Rockets

So should it say then that the area around the street is safe or unsafe. I am not entirely sure the website is flawed, just that some of you dont like the conclusions it comes to about certain streets. It's hilarious to see where this has gone since people started questioning whether a PCSO had said what they said to me. Bottom line remains that there is increasing rates of certain types of crime in and around the LTN, so much so that a website refers to some of the streets as unsafe or even dangerous. People I speak to locally, who do not have a vested interest in the LTN one way or another, are concerned about growing rates of crime. And just because some of the usual suspect lobbyists on here try to convince us that is not the case doesn't mean it is not an issue.

Errr? Which factual error is that exactly? I shared the data I found from the police website about recorded crimes in Dulwich Village and then shared the data I found on recorded crimes on Calton Avenue from the website @Earl Aelfheah shared. Some of you are trying yourselves in knots - it's hilarious.

Errr, hang on one minute. You realise it was @Earl Aelfheah who shared the link from which that data was shared right? I am not sure how I am wearing it when this was posted by someone else as a form of rebuttal to my data? It's laughable how you are trying to pin what theu shared on me. Ha ha but a good enough barometer for Sadiq Khan to use....as he did yesterday. Which, anyone who is taking a closer look also puts what is happening on Calton into sharp focus. Honestly, some of you accuse me of trying to mislead and present erroneous facts yet it is some of you who are desperately trying to smoke screen what is actually going on. What are you scared of? Accountability perhaps? The laughable thing is that some accuse me of behaving in an embarrassing way. If only they took a look at themselves in the mirror. Rest assured as far as they are concerned everything is awesome and there is not even a single slight negative to anything the active travel lobby has ever put in place. Ever. And anyone who dare suggests there may be is a far right, petrol head Reform voter who is clearly doing it for political reasons. Ha ha, two thirds of those are within LTNs....can anyone see what they were rated before the LTNs went in? Yipee. I am sure anyone who has experienced theft from person in the Calton area is utterly rejoicing at this. Honestly, talk about selective plucking... But hang on @Earl Aelfheah shared this. Does this put you at odds with them, I thought you were on the same side as them? @Earl Aelfheah can you confirm in what context you shared that website and whether you validated the content within when you.shared it?

It does and this is what triggered all this because that street level data was being used to defend against my accusation that certain types of crime have increased in the Dulwich Village area. And lo and behold the website summarises it on a street postcode by postcode level and shows that certain types of crime are, in fact, increasing to the highest levels since the records have been kept. I suspect this is because the data is being collated on a postcode by postcode basis.

Ah so are you finally agreeing that it does say what it says then! Thank goodness for that. You took your time. Are the trends in theft from person over the last 5 years not enough either then? How far do you want to go back then because that category of crime is higher than at any (recorded) point previously.

The actual data does show certain types of crime have been rising on Calton though doesn't it!? The StreetData site that @Earl Aelfheah shared is fascinating and the data and narrative applied to it by StreetData is there for all to see...despite what the usual suspect lobbyists try to claim. They are the ones trying to mislead people not me - one can only wonder why. The argument that StreetData does not say what it says is beyond ludicrous. Denial is reaching epic proportions! If anyone from OneDulwich does take time to look at StreetData there is a press release in the making - perhaps they will give @Earl Aelfheah the credit for sharing it on this forum! 😉

Active travel lobbyists always default to the two-tonne SUV narrative.....they think it adds weight to their argument but all it does is make them look a bit obsessive and out of touch with the reality of car ownership - remember the whole argument on here about how some lobbyists were classifying some small cars as SUVs to create the impression there was a massive problem with huge tank-like vehicles on our roads. Speaking of which whatever did happen to RaptorTruckMan - did the person behind that account get bored of their double-posting life!!! 😉

Again @snowy are you saying the report @Earl Aelfheah linked to is wrong then? It's pretty clear what is says - I have made it larger for you all as some seem to be having problems acknowledging what is written in the report. It's very easy to find, follow this link (https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode/se21-7de) then scroll down to "Safety" and then "Affluence" and the statements will appear for you. Notice how the Safety element refers to "this street can be considered not safe" - not this area or this borough but "this street". And there is nothing to suggest the deprivation score is anything other than for Calton Avenue and within that the Crime Domain is 7/10 - above average. The next section follows to talk about Average house prices on Calton Avenue. After that comes employment (in the Calton Avenue area) - this is the report and scores for Calton Avenue. I think you're all desperately trying to deflect away from what is printed in the report that @Earl Aelfheah shared with us.

I am wrong or the Calton Avenue StreetScan summary is wrong? It's pretty clear what it says on StreetScan is it not? Do you have an argument to put forward to the reference to Calton Avenue as "not safe" too....? I presume that is confirmation bias too? These quotes are being taken, very much in context, from a report you shared so I presume you validate this as you shared it? It seems a bit odd that you are trying to argue that black is white over a report you shared and anyone can see the information for themselves. You seem to be getting yourself into a right muddle over this. One minute saying it's proof I am wrong the next arguing that elements of the report are wrong. Which one is it?

No I am sharing data that's there in black and white from a report you linked to. Here is the title page for the Calton Avenue page (note how safety is also two out of five stars): Then you scroll down to Deprivation and this is what you see - I have highlighted the 7/10 element. That is referring to Calton - there is no reference to anywhere else (I suspect this is why the Safety overview is two of five stars for Calton). It's there in black and white. I cannot make it any clearer.

@Earl Aelfheah I am not shovelling anything - that comes from the report you shared with everyone to supposedly show how wrong I was. Do you agree now that it says Calton Avenue is "not safe" according to the report you shared? Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention Also where are you finding the 3/10 as when you go to the Calton Page and scroll down two sections below to the Deprivation section within the Affluence sub-head it clearly says the following: https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode/se21-7de Crime Domain - 7/10 (above average ) The Crime Domain measures the risk of people and property being victims of crime in a local area. There is only reference to Calton Avenue on that page.

Ha ha....we see what you're doing - so predictable! Nice try at deflection....but it does refer to Calton Avenue as "not safe" and that the "Crime Domain" is 7/10 with an above average risk of crime doesn't it? Come on, admit it does! I would suggest you properly read the materials you are sharing to everyone in future.....;-)

@Earl Aelfheah you owe me an apology..... Pasted below is a screenshot from the very website you shared with everyone. Click on the link and scroll down to Safety....what does it say......I look forward to your response (I presume you didn't bother checking that part of the website). https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode/se21-7de

But it is not in this case. I refer to the chart - theft from person is at a high since 2010 and seemingly getting worse - it has been increasing since 2021 doubled between 2023 and 2024 and is on track to be higher again in 2025. It's not something to laugh at. In fact, the site @Earl Aelfheah sent me to to see those stats actually refers to Calton Avenue as "not safe" and that the "Crime Domain" is 7/10 with an above average risk of crime.

Of course violent crime is important but (given the police definitions) but, and I have explained this so many times before, the categories I selected we done so carefully on the basis of police definitions around street robberies etc. I am afraid it is you who are doing some selective plucking....again... Ha ha, I was trying to work out where you think I made stuff up about pollution and suspect you are referring to my comments on the original changes to the road layout at the junction of DV and Calton/Court Lane long before the closures of that junction. The council's own report on the measures showed pollution had increased. You only ever seem to default to accusing people of making stuff up when people have shown you to be wrong. You're quoting making stuff up a lot at the moment - how should we intepret that....;-) But trending up massively (in some categories) against the Calton average..... for example a 100% year on year increase in theft from person to the highest levels ever recorded. Some of us are concerned about what is ACTUALLY happening locally so please stop trying to hide behind London averages etc - it's a pure deflection tactic. @snowy good to see that you find increases in crime funny....not a good look but each to their own I suppose!

And you know theft from person went up by over 100% in Calton Avenue....so are you saying Calton's theft rate is increasing at a significantly faster rate than the London average?

No it did not refer to LTNs or road layouts....goodness me....it was a crime prevention leaflet - if I remember rightly it offered advice like fitting crook locks to cars etc. It was a blue A5 postcard sized flyer.

Crime prevention advice for residents. They knocked on the door, spoke to the resident and left a leaflet. Do you not believe that either? I didn't realise some of you were such doubting Thomas's - if I had I would have kept it!

I do, very much so - it is why it vexes me so much that so few people seem to obey the rules and as someone who does stop being admonished for doing so shows how much of a problem this is. But this is not just a London problem - has anyone been to Amsterdam recently - good grief? I know people hold that up as the cycling nirvana but if the city centre is a peek into the cycling dream everyone better wake-up soon because it is a nightmare!

So limited robbery, theft from person and other theft then in your area? So you are not seeing the increased theft from person that we are close to the LTN?

I no longer have a copy of said leaflet. It is a given because it did happen - you're going to have to change a habit of a lifetime and take my word for it.

I think the ITV article sums it up perfectly when they say so far in 2025 284 cyclists have been fined by the City of London Police for jumping red lights yet they counted 200 doing exactly that in one hour at one set of lights. I very much suspect councils and police will start to enforce this more rigorously as clearly the message is not getting through - there is a gold mine of PCNs waiting to be issued! 😉

Why have you thrown violent crime in there? Who was talking about that? Are you trying to distract and divert again? Why have you thrown violent crime in there? Who was talking about that? Are you trying to distract and divert again? @DulvilleRes is your concern here that we should not talk about things that might shine the council in a less than negative light? Is this why you object so much that it might mean people start holding the council to account for their actions - after all some on here claim the ballot box is the only time you are allowed to ask for accountability from our councillors. Whether people support the LTNs are not they are all united by their concerns over the crime in the area - probably best the councillors try to address it. But @malumbu for those living in the area and on the affected streets they are very concerned about the rising crime rates and, in particular, the nasty nature of a lot of the offences that have real, lasting, impact on the victims. Police have advised residents to call 999 the moment they see anyone wearing a balaclava. Perhaps, as you point out, Dulwich Village is proving to be a lucrative area and the criminals are targeting it. Bottom-line remains that residents are concerned (it seems a lot of residents outside the immediate area aren't concerned). When you look at streets beyond the immediate area of the LTN it is clear similar levels of increasing types of crime is not being seen (despite the wider London increases in said crime). So what is so unique about the streets around the LTN? Maybe it is purely co-incidental but, given those crimes stats (and the comparison of London crime over all the years) you can clearly see that something different is happening post Covid. Given PCSOs have been door-knocking and distributing leaflets and saying there does seem to be a link to the quieter streets I would suggest something is happening - whether you want to admit it or not. Look at what the 3 Priorities for the Met Engage team for Dulwich Village have currently: Dealing with crimes related to motor vehicles - including theft of motor vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle and vehicle interference. Issued 01 April 2025 Robbery and Theft - Dealing with robberies and theft snatch throughout the ward, predominantly aimed at school students. Issued 01 April 2025 Our latest community survey highlighted an increased concern regarding Violence against Women and Girls within Dulwich Village, including areas within the ward which are particularly dark and leave members of the community feeling vulnerable.

@Earl Aelfheah but it is not. The numbers and trends are there for all to see. You are trying to distract and deflect. This is clearly why the PCSO told.me what they did. I know you dont like it but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue or concern. Again where have I actually said that? You're trying to put words in to my mouth. The proof is in the numbers @Earl Aelfheah shared that in the 5 years since the LTNs went in certain crimes have been increasing. You cannot deny that.

It is when, since 2024 I have been looking at three specific types of crime. You're using it as a "nothing unusual going on here" diversion tactic. You're trying to make it about all crimes. I am looking at those that the residents of the area are most concerned about growing. And your stats confirm they are growing and have been since the closures went in. Surely you can agree to that fact at least? But what residents are concerned about is not the average but what is actually happening in their area, what they see, feel and hear every day and that is an upward trend since around 2020/2021. I was saying that, you doubted my original stats and now your stats confirm it too. We can safely say, and surely all agree, that there has never been as many cases of reported theft from person in the Calton area and there has been a significant uptick since 2020/2021.