Southwark to repay 10,000 bus lane fines

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

You are a huge loss to One Dulwich, as the longstanding pattern of your posting would suggest near-perfect alignment.  

Yea and I am more than happy to use any of the gems I unearth from doing some research.

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

As for One Dulwich being 'community led' - where is the evidence of that?

The 1,600 or so emails they say they have from local residents registering their objections to the way the council are handling things.

Let's be honest, if there was no community support I very much suspect they would have given up by now- if you remember at the time a number of groups were set up (for and against) yet only OneDulwich is still here.

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

People have a right to campaign on what they want within the law, but what I find disturbing is there have been a number of clues that local democracy isn't being conducted transparently. 

Are you referring to the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committe by chance?

You haven't declared whether you have links to any local active travel lobby group or political party? Any particular reason for that? I have none, can you say the same?

[malumbu]

You have excluded the email I sent to One Dulwich questioning their position.  Where he/they just gave me some old flannel.  I don't see 1600 as the tip of the iceberg.  Just a vocal minority.  The majority, I expect, are just getting on with things.

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, malumbu said:

The majority, I expect, are just getting on with things.

But still objecting to the council's interventions....per the DV consultation results which were majority against the measures if you remember.

[DulvilleRes]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Are you referring to the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committe by chance?

You haven't declared whether you have links to any local active travel lobby group or political party? Any particular reason for that? I have none, can you say the same?

None at all, apart from just being a regular member of Dulwich Society with zero active role, now or at any time in the past. I do like the newsletters though.

I have noted you seem to be getting me confused with someone else, and what I have found again disturbing is the propensity for the anti - LTN lobby to 'out' people, especially those who aren't politicians, and also especially women. It does feel all of a piece with the general degradation of public discourse - the denigrating of experts and the making stuff up -  which has been driven predominately by the new right. 

One Dulwich 1600 emails - says who? That'll be One Dulwich, so it must be true. Even if it were, the basic question is still being avoided by all involved - who runs them and who funds them? 

[first mate]

Really sneaky, cynical move to trash other posters going on here. Slow handclap for attempts to frame and conflate those who disagree with your views on local road management with the "new right" and the implication that they are also going after women and all part of some shady, secret cabal. As multiple local consultations on various local road management schemes have shown, locals are unhappy with what has/ is being done, without their consent. Remember, in their last manifesto, Southwark Labour promised to put residents at the heart of decisions made about their environment.

 

[ianr]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Remember, in their last manifesto, Southwark Labour promised to put residents at the heart of decisions made about their environment.

Before I start reading it, can you please confirm that this it: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Fairer, Greener, Safer Delivery Plan 2022 to 2026.pdf

It's all right, I think I've found it. https://www.southwarklabour.com/manifesto2022/

 

Edited August 27 by ianr

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

One Dulwich 1600 emails - says who?

Apologies I got that wrong - it's actually 2,100 now.

6 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

It does feel all of a piece with the general degradation of public discourse - the denigrating of experts and the making stuff up -  which has been driven predominately by the new right. 

And there we have it..."the new right". Just because someone challenges or disagrees with you does not make them right-wing - this has become the weak go-to defence for so many - the first resort for those who do not have a rational argument.  If someone dares to disagree with you then demonise them, call them names to accuse them of being something most people don't want to be accused of - that'll surely make them stop. By doing this it really highlights the weakness of those doing it but unfortunately it seems to be the go-to for so many. On a much broader level I actually think this approach is worryingly accelerating the growth of the far-right because people say "well if you think that you must be far-right" and the far-right latch on to that: demonisation often fuels populism.

Nobody 'outed' the chair of the transport sub-committee. In fact, I am sure you read their name in the Dulwich Society newsletter or minutes of their meetings - all of which are published publically. Their involvement as an award winning active travel campaigner was written in numerous media articles. The fact someone didn't want that link to be made on this forum in relation to the Dulwich Society controversy suggests they someone has something to hide, don't you think? 

Edited August 27 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

On 27/08/2025 at 17:40, Rockets said:

Nobody 'outed' the chair of the transport sub-committee. In fact, I am sure you read their name in the Dulwich Society newsletter or minutes of their meetings - all of which are published publically. Their involvement as an award winning active travel campaigner was written in numerous media articles. The fact someone didn't want that link to be made on this forum in relation to the Dulwich Society controversy suggests they someone has something to hide, don't you think? 

And I've got 74,214 emails expressing support for Dulwich Square - it must be true, because I say so.

Re Dulwich Society transport sub committee, all I know is that I was at a large Dulwich Society public meeting where someone who clearly wanted to remain anonymous had their name shouted out, despite her wishes, by a contingent of people with the patina of grim school bullies. I wouldn't blame her for wanting to remain anonymous - there has been a pattern of physical targeting of people who might have a different view to the anti - LTN lobby, so serious that the Police have had to be involved. No such threat has ever existed going the other way.

In this context I would think twice about taking on a role in an open and properly run organisation such as Dulwich Society, where everyone is a volunteer. That itself I find deeply disturbing. Can 'open and properly run' be said for One Dulwich? Does anyone have any clue as to where it's extensive funding comes from? 

[first mate]

But how could the Chair of a sub committee purporting to represent local views and with input to Southwark Council expect to be anonymous?

[Rockets]

I am sorry @DulvilleRes but my hypocrisy radar is at number 12 right now...what were you saying about shadowy, opaque organisations?

Was the chair of the sub-committee asking for anonymity after said sub-committee put out a statement of support for the DV LTN that the Dulwich Society had to correct and state DS was neutral as far as the council's interventions were concerned?

The same sub-committee chair who was the London Cycling Campaign's Active Travel Campaigner of the Year in 2020 and involved in many of the groups lobbying the council for more measures. Some active travel groups actually claim said person has been instrumental in getting the council to roll out such measures? Some might say this was a conflict of interest, would they not, given how DS helps mould Dulwich life and the work they do with the council? A conflict of interest, I hasten to add, that often did not appear on minutes from DS meetings.

 

6 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

And I've got 74,214 emails expressing support for Dulwich Square - it must be true, because I say so.

I think we believe them more than you on that one to be fair! Were you involved in the DV LTN cycle counts per chance.... 😉

[DulvilleRes]

This granular knowledge of the intricate ins and outs of various sub committees suggests a deep engagement in local politics, which does run counter to the 'I'm just a citizen Joe/ Joanna' routine of some of these anti LTN posters. In my opinion makes them look more like highly politicised campaigners. This would be of a piece of that famous Dulwich Society meeting, where a senior local Conservative stood up and accused some of her colleagues of using underhand tactics when it came to local issues. 

I have no issue on anyone campaigning on what they want within the law, but it is the opaque nature, as well as the at times sheer nastiness, of much of the anti LTN campaigning that troubles me. And for people with such granular knowledge of local politics - why not just answer the questions, who runs One Dulwich and who funds them? 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

This granular knowledge of the intricate ins and outs of various sub committees suggests a deep engagement in local politics, which does run counter to the 'I'm just a citizen Joe/ Joanna' routine of some of these anti LTN posters. In my opinion makes them look more like highly politicised campaigners.

So you're not denying any of the things I said then? 

The problem for you is that I am just a citizen with zero link to any political party or OneDulwich...but a local citizen who has bothered to look into what was happening...what is it that they say...knowledge is king and all that....?

The problem is that you bleat on about who runs OneDulwich and this appears to be nothing more than a distraction technique and really it is what has been going on within the Dulwich Society that is actually of far more interest to local people. There is actually far more evidence suggesting parts of DS have become way, way more politicised. Then throw in the links to regional active travel campaign groups, local online active travel lobby groups and local councillors and political parties and it doesn't take a genius to see what has been happening here.

I very much suspect that the demand for anonymity for the DS sub-committee chair is nothing to do with alleged threats and much more to do with some not wanting people to be able to put the pieces of the conflict of interest jigsaw together. But, you know, according to some OneDulwich are the real problem and thing local people should be concerned about......talk about hypocrisy....

Edited Sunday at 07:03 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

The problem for you is that I am just a citizen with zero link to any political party or OneDulwich...but a local citizen who has bothered to look into what was happening...what is it that they say..

..... and yet you consistently peddle misleading and unbalanced narratives that are virtually wholly aligned to the people you say you have no links to. And you post their press releases. I think people will make their own minds up on this one. 

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

..... and yet you consistently peddle misleading and unbalanced narratives that are virtually wholly aligned to the people you say you have no links to.

Only seemingly misleading in the minds of those who think what the council and the active travel lobby peddle is 100% accurate.....

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

And you post their press releases. I think people will make their own minds up on this one. 

And you have a problem with that why? I suspect it is because you don't like what OneDulwich posts and that you would be much happier if there was no spotlight shone on what is really going on and no opposition to the council's measures.

It clearly really annoys some people that groups like OneDulwich are still here reminding people that they don't have to roll-over and accept everything the council forces on them, often, as with the DV LTN, against the will of the vast majority. 

I think this is called democracy in action!

Edited Sunday at 13:27 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

think this is called democracy in action!

Then answer the simple question - who runs One Dulwich and who funds them? 

[Rockets]

You tell us, you're the one utterly obsessed by them.

To many of us they have done nothing to suggest they are anything other than a community-led action group fighting what they see as a council-led injustice - an injustice that the majority of local residents (according to the council's own consultation) also agree to be an injustice.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

Then answer the simple question - who runs One Dulwich and who funds them? 

Does this remotely matter? If they are politically motivated - then so is the council, and they are being funded by all of us whether we want to or not. It's not as if they could be some hidden commercial interest trying to leverage profit. And there would be no point in a political party secretly campaigning - that's not how political parties work. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Either people (including the significant majorities locally who have expressed an opinion when they are able to) are against what the council is doing, or they aren't. There is no reason why anyone, or any group, should not campaign against the council. Or do you believe that if 'the people' suddenly realised that it was Tories behind this (I've no idea) they would suddenly change their minds about their opposition. Most unlikely.

Oh, and what funding do you think 'they' need? As far as I can see the updates are sent out on an e-mail post (i.e. for free). I'm guessing that like most of the voluntary bodies locally (Dulwich Society, Dulwich Arts Society) the officers and committee members (should it be more than a one person band) operate pro-bono - the fees charged members for the Dulwich Society and for Dulwich Arts are for e.g. costs of meetings, printed newsletters and - for the Dulwich Society - funded donations to local causes - there is, on that basis, no regular need for 'funding'. I know it sounds more suspicious to ask who is funding anything, but, other than personal time, I'd suggest that nothing on a day-to-day basis needs funding.

They have, as have other similar protest bodies, asked for funds to take up legal issues, but that funding has been quite clear and transparent as regards the fund raising process. 

[Rockets]

I think questioning the funding source (whether there is a funding source or not) allows some to lean-in on the shadowy-cabal narrative as they try to undermine the work OneDulwich do by alluding to a conspiracy theory.

When you actually look at the OneDulwich page clearly they are against the measures and are the thorn in the side of the local labour party, councillors and council but their content is not particularly political in nature. In fact, ahead of the last local elections they ran an article entitled Where Do Local Candidates Stand on the LTNs: https://www.onedulwich.uk/news/where-do-local-candidates-stand-on-the-dulwich-ltns and they sent the same email to each candidate and then posted their/their party responses.

The only two parties not to respond were the Labour Party and Women's Equality Party. It probably speaks volumes that no-one from the Labour Party responded when responses were posted from the Lib Dems, Tories and Green Party.

Clearly there are those who would really love for One Dulwich to disappear, for the fives years or so since the measures were installed to be enough for people to forget how the council treated their constituents and clearly the "who is behind them and funds them" narrative is a continuation of the demonising of them. But the challenge is that they are clearly here for the long-run and many of us love how they try to hold local councillors, the council and the active-travel lobby to account. I, and many others, think they are providing a tremendous community service but there are clearly some in the community who would much rather they didn't - these are probably the same people as those who screamed about "a small vocal minority" in the early days of the opposition. Such people must look at the results of the DV LTN consultation and weep as it is clearly a "large local majority" who oppose the measures.

I wonder @DulvilleRes have you ever reached out to OneDulwich to ask them to answer your questions - they have a contact page where you can email them?

[malumbu]

I e-mailed them and they gave me a load of waffle back.  As I have posted two times before.  

[Spartacus]

37 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I e-mailed them and they gave me a load of waffle back.  As I have posted two times before.  

Why not post the contents of your email to them and their response, so we can see the waffle ? 

[first mate]

Penguin said :

"Does this remotely matter? If they are politically motivated - then so is the council, and they are being funded by all of us whether we want to or not. It's not as if they could be some hidden commercial interest trying to leverage profit. And there would be no point in a political party secretly campaigning - that's not how political parties work. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Either people (including the significant majorities locally who have expressed an opinion when they are able to) are against what the council is doing, or they aren't. There is no reason why anyone, or any group, should not campaign against the council. Or do you believe that if 'the people' suddenly realised that it was Tories behind this (I've no idea) they would suddenly change their minds about their opposition. Most unlikely."

 

This response clearly illustrates why some who are regularly posting 'what about One Dulwich' in response to criticism of some local road management schemes is cynical delivery of a large, fat, red herring, designed to deflect.

 

[DulvilleRes]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

I wonder @DulvilleRes have you ever reached out to OneDulwich to ask them to answer your questions - they have a contact page where you can email them?

Given that past critics of the anti LTN lobby have been physically targeted by a person/ persons unknown, I am not in a hurry to share my details. For avoidance of doubt, this targeting is a matter of Police record.

It is more than possible that anyone involved or condoning in such acts has nothing to do with One Dulwich, I would hope this to be the case. However, the whole of the One Dulwich operation is shrouded in a degree of opaqueness that does not fill me with full confidence. If they were a properly set up, constituted and accountable organisation, which I think anyone who purports to represent the community at scale should be, it would be a different story. But for me there is just too much that is unknown about them, and having seen first hand the disgusting public behaviour of some who are vexed at traffic issues (are they involved in One Dulwich - who knows?), I am un-inclined to put my head up.  Apart from any physical risk, the naming and pillorying on these threads of individuals, especially people who don't even set themselves up as politicians, by anonymous One Dulwich cheerleaders has been depressing, and reflective of the general degradation of how politics is conducted. 

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?

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

Given that past critics of the anti LTN lobby have been physically targeted by a person/ persons unknown, I am not in a hurry to share my details. For avoidance of doubt, this targeting is a matter of Police record.

Righto, so you haven't bothered to ask OneDulwich any of the pressing questions you have? @malumbu since engaging with One Dulwich have you been physically targeted.....Honestly, @DulvilleRes it's getting ridiculous - you are creating narratives to justify your own blinkeredness and prejudice.

6 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

However, the whole of the One Dulwich operation is shrouded in a degree of opaqueness that does not fill me with full confidence.

But if you haven't bothered to ask them surely it is only your perceived/imagined opaqueness - if you haven't asked the question how can you expect to hear an answer?

8 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

But for me there is just too much that is unknown about them, and having seen first hand the disgusting public behaviour of some who are vexed at traffic issues (are they involved in One Dulwich - who knows?), I am un-inclined to put my head up. 

So you are applying prejudice to anyone involved in OneDulwich and you are presuming they are some sort of anti-LTN violent vigilante? Honestly @DulvilleRes I hope you are an island of one when it comes to this attitude because if everyone tarred groups of people with the same brush due to the actions of one then the world would be a very unsavoury place indeed.

11 minutes ago, 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.

14 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

Apart from any physical risk, the naming and pillorying on these threads of individuals, especially people who don't even set themselves up as politicians, by anonymous One Dulwich cheerleaders has been depressing, and reflective of the general degradation of how politics is conducted. 

But it's ok for you to just make the veiled accusation you just did? Righto.....my hypocrisy radar is at 14 now....

The problem is that, as far as many on here are concerned, you are throwing around baseless accusations hoping desperately that something sticks. Why? Because you don't like the fact there is majority opposition to the measures you so clearly love and I think everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why you are doing this.

Bravo to One Dulwich as they are clearly really upsetting folks like your good self by exposing the hypocrisy of those who support the measures!

 

[CPR Dave]

How much of the, no doubt enormous,  cost of this almighty fuck up is going to be passed on to residents through egregious rises in council and property taxes?