LTN Discussion

[redpost]

It's only a waste if the policy of less road space for cars is rolled back, and it won't be. So your point is moot.

[goldilocks]

Its not One Dulwich who have spent the money though is it - its the Dulwich Alliance who were running the crowdfunder.

I know that they're all the same people anyway, but the Dulwich Alliance was set up by Clive Rates and he's now standing as the local Conservative Councillor.

Therefore the question as to what has happened to the money from what purports to be a non political organisation is very relevant.

[legalalien]

I?m not quite sure what the issue here is. The crowdfunder said it was for things like leaflets and pamphlets and legal advice and any residue would go to the stated charity and it seems like that is what has happened as regards the first bit, I?d expect them to decide whether there?s any other action to take before distributing the funds to the charity?

You seem to be hinting that it?s being spent on Mr Rates? campaign or something - which is heading towards libel territory, I would suggest.

If you?re just saying that you think getting a legal opinion was a waste of time - we?ll, that?s your opinion but it was an express reason for soliciting donations in the first place. Getting proper advice and deciding not to launch expensive legal proceedings is more sensible than launching proceedings that aren?t going to go anywhere and ending up having to pay the other side?s legal costs?

[CPR Dave]

There is no way that opinion cost 28,000. Even from a QC it would be no more than 2,000 on such a simple question.

How much have the council spent on this disaster though? ?750,000? ?1,000,000? More? Would be interesting to see the final figure for this unmitigated shambes.

[goldilocks]

The only person suggesting that Clive spent it on his campaign here is you Legal.

Rockets suggested that it was of no consequence how the money had been spent and I was pointing out it wasn't One Dulwich but DA who were running the crowdfunding. Factually (according to his Conservative bio) Clive Rates was a founder of the Dulwich Alliance. Asking what happens to the funding now is a fair question.

Do I think that getting a legal opinion when similar challenges have failed everywhere else was a waste of time - yes! Was it sensible to stop the clearly fruitless effort - also yes. But if thats what people wanted to fund, its up to them.

The question as to what happens to any amounts crowdfunded for legal action now still remains.

legalalien Wrote:

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

> I?m not quite sure what the issue here is. The

> crowdfunder said it was for things like leaflets

> and pamphlets and legal advice and any residue

> would go to the stated charity and it seems like

> that is what has happened as regards the first

> bit, I?d expect them to decide whether there?s any

> other action to take before distributing the funds

> to the charity?

>

> You seem to be hinting that it?s being spent on Mr

> Rates? campaign or something - which is heading

> towards libel territory, I would suggest.

>

> If you?re just saying that you think getting a

> legal opinion was a waste of time - we?ll, that?s

> your opinion but it was an express reason for

> soliciting donations in the first place. Getting

> proper advice and deciding not to launch expensive

> legal proceedings is more sensible than launching

> proceedings that aren?t going to go anywhere and

> ending up having to pay the other side?s legal

> costs?

[heartblock]

Still it must be a comfort that Southwark is giving LTN lobby groups (- i.e - a couple of people on a closed road) - money in their new round of grants to gaslight us residents on polluted boundary roads.

[legalalien]

We don't actually know if they are yet - I think the announcement is tonight? The list I linked to earlier is the potential list of applicants. So let's see.

[Rockets]

redpost Wrote:

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

> It's only a waste if the policy of less road space

> for cars is rolled back, and it won't be. So your

> point is moot.

Surely, it will have been a waste of money if it hasn't worked, hasn't delivered on the council's objectives or actually made the problem worse....

[heartblock]

Let's see..... I hope sense and propriety prevails.

[dulwichlawproject]

Does anyone know how to access the livestream of the meeting? Southwark says on their website that it will be livestreamed on their youtube - but I can't see a sign of it yet...

[dulwichlawproject]

Ignore me it just started late!

[legalalien]

Link here

[Bic Basher]

This is what the DV councillors have been allowed to dish out.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> It is a one point measure, it has only had one

> measurement and therefore change cannot be

> calculated. A point measure is not a stretch. All

> the schools have ED Grove buildings on this road,

> the main entrance for Charter will be on ED Grove

> when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on

> EDG and it is the main route for children to

> travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous'

> questioning world than an appearance of blindly

> following dogma without question or inspection of

> skewed data.

> I have actually called for local PT, bike lanes,

> to keep school road timed closures and I support

> road pricing.

>

> Telling people what they think, calling them

> ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is

> called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this

> subject.

The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove the restrictions on through traffic would increase traffic around the school.

[Artemis]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It is a one point measure, it has only had one

> > measurement and therefore change cannot be

> > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch.

> All

> > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this

> road,

> > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED

> Grove

> > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on

> > EDG and it is the main route for children to

> > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous'

> > questioning world than an appearance of blindly

> > following dogma without question or inspection

> of

> > skewed data.

> > I have actually called for local PT, bike

> lanes,

> > to keep school road timed closures and I

> support

> > road pricing.

> >

> > Telling people what they think, calling them

> > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is

> > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this

> > subject.

>

> The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central

> (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20%

> decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21.

> The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne

> Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove

> the restrictions on through traffic would increase

> traffic around the school.

September 21, when there was a fuel crisis and people were unable to drive. Do you think that might have had something to do with any decrease Southwark claims?

[Lebanums]

Many of us were also still working from home, no car required. We have only just started going back to the office

[heartblock]

'A fact' Personally I like to check the actual data before blindly believing any 'fact' from an organisation desperately trying to 'prove' their policy is working. We are sometimes told 'facts' by the organisation that has implemented a policy, that turn out to be either less true or more nuanced.

"The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20% decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21. The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove the restrictions on through traffic would increase traffic around the school."

If Southwark say's this monitor was only added in Sept 2021 and it's official data point only records a measure in Sept 2021 - how does one measure a 20% decrease?

Why is congestion and pollution not measured on ED Grove at peak time for children walking to Charter, Alleyn's and JAGs? This peak pollution is important as this is when children are walking past idling traffic.

Make Melbourne Grove at the entrance and Elsie school streets with timed closures from 8:00 -9:00 and open Melbourne on the other side, Derwent, Calton and Court as not school roads.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It is a one point measure, it has only had one

> > measurement and therefore change cannot be

> > calculated. A point measure is not a stretch.

> All

> > the schools have ED Grove buildings on this

> road,

> > the main entrance for Charter will be on ED

> Grove

> > when completed, the main entrance of JAGs is on

> > EDG and it is the main route for children to

> > travel. I would rather live in my 'ridiculous'

> > questioning world than an appearance of blindly

> > following dogma without question or inspection

> of

> > skewed data.

> > I have actually called for local PT, bike

> lanes,

> > to keep school road timed closures and I

> support

> > road pricing.

> >

> > Telling people what they think, calling them

> > ridiculous and misrepresenting their beliefs is

> > called gaslighting, it happens a lot on this

> > subject.

>

> The monitoring data for East Dulwich Grove Central

> (near Tessa Jowell Health Centre), saw a 20%

> decrease in traffic between Sept 19 and Sept 21.

> The main entrance to ED Charter is in Melbourne

> Grove; This is simply a fact. Your call to remove

> the restrictions on through traffic would increase

> traffic around the school.

The monitoring data for that EDG Central section is based on modelling and is highly suspicious - there was no actual monitoring in place in Sep 19 - Sep 21 is the first time there has been actual monitoring in place in that section of road. There was monitoring on a different section of road in Jan 19 and the council has taken those numbers and added nearly 3,000 vehicles (they have not explained why) to create the Sep 19 figures. Those modelled Sep 19 figures have been compared to Sep 21 to create the "reduction".

If you take the original Jan 19 figures and compare them to Sep 21 there has been only a slight reduction so without the 3,000+ modelling numbers added by the council there would be no reduction.

Until the council explains their modelling and methodology you need to treat the "20% reduction" claim with a huge pinch of salt. It's a modelled number that has no grounding in fact.

[VotethemoutMay22]

Good afternoon, EDF.

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. The councillors who have been behind the Dulwich LTNs are all standing again in local Dulwich wards (minus one Labour councillor in Goose Green and one in Champion Hill). We believe it's time for them to go, and that we can vote them out in the local elections on 5 May 2022. More information votethemoutmay22.org.uk.

Thank you.

[Spartacus]

Interesting idea for a website and if you can produce an unbiased summary of each party and candidates views on key campaign points it would be a useful comparison tool.

In my opinion that could include :

- LTNs and alternatives

- Borough wide CPZ and parking

- Infill development (on estate green areas)

- Plans to improve transport

- High Street support measures

- Social care plans

- Schools

- Safety (including street light maintenance)

This election shouldn't be just about one thing as other equally important items need to be addressed but I did agree that if they aren't listening then they need to be made to listen.

[VotethemoutMay22]

Thanks @Spartacus. Please have a look at the website www.votethemoutmay22.org.uk.

We're sticking to the single issue of LTNs (traffic, transport, road closures) because we believe this links directly to so many other issues relating to social equality, including housing, health, education, local business, protected characteristics, etc.

[Spartacus]

I think you need to widen that slightly to include the proposal for a Borough wide CPZ

[slarti b]

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.

[Metallic]

Does anyone know p3girl, because it looks as if they have been effectively accused of making a fake application for council funds which has Councillor Leeming in a dither.

On reflection not sure the application was ?fake?. It may have been for an organisation that sounds similar to an existing one, which could have led to confusion, but it doesn?t sound like a joke or malicious.

It also may not be from the same person who wrote the forum message Councillor Leeming took a screenshot of - or at least someone did!

Some worrying assumptions seem to have been made by Councillors, and CAD, more worryingly being broadcast on social media which could constitute a libel. Assumptions appear to be that this was fake/bogus and therefore was malicious and designed to ?pretend? to be CAD. And the same applicant of that fund request is the same person as P3girl. None of which appear to be proven, unless Councillors Leeming and Newens, plus Katy Savage and Helen Pickering who I have heard are the organisers of CAD have some? Did they contact the applicant to ascertain it?s veracity and genuineness? Maybe they are members of EDF and we can hear from them?

I think this is the resulting fall out from not liking to be challenged about actions Southwark Council have taken, and being the people who have to face their voters out. They must be finding it difficult when they are canvassing.

It is definitely linked to the LTN discussion and in my road there are many residents asking what will come next? We are already kettled in. Will Dovercourt Road or Beauval Road be next on the list for changes? Or even Eynella Road - remember that early idea for the junction by the Library to be closed completely?

[Metallic]

Sorry this post was posted on the wrong list.