Latest One Dulwich update

[first mate]

I don't think you can really describe the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee, chaired by an award winning LCC activist of the year, as truly apolitical? Weren't a number of those committee sessions also attended and supported by incumbent Labour Councillors?

[Rockets]

22 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

Never happened. I've never actually name-checked any individual.

Apologies if I got this wrong but I thought you were naming one person quoted in the media in relation to One Dulwich - apologies if that was someone else. You have thought, more than once, suggested failed Conservative candidates might be the ones behind it.

22 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

The Dulwich Society, as a community-based, well-run apolitical organisation, does publish transparent accounts of who they are and what they are up to.

Is this not the very crux of the issue: parts of The Dulwich Society are no longer apolitical. You started the discussion way back last year by trying to convince everyone that people were trying to hijack the Society EGM/AGM. This peaked interested in what was happening and it seems the transport sub-committee had become massively politicised.

So much so that Dulwich Society had to state that the transport sub-committee did not speak in behalf of DS as they were becoming increasingly vocal about their support for the DV LTN.

Then you look at some of the people now involved in the sub-committee, how they got elected to their positions, the attendance of our local councillors and the responses to your original post from others with knowledge of what had been happening. Marry that with the repeated redaction (at the request of someone) of the name of the sub-committee chair when linking them to their active travel lobbying efforts and it doesn't take a genius to work out what might have been happening here. Some, myself included, think there has been a coordinated political effort to influence the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee to support the council's agenda.

So really you bleating on and on about who is behind OneDulwich pales into insignificance when you start looking in to what has been happening in the supposed "apolitical" Dulwich Society. That's where the real story seems to be.

[Rockets]

The fight back started in Dulwich!

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/dulwich-residents-lead-national-charge-against-unwanted-ltns/

[Spartacus]

Good to see that Richard, from One Dulwich, isn't afraid to provide his name.

LTNs need community support and not just council officials telling communities what they want, after all we elect them and indirectly pay their wages so why shouldn't they listen to their electorate? 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

indirectly

Rather directly, in my view

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

On 09/02/2025 at 18:53, Spartacus said:

Good to see that Richard, from One Dulwich, isn't afraid to provide his name.

Well, he is OneDulwich. There are no members or officers, there is no legal entity or internal rules or funding transparency.

It's weird that Southwark News gives such credence to the claims of someone raging about a minor road closure almost 5 years after it happened. 🥱🥱🥱

[Spartacus]

41 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

 

It's weird that Southwark News gives such credence to the claims of someone raging about a minor road closure almost 5 years after it happened. 🥱🥱🥱

If you feel that the LTN was introduced correctly, is valid and has local support, then you have nothing to fear from closer scrutiny and publicity. But your cry, "5 years after it's happened" dismisses 5 years of concern by residents and makes you sound like you fear additional scrutiny. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Well, he is OneDulwich. There are no members or officers, there is no legal entity or internal rules or funding transparency.

It's weird that Southwark News gives such credence to the claims of someone raging about a minor road closure almost 5 years after it happened. 🥱🥱🥱

100%. Just because he calls himself 'one dulwich' doesn't give him the right to talk on behalf of the wider community. I have no doubt that vast majority would oppose the square being returned to a narrow pavement and a queue of motor vehicles, just so a handful of people can shave a couple of minutes off a short local car journey. 

[first mate]

Even Southwark refer to the Dulwich LTN as not a true LTN, whatever that means. 

I also do not understand the '5 years later' response. If people are unhappy with changes to road and layout then the time that has elapsed since initial changes were introduced is beside the point.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

It's weird that Southwark News gives such credence to the claims of someone raging about a minor road closure almost 5 years after it happened. 🥱🥱🥱

I think what DKHB meant to say was: "How dare Southwark News report on something that I want everyone to forget about". 

 

Bravo to One Dulwich (and Richard Aldwinckle if he is the person behind it - I am sure DulvilleRes is checking to see if they are a Tory) for keeping this in the minds of Dulwich residents and supporting the wider fight against the imposition of these measures against the will of local residents.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

🥱🥱🥱

[Spartacus]

34 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

🥱🥱🥱

Are we keeping you up with worry that finally the council will be held to account ? 

[DulvilleRes]

On 11/02/2025 at 11:19, Rockets said:

Bravo to One Dulwich (and Richard Aldwinckle if he is the person behind it - I am sure DulvilleRes is checking to see if they are a Tory) for keeping this in the minds of Dulwich residents and supporting the wider fight against the imposition of these measures against the will of local residents.

Why don't you yourself check for Tory influence in One Dulwich? According to One Dulwich's mission statement on their website, they are campaigning for transparency and democracy in local issues - surely they would welcome any inquiries from one of their most tireless cheerleaders as to their provenance.

While you are at it, you could ask them who funds them. it is a simple question, which they don't answer, and you seem in no hurry to answer yourself, despite having been asked for months. This has always struck me as a puzzling, and it certainly does provide a little context as to how seriously anyone should take your pronouncements. 

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

Why don't you yourself check for Tory influence in One Dulwich?

Because it really does not concern me in the slightest, you are the one who is utterly obsessed with trying to paint them as some sort of transport wing of the 1922 Committee. I am more concerned with what they are doing to represent the voice of those who do not agree with the way the council is forcing changes onto local residents that the majority do not want. And this is why I think you are trying to tar them as Tories - because you think that will help turn public opinion against them.

Meanwhile rumours abound that local Labour councillors and leading active travel lobbyists infiltrated the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee leading to the Dulwich Society to have to state that the transport sub-committee did not speak for DS and that DS was impartial when it came to the DV junction....are you as concerned about that...I suspect not because that move was to support an agenda you agree with?

[march46]

48 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am more concerned with what they are doing to represent the voice of those who do not agree with the way the council is forcing changes onto local residents that the majority do not want.

Pretty sure you have no idea what the majority want. 

[Rockets]

44 minutes ago, march46 said:

Pretty sure you have no idea what the majority want. 

Well, every time local residents have been polled by the council the majority have made their feelings very clear (and the council ignores them)....do you have anything that contradicts that...if so do please share it with us as you've presented nothing to suggest otherwise?

[first mate]

I totally agree. The consultations have been clearly in the majority, against.

[Rockets]

March46 doesn't like the truth to get in the way of a good story!!!!

[march46]

Presume you’re referring to the majority of a self-selecting sample whipped up by Richard Aldwinkle/One Dulwich to respond to a consultation. This is not the same as ‘the majority of people’. You must accept that?
 

Most people (in fact, the majority) aren’t motivated to respond, which would suggest they don’t have strong views either way. 

[Rockets]

18 minutes ago, march46 said:

Presume you’re referring to the majority of a self-selecting sample whipped up by Richard Aldwinkle/One Dulwich to respond to a consultation. This is not the same as ‘the majority of people’. You must accept that?
 

Ahem, Southwark Cyclists were also whipping up support to respond to a consultation......you seem to have ignored that part....and still every consultation has gone against the council.

19 minutes ago, march46 said:

Most people (in fact, the majority) aren’t motivated to respond, which would suggest they don’t have strong views either way. 

Again, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story....

You're clutching at straws a little bit now. Clearly the weight of evidence suggests there is significant resistance from local residents. The problem is the council just listens to the vocal minority and try to steamroll their ideological plans through...see the tactics employed in the Dulwich Society.

[march46]

Ha ha I’m clutching at straws, you’re the one still fighting against a scheme that was made permanent years ago 😜

[ab29]

No, Rockets is not "the one still fighting against a scheme that was made permanent years ago" - ordinary people like me and my neighbours and my friends and our families are simply fed up

Edited February 13 by ab29

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

Ha ha I’m clutching at straws, you’re the one still fighting against a scheme that was made permanent years ago 😜

Yup, clutching at straws.

Have you heard the saying: time does not heal all wounds.....?

This narrative that somehow just because something happened years ago we should all just live with it is a narrative that people who know there is something to hide like to circulate. 

[Spartacus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/12/labour-council-wellbeing-day-off-ltn-plans/

An update on how the court case is going. If the report on the library consultation is correct, with residents showing anger, then you have to question if their views were taken into consideration or dismissed as an angry mob 🤔

[DulvilleRes]

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

Because it really does not concern me in the slightest, you are the one who is utterly obsessed with trying to paint them as some sort of transport wing of the 1922 Committee. I am more concerned with what they are doing to represent the voice of those who do not agree with the way the council is forcing changes onto local residents that the majority do not want. And this is why I think you are trying to tar them as Tories - because you think that will help turn public opinion against them.

Meanwhile rumours abound that local Labour councillors and leading active travel lobbyists infiltrated the Dulwich Society transport sub-committee leading to the Dulwich Society to have to state that the transport sub-committee did not speak for DS and that DS was impartial when it came to the DV junction....are you as concerned about that...I suspect not because that move was to support an agenda you agree with?

You are fond of the catch phrase 'Power To The People'. I suggest you modify it to 'Power To The People Who Fund One Dulwich, who I have no idea who they are'

Any comparison between the opaque One Dulwich and properly constituted local organisations like Dulwich Society is fatuous.