Earl Aelfheah

The data from the Police website show that for the first 5 months of 2025 (up to May - the most recent month we have data for) there were 16 robberies. For the same comparison period - first five months of 2024 - there were 20. There is also zero evidence of any link to the road filter. It's just nonsense.

Nope. I picked the most recent month for which we have data and compared it with the same month last year - because you clamed a recent increase. It shows a drop in reported crime compared to the same month last year (albeit, the numbers are too small for it to be statistically significant). The chart you've shared showing data for 3 years does not show an upward trend. It's weird that you've said it does. 'Analysis' 🤣. Where is your baseline against the London or national average? If you're claiming it's linked to a traffic filter, surely you have looked at a control area? I know you're really meticulous when it comes to critiquing methodology 🤣 [Edited to add] - whilst I'm loath to spend time playing your games, a quick check shows those stats you've quoted above for robbery are highly questionable (I suspect the others are too). If you take the first 5 months of 2025 (up to May - the most recent month we have data for) and compare it to the first five months of 2024, robberies are lower (20 in 2024, 16 in 2025). Obviously these numbers are too small to be statistically significant, but it does not show a recent increase in robberies as you've suggested.

@Rockets Just a very quick look at the crime map and it is immediately clear there is zero correlation between the filter on calton avenue and the most common crime sites in se21. Overall, reported crimes are down compared to May last year (May being the most recent month for which we have stats). Even if we pretend that there had been evidence of a recent surge in crime related to a traffic filter on Calton Avenue - why the 5 year lag? Why has it happened now, half a decade after it was introduced? It's just nonsense. Much like your claim that the filter increased pollution, or reduced pedestrian safety (where in both cases, the evidence points to the exact opposite being true). Not one other person on this forum has heard police making the extremely dubious claim that a long established road filter has led to a recent surge in crime; Only you. What an astounding coincidence. I doubt what you are saying.

Agree with Sephiroth - It's when investors take over and it becomes almost exclusively about maximising margins and having a offer that is easily reproduceable at scale. In other words, when the accountants are in charge rather than the creatives.

Recorded crime in the area has slightly fallen (probably not to a degree that is statistically significant). No one doubts however, that the police are warning people about crime prevention measures. What I personally doubt, is that police are claiming there has been a recent increase in crime caused by a road filter introduced half a decade ago. As usual, there is no evidence whatsoever provided for that claim. It is also notable that the only person to have heard this from a police officer, is the same individual with a well documented history of making wild, unsubstantiated, and often objectively false claims in relation to the negative impacts of the aforementioned road filter.

...all of these linked to a road filter on Calton Avenue introduced 5 years ago? Wow. That's almost unbelievable.

Make some cider?

Some good news posted by ianr on another thread, regarding 'crash for cash' scams. Surprisingly, the police statement makes no mention of 'road closures' (a traffic filter) in Dulwich https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2025/july/ifed-executes-five-warrants-across-east-and-south-london-in-major-crash-for-cash-investigation/

I agree with this. There are lot's of shops selling similar foods. And the two shops aren't positioned that close together - further from each other than say Franco Manca and Yard Sale, or Bruno's and Dynamic Wines, etc.

We don't have thousands of children on the verge of starving to death (many have already died of malnutrition in Gaza).

Well I did say I stand to be corrected! Fair enough, their website only seemed to list three branches. Perhaps it's a franchise model? It's known as 'agglomeration' in economics Rookie error.

I like empanadas. I don't think Chango is a massive chain - it's got a few stores all in London I believe (stand to be corrected if I've got that wrong). I don't see a problem with them opening on the Lane personally. I really like Chacarero, but that doesn't mean that they should be immune from competition - if they're successful and open a couple more stores, are we then meant to stop supporting them for being a 'chain'? That opening post does sound a lot like marketing spiel though. Is the OP perhaps connected to the new business I wonder?

You may want to see if anyone on this site can help: http://www.camberwellboroughcouncil.co.uk/folletts-music-shop/

Dog kennel isn't a great name for a school. I agree that it's ridiculous for the name to put anyone off going there, but don't see any issue with them rebranding if the parents and children prefer a new name. The school is surrounded by historical 'groves' (reflected in the names of Camberwell Grove, Grove park and Grove Vale for example), so it's not a totally random name.

Thanks for posting this. Really interesting. It would be good if you added a star rating, so that it was easier to do comparisons / see what your top recommendations are. Great blog though!

I agree. Rockets should write saying - I haven't read your paper, but I am convinced it is fundamentally flawed. Please could you tell me how I am right?

.

Yes. The difference there is that what you've posted is a meme. I'm pointing out a well studied concept in psychology, concerning cognitive bias. Probably the same though - Like someone's opinion on the methodological flaws of an academic paper they haven't read, and those of the independent experts who have taken part in the peer review process, prior to it's publication. The same.

Whooosh That's right. It's almost as though dismissing people whose views you disagree with as 'lobbyists' is just being cynical.

Oh it's absolutely confirmation bias. Have a look at the diagram above if it helps.

See how easy that is?

This is exactly the kind of position I would expect you to take as part of the fossil fuel lobby.

The only fair conclusion to draw from a piece of peer reviewed academic research, published in one of the worlds' most prestigious journals and that you haven't read, is that it's flawed. Really? Based on what exactly? Confirmation bias: People's tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. I am loath to spoon feed people who have already made it very clear that they have no interest in objectively assessing the research, seeing as they've already dismissed it on the basis of nothing but prejudice (having unashamedly admitted to not having read it... the fact that they can't see any issue with their blatant confirmation bias, is actually beyond embarrassing). Here is the dataset on LTNs however: https://blog.westminster.ac.uk/ata/projects/london-ltn-dataset/ ... I look forward to the tin hat explanation about how, remarkably, it somehow proves what you already believed! What a co-incidence! They included data on all road links (sections of road between two junctions) in London. Across the years 2012–2024, some road links became inside an LTN or became part of an LTN boundary road, while others did not and remained in a control group. The analysis estimated the before-versus-after change in injury numbers after the implementation of each LTN, using the control group to adjust for background changes in injury numbers over time. They observed significant decreases in injuries within the LTNS and no commensurate increase outside of them. In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury. They also looked at roads which had been part of an LTN, but where it had been removed. In total, 331 injuries, including 44 'killed or seriously injured' events, were observed on roads in a former LTN that had been removed. They estimate that 116 fewer injuries, including 16 fewer KSIs, would have been expected to occur if the removed LTNs had instead been retained. It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. It's been peer reviewed (which means it has been assessed by other, independent experts in the same field before being accepted for publication, to ensure the quality, validity and originality of the research). The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

I don't 'lobby' for active travel measures. I do take the view that people exercising more would be a good thing - which presumably is something you would also advocate? Does that also make you an 'lobbyist'? You also know exactly why Rocket's repeatedly dismisses opinions he disagrees with as those of 'lobbyists'. It's not very subtle and you're not stupid. If I repeatedly dismissed anyone with different views to my own as part of the fossil fuel lobby, would you think that was good faith rhetoric?

I don't see why I should respond to an endless array of questions from people who have already decided that the methodology must be flawed, without having read the paper. Please, Google 'confirmation bias'.