DadOf4

Good news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30454240 for an hour or 2 anyway

that looks great. Now, if only the one in Dulwich Village would hurry up and open.....

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The last proposed CPZ for East Dulwich I organised > it being added to Community Council agendas where > the proposal was rejected and the cabinet member > followed that recommendation. To me this doesn't > feel like someone spinning his agenda come what > may. Jeeeezzzz - you just cant help yourself can you ? I seriously cant believe you bring up the CPZ debacle and spin it into how you did the honourable thing, "wasn't I great". I re-iterate that you do some great work, but your behavoiur over that was a disgrace. I'm happy to let sleeping dogs lye, but please dont try and spin it into you being the hero of the day. You fail to mention that you came on this forum for 3 months and said that you'd go with what people wanted - the scheme faced OVERWHELMING opposition (consultations, petitions,on here,etc,etc) and at the said Community council meeting: you (and your two party colleagues) were the only local councilors to vote in FAVOUR of the scheme. Selective omissions of information - good trick http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,772215,page=47 So, a warning to people that you have "got form" in these situations, IMO, is reasonable.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow, that's harsh, Dadof4. Personally I find James > Barber comes across as open and genuinely trying > to improve things for people in ED and understand > what affects them. I live in Village ward and I > rarely see or hear from my local councillors > unless there's an election in the offing. > Yes, you're right it does come over as a little harsh. Sorry. I've amended my post Clr Barber is a hardworking man, but has got form for trying to steer consultations in the direction he wants them to go, whilst maintaining a public face of only wanting whats best for the area

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi starti b, > Two approaches. One support the proposals but > highlighting the few bits you don't agree with OR > object with specific reasons - hopefully adding > the features you do support. > If losing the right turn from Townley Road is a > show stopper for you then I'd recommend you take > the latter routR Based on personal experience of Southwark council trying to steamroll through changes like this once theyve set it in their sights, I would strongly advise people to disagree/object to the scheme if they think the removal of the RH turn is an issue - then state the reasons you are objecting, and what would mean you changing your mind (personally, I think the whole thing is great, EXCEPT the RH turn piece) I also wouldn't follow any advice that Clr Barber gives on these subjects: hes been known to look selectively the results of soutwark council consultations to suit whatever HE thinks is the right thing to do. I say that, fully acknowledging the work that Clr Barber does, the vast majority of it being of great benefit to the area. Its just sometimes he does confuse the process of consultation with local residents with his own agenda.

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I would also prefer the a local councillor > to spend his time responding to people from his > ward rather than those who he doesn't represent. but *you* don't live in East Dulwich, you live in Dulwich Village ward . Mr Barber isn't your councilor either :-) Seriously: I know you live much closer than Penge, but I think it demonstrates that, if we try and draw lines around who can/cannot participate in debate here, it will fail. The East Dulwich community is made up of lots of people. Many live here, some dont (maybe they work here, maybe theyre about to live here,maybe they drive through here, maybe they own businesses here, maybe they used to live here). Whatever. If somebody cares enough about this area to share their views in a constructive debate - then IMO they are part of this community

@Woodwarde Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ....I think we are all at a loss to understand how the > proposal can have got this far without asking for > the views of residents.... Seriously, Southwark Council need to get this sorted out. Their "consultation" process is just a joke - I saw this before with their botched CPZ proposal for ED. Based on a tiny number of data-points pointing to a problem, pay a load of consultants to come up with detailed (expensive) plans on how to fix that problem. They need to engage with the community much much sooner on these things.

Townleygreen Wrote: > I suggest you ask for a CPZ!! Nooooooooooooooooooooo - please not

We've all seen this sort of approach from Southwark council before. Commission a poorly thought through "consultation" and then try to implement a badly thought through/expensive scheme that may/may not cure an immediate problem - but without thinking of the wider consequences (I'm thinking back to the crazy attempt to intoduce controlled parking a couple of years ago) IMO - banning the right turn here may have a slight safety advantage over light re-phase, better markings,etc. However, its likely to have an overall net decrease in safety when the knock-on effects at other nearby juntions are considered. There are 1000's of junctions in london where cyclists have to cross turning traffic - and I dont think anybody here is suggesting we ban ALL right turns. Its simply that this junction does not feel lie a crossing - it feels like a t-junction. Clearer signs & re-phasing the lights can fix this. Of course, this is from personal/anecdotal experience as (as usual) Southwark have wasted a load of money on a consultation exercise without giving us any proper data on which to base the decision. People using their phones when driving is a mjaor problem for cyclists (and should be heavily punished) - but removing the RH turn here wont cure that problem.

stephent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Dulwich Estate doesn't make any profits (it's > a charity), and it supports a church, alms houses > and 4 state schools alongside the 3 private. Last year (as per previous years) it gave 85% of its income to JAGS,Alleyns & Dulwich College. 3 of the best equipped schools in London The remaining 15% was split between the chapel, the almshouses and a number of state schools (http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1396133,1396133#msg-1396133)

Townleygreen Wrote: > Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping to > prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint > doesn't do very much either. I. personally find all those lines and signs on our roads do a pretty good job of preventing people running over cyclists. I find them very useful when I cycle along, say, East Dulwich Grove that the dotted lines and give way signs at the top of the side roads makes drivers wait for me. Those coloured lights are useful too

I cycle, walk and drive on that junction nearly every day (live just opposite) IMO there is a safety issue with cyclists coming from Greendale towards Townley - in that I have seen near misses with cars turning right cutting across them (in fact, its a sad admission for a cyclist to make - but I have been guilty of not seeing an oncoming cyclist there when turning right and nearly hitting them). The problem is that as there is usually no traffic coming from Greendale it "feels" like a t-juntion I'm also, personally, all up for radical measures (maybe to the detriment of cars) to increase cycling in London BUT banning the right turn is an absolute nightmare. IMO the junction of EDG and Village/Redpost hill is even more dangerous than this one already - and thats about to get much worse if everybody coming from village to ED has to come that way. Add to that the inevtabable number of U-turns and illegal RH turns that will be made - this is just badly thought through Just Re-phase the lights, put in a couple of signs reminding right-turning drivers that oncoming cyclists take priority, maybe even paint the cycle route across the junction. That would be (a) safer all round (b) cheaper

any idea if any of these plans are documented online ?

agree with a lot of what is said here. I driv,cycle & walk - locally and in town and it AMAZES me the disregard for cyclists that many drivers have. What people just dont get is: what would be a scraped wing mirror or a bumper-scratch with another car, could mean death to a cyclist. I used to average a near miss about once a week (I dont commute regularly anymore) . Looking at mobile phones was the biggest cause of this. I find it incredible (although not surprising) the lack of vision of TFL and LA's on this. Cycling works for congestion, pollution and obesity......why are we still pi55ing around with half baked cycle schemes. But it will only work if cyclists are safe. It needs something VERY bold and radical. Dedicated streets, a solid netowrk of routes (that are not just painted roads with cars on them) and very tough policing of bad driving (and cycling) I know many countries use a system of "presumed liability" when it comes to cyclists and pededtrians (http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_compensation/stricter_liability/) I did read a while back (although cant find the source right now) that this resulted in a massive reduction in cyclists deaths in France.

At long last, I've said goodbye to Virgin and their awful cusotmer service

so, back to the original point, taking some of this discussion into account. last year, the estate gave Alleyns ?1.6M. On their website, Alleyns say "Our aim is to build an Alleyn's Bursary Fund of several million pounds that will enable us to offer the equivalent of a further twelve fully-endowed bursaries ?the twenty-first century heirs to Edward Alleyn's original 'twelve poor scholars'." If their fees are c.?15k/year - that should be 106 scholars not 12 (or 24) I think the "we use this for bursaries" is a standard defence play. I cant prove this, but I would guess a good % of the money just goes into the general budget of the school. The point is this: the orginal intent of Alleyn was to provide education to poor people, in an age where those people simply would not have been educated otherwise. If that was still the case, I'd be all up for this being deemed to be charitable. Roll forward a few hundred years, we now have a state education system that serves most of our population. Using that money to support organisations that educate a overwhelmingly privileged elite is, IMO, a perversity of what was originally intended. Throw into the mix, the fact that they are sucking money out of really good community organisations, just makes me think this is plain wrong. I've got no problem with the estate managing the conservation of Dulwich (that's a separate commercial thing anyway) but I think they should think long and hard about putting their activities into context for the 21st century.

to me this isn't about the behavior of the schools: its about the Dulwich Estate. An organisation that controls vast areas of land (that they only want used as sports fields), charges commercial rates to volunteer orgnisations to use them and then gives ?6M to fund 3 of the best schools in the country There is nothing charitable about that

apbremer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems to me that there are an awful lot of > people with nothing better to do but bang on about > matters which are not their business. Get a life. Welcome the the East Dulwich Forum

and the only way I'm > getting 10K is by buying a balaclava...! dont rob any kids of their dinner money

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where is the coercion? DE own facilities and > assets and raise rents on them as a form of > income. It's hardly shaking children down for > their lunch money on street corners, is it? But is it charitable ?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DadOf4 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they > DO as a "charity" > > Why? Because they don't help the people you see > as 'fit and proper' targets for your largesse? > > What are you asking for here? That Dulwich Estate > be forced to stop funding things you disapprove > of? That charitable status be removed from a > school charity organisation? I don't know - I'm not really "calling" for anything. Its just I was quite shocked by the fact that an organisation that *seems* to have digressed so far from its original aims should be doing so under the guise of a charity (and the tax benefits that follow) - I was keen to see if others thought the same. The charity commission say "To be a charity in England or Wales, your organisation must be set up with purposes which are exclusively charitable for the public benefit." IMO - raising rents on social facilities like sports fields and redistributing that money to a set of (already wealthy) schools is not really meeting that test. Yes, theres nothing wrong with giving some kids a better education (as ive said before, I've got no objection to private education) and I dont want to get into a tit-for-tat about the best places for charity money to go (we all have our own views & priorities on that ) but it just doesnt sit right with me

good point Grabot. Then add another 130k to the ?9M that is being "redistributed" . I'd love to hear somebody from Dulwich estate give their side. It could well be that theres more to this than meets to eye

Personally, it doesn't surprise (or upset ) me to see somebody in the org earning ?130k. Its an organisation with ?9M turnover that will need running & management. Same applies to many charities. I've no problem with the CEO of, say, Cancer Research UK earning good money if he/she can help the charity raise/give more money. The problem with The Dulwich Estate is what they DO as a "charity"

OK, first I accept that this isn?t strictly an EAST Dulwich subject ? but this seems the best place to discuss this. At some point in the 17th Century, Edward Alleyn created a charitable foundation and bequeathed to it his estate and other property. The original benefices were ?12 poor scholars, six poor brothers and six poor sisters?. Roll forward a few hundred years and that organisation has now become the registered charity ?The Dulwich estate?. This charity owns the freehold of 1500 acres of prime South-East London and has a gross income (2013) of ?9.4M [3] I?m a big believer in sport. I?m a big believer in making sport accessible to as many people (especially Children) as possible. The Dulwich Estate is the landlord of many local sports clubs & facilities. Its my understanding that their approach to the velodrome a few years ago nearly caused it to close [1], I understand that the rents charged to many local sports facilities are hefty to say the least[2]. So, if you live in this area and your kid wants to play football, cricket or rugby, its likely that a % of the money you have to pay is going indirectly to The Dulwich Estate. I also know that local state schools have to pay rent to use sports fields owned by the estate (indirectly via the clubs that have the leases) But they?re a charity right ? ? they?ll take that income and redistribute it to the poor scholors and brothers? Wrong The Dulwich Estate gives 85% (yes eighty-five percent) of its generated income to 3 organisations: Dulwich College, Alleynians School and James Allens Girls school. All good schools I?m sure, all schools with fees of about ?15k per year, educating a privileged elite (yes, I know there are many ?normal people? round here who scrimp and save to get their kids into these schools ? but even they are a lucky few in the grand scheme of things) Last year it gave over ?2M to Dulwich College [3]. That?s a school where Roman Abramovich sends his kid, that has a county standard cricket pitch. Now, I?m sure that they?ll say the money is partly used to create bursaries for kids to attend these fine institutions who wouldn?t go otherwise. It also gives relatively small amounts of money to a couple of state schools, the alms-houses in Dulwich and the chapel (near the park). But 85% goes to the 3 private schools I?ve got no moral objection to private education and I?d be very happy for my kids to attend those schools - but what really bothers me is this: a) How on earth can this organisation claim to be a charity? - what is ?in the public good? about giving money to organisations that provide education to a very small & select privileged few? b) Specifically, this organisation IMO is taking money from sports clubs and giving it to these elite organisations. My kids go to a number of clubs in the area and I know the great works that many of them are doing (usually by volunteers) to make sport as accessible as possible to kids in Southwark. I know one club that provides free membership to kids who otherwise wouldn?t be able to play their sport ? that same club made a loss last year. But they still have to keep shelling out to Dulwich estate. I?d be interested to hear what others think of this. [1] http://www.urban75.org/london/velodrome1.html [2] https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdsc.mycourts.co.uk%2Fnews_downloads%2F4062_Presidents_Report_2012.doc&ei=yOwfVJyoCsif7gaYyYDACw&usg=AFQjCNHrEgACLzmNipoFgNiatFSMGu-j-A&sig2=WW7WWfLnDePQD9gJPLhmSQ [3] http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/accounts/the-dulwich-estate