first mate

Thanks for the clarification. If I have understood, you have lots of experience in organising and attending feedback sessions after these sort of park events, but you have no stake in this one? Will you be attending this Gala feedback meeting? I cannot remember if you are local or not? It is worth considering that objections to this event are not born of a hobby of revelling in misery and carping- as someone who says they have organised and attended feedback sessions it is surprisingly narrow-minded of you to frame objections in this way. I am sure the event is enjoyable for those attending, I doubt they'd pay if it were not. But, that personal pleasure is at the expense of access to a lovely part of the park for many others, also impacting the park in terms of damage. Out of interest, do you support Gala's aim to extend the event? Would you like to see the park hired out for further events, as has been done with Brockwell Park?

The only person actively taking the 'p' is you, Cyclemonkey. This is a serious issue for some locals and I do not think anyone has expressed a 'fear' of going to Peckham, so kindly cease the misrepresentation. You say you are a veteran festival organiser and attendee of such events, are you involved with the Gala event and organisation in some capacity?

I agree and I'll bet the invitation list is a carefully curated mix of those for and against to maximise the narrative Gala wants. It should be an open meeting, available to all local residents.

It would be better to hold a meeting adjacent to the venue, as has been done in the past. Let's not pretend that holding the meeting further away from the venue is not a useful deterrence to attendance. Holding a series of smaller meetings is just another way to divide and rule. This smacks of a tick box spin exercise, where the aim is to control the narrative rather than make significant changes to the event. If there is to be no council representative attending then that is even worse. It is the council that truly call the shots on all this.

I guess what we can say is that while 300 locals chose to use their GE vote against local LTNs, not one person voted exclusively in favour.

Only you have used the word significant, I believe 🙂

I don't think anyone on here was suggesting it was not a scam?!

Popular with some but deeply unpopular with others. The consultation process questionable. As already observed, some 300 locals used a GE vote to indicate their dissatisfaction with the current state of play. I don't think this is going away any time soon.

Doesn't really matter if one or many. The questions OD are/is asking the council reflect the views of many- not all- living in ED and Dulwich. I for one am glad they are keeping up scrutiny and pressure.

Does anyone know who funded it?

Penguin68, as an unintended consequence, it certainly makes sense that criminals try to get a slice of the action.

Thanks for the clarification, some posters playing fast and loose with the facts maybe? Again, can the more myopic cycling proselytisers respect thread titles and cease trying to derail them, please!

Not only that, he and some others are back to derailing threads that query any aspect of their rose tinted view of local cycling infrastructure. Please go and post on your 'joys of cycling thread'.

They are very good; I just wish they hadn't included a suicide help flyer in one of them. I hope that was not deliberate as would be incredibly insensitive.

Looks very much a spoof to me, especially with a name like "emmaroyds".

Please don't try to derail and take this thread off subject; it is about cycling behaviour. Do start another thread on the railings and whatever you think caused them to fall over. BTW, I do not think stating law that applies to all road users, including cyclists, can be classified as "anti cycling rhetoric"?! I pasted this in the context of the video of multiple cyclists running red lights in Dulwich village: Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing.

Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing. Where there is an advanced stop line (ASL) cyclists can position themselves ahead of the motorised traffic but behind the ASL, though crossing the ASL on red is still an offence. It’s also an offence to ride through an amber light, unless you are so close to the stop line that to stop might cause a collision, although if the traffic lights aren’t working all road users are permitted to treat the situation as they would an unmarked junction, and “proceed with great care”.

Never mind Mal, enough of us are very glad someone is maintaining pressure and scrutiny on the council and its position on local LTNs. Great work by One Dulwich and more power to them.

I think most of us agree that single issue candidates are almost irrelevant at a GE. But, I also agree, it is noteworthy that some 300 locals were prepared to vote in support of a candidate against LTNs, especially if those voting were concentrated in a small area. It was always going to be a Labour candidate at national level, as most of us wanted the last govt out. However, perhaps that certainty emboldened a few to use their votes to make a local point as well?

Is it a stated requirement for dogs to be put on lead on what now seems to be the shared dog walk/ jogging path? Dogs should be on lead in other areas of the park but they need to be able to run somewhere?

Thankfully, in all my years of cycling I have never had a near miss or collision with a pedestrian. I have had two near misses with a car and a lorry but the most near misses have been with other cyclists, when they were cycling recklessly and at speed.

Malumbu wrote: "Myself and all the cyclists I know would be horrified to have a collision with a pedestrian, even if every near miss and the one collision I have had, is due to the pedestrian not looking" I cannot believe this was not meant as some kind of provocative joke? How many near misses with pedestrians have you had then?

Recent revelations about the Dulwich Society sub committee Chair's background also suggest possible manipulation of stakeholder input into dialogue and consultation with the council on changes to that junction.

Doing a quick search suggests that festivals may well be taking money away from other music venues. Outdoor festivals have created a different expectation of what is on offer and people would rather save to attend those than drip feed smaller or indoor venues. Whether access to parkland should be sacrificed to prop up an ailing nighttime club scene is moot but as a starting point for event justification it is the thin end of the wedge. In a city where there is so much noise and stimulation overall, the option to access quieter and calmer areas of green and nature should be heavily protected for the benefit of all. There is new research on just how vital for physical and mental health these green spaces are. If a three day event could be mounted without taking sections of the park out of use for weeks in summer and without the need for extensive remedial work to repair damage, that would be best.

And the Brockwell Park model is exactly what Southwark Council have in mind , if they can get away with it. As to the observation that festival- goers also like to have an event in 'pretty' surroundings; I am sure they do, why wouldn't they. It also arguably makes that event even more saleable/profitable. But the inherent contradiction that the event they attend then removes degrees of prettiness for others, not only during the event but for weeks afterwards, cannot be denied either.