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 September 2 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. 

[Rockets]

On 06/09/2025 at 16:56, DulvilleRes said:

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.

I am absolutely 100% in favour of accountability. When you take a step back, take the blinkers off and actually take a look at what they were posting in relation to "Choose a good councillor" someone with a completely impartial eye would say that they approached each candidate and asked them for their views on the LTNs and posted their responses. I don't think you can accuse them of bias as they approached and printed the responses of each one (a couple did not respond in the first instance) - someone with a political agenda for one party doesn't tend to do that. Now, of course, two parties came out and said they would remove the LTNs in Dulwich and that was the Tories and the Lib Dems and it can come as no surprise that a group campaigning for the removal of the LTNS were pleased when two parties said that is what they would do. Honestly @DulvilleRes take the (red) rose tinted glasses off for a second.

P.S. When you alerted me to the Choose a Good Councillor I went to check it on the OneDulwich website and stumbled upon a really interesting analysis piece that they did that I will post in the OneDulwich section that I had not seen before - so thank you for that!

On 06/09/2025 at 16:56, DulvilleRes said:

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?

100% yes that is still my position. You might find it implausible but for you the challenge is that my assertion is 100% true. And you are 100% wrong in your assertion that I am somehow involved in OneDulwich or know the people who are.

On 06/09/2025 at 16:56, DulvilleRes said:

You post One Dulwich press releases, and you are proud that One Dulwich reflects your 'research'. How does that research come to them?

Yes, a number of us post the OneDulwich Campaign Updates. How do we get them? Well, as one of the 2,100 people who signed up to get the campaign updates when we registered to be one of the 2,100 people they get sent to me every time they get sent out. Why should I not be proud that the detective work I am doing, fighting the nonsense narratives a lot of people on here put out, is picked up by a local campaign group? I am pretty sure that someone from OneDulwich probably frequents this forum - sees what we are all arguing about and uses the bits they find useful for their own means - and bravo to them - a community forum helping a community campaign! #powertothepeople

On 06/09/2025 at 16:56, DulvilleRes said:

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

No I may not be a lawyer but your relentless tactic of trying to insinuate I am somehow something to do with OneDulwich is starting to stick amongst some of your peers (and they are starting to repeat it) and that, my good friend, is potentially libellous. I have told you 1000 times - I am nothing to do with OneDulwich nor have any affiliation of any sort to any politicial party and you are repeatedly trying to spread a falsehood about me in many of your posts. I am all for good natured banter but you are repeatedly stepping over a line in a desperate attempt to attack me. The accusation is not true so please stop it.

[Penguin68]

What may be defamatory is not asserting, Rockets, that you are One Dulwich, or know who One Dulwich is, but that you are being duplicitous (lying) when you assert the opposite. To publically accuse someone of lying is defamatory. It is not in fact defamatory, although it may be innacurate, to say that someone belongs to, or supports, a legal political party. Or a legal local action group. 

[DulvilleRes]

Rockets – do us all a favour and apply your famous research skills before you start dishing out serious allegations of defamation. There is no defamation going on. In English law, your allegations don’t even meet the most basic criteria, let alone ancillary protections for public interest debate. I’m not going to get into some fatuous online legal debate with you or anyone else, but you should be doing better than this, so please desist. 

I’ll be giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually don’t know or understand the law, I would hope that it isn’t the case that you are throwing out allegations in an effort to chill scrutiny and debate. 
 

[Rockets]

@DulvilleRes I am definitely no lawyer but I do know your repeated and relentless insinuations/allegations that I am somehow involved in OneDulwich or part of a political party, and that I am lying about that, are crossing a line. I have told you repeatedly I have nothing to do with OneDulwich or any political party. You clearly do not believe that but you should probably stop trying to harm my reputation by repeating it ad nauseam.

I am not trying to chill scrutiny and debate - far from it - I am just trying to stop you from resorting to desperate tactics to try to harm my reputation. So, stop the petty playground stuff and debate but try not to resort to what amounts to childish name-calling.