Southwark to repay 10,000 bus lane fines

[malumbu]

@DulvilleRes  there is a thread about OneDulwich  where I have posted before. https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/344333-one-part-of-dulwich/#comments

 

[first mate]

Getting back on topic, it is worrying that the council have messed up on this one. I also wonder how efficiently and completely the monies will be recovered? Might some of the council's enormous parking surplus be used for this?

Edited Tuesday at 06:27 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Getting back on topic, it is worrying that the council have messed up on this one. I also wonder how efficiently and completely the monies will be recovered? Might some of the council's enormous parking surplus be used for this?

From the article "The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors."

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah I think you need to clarify that it was Cllr McAsh who said that the council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors - so, bearing in mind he is a politician you should probably take that with a pinch of salt as I very much suspect that if the contractors don't think they have done anything wrong then it won't be a simple as getting a refund.

Clearly, until such time as any monies are recovered, then there is a hole in council finances.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sure, let's see what happens. Certainly it sounds as though the council believes the contractors are liable. Time will tell.

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Certainly it sounds as though the council believes the contractors are liable.

Well that is often the starting point for any negotiation! I am intrigued that if this is multiple contractors (as the article and statements suggest) how more than one of them can make the same mistake. Time will, indeed, tell what really went on here.

[first mate]

Pure speculation, but I wonder to what extent Cllr McAsh would care if he made claims that the council cannot meet? Given recent events?

[DulvilleRes]

On 01/09/2025 at 19:22, Rockets said:

On 01/09/2025 at 19:01, DulvilleRes said:

Another question for you - if it were found that One Dulwich was fundamentally run and funded by political activists whose main aim is to get a particular electoral result in the local elections, do you think that put those individuals at risk of breaking electoral law, both in terms of electoral spend and transparency of campaigning?

Well yes of course but do you have any evidence that that is the case or is that just a hunch/wild guess/desperate wish? And you have to be very careful as I think your starting to drag yourself into potentially troublesome defamation territory

Bravo, as you would say! You have actually answered a question. While you are on a roll, why not answer the questions you have been asked for at least a couple of years?

Who are the dominant decision makers in One Dulwich? Are they actively involved in any political grouping - Reform, The Conservatives, or the group that stood on an anti-LTN ticket in the last election? I feel it is unlikely to be Labour. Lib Dems pre pre-election material has started landing, and it makes no reference so far to traffic issues. Reform has committed to rip out the LTN's, and certainly some of the denigrating of experts and disregard for evidence-based facts that have come from some of the anti-LTNers on these threads would have a lot in common with the Reform playbook. Local Conservatives campaigned in the last election virtually solely on local traffic issues. It would be interesting to see how they will come out in the coming months ahead of the May 2026 elections. Is One Dulwich a one-man band, as some posters have suggested? Or is it none of the above? One Dulwich is an expensive operation to run - an extensive website, all those placards - where does the money come from?

You claim you are all about accountability; One Dulwich just before the last local election had a section on their website 'Choose a good councillor', which is quite a politicised step for an organisation that on its website claims to be a broad political church, or even politically agnostic. Rarely a topic from One Dulwich's cheerleaders on these threads goes by without criticising the council and councillors to a degree that feels at times obsessive, yet when it comes to any requests for transparency on their part? Arctic silence. Whatever the truth might be, do you not agree that it is in the public interest to know who is purporting to represent the community, and how it is paid for?

In the past you have claimed you have absolutely no idea who runs or funds One Dulwich. It could be true; I find it implausible. Is that still your position? You have extensive knowledge of the minutiae of local politics which suggests strong political engagement. You post One Dulwich press releases, and you are proud that One Dulwich reflects your 'research'. How does that research come to them? If you really don't know and have no interest in finding out who they are, how are we remotely to take seriously your pronouncements on accountability? 

Defamation? Unless you are attempting to attach a menacing tone to your characteristic blustering, you are clearly not a lawyer.

 

[Penguin68]

35 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

'Choose a good councillor', which is quite a politicised step for an organisation that on its website claims to be a broad political church, or even politically agnostic

I'm sorry? Choose a good councillor appears a very unpolitical view. Another thread makes very clear what a bad councillor looks like, party notwithstanding. A good councillor listens and responds to their constituents. A recent lib dem councillor, sadly missed, and frequently on these pages was very clear that if his constituents' views were different from his, (as they were on traffic issues) those are still  the ones he championed,as an example of a good councillor. And he always responded and promptly.