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

Looking for a brilliant tailor/seamstress to alter the length of an evening dress with a train

The evidence from Gilkes Crescent, which voted for a CPZ, says otherwise. Before the CPZ the street was a byword for anti LTN campaigners saying everyone owned 2 or 3 cars, and it was indeed a rammed street. After the CPZ, all the parking pressure is gone. According to people who live there, there were large numbers of cars semi-permanently parked up - often people buying and selling cars as a side hustle - these have all gone. Take a walk down it, the transformation is staggering.

I have no idea of the ins and outs of this one, so we only have your word for what has happened, something which frequently in the past has been subject to 'reader added context' style interventions across a range of topics. However, if true, from your description, this is exactly what a well-run transparent organisation does if it perceives something that runs against it's constitution. That is in stark contrast to One Dulwich, who no one actually knows what it really is. Is it like Farage's Reform, and constituted as a private company? Certainly something that it would have in common with Reform is that many are claiming that they are hugely exaggerating their level of support. I find it deeply puzzling and in many ways potentially misleading that the One Dulwich website represents itself as a broad-based community organisation, campaigning for, amongst other things, transparency and democracy in local politics, yet these very important questions go unanswered. This same sense of opaqueness and the sense I feel of things not quite adding up applies to some of the posters on this forum. They claim they have no idea or no interest in who might behind One Dulwich, and yet demonstrate a detailed knowledge of local politics and a relentless anti-council agenda that would suggest being political activists. The sustained attack lines and strong alignment with One Dulwich's pronouncements suggest a campaign. They might of course deny this, and say it is all a massive coincidence. Whatever the truth, I have no issue with people engaging in local politics, but the question remains is it being done transparently on this forum, and in the good faith manner a local debate between neighbours should be?

You are fond of the catch phrase 'Power To The People'. I suggest you modify it to 'Power To The People Who Fund One Dulwich, who I have no idea who they are' Any comparison between the opaque One Dulwich and properly constituted local organisations like Dulwich Society is fatuous.

Why don't you yourself check for Tory influence in One Dulwich? According to One Dulwich's mission statement on their website, they are campaigning for transparency and democracy in local issues - surely they would welcome any inquiries from one of their most tireless cheerleaders as to their provenance. While you are at it, you could ask them who funds them. it is a simple question, which they don't answer, and you seem in no hurry to answer yourself, despite having been asked for months. This has always struck me as a puzzling, and it certainly does provide a little context as to how seriously anyone should take your pronouncements.

Never happened. I've never actually name-checked any individual. The point here is people who might be pro-LTN have been actively targeted to a serious level which has necessitated Police involvement, I have seen no evidence of that happening to anyone in the anti-LTN lobby, so the threat level is not comparable. So I wouldn't blame anyone, especially if they aren't putting themselves up there as a politician, from wanting to protect elements of their privacy. This is what I find so disturbing about elements of the opaque shape-shifting anti LTN lobby - there has been a real nastiness involved at times, which feels completely out of keeping with any notions of community. The Dulwich Society, as a community-based, well-run apolitical organisation, does publish transparent accounts of who they are and what they are up to. One Dulwich, in contrast, which tries to present itself as some kind of community group, has failed to answer any questions about any undeclared political involvement and would appear to continue to refuse to answer questions as to who funds them.

What an absurd observation. Why would admin delete someone's name because I asked them to? My guess is it would be only the person themselves who can ask to have their name deleted, in which case, given the track record of real -life intimidation from some person or persons unknown from the anti-LTN lobby to people who oppose their views, maybe she feared for her safety? And before you go further down your excitable conspiracy rabbit hole, I don't know her and have never spoken to her, so I am just speculating. Elements of the anti-LTN movement seem to have quite the record for personally 'outing' people, especially women, who might have a view that conflicts with their dreary culture war narrative. People who support the LTN's and what they are trying to achieve have in the past been physically targeted in their homes, and some incidents have required Police involvement. I'm not suggesting you personally Rockets have been involved in that, but maybe you should think twice before gleefully bandying around names of your neighbours, especially those who don't put themselves up as politicians.

it might come as a bit of a disappointment , but I'm nothing to do with any Dulwich Society transport sub committee, and I don't know anyone who is. However, as one of 100's of people who turned up at the Dulwich Society Annual General Meeting, I was was somewhat baffled to be greeted at the door by 2 of the former prospective local Conservative candidates peddling some rule changes that sniffed somewhat of the 'Restore Trust' machinations the National Trust has had to endure in recent years. My bafflement deepened when when one of their senior Conservative colleagues got up in the room and alleged Dulwich local Conservatives of using underhand tactics when it comes to local issues. Suffice to say the rule change tendency, operating in whatever guise they were in, were soundly beaten, which I found heartening. However, it did focus my mind on lack of transparency in local politics, which given the general degradation of standards in that regard nationally and internationally, is something I feel is worth posting about. So Rockets - you've told us you have no idea who is behind One Dulwich. Why aren't you interested in finding out? The group you support purports to be some kind of grass roots community organisation, but you literally have no idea or no interest in their provenance, and seemingly no interest in it. That says a great deal about where you are coming from, and your respect for properly open and informed debate. I'm sure readers of your industrial scale postings bear that in mind in assessing your pronouncements.

I continue to be intrigued by your relationship with One Dulwich. You have consistently posted their press releases, and I've never seen any divergence of view between you and them. Could you point me to anywhere where this has happened? With your industrial level of independent posting on traffic issues, not to mention research, you really should think about setting up your own anti -LTN/ anti-Council campaign, maybe call it Uno Dulwich as a homage to that overlap in views. I am a member of the Dulwich Society; I greatly look forward to reading their missives about open gardens so I can enjoy getting tea and a scone in someone else's posh backyard. The historical insights are great. No one who is remotely active in the society would have a clue as to who I am, and I couldn't tell you the names of anyone involved without looking them up. But that is the point - I can look them up, and form a view as to the kind of organisation it is - the view I have is they are a well-run and transparent community body. This is more than I can do for the opaque, unaccountable and politically active One Dulwich, who purport to be some kind of community voice, but there is no way of knowing who they are, who funds them or whether they are as widely supported as they claim. Nor does Dulwich Society post their press releases on these threads.

Rockets – it is a great loss to One Dulwich that you have no link with them, as you are so clearly a trendsetter when it comes to the LTN debate. A year or so ago you were posting about the Public Accounts Committee / National Travel Survey report a full month before a One Dulwich’s press release highlighting it. As a keen scholar of local politics, can you shed any light on the strange case of the disappearing Conservatives? Once leading local Conservatives were fronting anti-LTN organisations, but have now seemingly vanished into thin air, only popping up to ask LTN-related questions of the Council, which often echo the concerns raised by One Dulwich. You have such an impressive grasp of names when it comes to local figures who support the LTNs, forever name-checking them - do you know what has happened to the local Conservatives? Have you ever seen them connected with One Dulwich in any way?