West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets I hate to push this point: You said you don't want to reverse any of the schemes you've spent half a decade railing against; You just want to see people held accountable, censured, and / or disciplined - both councillors and their 'supporters, cheerleaders, and 'fan-bois'. Surely you can specify who you want punished, and how?

Edited Tuesday at 15:35 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah it is not for me to determine what censure there should be for councillors who have misled their constituents - the issue of course is that there will likely never be any accountability as politicians of all persuasions tend to close ranks - especially those on the left of the party who like nothing more to refer to each other as "comrade".... Maybe I should throw the question back to you - do you feel there should be any accountability -  don't you feel a little played that they selectively fed you the "55% majority support stat" for the Dulwich LTNs that you have been using only to find out it was utterly misleading and the polar opposite of the reality? Doesn't that frustrate you - do you still trust them?

I know it is a different borough but do you think there should be some sort of censure against the councillors in Lambeth who wasted huge amounts of tax-payers money on the unlawful LTN and decided to waste even more tax-payers money fighting it in the High Court? Or should people have to wait until the next election? 

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The road wasn't narrowed to accommodate a cycle lane. How many times does this have to be explained. The road was narrowed to slow traffic. The cycle lane was simply a design choice, enabled by the narrowing of the road. The choices were effectively to narrow the road and not have a bike lane, or to narrow it and include a bike lane.

Sydenham Hill had 20mph and speed cameras long before the road narrowing proposal. It just does not add up. Your rationale seems another sleight of hand to avoid admitting the road was narrowed to install a cycle lane (at some expense, no doubt) and for which there is no evidence base for usage, other than anecdotal -some saying they use it, others they never or rarely see it being used. 
 

BTW I was not implying this was your sleight of hand, I am aware how the council framed it all, but with 20mph and speed cameras already in place, it raises questions. It seems a big part of the case in favour was incidents involving cyclists and a point about some drivers getting frustrated- narrowing the road without a cycle lane would surely increase the risk to any cyclist as some drivers would be even more frustrated.
 

Edited Tuesday at 16:05 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

it is not for me to determine what censure there should be for councillors who have misled their constituents

So the culmination of half a decade of railing against (almost any) changes to local streets is that:

1. you don't want to reverse anything.
2. You do want to see people held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - both councillors and their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois', (but you can't say who, for what, or how?)

🫠

… and you’ll never give up on this important yet incredibly vague mission 🤣

Edited Tuesday at 16:23 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah it's clearly much broader than that. I am just glad that I am sanguine enough to question what happened and try to hold our elected officials accountable and not lap up and regurgitate their misinformation (why does that create an image of George Galloway and Rula Lenska!).

Time will tell whether anyone is held accountable. The West Dulwich High Court case has shone a bright light on how councils mislead their constituents and manipulate these consultations. If nothing else comes of it councils will probably ensure that they follow proper process and I suspect that will mean many fewer active travel interventions that are not supported by local residents.

I am sure you'll agree that is not a great outcome but you'll probably try to blame our side for that as well rather than holding the council accountable! 😉

[Sue]

13 hours ago, jazzer said:

I'm on Sydenham Hill when I need to be, depends what I'm doing.

 

So because you  have (you say) never seen a cyclist on the odd occasions you are on Sydenham Hill, therefore the cycle lane is never used?

You wouldn't pass any exams in logic, would you? 🤣

[jazzer]

No its not on odd occasions, its whenever I go along there I see no cyclists and none also in the cycle lane. Pls don't attempt to twist words, its unbecoming to try and do so. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 hours ago, jazzer said:

No one uses the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill

No one is twisting your words.

You said no one uses the cycle lane, because you haven’t seen it.

Edited Tuesday at 20:33 by Earl Aelfheah

[Sue]

4 minutes ago, jazzer said:

No its not on odd occasions, its whenever I go along there I see no cyclists and none also in the cycle lane. Pls don't attempt to twist words, its unbecoming to try and do so. 

I haven't "attempted" to twist words.

Nor have I actually twisted words  🤣

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

The West Dulwich High Court case has shone a bright light on how councils mislead their constituents

Again, just innuendo. There is no evidence that Southwark have behaved unlawfully. They have not.

You say you want to see people held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - both councillors and their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois', but won’t say who you’re talking about exactly, how, or why. It’s just ridiculous.

Edited Tuesday at 20:37 by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No one is twisting your words.

You said no one uses the cycle lane, because you haven’t seen it.

I have never seen one single cyclist use it, Full stop, end, comprendo. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, just innuendo. There is no evidence that Southwark have behaved unlawfully. They have not.

Do you actually ever read the posts you respond to, you seem to be uniquely capable to conflate and mislead by twisting what was posted….it’s a remarkable skill!? The way Lambeth behaved in the consultation did not meet the high bar to be considered unlawful but it did come in for criticism which I outlined some time ago on this thread. Maybe go back, read it and then compare Lambeth’s behaviour to Southwark in regard to consultations….striking similarities….coincidence…or shared approach to get their way.?

Even in the way they mislead members of the public by presenting data that was deliberately misleading….like your 55% majority support fantasy statement that you shared, incorrectly and misleadingly (perhaps knowingly mischievously), from the council. You see how easy it is to be manipulated if you don’t bother doing any research - most members of the public don’t - it’s why spin is so effective because it allows you to hide and bury the real story which is far more damaging because people don’t educate themselves? It’s fascinating the similarities between Lambeth and Southwark’s behaviour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

striking similarities….coincidence…or shared approach to get their way.?

Yeah, you’re right, this is definitely not a perfect example of innuendo 

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

like your 55% majority support fantasy statement that you shared

The graph you shared to refute that number… what’s the source? Oh yeah, it’s from the report Southwark produced. So determined are they to mislead and cover things up that you’re quoting the report they published to prove it! 🤣

I can’t really be bothered going through this again, but i know exactly what the figure of 55% relates to. If you read my original post I lay it out in detail. The majority supported the aims of the scheme. Alongside surveys to understand people's views on initial changes already implemented under an emergency traffic order (in response to COVID-19), they also considered an in-depth monitoring report that included traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling. The council concluded the scheme was largely achieving the aims that people said they supported. And changes to the scheme were made based on feedback received from the public in the consultation. The decision was made perfectly properly taking account of all of the inputs. But you know all this.

The fact is, that there is nothing undemocratic, unlawful, or improper about how a small change to the junction of Calton Avenue and Dulwich Village was made half a decade ago now. Yet you continue to imply there has been some sort of conspiracy, and call for people to be held 'accountable', 'censured', and / or 'disciplined' - not just unspecified councillors but also their 'supporters', 'cheerleaders', and 'fan-bois', whilst complaining of ‘fascistic Trumpian’ behaviour.

Is it possible that you have got things a little out of perspective?

Edited Wednesday at 06:16 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah Clever use of words; you are rather good at obfuscation.

The fact is the majority did not support the Dulwich Village LTN or CPZ; they opposed it. The consultation is the closest thing we have to decide what locals wanted in regard to those specific interventions. Whether or not a majority of locals supported the 'aims' of the Streets for People Strategy, it is clear they did not support the imposed interventions meant to realise those aims.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are two main reasons this issue keeps dragging on:

1. A fundamental misunderstanding (or ignorance) of how local democracy works and the purpose of consultation.
2. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what some individuals wanted.

Southwark spent considerable time consulting, commissioning independent reports, gathering expert advice, and publishing data. The decision was clearly informed by a wide range of inputs.

The criticism boils down to either thinking the council made the “wrong” decision, or believing it should have gone to a referendum. Both views are misguided. The council’s duty isn’t to make the “right” decision (which is subjective), but to make a reasonable one based on due process. They did that.

Whether a few outspoken individuals disagree is irrelevant - they aren’t elected, they’re not accountable, and their personal certainty doesn’t override the democratic process.

No rational person believes this was an unreasonable decision (i.e. outside the band of potentially reasonable responses). And no one seriously wants every local issue settled by divisive referenda. So it just boils down to not having got their preferred outcome.

There isn’t corruption, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s just a handful of people unable to accept a decision they don’t like… prolonging the argument over a minor inconvenience for years, as if they’re leading some noble resistance. They’re not.

Edited Wednesday at 13:18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The graph you shared to refute that number… what’s the source? Oh yeah, it’s from the report Southwark produced. So determined are they to mislead and cover things up that you’re quoting the report they published to prove it! 🤣

@Earl Aelfheah but you chose not to use that did you - why? Because the council had spoon-fed people that there was support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55% stat - out of interest where did you read that stat - was it in the report that then (on page 18) referenced the opposition? One presumes you had not seen the actual opposition detail (or chosen to ignore it) when you made the claim for support for the Dulwich LTN based on the 55%.

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I can’t really be bothered going through this again, but i know exactly what the figure of 55% relates to. If you read my original post I lay it out in detail. The majority supported the aims of the scheme. 

Of course you can't because the figure you were touting as "proof" of support for the LTN was nothing of the sort but was presented by the council as such and repeated it.

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Is it possible that you have got things a little out of perspective?

Absolutely not. I am not the one trying to convince people that there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN based on misleading and erroneous data. I actually bothered to look at the detail the council didn't spoon-feed people.....so my perspective on this is based on actual data from responses and not on spin or wishful thinking.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There isn’t corruption, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s just a handful of people unable to accept a decision they don’t like… prolonging the argument over a minor inconvenience for years, as if they’re leading some noble resistance. They’re not.

To be fair - you keep posting misleading and incorrect information which was have to correct so you have a role in prolonging this too.......;-)

Time will tell if this is a noble resistance or not but the fact people are still talking about it suggests the efforts are worth it - and there's an election coming up soon so, per you, surely it is important to remind people of things councillors have done so they can be judged at the ballot box as there is no other form of accountability.....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Time did tell. Five years passed. Elections took place. 

The reason a handful of people are still talking about it, is that they didn’t like a decision that was taken (taken quite legitimately). That’s it. 

Ongoing talk about fascism, conspiracy and wanting punishments for those who support a different view, is not evidence of a righteous cause. It’s evidence, imo, of an unhealthy fixation .

Edited Wednesday at 12:19 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whether a few outspoken individuals disagree is irrelevant - they aren’t elected, they’re not accountable, and their personal certainty doesn’t override the democratic process.

The consultation and various surveys are the only tools we have to identify the level of local support for the LTN and CPZ.

You refer to 'majority' support for the 'aims' of the Streets for People agenda, and seem very happy to cite that as a valid indicator, but then reject the LTN and CPZ consultation majority against?

Remember also that in their manifesto, Southwark Labour made a big deal of putting residents at the heart of decision making about the design and changes to their area. This was a pledge, a promise. Instead, it feels more like 'we hear you, but we do not agree, this is what we think should happen, so suck it up.

Edited Wednesday at 12:08 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

You're just illustrating the point:

1. A fundamental misunderstanding (or ignorance) of how local democracy works and the purpose of consultation.
2. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what some individuals wanted.

[Rockets]

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

You refer to 'majority' support for the 'aims' of the Streets for People agenda, and seem very happy to cite that as a valid indicator, but then reject the LTN and CPZ consultation majority against?

This is exactly the issue and such a familiar pattern. People parrot the council narrative and say "look, look you have no argument because the majority supported the LTN", then someone points out that is utter tosh and cite a different stat from the same report and we hear...."time to move on"...this is why people draw parallels with the fascist Trumpian regime and their tactics based on lies, misinformation and distraction.

The bottom-line remains that there are some who do not want any accountability because they are happy with the current status-quo and I can guarantee that if it wasn't an issue they supported they would be out in force demanding accountability. It's blinkered hypocrisy and aptly demonstrates why so many people have such an issue with the way many on the pro- side behave - defending the indefensible and happy to turn a blind eye.

[Earl Aelfheah]

No. The problem is that you still refuse to differentiate between a consultation exercise and a referendum. The former informs a decision, it doesn’t determine it. A majority did support the aims of the scheme. They objected to all manner of details. But ultimately it’s not a popular vote. Elected representatives have to consider different (and often contradictory) views / feedback, and weigh it against all the other evidence available to them (in-depth monitoring of traffic volumes, cyclist volumes, pedestrian activity, bus journey times and air quality modelling), as well as the policy agenda on which they were elected.

It’s their job to make a decision and they’re held accountable for those decisions at the ballot box.

Again, you’re illustrating my point. Your anger just comes from:

1. A fundamental misunderstanding (or wilful ignorance) of how local representative democracy works and the purpose of consultation.
2. Disappointment that the outcome wasn’t what you wanted.

The inability to accept a decision that you disagree with, though made entirely legitimately, and talk of fascism, conspiracy and punishments for those who support a different view, is just very childish.

Edited Wednesday at 12:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah "A majority did support the aims of the scheme".

What are you basing that on, the same majority that rejected the LTN and CPZ?

Southwark Labour were voted in on an election/manifesto promise and pledge they would put residents at the heart of decision making on design and changes to their locale...outright rejection of a majority view on LTN and CPZ conflicts with that pledge.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 13:01 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Read the consultation report. But again, you’re focussing on that as if it might be determinative in any way to the legitimacy of the decision. It’s not. You and Rocks are still trying to pretend that there was some sort of referendum. 

[first mate]

The consultation showed a majority against LTN and CPZ. The consultation was launched by an administration that made an election pledge to put local residents at the heart of decisions that affected them, especially on design and changes to their area. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

So don’t vote for them