DulvilleRes

... and all of this in a context where despite posting One Dulwich press releases and having concerns that are near indentically alligned to them, Rockets states he has no idea who is behind them or who funds them. Is this ignorance either an indicator of an incredibly one sided approach to local issues which doesn't lend itself to any genuine balanced debate, or perhaps a bad faith approach to engaging on these threads?

There is strong evidence that local Conservatives are still hoping that 'traffic issues' will be the key to success in the May 2026 local elections. Leading local Conservatives regularly surface formally asking questions of Southwark that mirror the latest One Dulwich talking points. These same Conservatives used to head up the anti-LTN campaigning groups that were the foreunners to One Dulwich, and then mysteriously disappeared. There is a real opaqueness here as to how local politics is being conducted. Things got particularly murky when some of these figures appeared to try and take control of the Dulwich Society, and in a heated AGM, a leading local Conservative ( former mayor of Lambeth) accused her colleagues of 'using underhand tactics' in local issues. I sometimes wonder if this thread is for some of the more vociferous posters just one big campaigning stunt.

The strand is actually very helpful in exposing what appears to be elements of the Rockets modus operandi. Put out some half-baked and misleading statement, and hope it sticks. It actually feels quite Trumpian, with elements of troll mixed in. Fair pay to Earl, with his diligent chasing down of the truth, in calling it out as the nonsense that it is.

Just to put some balance into this assessment/ reader added context Some elements of the anti LTN lobby have been so unpleasant on occasion with physical harassment of those who oppose their views that the Police have had to be involved. Fold into this the constant naming and hectoring of individuals way beyond proportionality or civilised debate on these threads by the anonymous anti - LTN posters that I think the net effect is to create a hostile atmosphere for people trying to engage in local issues and local democracy. This is all in the context of serious unanswered questions remaining about the provenance of One Dulwich, the organisation which purports to 'represent' the community on some of these traffic issues.

.... normally ending in an anti council punchline, or coming down on the side of the most dreary culture war tropes. Lately 'vote them out at the next elections' has started to make an appearance. Maybe there is a political purpose and a pattern to all this nonsense?

A fair dose of hypocrisy right here. The anti LTN posters on these threads won't even tell us who is behind One Dulwich and who funds them, despite posting up their press releases, or are so unconcerned about real local democracy, they can't be bothered to find out. Democracy across the world is struggling to survive, and it is deeply depressing that on a micro level these basic questions aren't answered about an opaque local organisation. The incessant hounding of Anna Goodman by these anonymous keyboard warriors is one of the low points of the East Dulwich Forum, and far exceeds any sense of proportionality. It has never been established how the Daily Mail got the story of her ripping down the poster in the first place. Whilst the Mail is virtually the last paper standing in terms of having old-school journalistic resources, they still depend a great deal on tip-offs and press releases. Are there any connections between One Dulwich and the Daily Mail? Was she dibbed in by her neighbours?

The references to the 1956 Clean Air Act are interesting. This act was brought in to improve air quality after 12,000 people died during and in the aftermath of London's 1952 Great Smog. The act was resisted by people who felt they had a right to coal fires, despite clear evidence that something had to change for the public good. It really does feel that there are parallels with today's pro-motoring lobby, many of whom profess an interest in improving air quality, but seem unable to offer any real solutions.

As pointed out, the Gilkes Residents Association did a survey of vehicles that didn't move, which then evaporated after the introduction of the CPZ, so it isn't an opinion. You can of course keep ignoring this inconvenient fact to your narrative. If a vehicle is taxed, it can stay on an open parking street as long as it likes, so it isn't abandoned. As I suggested, take a walk down the Crescent, and see what a road looks like without being clogged by cars - I think a lot of people in whatever road they are in would settle for that. Also it isn't my road.

You are presented with evidence that crowded streets could well be in part caused by semi-dumped cars. If you were concerned about local issues and interested in finding real solutions, instead of an unremitting attack on virtually anything the council does, you might actually take an open-minded and fact-based approach. If, as happened in Gilkes Crescent, a large number of dumped vehicles disappeared after the introduction of a CPZ, this has clear ramifications for other streets. Instead you ignore the evidence, as I suspect it is inconvenient to your unrelenting and dubious anti-council agenda across a range of issues.

Cars are semi-dumped on local streets, that is simply a fact. Prior to the CPZ, local residents in Gilkes Crescent did a survey of the cars that never moved. Since the introduction of the CPZ, they are no longer there. The evidence would point to people from outside the area using the free parking as storage for a buying and selling side hustle. As I said, take a walk down it, it is a street transformed.

If the residents of Melbourne Grove vote for a CPZ, they are likely to see a very positive transformation. All those semi dumped cars that clog up many streets will disappear. Just a walk down Gilkes Crescent, which voted for a CPZ, is a revelation.The entire environment of the street is vastly improved.

If the CPZ does goes through, all the evidence points to the fact that the residents of Melbourne Grove can look forward to a transformed street. Any semi-dumped cars will go, put there by people who use free parking streets as storage for their buying and selling businesses, who will be forced to move their vehicles. Take a walk down Gilkes Crescent, a street that voted for the CPZ, and see the difference.

Holding power to account? Commendable sentiments. Why don't you now try to find out who funds One Dulwich? Democracy has been nearly destroyed by unaccountable or questionable political funding of various opaque lobby groups and campaigns. One Dulwich is a relatively expensive operation. Your views and concerns have been consistently closely aligned with One Dulwich, but strangely, when asked, you seem unable to share this information or too incurious to find out. Is your commitment to holding power to account a little one-sided?

Peter Walker in the Guardian has written very well on this in article this week. he says No one becomes a saint when they start pedalling, and my long-held idea is that the very same people who zoom through a red light on a bike will also speed in a car, recline their seat as the meals are served on a plane or push past to get the last seat on a train. They are multi-modal nitwits. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/30/jeremy-vine-cyclists-bike-road-rage-abuse-drivers-politicians The article is also very strong on the absurd culture war waged on cyclists, particularly on his local forum

Thank you very much will try those great recommendtions