first mate

Hmm, I think it they are referencing that great Wings hit "Let em in" (Someone's knocking at the door, somebody's ringing the bell"etc..). They may not have considered the suitability of the title for your particular thread 🤣 I think and hope it was little kids playing knock down ginger. Teenagers booting people's doors for a dare not so excusable.

Surely you are not suggesting I have the same power, reach and influence as Cllr McAsh? Cllr McAsh is, for now, the Cabinet Member in charge of the Streets for People policy, so it is legitimate to comment on how he handles the decision making process and optics around that. I think a number of us wondered why he had changed from describing himself as Marxist to socialist? It is relevant to know what ideology may be driving his political decisions. Anyway, you still haven't revealed who"Mr One Dulwich" is? You and others have referred to this mystery individual a number of times. I am surprised you are keeping his identity under wraps.

I think this is known as "playing the man and not the ball". Plus, the implication that if you so much as dare to question or criticise the council, this is proof you are a gas guzzling, Tory. Come on DKH. I do find it odd in a cost of living crisis that our Labour Council can find millions to spend on the creation of Dulwich Square in one of the wealthiest parts of the borough. I would be less surprised but equally questioning if this had been the decision of a Tory council. It is the council that decides and who are accountable for those decisions.

But surely the time to say 'no' to a specific issue is when that something goes out to consultation? In general, people do not vote at elections on single issues, although, as we have said before, quite incredibly some local Dulwich residents did just that. I think those in favour of LTNs, CPZ etc, have to stop framing it as a left/right thing. I think for those of us against, it is about the validity and situation of certain traffic schemes and transparency and honesty of process. As has also been said before, Southwark Labour were quiet in their campaigning on LTNs etc.., so the idea that they have a mandate to go ahead with their various plans is not the case. Not sure I would refer to residents with mobility problems as vested interests?

Well you seem to know who this 'Mr One Dulwich' is, so tell us. I genuinely don't. The fact that you do, or say you do is interesting. As for your sensitivity about criticism of the council- who else are we to hold accountable for management of LTNs, CPZ etc?

I don't think I have forced anything, just expressed an opinion and, also relayed what Southwark Council have said. As for whether the Council spin their call for world car free day/ street closures for fun and play, let's wait and see. We've closed the street for a party for a number of years, just not before as a call to action by the Council.

You could also consider a dry shampoo, like they use for car upholstery, or if the material is colour fast borrow a steam cleaner? Most have an upholstery attachment.

Okay, let's just say we'd like some street parties and to do that we need to close the street- to all traffic. A nice side benefit is kids can play in the space while the adults socialise and have fun. I can see that residents think, yes, a party would be nice and they organise it. Supposing there is a good turnout, you just know this will be spun as overwhelming support for Southwark's car/street plans. Are you denying Southwark have said this- about the cars, of course.

We need a biologist or even a paper to explain.

I am interested to know how many posters here support Southwark's stated intention to remove all private cars from the streets. For those that need to use a car how do you see this working? If a major intention of getting rid of cars is to free up streets for children to play, for socialising etc., how does e-bike and scooter use fit into this idea? Given other cities have now banned these because they are so dangerous I am interested to understand the thinking. Southwark is looking at removing car parking spaces on every street and installing e-bikes and e-scooters in the space instead.

What is road tax? Road taxation has existed since the 17th century to pay for building and maintenance of Britain's highways, and in 1909 the Road Fund was established to collect road tax for the financing and administration of road building and maintenance. A tax specifically for motor vehicles was first introduced in 1920, but after 1937 the Road Fund and any ring-fencing of the vehicle excise duty for the specific financing of roads was ended. Since then all UK road tax is paid into the government's Consolidated Fund and road maintenance is financed out of general taxation.

Is there any update on this?

I do not use slug pellets either and, like you, keep forgetting beer traps. I had hoped that foxes etc would have a feast, especially on a rainy night when the lawn is literally carpeted with slugs. Suspect these city foxes prefer stuff in the bins etc...

How have people dealt, or not, with the huge amount of slugs this year. Has anyone else noticed plants being eaten that would normally be untouched? Is this down to a new type of slug or just competition for food as so many more of them?

Nope, listen to the latest Southwark Council scrutiny session.

Yes, so it is about balance. Quite how we decide who deserves to use a car remains to be seen but Cllr McAsh did say that; perhaps it was a moment of levity, playing to the 'stakeholder' gallery, who knows.

The opinions expressed are partly mine but much more me just passing on what the council has said it wants to do to increase park hire for private events and ridding the streets of all cars. I will add to that a possibility that councillors may be seduced by the Lime dollar and remove parking space on every street to make way for Lime e-bike and scooter storage and use. I don't quite know how a proliferation of e-bikes and scooters sits with the aim of getting children to play in the street, not at the speeds I have seen some of them go...

I don't know who 'Mr One Dulwich is.' If you know for sure, can you tell us? I thought this was about locals with mobility issues and those who have a greater need to use a car (in a low PTALS area) and have found the LTN and Dulwich Sq have made life a whole lot more difficult for them. A whole load of them objected, did they not and were pretty much ignored. But I think this reflects the council party line that the end justifies the means and there will be collateral damage along the way.

Gala doing their thing for three days, what about when it becomes 6 and then yet more events are added to that? In earlier posts you said you were not aware about Gala extending as something that nearly happened and was withdrawn at a late stage. James McCash has also stated in meetings that he would like to see all cars taken off the streets of Southwark and streets open for children to play in- presumably all the time. So you see, the Council suggestion to have a 'lil partee' to celebrate no cars is underpinned by an intention that extends well beyond just one day.

In regard to Gala, no implication, Cllr rose has stated she wants to increase events in our parks, so probably not just Gala if she has her way, more the Brockwell Park model and you probably know what many local residents feel about that. If you don't believe me then go back and listen to the Council scrutiny sessions. As for the unnecessary tone on your part (mush); the forum supports difference of opinion and I will continue to state my views, including on this.

I thought the Council had simply ignored the many local Dulwich residents who objected, so any feedback taken on board has been highly selective. It is you that is clinging to ideology. You seem to be saying that because LTNs work in some places that is reason to continue if they don't work elsewhere , because we don't live in a perfect world? One Dulwich are concerned with efficacy in one area, which as we know, has a low PTALS score. You also justify your position by keep stating we should believe the data and the 'overall' picture, even though the methodology is flawed- as we know the Council have been highly selective about where they have collected their data. This seems to be a case of waiting long enough for the dust to settle and then spinning the past, counting on the likelihood that many will lose track of what has gone on and why. I have nothing to do with One Dulwich but I like the questions they keep asking and hope they will continue because this Council is getting away with a lot. I still cannot believe the overall cost of Dulwich Square- unnecessary profligacy at a time when every penny counts. As I have also said before, I am a regular cyclist and occasionally use a car. I am not a rabid petrolhead; but I dislike lies, manipulation and extremism driven by ideology or, in the Council's case, a need for money. I dislike how on the one hand our council smugly trumpets how green it is because it wants to get all cars off the streets and tells us how our children should be free to play on streets instead, but on the other is intensely relaxed about selling off our park land for use by the highest bidder and see those areas damaged in the process. It is hypocrisy at its finest.

Into which bit? Surely not the Southwark Council agenda to monetise parks while they try to offset that by 'greening' tarmac?

No need to try and tempt me to the park; I go regularly. As for the street party rationale, many houses round here have gardens; blocks of flats have communal gardens, and neighbours pop round all year round, or they say hello in the street or at shops. Neighbours that are not so social tend to avoid street parties like the plague, in my experience anyway. I have been to street parties and they are pleasant enough but do I want to encourage the idea of kids playing in the street- no, especially when we are blessed with so much green space. Don't you find it even slightly odd and contradictory that Southwark want us to free up tarmac roads for kids to play on, while at the same time they want to give up green park space for private hire?

But, as we have said before, terms like 'average', 'in general', 'overall' 'broadly' are not really that helpful. The issue is with LTNs in certain areas; sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. Good methodology is key to good data, if the methodology is flawed the data is not reliable.

Come on Earl, it is about making a point and you know it. There are many more suitable places to meet your neighbours and for kids to play and you know that too. Quite apart from that, I regularly say hello to my neighbours when I see them in the street (we have pavements). Funnily enough, cars don't seem to impede those interactions in any way. My understanding is the road is closed to cars so I doubt anyone would be navigating through at any speed, so a pretty redundant comment and point.