slarti b

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I finally feel part of this forum now that I've received my own sneering comment from goldilocks. She does like a good sneer, and lots of smears as well.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...other people see the huge increase (7 times) in children using Calton to safely get to school. Where does that figure come from? Is it the Goodman propganda piece where she made up the base numbers? Or the Southwark stats where they claimed a 300% increase by comparing cycling figures form Dec with June, and ignored a direct before and after comparison ?

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic is down 12% and cycling up 61% Where do those figures come from and do you have the detailed traffic counts from which they are calculated? If so, please provide the sources and the base data.

UndergradStudentLTN Would you widen your dissertation to include the use of incorrect and misleading statistics and fradulent abuse and misrepresentation of public consultations by the council? If so, I am happy to consider corresponding. btw I do not wish to question your credentials or motives but I am involved with another forum when this type of request is made reasonably frequently (sport, nothing to do with ED or traffic!). In that case the standard is for the applicant to give their name and the name of their academic supervisor as well as a synopsis of their study. Will you do that please?

CPR Dave Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I think "Clean Air Dulwich" also sometimes call themselves "Clean Air for Dulwich" Do they? As far as I can see they are a Twitter group with a web site (well, actually a web page) both of which call themselves "Clean Air Dulwich". As far as I can see, CAD are not an incorporated organisation of any kind. They look to be a small anonymous group of local activists who overlap heavily with groups such as Mums for Lungs and Friends of Dulwich Village Junction (sorry square). But I guess the main point is they are chums with and support local councillors Newens and Leeming, which presumably is why Newens and Leeming were happy to pay them ?6k of taxpayers money without carrying out the due diligence they were meant to do.

On the face of it it certainly doesn't look like attempted fraud to me. But whether it was or not, Councillors Newens, Leeming and the chair of the meeting, C'llr Simmonds, have a lot of questions to answer about this episode. But instead, their typical response has been to take to Twitter making unfounded allegations which cannot be responded to. The sooner we get rid of this unaccountable crowd the better, roll on May 5th!

From what I can see in the public domain the timeline was: -4 Oct 2021- P3Girl posts publicly on EDF announcing his\her intention to apply for funds from the Neighbourhood fund under the name of a new organisation called "Clean Air for Dulwich" (CAFD. This name is similar to a Twitter Group "Clean Air Dulwich", a small anonymous group of local activists. nb I have not seen this post personally so this is subject to correction - 11 Oct 2021 Deadline for applications for Neighbourhood fund. Per Council procedures, applications must include detailed information about the applicants and the projects, see my post from 12.26 this morning. - Oct 2021->Mar 2022, Councillors and officers carry out feasibility studies and due diligence on all applications. Southwark's agenda for the multi ward meeting confirmed this was carried out. - Early March 2022 (not sure of exact date) Southwark agenda for multi ward meeting on 7 Mar published with recommended applications for approval, including one from Clean Air For Dulwich (CAFD) - 7 Mar, multi ward meeting. Labour Councillors approved all the other applications for Village Ward but no mention of the CAFD application. - 8 Mar Newens and Leeming complaining about alleged fraud on Twitter, sorry I dont have details on that. Edited to add info about P3Girl's EDF post supplied by Rockets.

So, if they have followed the procedures then Southwark hase carried out a due diligence excercise? in that case, if the council approved the project but, at the last moment, changed its mind sounds like any investigation should concentrate on the council officers who carried out the negligent due diligence exercise.

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- This is another example of people seeking a conspiracy when there isn?t one. Was the "Clean Air For Dulwich" funding application submitted by the Southwark deadline of 11 Oct 2021? If yes, why did it take 5 months for the council to reject it. If no, why do the council accept the application?

march46 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Slarti you mustn't be familiar with the process for these grants. You are quite right, I am not familiar with the applications for council taxpayer funds. For example, I am a member of One Dulwich and we have funded ourselves from the vast majority of local residents who object to the council's botched schemes.. But I can read the requirements for applications for neighbourhood funding on Southwark's web site and this raises further serious questions. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/engagement-and-consultations/grants-and-funding/neighbourhoods-fund-2022 For the application to be considered by the Council the proposing group must answer a series of detailed questions including those such as - Are you applying on behalf of a group or organisation? or Are you applying as an individual? Name of your project/idea - Describe what the project is trying to achieve, including why it is needed and demonstrate how it is going to benefit residents of the ward you have selected above. Please explain in less than 300 words.* - In no more than 200 words state range of beneficiaries i.e., age, sex and ethnicity and approximate numbers.* - When did your group start? - Please describe in no more than 50 words the aims and activities of your group and your work in the community.* Q3 - Does your group have a constitution or set of rules?* UPLOAD - Please itemise expenditure relating to this application. The total will be what you are requesting from the neighbourhoods fund this year. * And there is a key deadline which is "Closing date for applications: Monday 11 October 2021, 12 noon" This is a lot of detail eh?? And, having applied for funding the web site states "Your project/idea is then considered by your local ward councillors. Your local ward councillors will invite you to a multi-ward meeting in November [ie 2021] to present your projects to decide which proposals receive funding and how much. Your local ward councillors will announce their decisions at the February/March 2022 Multi Ward meeting. So, in this case did the Local ward councillors, ie Newens and Leeming, consider the project at a multi ward meeting in Nov 2021 as per council procedures? If so, can you direct me to the minutes or online video of the meeting? Re the application were any of these questions about the project answered incorrectly? If so,why has it taken them 5 months to identify this? If Newens and Leeming did consider the project in November 2021 and had reservations, why was it still on the list of projects to be approved in March 2022? My speculation is that the application missed the deadline and was not fully reviewed because the Council and\or local councillors thought it was from their chums. Can you provide evidence this was not the case. In the interests of open government I would expect applications for and awards of public (ie taxpayers) money to be fully transparent. Does Southwark publish these or try and hide them?

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has Khan abandoned, or even suspended, the Bakerloo line, yes or no? > And has Khan played politics with TfL funding by eg freezing fares etc? Yes or No? Golilocks, I am still waiting for a proper answer to this...

This is a bit unclear for me at the moment but it seems that an application was made for neighbourhood funding of ?6,060 by a group calling itself "Clean Air For Dulwich" to "Promote the awareness of the need to adopt zero or low pollution means of transport (electric/ hybrid vehicles and cycles) and to use public transport more". This application was included in the agenda to be proposed by our Village ward councillors Newens and Leeming and all set to be rubber stamped (sorry approved) by the local Labour group at the meeting on 7 March. But at the last moment, possibly during the meeting itself, the application was omitted. It seems C'llr Leeming now claims the application was "fraudulent" because the name of the group was similar to,but different from, a Twitter handle "Clean Air Dulwich" which he supports. I agree that there should be an enquiry and it should investigate questions such as: - why were local councillors Leeming and Newens about to rubber stamp a proposal from a group which they thought they supported without, it seems, reviewing the details of the application? - why do Leemings and Newens believe the application was fraudulent, apart from the similarity of the group applying to a Twitter handle they support? - if the application was "fraudulent" why did council officers not identify this from the application, which requires a lot of detailed information. Was any deliberate untrue information included? - Newens and Leeming were initially happy to support spending council taxpayers money to "Promote the awareness of the need to adopt zero or low pollution means of transport (electric/ hybrid vehicles and cycles) and to use public transport more". But when they discovered the money would go, not to a group they support, but to a different group with similar objectives they claimed fraud. This suggest the council taxpayers funds are being used for political purposes. Is this legal? Goldilocks seems close to the Village Ward Labour Councillors and the Twitter group Clean Air Dulwich, can you answer any of these questions? Apart from the specific issue of the "Clean Air For Dulwich" application this meeting highlighted how over ?500k of council taxpayers money can be spent totally at the discretion of our local Labour councillors, without providing any detailed back up or allowing any independent scrutiny. Pork Barrel politics.

VotethemoutMay22 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- A group of us have got together (from all parties)because we believe that our local Dulwich councillors have not represented everyone in the community when pushing for the Dulwich LTNs. A bit of an understatement there. I think what you mean is our local councillors have represented a tiny minority of activists and misled and ignored the vast majority of their constituents! Fascinating reading of some of the candidate profiles, I had no idea how closely several of the Labour councillors are associated with property developers, very clear conflicts of interest there, I am surprised the Labour party tolerates it.

Goldilocks, please just give me a yes or no answer to the 2 questions. And, back to the issues relating to Dulwich, the issues that are within their remit, at least the Lib Dems and Tories are listening to the local residents who are overwhelmingly against the botched schemes promoted and supported by Labour councillors Leeming and Newens.

Has Khan abandoned, or even suspended, the Bakerloo line, yes or no? And has Khan played politics with TfL funding by , eg freezing fares etc? Yes or No?

Well, now that Labour mayor Khan has abandoned the Bakerloo line I am glad that the Lib Dems are looking at alternatives. And the Tories, as well as the Lib Dems, do seem to be listening to local residents and looking at ways of addressing the botched LTN schemes that have jsut displaced traffic onto the boundary roads. In both cases, so unlike our current Labour councillors who have consistently ignored their constituents, except when they are sending them abusive emails!

Metallic Wrote: > People can say anything when they are trying to get your vote. The fact they won't act after the > elections is just "meh". If there are any public hustings it would be good to get the local Lib Dem candidates to commit publicly to their position on th junction and what they would do about it. But tbh the key objective of the majority of local residents who are against the botched scheme, is to get rid of the awful Leeming and Newens who have promoted this scheme agasint the overwhelming wishes of their constituents.

Interesting to see that the 2 Lib Dem candidates for Village Ward have now come out firmly against the Dulwich LTN scheme as being "Divisive, unfair and ineffective" stating that the LTN is "simply moving congestion and pollution from one part of the area to another" Opponents of the the scheme have, of course, been pointing this out for a couple of years. It is a shame their Lib Dem colleagues currently on the council were not prepared to call in the scheme (backed by the council's fraudulent stats) or scrutiny but hey, better late than never. It also means that local labour voters who oppose the botched scheme, but do not wish to vote for the Conservative candidates, now have an alternative.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: > There is no compromise that will ever appease the rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante. Utter rubbish. plenty of compromises have been suggested, inclusing a very well presented one by DVRA. All have been rejected out of hand. Our councillors have hidden from their constituents and have used Covid to avoid public meetings and scrutiny. Totally shameful.

@Friernlocal Thanks for the link; that is excellent and, if I lived in Lewisham, would have settled the argument with my wife (no, plant containers can't be recycled). It still doesn't give guidance about, eg food stained cardboard, but is a lot better than Soutwark. It would also be helpful to mention the standard codes given to different plastic types ( 1-7) which identify the plastic type them and whether it can be recycled. @Renata Can Southweark produce a detailed guide like that?

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I don't know exactly the total recycling percentage but nothing goes to landfill and nothing goes abroad. Most of the recycled material According to Govt figures for Southwark, about 35% of household is sent for recycling. This puts Southwark in the bottom 25% of boroughs across the UK. The Govt figures don't say the waste sent for recycling ends up being burned, is that something you can find out? As a long term councillor I am surprised you didn't know this sort of stuff already ;-) ?

Renata, Interesting post, thanks you, but shouldnn't there be detailed information on the council web site with all this information and useful stuff? I had a look a year ago or so after an argument with my wife about whether plastic flower pots could be recycled and could find nothing to help. Have I missed anything on the web site? Also, you say none of the waste goes to landfill, how much of the recycled waste gets incinerated?

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thats just the same data - and same claims though. Would be good to see something not from the Dulwich Alliance on it. Hey Goldilocks. DA are very open with their analysis and their data comes from the council figures ( those that the council are prepared to disclose) or other more reliable sources, DfT, TfL etc. Can you back up your continued smearing of their reports, or is it that you just don't like their exposure of the council errors and mistatements?

@Goldilocks @redpost Been away for a little while and I come back to find you still trying to discredit the results of the Streetspace consultation. Remember Southwark council promised they would listen to the local community, they sent round a leaflet at our expense saying how many respsonses they had received, far, far higher than previous consultations? but then they looked at the results and decided they didn't like what they had been told. So they ignored it. Just as they ignored the comments nd responses on the commonplace map that councillors had been telling their constituents to use to send feedback. The reality is that in the highest response rate on this issue the overwhelming local public opinion was against the council's half baked measures that increase congestion and pollution by diverting traffic into the boundary roads. Still, at least the residents of Calton Avenue are happy and the council seems to think their opinion matters more than anyone else.

Otto, When I first saw you post it seemed to link to an article about % of short journeys in London that could be made by active travel. Hence my response that, in Dulwich, there was an extremely high level of active travel before the road closuree, much igher than in the rest of Southwark. Re the link you currently have, diverting traffic onto the displacement roads, increasing congestion and idling, is not going to help teh Govt's "strategy".