Jenijenjen

OK I have at long last refound the council consultation statistics and I see I misremembered how many had been invited to respond to the consultation. I agree that the response rate was about 37% though of the 7,333 responses received, only 5,538 identified as living or working within the consultation zone and it is unclear whether the difference of 1800 odd were included in the consultation results, and if not, would bring the percentage down lower. However my argument, or rather statement, that a consultation is not a referendum is not spurious it is a fact, a legal fact so neither is it a question of semantics. There are plenty of ways of making views known to our councillors e.g. the demonstration that was held the other week, contacting councillors direct which has never been easier or even posting on this forum though I imagine councillors stopped reading it long ago. James Barber once posted a very good description of the purpose of a consultation on this forum but this was many years ago and I have no idea where the post may be.

AlexandHelenC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Following this thinking, only 8% of the community > voted for the LTNs to stay. > > ?Can the opinions of this small minority be > allowed to influence the decision?? Quite. > > But clearly this is completely flawed logic - it > would be like contesting the result of any > election because you assume that those that didn?t > turn out to vote would have been on your (losing) > side. Nobody ?voted? for anything on this consultation, this has been the point of my posts. If people responded to the consultation believing it to be a referendum, I can understand why they feel let down by the council. Both percentages, for and against the LTNs, 8% and 17% respectively, are very small. Can the opinions of either of these small minorities be allowed to influence the decision? Would that be democratic? I make no assumptions about the views of those who did nor respond and there are probably a myriad of reasons why they didn?t. Lack of time, lack of interest, perhaps an acknowledgement that it is a very complex subject and are happy to leave it to councillors who have the mandate to deal with the matter. Please explain your comment regarding flawed logic.

Yet the Record of Decision dated 1 October 2021 quotes the number of specific comments / objections.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing is Jen, that the permanent closure of > the junction and Dulwich Square thing is what many > of the opponents of the scheme are against. Turn > that into a timed closure based on new timings, > have a discussion about school holidays, some > progress would likely be made pretty quickly. I > think, anyway. So this is how people should have responded to the consultation instead of the blanket ?remove everything? as advised by One Dulwich, who as I said earlier shot themselves in the foot by not treating the exercise as a consultation where different solutions could be explored.

?given that definition and given 68% of people responded saying remove the measures can you tell us how the council arrives at the conclusions they have? To me it looks clears the council has given a small minority of the community the opportunity to influence the decision......which is not what consultations are supposed to act upon.? I am unable to find the official figures but from memory just under 30,000 people were invited to participate in the consultation of which 7,000 responded I.e. just over 25%. Of this 25% it?s been said that two thirds were against the LTNs which brings the percentage down to 17%. Can the opinions of this small minority be allowed to influence the decision? The council has listened and made sensible tweaks with the exception of the DV junction which they wish to remain closed which in my opinion is a mistake - the concept and execution of Dulwich Square is just tacky in so many ways. Now had this been a referendum, what this 17% wanted would have carried more weight. But it wasn?t a referendum, it was a consultation, they work differently. And to the person who accused me of being a troll, this is a very good example of the belligerence I was talking about. It might be a good idea for you to check the meaning of the word troll as well.

Hahahah ? I?m not going to discuss an imaginary concept, real events are difficult enough to deal with.

Listening is not the same as having to accept the respondents? views to remove all LTNs which, let?s remember, formed a very small percentage of those consulted within the area. Once again, the anti LTN belligerence and threats of voting Labour out of office which is the aim and sub text of this entire thread. Well, we?ll see.

This is the definition of a referendum: ?a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.? This is not what the LTN consultation was about.

This is the process that Southwark Council has followed and tweaks have been made to incorporate residents views. Once again, there is confusion between a consultation and a referendum.

Please explain what you understand a consultation to be.

Reminder: A consultation is about HOW a proposed action is carried out, not IF. By advising their followers to say they wanted all restrictions taken out, One Dulwich really shot themselves in the foot as their followers missed the opportunity to put forward more sensible solutions.

Ghlpc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > heartblock Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It isn't a win and this area has become a > rather > > unpleasant place to live, partly due to idling > > traffic, but mainly because of the mud-slinging > > and unpleasant language. Elderly people > insulted > > and Twitter accounts taking a moral high ground > > while victimising local businesses. > > > No I don't think so. > > It's just this forum and twitter that make it seem > like that. > > In the real world its a nice area to live in. Agree

Yesterday I received a text inviting me to book an appointment for a booster jab. The text was headed ?GP Surgery? but signed by Improving Health Ltd. I?ve never heard of them and a Google search brought up their website https://www.ihlsouthwark.co.uk/ The website has a lot of words but, other than the statement?Improving Health Ltd is a collaboration of 18 GP practices in South Southwark? I am no wiser as to who they are, their role within the NHS and what they do in relation to patients? health. Can anyone elucidate? Anyway, I?m booked into Tessa Jowell.

Thanks spoiled talent, that?s really useful. For those interested in pursuing, here is the link to the relevant page on Thames Water?s website https://www.thameswater.co.uk/help/account-and-billing/financial-support/waterhelp The threshold for household income is higher than for claiming government benefits and would benefit single occupiers on a low income. As a by the by, I wonder if the poster who is paying ?40 pm for a one bedroom flat is making 8 monthly payments per annum rather than 12 which would bring the annual bill down to ?320? Still too much though.

Previous sightings of pheasants in the area /forum/read.php?5,246908,2009583#msg-2009583 /forum/read.php?5,1800927,page=1 And there?s a photo of the current beauty here

Seriously

The reason they used to park in NCR was to go into Londis to do a bit of shopping. Londis has gone = police have gone

Something?s happened, have had two deliveries totalling 20 letters in the last hour

Are you sure? Not Halloween yet

Resurfacing on Barry Road between Upland Road and Peckham Rye so no right turn from Peckham Rye into Barry Road or from Upland Road. Queues of traffic between Barry Road and Forest Hill Road.

Mac?n?cheese

Wellness.

I took up James McAsh?s offer in his post of September 14 and let him know about an item I had been waiting a month for. It was delivered the next day. Coincidence?

Good for them, will probably reach the target audience more directly, effectively and cheaply than going through an agency. If it doesn?t work, nothing has been lost. OP implies they may have issues with this method of staff recruitment, if so would be interested to learn what these are - I may be missing something.

AlexandHelenC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenijenjen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > heartblock Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > East Dulwich Grove and the houses were built > as > > a > > > residential road for workers on the trains, > > nurses > > > and soldiers circa 1880 - 1886, it is a > narrow > > > road with trees all along it and was not > built > > as > > > a super-highway ? > > > > Take a look at this extract from an OS map > > surveyed in 1863. You will see that most of > what > > is now called East Dulwich Grove is laid out > and > > there are very few houses. Perhaps the section > > east of Green Lane (Greendale) was built in > 1888 > > but most of the road had already been built as > a > > thoroughfare long before the houses. North > Dulwich > > Station is at the bottom left hand corner. > > Exactly. The argument that the (late 19th > century)roads are ?taking the traffic that they > were built for? is incomprehensibly stupid. Nevertheless, it was not built primarily as a residential road as has been claimed but as a thoroughfare that may well have been widened since first laid out