milk76

Could anybody else affected please send a quick email to [email protected] to report this disco again.

Still thumping

I am very cross to be sitting in my bedroom at 1245am suffering the banging music from another party at the football club. Shutters are open again, nothing has changed.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Milk we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer

> to think that those that did not participate

> should be taken into account (and efforts be made

> to find out why they did not take part on those

> roads that have voted yes) whereas you believe

> they don't count. Either way, before any street is

> considered for a CPZ in isolation, it would be

> wise to have a second, more clear cut consultation

> for those streets and those neighbouring streets

> that would be affected, with work done to up the

> response rate before any final decision is made

> imo.

My disagreement is not that you chose to try to factor in those that did not wish to vote. It is that you chose to represent those non responders as being not in favour of the proposal. If yours is the preferred/less confusing/fairer/more accurate methodology then surely the statement "Of the total number of residents on Derwent Road only 15% are against a CPZ." Is one that you would endorse as the result of the consultation.

I, as a believer in the clearest and straightest interpritation of statistics being presented to the public choose not to present the data in such a woefully biased manner and more, think that stating 62% of Derwent residents on a 40% turnout were in favour of a CPZ was the truest representation of the facts. Equally 57% in favour in the option 5 region and 54% in favour in the option 4 region. I am happy to debate any other methodology of publication of the breakdown of results in these final proposed zones. I am resolute that you simply have some cheek accusing me of publishing confusing figures, in light of yours, and thus call you out as such. It's a public forum and the maths is not hard for others to read.

You just strike me as having a cheek accusing me of spinning data

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That is neither insulting nor patronising but

> fact. Claiming that two thirds are in favour is

> NOT the same as saying two thirds of those WHO

> RESPONDED are in favour.

>

> Both ways of interpreting the results paint a very

> different picture which is my point. You don't

> seem to want to acknowledge that because it

> doesn't serve your view to do so. James it could

> be argued is doing the same. James however does

> not result to patronising or insulting those who

> suggest flaws in his reasoning of the figures.

The difference between the our posts is this. I posted the actual result. You posted, factoring in turnout, so to make it look as though only a minority were actually in favour (26%) of a cpz. This alters the perception of the actual result, that was two to one in favour, dramatically.

Your methodology is not without some merit statistically. However as you could just as accurately have said

Of the total number of residents living on Derwent only 15% have expressed a view against a cpz.

Your post is clearly misleading and to accuse others confusing the data is simply laughable. Or put another way you would look right at home in Tony Blair's spin room circa 2001.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's no need to be patronising milk. If you

> want people to respect your view then it helps to

> respect theirs.

What was the first thing you said about me?

> Milk you are as bad as james for confusing the figures smiling smiley

Practice what you preach.

Peckhamboy

I am pointing out that following the consultation the council have given three area options of CPZ to consider, as listed above, each of which have the majority backing of the residents in those areas.

I took the time to calculate the actual results from each proposed residental block as there are leaflets being thrown around saying that only seven percent of people wanted a cpz. That is simply not true of the residents of any of the proposed zones being contemplated.

DJKQ - I am reporting the straight results of an election. I am sorry if that confuses you.

Let me try and explain how an election works simply for you. An electorate is defined and then they are polled. The votes cast are counted and listed as integers and as a percentage. People who decline to vote are not counted for any party. Your number is the confusing spin. If you wish to present the results as you have then for balance it is just as accurate to say on Derwent only 15% of people voted against having a CPZ. I think that is just crooked sounding, hence my straight figures

James

I have had a look at the detailed numbers from the consultation. I have calculated the percentage of residents and businesses in each of the proposed cpz areas that are in favour.

3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only (62% of residents in favour)

4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54% of residents in favour)

5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel (57% of residents in favour)

Obviously the percentage number in favour is higher if you add in the (what if the neighbouring street had a cpz option) favourables, but i have not done this, so 54, 57 and 62% favourables are the lowest end of the scale. I would not want to be accused of being biased.

This is a clear majority of zone residents and businesses in favour of any one of these options. Interestingly even some of the posters who are very dubious of the benefits of a CPZ are in favour of a trial period. There is just a lack of firm reassurance that it could be reversed if found to be non productive.

The no campaign is going to be very vocal but I would urge you to represent the clear democratic wishes of this Derwent centred area.

So Gsirett you are in favour of a trail CPZ as long as you have absolute reassurance that it will be removed if it fails. That is excellent EXCELLENT news.

The proposals as i understand it are five;

1. No CPZ

2. No CPZ, but make minor changes to roads,lines, removing unused bays, etc to make everybodys life easier

3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only (62% of residents in favour)

4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54% of residents in favour)

5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, Tintagel (57% of residents in favour)

So options three four and five would all be acceptable on a strict trial basis and have the backing of the majority of residents living on those streets (see numbers in brackets).

Lunchtime CPZ will

1. Ruin local businesses

2. Reduce house prices

3. Destroy the local community

Those are your facts are they Gsirett

What a joke. Spin kings!

He is probably the kind of person who is putting up posters saying that if you love East Dulwich you will oppose a CPZ.

Also that it will drop your house price and close all the shops down.

But it is the pro CPZ posters who are spinning things!

Brandnewguy.

I don't and have not advocated universal parking restriction.

As you well can see I was simply addressing Loz's premise. I believe each street should be able to choose for itself democratically. As Derwent clearly has.

Two thirds of Derwent want this.

If you spent any time on this street you would see that it is hell caused by people who park here first thing and leave in the evening. They will be gone. That simple.

The council should respect that clear democratic fact.

Loz

Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime, Monday to Friday. That works just fine. No commuters parking all day and residents will still be able to use their cas to drop off the kids and get the heavy loads of shopping and park back near their own front doors.

Derwent has overwhelmingly clearly voted for this on it.

Two thirds of Derwent are in favour.

The issue was also big enough on the street that twice as many people voted as was the average in the consultation.

That is clear democracy.

Yes to CPZ on Derwent PLEASE.

Make it a trial peroid if there is concern.

Plenty pro on Derwent. Two to one in favour on a forty percent response rate. Please approve the scheme here at least for a trial peroid.

Let's be clear, on Derwent Grove, where the parking problems are currently terrible, twice the average number of votes were cast in the consultation and two to one in favour of parking controls. How much clearer does it need to be.

Give Derwent a cpz at least for a trial peroid PLEASE!

I believe it is called perspective Bob.

I have lived here for sixteen years and was burgled for the first time this summer. We have an alarm that flashes to signify it is active as a deterrent but we stupidly left our back door open overnight. The guy just walked from house to house trying doors and got lucky. It was horrible, and I have nothing but sympathy for all the victims of crime on this thread.

I find it comforting to see what the real odds of being so unfortunate are. If you tell me that there is a fifty fifty chance of being burgled here in London every fourteen years, which can be reduced with simple precautions, I can sleep better.

I just can't get past this fundamental point.

You ask the people who would have the lines in front of their houses if they would like them.

Job done.

I love the democratic indignation on this thread.

Surveying people about whether they would like some parking controls on the pavement outside their own houses. How terrible!

Local Councillor responds to some unhappy people on an internet forum by offering them all the information on how to register their concerns about the issue. Sack him!

Huguenot - Spot on

As i have previously stated, i am generally in favour of a controlled parking scheme around the station.

I think that Some of the fevered no campaigners on this thread would benefit from taking a deep breath and thinking about your behaviour and how you come across to casual readers.

Cllr Barber has helped to set up a democratic consultation in response to multiple unsolicited requests by residents. Some may not think that the form of this consultation is perfect. That is reasonable. It is hard, if not, impossible to write a perfect referendum question. Some may not think that it is fair to give greater power to the opinions of those who will be most directly affected by the proposed scheme. I think on balance the consultation is quite well designed but that is irelevant.

You might not like his posts, his politics, or indeed him. However if you cannot see that he is bending over backwards to facilitate your ability to effectively register your opinions you are simply bonkers. If you have any common sense you would listen to his advice. I call that democratic and more power to you James.

CPZ long overdue.

Yes vote here.

James,

I was walking past the new road narrowing on Grove Vale yesterday and saw what i presume to be the finished work. There are holes and cracks several inches wide and deep in the road surface. It is some of the worst quality resurfacing that i have ever seen. My concern is that if the contractors leave it like this then by the time we get through the winter it will have all fallen apart. I am sure by then it will be too late to get them to repair it as part of their current fee for these works. Could you ask one of the council officers to take a look at the work and see if they think that it is of good enough quality or if contractors need to do a bit better?

Many Thanks

Fusion in ED has always been great value for money.

The greatest shame as mentioned above is that the air conditioning in the gym is so bad. The temperature is regulaly well over 25c in the evenings and one of the trainers said it got to 30c on a busy Friday. This is far too hot for a workout area.