DulvilleRes

Earl is indeed on a roll of brilliant fact checking, the overall result of which has been a decrease of unchallenged factual inaccuracies and misleading statements on these threads. Long may he keep it up. Yet again Rockets, you have been proved wrong - out of respect to your fellow posters, why don't you just admit it? That way we could have a measured and mutually respectful debate, instead of constantly having to counter what feels like propaganda.

These are encouraging stats, and bear out the huge uptake in cycling I've been witnessing over the past couple of years. I had a situation recently in Kennington where there were so many cyclists waiting at the red cycle lane traffic light, that some at the back like me didn't actually get through when it turned green, and had to wait for the next phase. That just wouldn't have happened even 5 years ago. The stats really do put to bed some of the nonsense that has been spouted on these threads that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result. Any of us properly out and about knew what was really happening. I think the cycle infrastructure has encouraged more cautious users onto the road, even in winter.

This is a fair point Glemham, although I don't think it is as straightforward as it looks. In essence, the Scheme of Estate Managment 'tithe' goes into maintaining the area, and the costs associated with that, such as planning consents and the like, and as you rightly point out, is ostensibly ring fenced. However, it seems likely to me that the results of the 'tithe' would impact on the level of commercial rents the Dulwich Estate are able to command, and how much they get when they sell off a piece of land - it is after all a prime area. The 'tithe' is in my view ultimately, even if indirectly, a contributor to the Estate's ability to generate a surplus. Of that surplus, 85% is directed at the private schools, which seems at odds to me with the spirit of simple instruction of the original Edward Alleyn will to 'educate 12 poor scholars' He didn't suggest they should go to Eton on bursaries. I think the Estate need to be doing far more for local state schools, who are all struggling with estraordinarily tight budgets. I also feel on a personal level uneasy in potentially contributing in any way to an institution such as Dulwich College where the question can be asked - are they struggling to manage successive generational waves of toxicity? The evidence that the Guardian has amassed from the Farage period looks pretty damming to me, and I find the more recent allegations deeply unsettling, although clearly they have been subject to less scrutiny.

In addition to what are facts, libel and defamation laws also have a number of built-in protections for free speech, such as honestly held opinion and public interest considerations. Perhaps posters should actually try and get an understanding of the law before accusing people of breaking it.

That is a fair point. However my understanding is at some point in the 19th century the Estate got the terms of the Edward Alleyn will changed to enable it to help support the private schools. The current Dulwich College itself was built on the proceeds of the land the Estate sold to the railway companies. Clearly I can't second guess what Edward Alleyn would want 400 years on, but I do think it is an open question as to whether things are the right way round - overwhelmingly the proceeds of his wealth supporting privileged education, and some bits round the edges going towards state provision/ private scholarships.

Dulwich College governance issues always remind me that many of us are helping subsidise the school via what we have to pay to the Dulwich Estate. The original Edward Alleyn will, which bequeathed the Dulwich farmland that forms the basis for the Estate, made for the provision of '12 poor scholars' - I'm not sure propping up a school serving the world's elite in its many guises was what he had in mind.

I actually think Earl has done us all a public service here. For years Rockets pumped out factual inaccuracies and misleading information, and because of Earl's diligent work, he has been properly and comprehensively fact-checked. Long may it continue.

This is interesting - Rockets is happy to attempt to 'out' other people on these threads, but when it comes to himself, not so much!

it isn't an area of my expertise, but logic would dictate that you are most likely doing a lot more than 20 mph to end up on your roof. The thing that strikes me about both pictures I posted is that it is lucky there were no pedestrians around when either crashed - in the case of the car on its roof, someone could have been walking up the grass verge, and for the white car someone could have been on that traffic island. It does put debate around speed limits in context.

This one from April this year - similarly, I hope no one was too badly hurt ...... and this one from August this year. This was a driver attempting to evade Police.

Only your 'interpretation' of the data has been comprehensively de bunked. What does that say about any party that tries to run with this fake narrative that there is some correlation between crime and the LTNs? Also, what does it say about anybody who is desperately trying to establish it as a talking point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Rockets – do us all a favour and apply your famous research skills before you start dishing out serious allegations of defamation. There is no defamation going on. In English law, your allegations don’t even meet the most basic criteria, let alone ancillary protections for public interest debate. I’m not going to get into some fatuous online legal debate with you or anyone else, but you should be doing better than this, so please desist. I’ll be giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually don’t know or understand the law, I would hope that it isn’t the case that you are throwing out allegations in an effort to chill scrutiny and debate.

Who is 'we' Rockets? I thought you were on a one person crusade detached from any political party or lobby group.

I noticed that - at one of the junctions on the way into town around Kennington Park, there were 35 - 40 cyclists queued up waiting for the lights. I also think some motorists in the traffic- jammed adjacent cars might take note, it was clearly the quickest way to get around yesterday apart from the train. The traffic was so heavy on Brixton Road that initially forgetting there was a strike on, I thought there had been an accident up ahead - it was solid.

Well yes of course but do you have any evidence that that is the case or is that just a hunch/wild guess/desperate wish? And you have to be very careful as I think your starting to drag yourself into potentially troublesome defamation territory Bravo, as you would say! You have actually answered a question. While you are on a roll, why not answer the questions you have been asked for at least a couple of years? Who are the dominant decision makers in One Dulwich? Are they actively involved in any political grouping - Reform, The Conservatives, or the group that stood on an anti-LTN ticket in the last election? I feel it is unlikely to be Labour. Lib Dems pre pre-election material has started landing, and it makes no reference so far to traffic issues. Reform has committed to rip out the LTN's, and certainly some of the denigrating of experts and disregard for evidence-based facts that have come from some of the anti-LTNers on these threads would have a lot in common with the Reform playbook. Local Conservatives campaigned in the last election virtually solely on local traffic issues. It would be interesting to see how they will come out in the coming months ahead of the May 2026 elections. Is One Dulwich a one-man band, as some posters have suggested? Or is it none of the above? One Dulwich is an expensive operation to run - an extensive website, all those placards - where does the money come from? You claim you are all about accountability; One Dulwich just before the last local election had a section on their website 'Choose a good councillor', which is quite a politicised step for an organisation that on its website claims to be a broad political church, or even politically agnostic. Rarely a topic from One Dulwich's cheerleaders on these threads goes by without criticising the council and councillors to a degree that feels at times obsessive, yet when it comes to any requests for transparency on their part? Arctic silence. Whatever the truth might be, do you not agree that it is in the public interest to know who is purporting to represent the community, and how it is paid for? In the past you have claimed you have absolutely no idea who runs or funds One Dulwich. It could be true; I find it implausible. Is that still your position? You have extensive knowledge of the minutiae of local politics which suggests strong political engagement. You post One Dulwich press releases, and you are proud that One Dulwich reflects your 'research'. How does that research come to them? If you really don't know and have no interest in finding out who they are, how are we remotely to take seriously your pronouncements on accountability? Defamation? Unless you are attempting to attach a menacing tone to your characteristic blustering, you are clearly not a lawyer.

Given that past critics of the anti LTN lobby have been physically targeted by a person/ persons unknown, I am not in a hurry to share my details. For avoidance of doubt, this targeting is a matter of Police record. It is more than possible that anyone involved or condoning in such acts has nothing to do with One Dulwich, I would hope this to be the case. However, the whole of the One Dulwich operation is shrouded in a degree of opaqueness that does not fill me with full confidence. If they were a properly set up, constituted and accountable organisation, which I think anyone who purports to represent the community at scale should be, it would be a different story. But for me there is just too much that is unknown about them, and having seen first hand the disgusting public behaviour of some who are vexed at traffic issues (are they involved in One Dulwich - who knows?), I am un-inclined to put my head up. Apart from any physical risk, the naming and pillorying on these threads of individuals, especially people who don't even set themselves up as politicians, by anonymous One Dulwich cheerleaders has been depressing, and reflective of the general degradation of how politics is conducted. Another question for you - if it were found that One Dulwich was fundamentally run and funded by political activists whose main aim is to get a particular electoral result in the local elections, do you think that put those individuals at risk of breaking electoral law, both in terms of electoral spend and transparency of campaigning?

Then answer the simple question - who runs One Dulwich and who funds them?

..... and yet you consistently peddle misleading and unbalanced narratives that are virtually wholly aligned to the people you say you have no links to. And you post their press releases. I think people will make their own minds up on this one.

This granular knowledge of the intricate ins and outs of various sub committees suggests a deep engagement in local politics, which does run counter to the 'I'm just a citizen Joe/ Joanna' routine of some of these anti LTN posters. In my opinion makes them look more like highly politicised campaigners. This would be of a piece of that famous Dulwich Society meeting, where a senior local Conservative stood up and accused some of her colleagues of using underhand tactics when it came to local issues. I have no issue on anyone campaigning on what they want within the law, but it is the opaque nature, as well as the at times sheer nastiness, of much of the anti LTN campaigning that troubles me. And for people with such granular knowledge of local politics - why not just answer the questions, who runs One Dulwich and who funds them?

And I've got 74,214 emails expressing support for Dulwich Square - it must be true, because I say so. Re Dulwich Society transport sub committee, all I know is that I was at a large Dulwich Society public meeting where someone who clearly wanted to remain anonymous had their name shouted out, despite her wishes, by a contingent of people with the patina of grim school bullies. I wouldn't blame her for wanting to remain anonymous - there has been a pattern of physical targeting of people who might have a different view to the anti - LTN lobby, so serious that the Police have had to be involved. No such threat has ever existed going the other way. In this context I would think twice about taking on a role in an open and properly run organisation such as Dulwich Society, where everyone is a volunteer. That itself I find deeply disturbing. Can 'open and properly run' be said for One Dulwich? Does anyone have any clue as to where it's extensive funding comes from?

None at all, apart from just being a regular member of Dulwich Society with zero active role, now or at any time in the past. I do like the newsletters though. I have noted you seem to be getting me confused with someone else, and what I have found again disturbing is the propensity for the anti - LTN lobby to 'out' people, especially those who aren't politicians, and also especially women. It does feel all of a piece with the general degradation of public discourse - the denigrating of experts and the making stuff up - which has been driven predominately by the new right. One Dulwich 1600 emails - says who? That'll be One Dulwich, so it must be true. Even if it were, the basic question is still being avoided by all involved - who runs them and who funds them?

You are a huge loss to One Dulwich, as the longstanding pattern of your posting would suggest near-perfect alignment. As for One Dulwich being 'community led' - where is the evidence of that? We only have their word for it. Perhaps you could employ your citizen journalist skills in finding out for us. I think your persistent silence on this question, and also where their extensive funding comes from, speaks volumes. You are happy to continually post their press releases, but have zero interest in what their provenance is. It doesn't stack up. What I do know as fact is local right-leaning politicians used to head up the various local anti LTN groups that seemingly evaporated before the appearance of One Dulwich, and then those politicians mysteriously disappeared, only to surface now and then, asking the Council formal questions which largely mirrored whatever One Dulwich's latest concerns were. Could it be these Undead are driving the anti LTN campaign? People have a right to campaign on what they want within the law, but what I find disturbing is there have been a number of clues that local democracy isn't being conducted transparently.

Difference here is I don't claim to represent the community, which One Dulwich repeatedly does. So in terms of local democracy, that goes in my book with different obligations and responsibilities. It is so simple, why can't any of the One Dulwich cheerleaders on these threads answer the simple question - who runs One Dulwich and who funds them? This is a question they either refuse or can't be bothered to ask, which doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in their various forays into 'citizen journalism'. For all the brave talk from the anti LTN posters on these threads of holding our local official representatives to account as they are attempting to do on this particular discussion, when it comes to causes close to their heart, different standards apply. All of which makes me feel that what lies behind so much of this unrelenting criticism of the council and the individuals involved in them isn't so much neighbourly debate, but more a disingenuous campaign.

If it is about trying to determine the truth of what lies behind an unrelenting anti-council agenda, it is everything to do with the thread. To try and suggest otherwise looks like a desperate attempt to deflect. Nil points, as they say.

Given that you are all about accountability, why have you no in interest in who funds and runs the shadowy and opaque One Dulwich? Until recently you were regularly posting One Dulwich press releases on this local discussion forum, and at times your research has preempted them. Your views and concerns are so aligned you should consider renaming yourself Dulwich Uno in tribute. But with you and your extensive knowledge of he minutiae of local politics, it is all about attacking the council. The best that could be said is that you have a very unbalanced view of local concerns, and anyone reading your utterances could be forgiven for suspecting that there is an agenda you are not sharing.