West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's interesting that you think 'the only fact that matters' is that you can name a road which wasn't monitored; ignoring all the ones that were, and dismissing all available data.

@Earl Aelfheah the council's dashboard didn't exatcly give a particularly rosy picture of traffic on a few of those roads it was monitoring before the dashboard abruptly stopped being published....

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

but if you are not monitoring Underhill, which became a major displacement route post-LTNs

You have no evidence that it became a 'major displacement route', by your own account. You claimed there had been massive displacement onto other boundary roads, until the data showed that there wasn't. 

It's telling that you have no data you can point to, except data that doesn't exist (and which to your mind is the only data that matters). Ever feel like perhaps you're looking for a way to prove what you already believe?

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

before the dashboard abruptly stopped being published....

They monitored the roads for a year post implementation I believe. A full year of data to assess and compare pre and post implementation and with traffic pre-covid. What do you want? That they monitor every road indefinitely, so you can pick through it to find something that might prove your pre held belief? Do be serious.

Edited Monday at 15:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's telling that there you have no data you can point to, except data that doesn't exist (and which to your mind is the only data that matters).

Well you know why that is don't you? Because the council refused to monitor Underhilll.......one of the local councillors at the time did say they were asking for it to be monitored after residents complained about the increase in traffic.

Surely even you can agree that Underhill would be a likely displacement route for traffic looking to cut the Grove Tavern corner heading towards the A205? If you remember post-LTN the traffic began tailing back past Court Lane from the Grove Tavern along Lordship Lane so a lot of traffic diverted along Underhill.

[ab29]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Well you know why that is don't you? Because the council refused to monitor Underhilll.......one of the local councillors at the time did say they were asking for it to be monitored after residents complained about the increase in traffic.

Surely even you can agree that Underhill would be a likely displacement route for traffic looking to cut the Grove Tavern corner heading towards the A205? If you remember post-LTN the traffic began tailing back past Court Lane from the Grove Tavern along Lordship Lane so a lot of traffic diverted 

@Rockets but these people do not care. You live on main road you go and die - as long as they can cycle

Edited Monday at 18:58 by ab29

[DulvilleRes]

On 16/05/2025 at 17:31, Rockets said:

Of course it is (well unless Cllr Leeming and his cronies lose their seats at any point...;-)) but that doesn't make it right how the council got to this point. Trust me, if it wasn't something you, clearly, believe passionately in then you would probably have the same issue many of us have about the way the council manipulated the process. I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War Poster and Manic's song: If you tolerate this then your children will be next.....

Be careful what you turn a blind eye to and be pleased that some of us are actually trying to hold those in power accountable for their actions.

Holding power to account? Commendable sentiments. Why don't you now try to find out who funds One Dulwich? Democracy has been nearly destroyed by unaccountable or questionable political funding of various opaque lobby groups and campaigns. One Dulwich is a relatively expensive operation.

Your views and concerns have been consistently closely aligned with One Dulwich, but strangely, when asked, you seem unable to share this information or too incurious to find out. Is your commitment to holding power to account a little one-sided? 

[Spartacus]

@DulvilleRes, you seem very obsessed with who oneDulwich is. 

with such obsession have you not uncovered who is behind it yet? 

If not,  then strange that you seem to want others to do what you haven't 🙂 

[first mate]

So, the majority of those consulted on the various local CPZ'  and LTN' are all actually One Dulwich 'assets'? Why can't the pro lobby just accept that many locals are simply fed up with the endless meddling and profligacy with no mandate. 

Council actions are also contradictory. No point trumpeting your green credentials by closing off and digging up roads to plant trees, if at the same time you are selling off and destroying the local parks, moving in massive HGV,s heavy duty equipment, impacting the health and wellbeing of local residents for weeks and even months on end.

Edited Tuesday at 07:56 by first mate

[alice]

Malumbo could you correct your post above where you say that St Aidan’s does not have access to Forest Hill Road.  Because it does. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

Democracy has been nearly destroyed by unaccountable or questionable political funding of various opaque lobby groups and campaigns. One Dulwich is a relatively expensive operation.

I think this is your hope. I very much suspect that actually the problem you have with OneDulwich is that they are holding the council, and those pulling the council's strings, to account and shining a light on the manipulation that has been in play for some time. There are clearly a group of supporters of the council who hate the fact there is any opposition to these measures and are going out of their way to try and demonise anyone who dares challenge them. And then they claim to have the democratic moral high-ground - it's actually laughable but very reflective of the way some people behave nowadays, happy to scream about supposed shadowy funding sources but no actual argument to the points OneDulwich raise. Clearly OneDulwich is doing a brilliant job.

Let's be honest, if there were no groups like OneDulwich or the West Dulwich Group then none of this would have ever come to light and the council/s would have got away with. It seems some people would be happy if that were the case - I am glad I am on the right side of the democratic process in this case.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The electorate hold the council to account, not opaque lobby groups. You talk about lack of democracy, and the will of a supposed majority to narrow the pavements, remove seating and planting from the square and return it to a queue of idling cars, but I don't believe for one second that it is the wish of most locals. 

Again, it's the electorate who hold the council to account. The electorate decided to vote our councillors back in.

Edited Tuesday at 09:23 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, it's the electorate who hold the council to account. The electorate decided to vote our councillors back in.

But they were not given a mandate to manipulate process and you can't use it as a free pass.

The catch-all of "we have/they have a mandate" is often used by politicians, councils and councillors to cover a multitude of sins and lest we not remind ourselves they, very deliberately, did not dare mention LTNs or any of these plans in their election hustings or materials.....

And I would disagree with you - people hold councils to account during a term. You may be happy to turn a blind eye but be thankful someone is looking out for standing up for parts of the electorate. If some on here had their way there would be no opposition at all and the council would be given free reign to do what they want.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But they were not given a mandate to manipulate process and you can't use it as a free pass.

They haven't manipulated any process. There were challenges at the time, by the unelected, unaccountable 'One Dulwich', which failed. The council were voted back in after the changes were made, by the electorate who's job it is to hold them to account. Just because you don't like a change to road layout made many years ago now, does not mean there is a democratic deficit. 

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The catch-all of "we have/they have a mandate" is often used by politicians, councils and councillors to cover a multitude of sins

Again, you need to read up on our system of representative democracy. Ultimately, the council can make decisions on behalf of the electorate, in areas for which they have been delegated authority. The electorate then hold them accountable for those decisions through regular elections. This is how it works.

Obviously there are regulations and laws to ensure they don't step outside of the powers allocated to them, but there is absolutely zero evidence that Southwark have done this in relation to the Dulwich LTN.

So it really just boils down to a handful of obsessives, who don't like a legitimate decision taken by the council years ago now. This is nothing to do with democracy. And 'One Dulwich' aren't holding anyone to account - under what powers exactly? We don't know who they are, or how they're funded, yet they claim to speak on behalf of the community. 

Dulwich Square is not going to be ripped up and returned to a queue of idling cars. It's not what the majority want, and it's not what the council were elected to do. 

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The electorate hold the council to account, not opaque lobby groups.

Actually that isn't true. Firstly if you can only hold anybody to account in one period of less than a day every three years that isn't, really, holding anyone to account, particularly considering the wide range of different things you might want to hold the body to account for (and, additionally, because you are voting on future promises as well as, or sometimes instead of, past performance) , and secondly because we have a process of law which exactly allows individuals and bodies additionally to call into account the actions of others, including corporate and public bodies. Which happened in Lambeth regarding Brockwell Park and West Dulwich. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:30 by Penguin68

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And 'One Dulwich' aren't holding anyone to account - under what powers exactly?

Under democratic powers for people to have the right to challenge the powers that be. 

You, clearly, think that is a bad thing. That's your prerogative but this notion that somehow once elected a council or government can do whatever they want and the public/electorate/constituents have no democratic recourse is beyond nonsensical.

Just think of all of the scandals that governments would have been happy to sweep under the carpet but people kept fighting to expose their wrong-doings. It's called accountability.

Some clearly want none if it involves a subject/action they are passionate about - that's fine. Some others aren't happy turning a blind eye.

[Earl Aelfheah]

24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

this notion that somehow once elected a council or government can do whatever they want and the public/electorate/constituents have no democratic recourse is beyond nonsensical.

I haven’t said that. They can lobby their councillors, they have recourse to the law where the council step outside of their delegated powers and ultimately they get to vote on whether or not to return them.

All of these rights have been exercised in relation to the Dulwich LTN. The scheme stands and has done for many years. At this point to claim a lack of democratic accountability is just nonsense pedalled by obsessives who cannot accept that they didn’t get their way.

Edited Tuesday at 11:08 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I really do not believe there is evidence to support the notion that everyone that  voted Southwark Labour were doing so because they supported a local LTN and CPZ, to suggest that is misleading, especially when the subject of LTN' and CPZ' were avoided in the manifesto headlines and key messages. In the same way, any of us voting Southwark Labour in were not greenlighting what they are doing with GALA and Peckham Rye.

Edited Tuesday at 11:38 by first mate

[Rockets]

@first mate you're absolutely right because there was zero mention of anything to do with LTNs in any materials distributed by Labour in the run-up to the election - they seemed to be very focused of ensuring that votes were garnered not on local issues but national issues. They were leaning in very heavily on the a vote of us is a vote against the Tories.

And when I read people trying to lean-in on the "it's been in for years, move on" narrative I do laugh to myself because that always seems to be the message of people who know there is something to hide......

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They can lobby their councillors

Yes but you do realise don't you that the consistent accusation against Labour councillors in both Lambeth and Southwark (in relation to Brockwell Park and LTNs etc) is that constituents were left with legal recourse as the only path open to them as the council refused to engage with them - is that co-incidence or, as was presented to the High Court, was there an amount of prejudice applied to those who challenged the councils? I mean there's a huge amount of prejudice on here to anyone who dares challenge the council's way of thinking but if the council are doing it as well that is hardly democratic is it?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

I really do not believe there is evidence to support the notion that everyone that  voted Southwark Labour were doing so because they supported a local LTN and CPZ, to suggest that is misleading

No one is claiming this. But again, you misunderstand how representative democracy works. You vote on who you think is going to best represent you and your interests across a broad range of issues, and they are empowered to do so for a term of office at which point they stand again on their record. You don't get to make decisions directly on every issues - that would be a system of direct democracy. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

- that would be a system of direct democracy. 

Well, that was good enough for Athens, the birthplace of democracy... 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Start a thread in the lounge if you want to discuss changing our democratic system. 

There is no point in criticising our current system for not being something it isn't, and does not pretend to be.

It's one thing to say an elephant makes a poor household pet, another to say it should be a better cat.

By the way, I think you massively overestimate how many people want to see the square ripped out and returned to a queue of idling cars. I suspect the majority of locals would be extremely upset were it ever to happen. Just because there are a number of very loud objectors does not mean they are the majority 

[exdulwicher]

18 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Well, that was good enough for Athens, the birthplace of democracy... 

Well it was only open to adult free males - no women, children or slaves allowed to have a say. So I'm not entirely sure that's the best argument in favour...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Those still obsessed with the square aren't really concerned with our system of democracy of course. Their issue is that they didn't get their own way. If they could change the outcome, they would happily do so even if it was clearly against the wishes of the majority (which I believe it would be).

It's been 5 years and still they want to overturn a decision which was made by our democratically elected representatives, properly, legally and legitimately.

Edited Tuesday at 13:51 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@ Earl, who said "By the way, I think you massively overestimate how many people want to see the square ripped out and returned to a queue of idling cars. I suspect the majority of locals would be extremely upset were it ever to happen. Just because there are a number of very loud objectors does not mean they are the majority"

But, whatever you 'suspect' people may think is just your view, it is not evidenced in any way whatsoever. The consultation indicates a great deal of local dissatisfaction with events leading up to, if not the end result.  You reject the results one way or another, but they are real voices, unlike the other voices you 'suspect' are all in favour ( which, according to the consultation, are in the minority).

[Rockets]

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's been 5 years and still they want to overturn a decision which was made by our democratically elected representatives, properly, legally and legitimately.

Who have repeatedly used consultation mechanisms where you cannot say "no" to their plans.....long live democracy hey!!!! 😉

#makesyouthink

Edited Tuesday at 14:09 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

#makesyouthink

Clearly not. Again, Google 'representative democracy'. 🫠