nothing to strengthen your argument and reflects rather badly on you. In all of this the closest behaviour I've seen to a tantrum was when Dr Goodman was filmed on CCTV, glancing around before hastily ripping down an anti LTN poster displayed on private property 😉

Nonetheless, if people wish to discuss that on here it is not for you to tell them they cannot, unless you are now an admin?

Should I really have to? Why would a local councillor announce in a local magazine that a revised CPZ has all been "agreed" when statutory consultation for the same, as stipulated in a council document on the matter, has not yet been carried out? Why would that be do you think? March, some ago you suggested that the council were perhaps a little behind on schedule. Given Cllr Smith has recently been so publicly clear everything is now agreed (with who, we do not know) what do you suppose is going on?

And the cavalry have finally arrived. 'Charge and deflect'🤣

You'd think that a Cllr choosing to announce in a local magazine, sent door to door, stating everything has been "agreed", might add some details like a timeline for implementation? Am I the only one to find it a little odd that the council chooses to announce measures via an independent publication, but omits to communicate with the residents actually affected?

I think it is really cynical to be so completely partisan that you are happy to discount broken manifesto pledges as small beer and be so dismissive of others that take issue with that. Last election many wanted to punish central government for behaviour during Covid; that will not be the case this time round, I think. Broken promises break faith in those you have handed power and trusted to make decisions on your behalf. This could really become an issue that blind followers of the incumbent council come to regret.

Again, this refers to changes being made right now, without mandate (u-turning on a manifesto pledge to put local residents at the heart of changes that affect them and their environment; directly against the majority in opposition to proposals at initial consultation, against detail of their own process stating revised proposals are subject to statutory consultation- which has not happened). To keep bleating that all this was half a decade ago is wilfully misleading.

So, in your view, to u-turn on a manifesto pledge is absolutely fine?

Once more, they u-turned on a manifesto pledge; now with the revised Melbourne Grove South, they seem to be imposing a revised CPZ without the statutory consultation their own documents said was necessary. Note, this is current, the revised CPZ has not yet been implemented, dates for implementation have not been communicated to residents affected.