Rockets

Ha ha ha......we all can see what you do......you do it all the time and your quotation marks get-me-out of-jail card is laughable. I have been very clear why I have a problem with activist researchers being touted as impartial. I, and many other, have a problem with that. You don't. We will never agree. C'est la vie. I just refer you to what @Penguin68 said in the FOI responses thread. Clearly someone who has a lot more experience of research than you or I and someone who clearly knows what they are talking about.....I think that pretty much rests our case for the prosecution!

I didn't use the word corrupt. You said I did. You're putting words into people's mouths again. But the worm is turning and people are finally seeing through the deliberately misleading noise and starting to challenge councils on their plans. I think more LTNs have been blocked, delayed or removed in recent times - why? Because the wider public are increasingly aware of the games the councils, authorities and active travel lobbyists have been playing for years. Remember when people said it was a "small vocal minority" who opposed these changes - well that has obviously changed else councils would not be doing U-turn after U-turn.

But these are numbers the London Assembly has "thrown around" so maybe speak to them. They used it as a catalyst to discuss what was causing the congestion in London and there is a whole thread on the output from that London Assembly meeting so maybe refer to that.

Especially when their careers in their current party come to a grinding halt!

Err, are you saying that the Greens are not a political rival to Labour? Funny how those convictions only come to light when many politicians don't get what they want....do you honestly think that Cllr McAsh would have defected had he been allowed to lead Southwark council? Absolutely 1000% not.

@Sue of course it matters - 100% it matters. He was an elected official who asked the electorate to entrust the running of a local ward to him as a Labour councillor, under Labour's mandate. He also held a senior position within the Labour local leadership team. Suddenly he leaves and jumps to a political rival and gives his previous political party both barrels. This is why many people distrust all politicians and things like this just goes to confirm that.

Ha ha, @ianr maybe I am more sceptical towards politicians than others as my dad insisted I watched Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister and read Private Eye in my younger years! It opened my eyes to politicians and how they will flip flop to suit their own personal goals! One does wonder if Cllr McAsh would have made the same "principled" jump to the Greens if he had not had his Labour career knee-capped by Labour HQ over the leadership of the council.....

Hallelujah! The penny finally drops! And this very much part of the game...get a Dr. of something to do it and the masses will believe it is impartial. The drugs and FMCG industries had a big problem with this in the 2000s....many of them commissioned research from "rent a result" Dr's from Russia who would tell you what you wanted to hear for the right price.

Ah that was it.... When you realise politicians are only ever in it for themselves then everything starts to make sense.

Aren't most marxists radical by default...and he was a self proclaimed marxist on his twitter feed for years but deleted it as I suspect it did not sit well at Labour HQ. The big worry for Labour might be that he takes votes away from them (but not enough for him to win a seat) especially as there may be a significant protest vote against them at the national level as they are making such a pig's ear of things. I suspect though Labour are glad to see the back of him - to say he was a thorn in their side is an understatement and his loss of the leadership of the council was clearly part of the purge Labour has been embarking on to rid itself of some of the far-left lunatic fringe that have blighted them for so long. The Greens of course are willingly take any disaffected far-left Labour rejects in the same way Reform are hovvering up the lunatic elements of the Tories. The fact he went in with both barrels on Labour is hardly surprisingly but wonderfully hypocritical of someone who thought they were about to lead a Labour council. My how politicians flip-flop to suit their own personal agenda. How long before he falls out with the Greens...where to then? Why do I think he had an affiliation with the Greens before he became a Labour councillor? Or did I imagine that?

But you can clearly see which poster is being removed so did that answer your question? And it is all very premeditated as she stops on the first attempt because someone comes in the shop and disturbs her. Not the actions of someone who can claim any impartiality after that and she tarnished every piece of work her name is associated with on LTNs as a result.

You mean when Aldred referred to them as innovative when she was awarded the funding to research them....impartially? See the announcement below and her quote. https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london

Yup, odd behaviour. What do you think?

Where have I said it is "corrupt". This putting words into people's mouths is really becoming a problem isn't it? Just because the council has not measured it does not mean it isn't happening. If you spent much time in Dulwich Village you would see it - but I know you only believe something if the council tells you it is so - and you often repeat it as fact when it actually is not so! I mean, cast your mind back to when there was one mighty fall out between TFL and local councillors, when TFL stated that congestion on Croxted Road was being caused by the Dulwich LTNs. You can't deny that can you? And remember when the LTNs went in and the council having to put a right-turn filer light at the junction of DV and Red Post Hill....why? Because of the congestion being caused by the interventions. Can you counter either of those? And what do you actually think - you know, what is the opinion you have, that is not fed to you by the council or reliant on council supplied data - do you think there is more or less congestion in Dulwich Village post LTNs? I still don't think you have ever actually answered this - you seem to take the view that if there is no data then it can't be happening. And actually, given the subject of this thread do you think the Ryedale closure would have led to more or less congestion on Dunstan's? Clearly not because TFL and the Mayor's office don't fund reports that do not support their stance....but when their funded research does stray into territory they would rather not go to they kill the reports. This is the very definition of activist research - especially when authored by people who are activists and lobbyists themselves. And, to be fair, you have lapped them up because it aligns with your ideology - often repeating stats fed by the council which have been, ahem, selectively plucked by them.

@malumbu what many people, quite rightly, question is whether these activist researchers can be considered impartial. So it's not necessarily because people don't like the results but that the use of public money to get researchers who have publicly lobbied for such measures to mark TFL and the Mayor's Office's homework on such measures seems a little incestuous and a clear conflict of interest. Surely even you can acknowledge that? Then if one of the main authors of said reports is caught behaving in a very non-impartial way by ripping down anti-LTN posters in her local newsagent then it's validating people's concerns - if she can act in such a way (you have to admit it is very odd behaviour) there is no way people can be expected to believe that her personal bias will not be reflected in her research. If it happened in any other walk of life you'd probably be calling it out as a clear conflict of interest - but you are happy to turn a blind-eye based on your own ideology.