Rockets

Then there is this of course... On 13/06/2025 at 11:59, Rockets said: I am sorry, for which consultations was there "majority support"? To which Earl responded.... On Dulwich LTN - Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative. Doh!

The pattern of the plethora of incidents of this happening locally. It's part of the criminals' MO.

Almost exclusively women, normally around schools during drop and pick times. If any man approaches they tend to speed off. They're cowards.

Someone has tried to kneecap his political career.

Oh yes you did - its a bit early for pantomime season. Honestly, the pack hunting from the usual suspects is so predictable. I have been more than clear what I was questioning yet some, who claim to have read the report, cannot help clarify and then try to weaponise the very fast I dared ask a question. Is it any wonder people dislike so much about the active travel lobby.

Yes @Earl Aelfheah glad you're finally admitting your "majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN" was demonstrably untrue

@Earl Aelfheah enlightening and quite entertaining now too.... Feel free to share the answers to my questions from the paper you have a copy of whenever you're ready! 😉 In all seriousness I am going to be the grown-up and call time on this particular strand of the discussion as it has all become a little odd and slightly concerning.

Honestly @Earl Aelfheah the hole you are digging is getting deeper and deeper but carry on, it's very enlightening.

Of course else you would not have been arguing with me about it for the last 10 posts. Honestly @Earl Aelfheah so predictable, so transparent....my goodness me. Enjoy reading the paper ;-).

Not necessarily...there has been a big increase in these types of scam around Townley, Dovercourt etc and all of the double yellows were extended by the council recently and no-one parks there now.

Where do I ever claim I had? I have been very clear from where my questions came from. You seem to be trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist. You seem more interested in trying to have a go at me for not reading it than actually sharing details from a paper you caim you have read. Are we to presume then that you don't actually have a copy of the paper after all? I have answered that already and you are clearly using this to deflect....come on, share with us the info from the paper.....

I just explained what my questions were in relation to and I didn't have to have a full copy of it to pose those questions. So if you have the report, do you subscribe to the BMJ then, maybe try to answer the questions, I am kind of surprised you haven't yet, they are quite simple questions (if you have a copy of the report) and you could have saved us a lot of time? Maybe enlighten us or people may think you dont actually have a copy after all....;-) You very clearly tried to claim majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN on the strategic intent question in the consultation didn't you? When in the consultation there was overwhelming opposition to the LTN with the majority asking for it to be returned to its original state. You also told us that accountability for councillors lay at the ballot box - or words to that effect.

So you read the full paper then? Did you buy it? This was why I was asking the questions I did because from the two articles Peter Walker I was interested in the differences between the numbers of LTNs surveyed and the fact CrashMap for Dulwich Village (which is typical of modern LTNs) showed numbers that didn't tally with the big numbers shared in the report so I wondered whether the increase in surveyed LTNs was a bit of statistical and methodology jiggery pokery to get a big headline - would something like that come up in a "peer review"? Seeing as you have the report can you tell us whether they address the large number of LTNs surveyed and whether they were all post-Covid implementations? I know you are very data led and love nothing more than to hide behind STATS19 (which we know do not show the whole picture) and it is interesting that a few months ago Simon Monk was telling everyone the stats on floating bus stops (no doubt done by an activist research group) showed they were safe. Yet a few months later the government has banned any others being installed. Makes you think doesn't it? I mean what do you think is behind that, surely the government has access to the stats. I have previously shared data on the increasing crime rate in Dulwich Village as a whole but the PCSO was the one who said crime was increasing due to the road closures. Go speak to them about it but it is clear what they said. They also talked about the types of crime that were being enabled by the closures. I am sure you know people who live in the LTN area so maybe ask them about the problems I am sure they will validate what the PCSO said about the types of crime that are very visibly, to those who live in the area, increasing. P.S. the other menace in the area of speeding bikes down Calton some of the local residents have taken to screaming at cyclists to slow down - people are getting fed up with it. Tell me what you think you said in relation to both claims I attributed to you. In fairness plenty of unanswered questions about how the council and elements of the Dulwich Society Travel and Environment subcommittee have behaved too.....;-) You forgot to mention that bit.

Looks like change is starting slowly..the government seems to be switching on to some of the problems. BBC News - Pause on new 'floating' bus stops welcomed by campaigners - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm20x7lk83vo

You haven't answered the question @exdulwicher...nice bridging....have you ever done media training? 😉 For balance and impartiality I think what you meant to say was... We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned, supposedly impartial, researchers who have been caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in their local shop, funded peer-reviewed activist research published in journals and award winning cycle-lobbyist journalists who write selectively plucked and focused pieces celebrating the success of LTNs as "exclusives " which, according to some are not allowed to be published as "exclusives". There go, a balanced assessment.....;-)

@DulvilleRes to be fair it was @Earl Aelfheah should said the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable.... You're just annoyed because PCSOs are telling people that crime is increasing due to the road closures and that there isn't 55% of majority support for the DV LTN. P.S. I did share with you my thoughts on the Goodman research and you provided nothing in the way of an explanation. Come on @exdulwicher if you do work in this area you know perfectly well that STATS19 is skewed to the most serious road accidents and that there is no accurate way, currently, of measuring lone cycle or cycle vs pedestrian injuries. The real issue here is that years after the measures went in people are still talking about them, how they came to be here and their impact. Some of you hate that and really wish people would just forget about it and live with the status quo. There is a real nastiness to the tone and behaviour of many of the pro posters on here which is very telling and why so many people want to fight against these measures. So keep going folks you're doing your cause the world of good! 😉

Was it the two proxy votes that had swung it for Cllr McAsh in the first round? Interesting that he lost by two votes in the second. One wonders what the next move for Cllr McAsh is and whether the infighting will continue between the various factions within Southwark Labour?

Ha ha, @Earl Aelfheah unlike your "55% majority support for Dulwich Village LTN" the info I shared is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! You might not like it but the PCSO was very clear.

Again, you are utterly misunderstanding the concept of an exclusive. An exclusive is you have published it before anyone else - it's the first thing they teach you as a cub-reporter - go find me "exclusives", get me something before anyone else has it. You cannot take a press release or information that has been distributed over the wire or to a host of others at the same time and claim it is an "exclusive". A sub-editor will only ever attach the exclusive tagline to it if you are sure you have it before anyone else. So back to journalism school for you all....you are all wrong. Very, very wrong. And crash map is only derived from STATS19 data isn't it? No hospital data is included in that. And is this not why hospitals are often the first to talk about a problem with new modes of transport (like e-scooters) because they see the trends before anyone else. And this is also why there are calls for a more granular method to report vehicular accidents as many cycle accidents and cycle accidents that cause injury to others do not result in the police being called so are never "reported". It's why hospitals are worried about the increase in "self-induced" Lime bike lower extremity injuries due to the weight of Lime bikes as they happen and only an ambulance is called.

But @Shaggy do you see anything that is the catalyst for people to opine on cyclists? As a cyclist I do. Every day. At every junction and every red light and what I see is reflected in the Lime research that there is an epidemic of a problem with cyclists ignoring the rules of the road.

@snowy you're getting yourself into a right pickle now and seemingly pulling from the "putting words into people's mouths" playbook used by some of your cohort on here in your attempt to divert from the potential own goal you flagged. I did not mention leaks - you did. I was talking about the Guardian's claim of an "exclusive". You then said that Westminster are not able to give "exclusives". Yet the Guardian is claiming one. Hmmmmm...what is going on here? I think you may have just opened a can of worms.....

No, you're the only person who has mentioned a leak. I am asking whether it was an "exclusive" as claimed or not. Because it can only be an exclusive if no-one else had it at the time of its release.....and even a Google search presents this when referring to exclusives in the Guardian: In The Guardian's context, specifically referring to the publication, an "exclusive" refers to a story, article, or piece of information that is published by The Guardian but not by any other major news organisation or publication at the time of its release. But I am not wrong about the definition of an "exclusive". You are. And then you suggest an "exclusive" would put Westminster's funding at risk....yet it is flagged as exactly that - if you're right that's a mighty big hole you're digging for them.........

So why did the Guardian flag it as an "exclusive" then.....? Every article Peter Walker has written in relation to Westminster?ALdred/Goodman reports has been flagged as an "exclusive". So are you suggesting that Peter Walker has put Westminster's funding at risk because of that because by doing so he is alerting people to the fact that he got this information before anyone else and you say Westminster's is banned from doing that? Oooh...the plot thickens.... Apparently Peter Walker occasionally views local forums to see if anyone has perjured him so maybe if he sees this he can confirm.... P.S. It's still flagged as an exclusive... Do we know how they determined whether a road was in or around an LTN - for example Dulwich Village (the road) is that in or around an LTN? Do you have a copy as it is behind the BMJ paywall. @Earl Aelfheah when you look at CrashMap does what you see reported by STATS19 tally to the averaged out reduction in injuries - that's what triggered my question because the big claims of numbers of deaths and injuries being reduced did not tally with the data reported by CrashMap on, what I consider to be, a very typical post-Covid LTN implementation. Also, do you think the discrepancy between the 2021 and 2025 total number of LTN's reviewed by Goodman et all is based on post-Covid LTNs or ones that were installed before Covid?

Who said anything about it being sent to them by the BMJ? The discussion about an exclusive could just have easily come from the authors of the report...... You may claim to know a thing or two about the BMJ but you clearly don't know much about the inner workings of the media, publicity and amplification business..... Did you look up the definition of a "media exclusive"....what did it say.......? Well come on then - explain what the methodology means to make it coherent for me......I am all ears.... But what does it mean - can you work it what it means in terms of how they constructed the model they used to come up with the numbers that made the headlines?

Politics is a nasty business and very vindictive at times - especially when internal party politics are concerned. Perhaps this is revenge for the leadership challenge and was being served cold. I do hope Cllr McAsh has understanding employers and can get his job back if that part of the story is true.