Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's about poor air quality, pollution, idling traffic, impact on health and public transport disruption, not 'inconvenience' - that narrative is the one that Southwark Councillors throw out on Twitter and in public meetings, when washing their so called 'green' policies for all to see. There is nothing green about creating pollution ghettos.
I would also contend Malumbu is wrong in his much repeated 'inconvenience' line which is, of course, so 'convenient' in supporting his/her line on posters daring to question the efficacy of local LTNs but, like you Rockets, glad he sleeps soundly at night...

goldilocks Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes - every time this group meets up or some other

> variation on this group (essentially the same

> people at everything) the numbers are hugely

> inflated. At least doubled. Because there was

> such a low turnout at this event it was genuinely

> possible to count that there were 14 people there,

> so shows just what has been going on.

>

>

>

> Hitmyhat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > goldilocks Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > 'around 30 people'...

> > >

> > >

> > > One can only assume that the other 16 people

> > were

> > > camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time

> > the

> > > photo was taken. Either that or the usual

> > 'report

> > > double the number of attendees' approach is

> > doing

> > > some heavy lifting there.

> >

> > That is the only comment you have? This was

> older

> > and disabled people telling Southwark Council

> how

> > difficult their lives have become because of

> the

> > LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about

> > numbers??


But Goldilocks - regardless of how many people actually were there (and during your forensic analysis of counting the number of people in the picture you have failed to do a spot the difference as between picture 1 and picture 2 you may notice different people can be seen in each photo which suggests not everyone was in the picture) is the point not that there were people actually protesting?


You can try to deposition all you like on semantics but people went to the Town Hall to protest just like a lot more people from that Age Speaks group protested in Dulwich Square over the summer (so many in fact that someone on here couldn't ride their bike through the junction and screamed blue murder about it! ;-)) and then even more people protested at the Square this autumn (again which riled some people about the alleged blocking of the cycle lane which was never actually blocked).


I know it riles you that people oppose these measures but good on them for doing something rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo and folding (as the council and most pro-LTN lobbyists would have hoped would have happened by now).

Rockets wrote:


You can try to deposition all you like on semantics but people went to the Town Hall to protest just like a lot more people from that Age Speaks group protested in Dulwich Square over the summer (so many in fact that someone on here couldn't ride their bike through the junction and screamed blue murder about it! winking smiley) and then even more people protested at the Square this autumn (again which riled some people about the alleged blocking of the cycle lane which was never actually blocked).


I know it riles you that people oppose these measures but good on them for doing something rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo and folding (as the council and most pro-LTN lobbyists would have hoped would have happened by now).


------------------------------------



There you go again Rockets - making things up :))


nobody 'screamed blue murder' about not being able to ride their bike through the square. They said they were turning off the main road with children cycling and could not get off the main road because people were blocking access to the square. It was dangerous.


Anyway glad to see you're finally calling it the Square :)

Rockets - what is meant by deposition in this context?

You use it quite a lot and I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by it.


I Googled it and could mainly find definitions of the legal term - I think that's something different, or to depose a monarch, and there is a geological meaning...


Is it just the same as 'disagree with my point of view - and I'm uncomfortable with that'?

I remember this differently. Someone got very, very upset about alleged dangers to them and their children why cycling across the junction, because of the protest.


DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets wrote:

>

> You can try to deposition all you like on

> semantics but people went to the Town Hall to

> protest just like a lot more people from that Age

> Speaks group protested in Dulwich Square over the

> summer (so many in fact that someone on here

> couldn't ride their bike through the junction and

> screamed blue murder about it! winking smiley) and

> then even more people protested at the Square this

> autumn (again which riled some people about the

> alleged blocking of the cycle lane which was never

> actually blocked).

>

> I know it riles you that people oppose these

> measures but good on them for doing something

> rather than sitting back and accepting the status

> quo and folding (as the council and most pro-LTN

> lobbyists would have hoped would have happened by

> now).

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

> There you go again Rockets - making things up :))

>

>

> nobody 'screamed blue murder' about not being able

> to ride their bike through the square. They said

> they were turning off the main road with children

> cycling and could not get off the main road

> because people were blocking access to the square.

> It was dangerous.

>

> Anyway glad to see you're finally calling it the

> Square :)

Deposition is the act of trying to undermine an opponents position on a matter (usually by creating a distraction).


- So Goldilocks was depositioning the Age Speaks group by suggesting there were not 30 people who protested at the town hall because they could only see 14 of them in the picture

- Malumbu keeps depositioning anyone anti-LTN based on the "an objection based on convenience" narrative/falsehood

- Rahx3 (I think it was them) tried to deposition Age Speaks on the basis of them creating a dangerous situation by blocking the road as they, and their children, tried to turn right on their bikes (which was clearing not true and a gross exaggeration)

- the council tried to deposition anti-LTN folks by claiming they were a "small vocal minority".

- Cllr Newens took to twitter to tell everyone that someone had put a no closures sign in her garden after the protest and how concerned she was that it alerted people to where she lived. But by using this to try to deposition on the public forum that is twitter it actually alerted a lot more people to where she lives and left many wondering why you would take to twitter to say this!

- DC continually tries to deposition me by claiming I make things up.....;-)


What links many depositioning attempts (in any situation not just this) is that they are often based on falsehoods and amplified with a heavy dose of moral indignation.

@DuncanW I can't find Rockets' definition of deposition either.


- There were a maxiumum of 14 people pictured at the Age Speaks demo - Rockets are you seriously suggesting that if there were more than that they wouldn't have done a nice big group shot? Or maybe someone depositioned the photographer LOL


People on this forum are free to point out that in some instances people complain about the LTNs as inconvenient. How is that creating a distraction or a falsehood - other than because it's against Rockets' 'depositioning' rule?


Equally, someone is free to point out it was dangerous to exit Dulwich Village, a main road, especially cycling with children, when the exit wasn't clear due to the previous Age Speaks demo.


The exit was shown to be blocked in plenty of photos posted at the demo - so (see above) - why on earth would Age Speaks not photograph absolutely everyone in a group shot at Tooley Street? Have they suddenly become less boasty?


Rockets please explain 'depositioning' more clearly so that we can follow your rules more accurately :)


BTW Not heard much about One Dulwich lately - have they morphed into this smaller group of 14 people?

DulwichCentral Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> @DuncanW I can't find Rockets' definition of

> deposition either.

>

> - There were a maxiumum of 14 people pictured at

> the Age Speaks demo - Rockets are you seriously

> suggesting that if there were more than that they

> wouldn't have done a nice big group shot? Or maybe

> someone depositioned the photographer LOL

>

> People on this forum are free to point out that in

> some instances people complain about the LTNs as

> inconvenient. How is that creating a distraction

> or a falsehood - other than because it's against

> Rockets' 'depositioning' rule?

>

> Equally, someone is free to point out it was

> dangerous to exit Dulwich Village, a main road,

> especially cycling with children, when the exit

> wasn't clear due to the previous Age Speaks demo.

>

>

> The exit was shown to be blocked in plenty of

> photos posted at the demo - so (see above) - why

> on earth would Age Speaks not photograph

> absolutely everyone in a group shot at Tooley

> Street? Have they suddenly become less boasty?

>

> Rockets please explain 'depositioning' more

> clearly so that we can follow your rules more

> accurately :)

>

> BTW Not heard much about One Dulwich lately - have

> they morphed into this smaller group of 14 people?

I thought a few of them went in on the deputation? Anyway even if only one person turned up - and sorry for my absence - it would go to prove the point of all the elderly and disabled people worrying about getting around and having their life needs limited by sheer problems with LTNs and traffic hold ups. . A long way to walk from London Bridge, or I'm not sure how many buses would be involved, or an expensive cab being as how there are no parking places up there if you had used your car.

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think they run a train service from East Dulwich

> to London Bridge nowadays....

I was clearly talking about London Bridge to the Council offices. And who knows the effort required to get to the station at the Dulwich end? This is the problem, older people find no empathy, even when they try hard to save energy, fight against poor air quality, use public transport or even, gosh, caring about others worse off than themselves.

Agree. Precious space completely wasted on niche activity. Priority should be given to buses and walking.


Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just to throw into the arena

>

> BBC News - London congestion: Cycle lanes blamed

> as city named most congested

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559

> 863

Congrats on taking the clickbait


Evening Standard Journalist admits anti-cycle lane angle on London being named world's most congested city would ?get more readers? whereas economic rebound was single biggest factor.


https://road.cc/content/news/journalist-anti-cycle-lane-angle-gets-more-readers-288449

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Congrats on taking the clickbait

>

> Evening Standard Journalist admits anti-cycle lane

> angle on London being named world's most congested

> city would ?get more readers? whereas economic

> rebound was single biggest factor.

>

> https://road.cc/content/news/journalist-anti-cycle

> -lane-angle-gets-more-readers-288449



I think it's clear that Peter Lees did say what became the headline. Read the note carefully. What he is saying is: "Yes I did say that but I didn't expect it to be the headline/actually appear in print". It explains why the BBC has not changed their story as they would have been one of the outlets briefed by Inrix, and, one presumes Peter Lees and no matter how much begging Inrix did they would not change the story if that was how it was briefed to them. The BBC does not take headlines from the Evening Standard and doesn't do/need to do clickbait.


Interesting how the likes of Will Norman and pro-LTN publications have swung into damage limitation mode - with so much exposure they must be worried that this type of thing might stick.

No Rahx3 someone published research and it looks like they sold it to the media on the basis of "London is now the most congested city in the world because of cycle lanes".....which looks like it wasn't entirely accurate and which, of course, the media went with as their headline.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863

Actually though, anti LTN posters above were using that clickbait to complain about bike lanes. See ab29 above.


Thankfully, based on the actual data in the New Statesman article it can be seen that the view that London is the most congested city because of bike lanes is absolute rubbish. The data that Inrix produced doesn't show this - someone in the organisation did a massive overreach.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Maybe. Does that kill grass? If so, possibly the same dog that has left its poo outside my house - pretty sure it's not fox poo.
    • Here you are, intexasatthemoment (you seem to have been in Texas for a very long time!) We went to three of the recommended places yesterday,  as they were all in the same road (just near Wallington)  and I needed to give the car a run to avoid another slap on the wrist from my garage (and another new battery). Here's my findings. BARNES Parking We thought we would go here first as it was the earliest to close on a Sunday (3pm). There was no apparent entrance or anywhere to park. One notice said do not park on grass verge, and another one said staff cars only! Flittons was opposite but I'd already passed the entrance, so I had to drive down the road, turn round at the next available place (covered in signs saying do not park here) and park in Flittons car park! Plants Barnes  specialise in hardy perennials, so that was basically what they had, but an excellent selection, and many more unusual plants (or at least, plants you probably wouldn't find in a garden centre), eg Corydalis,  lots of different varieties of Epimediums, Trollius, some lovely Phygelius, lots of different ferns). The plants were divided into sections according to whether they needed sun or shade or could cope with both. They had a particularly good selection of  shade loving plants. There was really useful information above  each group of plants, which meant you didn't have to look at individual labels. All the plants looked in good health and  very well cared for. They don't produce a printed catalogue, but they  said their plant list was online (I haven't looked yet). I assume most of  the plants they have at any one time are when it's their flowering season (if they flower). I wasn't intending to buy anything, though was very tempted, but I'd definitely go here again once I've sorted out my overgrown garden. Other Stuff Don't think they sell pots, compost, etc. No cafe/tea room and I didn't see a loo, but Flittons is just over the road. FLITTONS  Parking Easy to park Plants Sorry, but mostly terrible. There was one section with vegetables and the rest was flowering plants. There was a general feeling of delapidation. Some of what was on display was actually dead (surely it would only take a minute to remove dead plants) and a lot of the rest was very poorly maintained, eg gone to seed, weedy, apparently unwatered, or with a lot of dead leaves. There was a notice asking for volunteers to work there, so I can only assume they can't afford to pay staff. Other stuff There was a notice to a play barn (?) saying invited people only, so I think they must host kids' parties or something. They redeemed themselves with a cosy little cafe with savoury stuff, nice cakes, iced chai and oat milk, and a loo. Also a selection of books and CDs on sale for charity. If you want an Andrews Sisters CD, you can find one here. There is a small shop with gift shop type stuff and a display of the history of Flittons, which apparently is family owned since the sixties (I think it was). I suspect that the arrival of Dobbies down the road must have greatly affected Flittons' fortunes, which is sad. DOBBIES  Parking Easy in theory once you had navigated a rather narrow entrance, but it was very busy so it took a while to find a space. Plants  Lots of plants, well maintained but I imagine their turnover is high. Lots of nice bedding plants for hanging baskets, window boxes etc  to cater for all tastes (ie some of it wasn't mine, but fine if you like those horrid little begonias (my opinion only) but they did have some nice (in my opinion) stuff as well. I was tempted but decided to buy from North Cross Road market. Fair selection of climbers, various different Clematis etc. I'd be happy to buy plants from here. The prices seemed reasonable and they were in good condition. Other stuff  It's a big garden centre with all that entails these days, so a large area selling garden furniture and storage, tools, animal collars, pots, all the usual stuff you would expect. Very helpful staff. There's a cafe which we didn't check out, charging points for electric cars, a Waitrose (no idea how big, we didn't look). Only on our way out did we see that there was a drive through "express section" for compost etc, which was annoying as I wanted compost and hadn't seen any anywhere,  but I was getting tired by that time. Just Down the Road A ten minute drive away is Wilderness Island, a nature reserve in Carshalton, which is well worth a visit. We heard eleven different kinds of bird (according to Merlin) and saw a Kingfisher flying down the tiny river!
    • The swifts & bats are alive & well around Upland Road. A beautiful sight & sound in the evenings. Just be sure to leave plenty of water out for them, as they are at high risk of dehydration & struggle to take flight at ground level.
    • Loads in upland road last night…
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...