Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You know, heartblock, it's amazing how much I agree with you given that politically there are (I suspect) probably quite a lot of things we disagree on.


Inspired by the earlier iteration of this thread, I purchased a book called The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0141039167


Am about a third of the way through. It's really interesting - would recommend. Quite old now, from 2013. Have put this more recent article from the same author on my "to read" list

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/

Experience today:


Speeding motorists on side roads. OK a speed enforcement not LTN issue.


Parents parking on double yellow lines outside Bessemer Grange and the primary school in the village. Ok another enforcement issue.


And for some balance, plenty of responsible cycling, but one lady cycling on the pavement on Townley. Not a youth or a young chap but someone who should give a damn.


What relevance is this to the LTN debate? I expect most posting on this thread do obey the rules but so many other road users don't. So you ain't going to get anywhere by asking people nicely to reduce their car journeys/emissions. So we need hard interventions.


Hope this isn't gaslighting which I still don't understand

It isn't gaslighting (which refers to the act of undermining another person?s reality by denying the environment around them, or their feelings), but I do agree with you.. I actually think if some of these actions were enforced a little better, so parents parking on double yellows, pavements and in no parking zones..cycling on pavements and speed restrictions that would all be great.

I would urge everyone to push for better pollution monitoring though.. and for improved PT.

Waseley - agree with your annoyance at bad drivers - we all feel the same pain and frustration when people act selfishly.


The deafening silence on my challenge to some of the loudest pro-LTN cheerleaders to dissect the council's own numbers is not surprising - they are acting selfishly and deliberately ignoring the facts that tell a very different story to the one they like to peddle.


This note from the council speaks volumes and demonstrates LTN displacement in full effect and why Dulwich should never have been chosen for LTNs on the basis of PTALs alone....


"Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich" - Southwark Council Dashboard.

Huh my ears are burning, sounds like Rockets and heartblock want me to answer their question for a second time before even responding to the first answer. Very curious.


I'm definitely motivated by accusations and insults fired in my direction, so just a few more of those totally-not-treating-me-as-the-enemy-dont-gaslight-me-by-claiming-otherwise might just speed me up a little.

Come on, one of you must be brave enough to interpret the statement from the council.....you all have strong opinions on pretty much everything else to do with LTNs...why can't you take a look at the below and give is your thoughts....what could possibly be the problem...;-)



"Traffic has been rising across Southwark since the end of the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown, and was at 92% of pre-COVID levels in November 2021 at count points in the north of the borough, and above pre-COVID levels on the TfL network near Dulwich" - Southwark Council Dashboard.

Looks like our dear Rockets is so busy spamming the same question over and over again that he doesn't have time to read or even acknowledge the replies.



It's not that we're not brave it's just that our fingers only move so fast, and most of us I suspect are disinclined to repeatedly post the same answer to the spam question because that gets boring and annoying for everyone reading.

Well I've looked Manatee and cannot see your response to Rocket's question, explaining those council figures, despite saying you have? We must all have missed your post.


Indulge us and post your response and explanation for those figures quoted by Rocket again.





ohthehugemanateeLTN3 Wrote:

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

> Looks like our dear Rockets is so busy spamming

> the same question over and over again that he

> doesn't have time to read or even acknowledge the

> replies.

>

>

> It's not that we're not brave it's just that our

> fingers only move so fast, and most of us I

> suspect are disinclined to repeatedly post the

> same answer to the spam question because that gets

> boring and annoying for everyone reading.

Interesting! Several users mass spamming the same questions (and variations thereof) repeatedly is fine by the standards of this forum. Pointing this out and inviting them to go back through the last few pages of their own spam to actually engage with my reply is an insta ban!


Do I suspect a teensy bit of anti LTN bias here?

No bias, at least no more than you or any other average person, just in search of an explanation. So help us out, you seem to know how to make sense of that council statement and figures provided by Rockets. Do tell.


You say you have already posted an answer but none of us can find it? Perhaps it was deleted in error or you thought you had posted but it did not go through? Come on, if you know the answer you posted just cut and paste in reply.


Alternatively, perhaps Rx3 can help you?


Go on, just a few seconds to re-post a reply none of us can find.



ohthehugemanateeLTN4 Wrote:

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

> Interesting! Several users mass spamming the same

> questions (and variations thereof) repeatedly is

> fine by the standards of this forum. Pointing this

> out and inviting them to go back through the last

> few pages of their own spam to actually engage

> with my reply is an insta ban!

>

> Do I suspect a teensy bit of anti LTN bias here?

ohthehugemanateeLTN4 Wrote:

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

> Interesting! Several users mass spamming the same

> questions (and variations thereof) repeatedly is

> fine by the standards of this forum. Pointing this

> out and inviting them to go back through the last

> few pages of their own spam to actually engage

> with my reply is an insta ban!

>

> Do I suspect a teensy bit of anti LTN bias here?


Manatee - that's your 3rd ban isn't it? Whatever you're doing wrong you're doing it repeatedly...admin obviously knows something we don't...


Ex- that is a weird response from the system maybe add East Dulwich to the text?

exdulwicher Wrote:

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

> Maybe I've been part-banned as well...!

>

> Maybe there's a little AI bot reading my

> contributions and going "nah, that's just traffic,

> not East Dulwich".


Lol

Maybe it's like councillors twitter accounts where only people they follow or people mentioned in their tweets can reply...

  • Administrator

It's a hard topic to moderate and we don't always get it right but it does stray off topic a lot. It doesn't help with that ohthehugemanateeLTN being a pain, they keep re-registering with email addresses like:


[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


We understand that trolling is easy fun, especially when you get a reaction to your posts, but maybe look elsewhere for fun because it makes moderating even harder.

Thanks admin? an insight indeed. So not to labour this, there is a quote from Dulwich/E Dulwich Streetspace that the latest TFL data is showing traffic in the ED/ Dulwich area rising to pre-pandemic numbers, which seems to make the other piece of information that traffic has now dropped by 21,000 (not really been given across which dates or exactly where). So apart from my quantum theory, can anyone explain?
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Latest Discussions

    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
    • Aria is my go to plumber. Fixed a toilet leak for me at short notice. Reasonably priced and very professional. 
    • Anyone has a storage or a display rack for Albums LPs drop me a message thanks
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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