DulvilleRes

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.

I've never been convinced by your 'power to the people - I'm just a citizen journalist' stance. You have a deep knowledge of local politics and an unremitting anti-council agenda that looks to me like political intent disguised as something else. Are you sure you don't know who funds and runs the local anti-LTN campaign, as you claim?

Indeed best of luck Maria. You run a fabulous restaurant, a completely unique spot. It is like stepping off the street and into Spain any time of the year. The booze is brilliantly curated, and the food is always great.

Looking at your track record - spreading alarmist misinformation about crime, being dismissive of experts, a complete lack of interest in how organisations aligned to your views are funded - it has a fair bit in common with the Reform playbook, whether you vote for them or not.

Thanks Earl and others for the diligent work in debunking the 'LTN causes crime wave' fictitious nonsense that Rockets tried to float. I think it diminishes the chances that this dangerous rubbish ends up on a One Dulwich press release ( where some of Rocket's past unchecked utterances on these threads have landed) and then most likely would migrate to a party political election leaflet next spring.

I've no issues with any one being held to account for their actions, and that includes you. The constant stream of factual inaccuracy and misleading statements from you which keep having to be fact checked and corrected is exhausting. These threads should be for genuine debate amongst neighbours, not having to deal with an endless culture war tropes and misinformation. It really makes me question the motivation of what lies behind it. There comes a point where such a blind disregard for facts and any kind of balanced debate tips into trolling.

Depressingly familiar pattern of posting here by the anti-LTN lobby - make an alarmist and totally unsubstantiated claim, argue endlessly against all the overwhelming evidence that shows the claim to be false, and hope that some of it sticks. Is there some kind of agenda we're not being told about? Local elections coming up?

Maybe Rockets saw a poltergeist PCSO. It wouldn't be the first supernatural event associated with the Square - a few years back about 200 people turned up to an anti-LTN demo, but the anti-LTN lobby claimed they saw a further 800 people there.

The fact checking of Rockets and fellow travellers in recent months has been a delight to behold. Once they ran rampant on these threads, as if it were their very own public ( dis) information channel laden with the kind of fact free assertions and personal jibes we've all come to expect in this era of degraded politics. Now they are held accountable. Fair play to Earl and others.

Half baked conspiracy theories about a cabal of lycra clad cyclists thwarting the Great British Motorist's right to drive, an often fact free and unrelenting attack on anything the lefty council does, and now stoking up fears of an imagined crime wave - anyone would think it is Reform posting on these threads.

A friend of mine had their phone snatched recently on East Dulwich Grove, which rather questions the thesis that roads within an LTN have led to some kind of crime epidemic.

... 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.