snowy

And this is the guardian style guide entry which defines exclusives as "a term used by tabloids to denote a story that is in all of them'?! Even the Press Gazette disagrees with Rockets - and says that first to publish is an 'exclusive'. "Published at the time of release' Basic stuff.

The Spectator comments section has joined us i see. But at least penguin will know about poisson.

Oh so you are arguing without evidence that it was a leak. That's quite a serious libelous defamatory accusation and a reckless one at that. Probably puts this forum at risk too, given that you have no evidence apart from a CMS / subeditor created 'exclusive' tag that is correct in that Walker published first. As Sue says - you're clutching at straws. I mean learn to admit that you can be wrong sometimes. NB. Other reports from those academics are immaterial - you haven't considered who commissioned them or who published them have you? And as has been said several times - all media outlets got the report at the same time - the details of that are on the bmj site. No, you don't understand - 5 PhDs between them, commissioned by a world leading health and social care research funder and subsequently peer reviewed by other qualified academics and then published in the world renowned gold standard research periodical just hasn't understood the dynamic brain power of PR and Marketing guru Rockets who has decided Rocket knows better than all of them...

A Poisson distribution smooths out numbers - as you can't have 0.75 of an accident- you either have an accident or you don't. It's better than simple division. This gets even better! What a little fantasy land you have dug yourself into. You are now accusing the University of Westminster of breaking its own rules and breaking the funding contract of the NIHR and the publication rules of The BMJ by leaking a research paper? That would get Peter Walker banned from the BMJ press list and removed from Cision. That would hamper the entire university from accessing one of the largest governmental research funders. For a low level piece in the guardian? Every journalist got the embargoed report on the same day. One added to it and published 1.5 hours after what i guess was the noon embargo time. Only 5 other publications picked it up but the subeditor presumably guessed the guardian got there first. And from that you are into conspiracy theories... It's not a rabbit hole you are in, its an entire warren.

We want research. Oh no, not that research... etc.

i've not gone quiet - i just don't think that your inane posts demand an immediate response. Having worked for the equivalent medical research body in the uk, commissioning and publishing research, i have a little more insight than you on how they work with the press , but thanks for your contribution. BMJ states that they don't do exclusives - it's all Cision managed press releases, so unless you have proof that's not the case it's likely to be my earlier interpretation - he added to the story with interviews. as has been pointed out the BMJ site shows the time and date their publication is picked up and shared by media. The Guardian article is the same day, but much closer to what i guess was the noon embargo time. i'm also intrigued by your comment about "a growing number of people" - are you now saying NIHR and the BMJ ate no longer reliable sources?

Lol at rockets - adding to the list of topics they can embarrass themselves with. I guess I should update the list of national organisations or global research organisations they think are now compromised - as apparently the BMJ and the government's own research funding org the NIHR need to be added. Check the research publication date and the date of Peter Walker's article. They are the same, so he will have got the embargoed press release and abstract along with everyone else globally on the BMJ email list for that research topic. BMJ publicly state they don't cherry pick 'friendly journalists' with exclusives - it's the BMJ for F's sake - they don't need to. They're ranked something like top 3 of the global medical journals with hundreds of millions of millions of page impressions of their research each year. Your notion that 'someone in the PR Team' would individually target a specific journalist on a geeky longitudinal / formative quantitative data analysis report is frankly laughable.

With the BMJ this is adamantly not how it works. Why you are wrong is all detailed in the press section of the BMJ site (resources for the media section if you want to hunt for it and nitpick). They will probably have a time sensitive embargo on a press release sent to hundreds of email addresses. Peter will have gone and done additional interviews to write content that's not in the original press pack - which creates his exclusive. But once again you are sniping at female academics commissioned by NICE and published in the BMJ... but don't even understand the boilerplate disclaimer on supplemental material.

You had an answer to this shared with you back in March when you were offering to get a mate round to fix it

But as its been posted before the traffic manager order included the options appraisal and costs of adding a cycle lane to the traffic calming scheme.

I used it today. I use it regularly and see other people regularly using it.

Probably either lock it up by m&s or continue to cycle via the two segregated cycle lane routes going north?

He does appear to live (rent free as the saying goes) in your head though doesn't he.

Is there there additional parking restrictions because of the country show? They apply every year: https://southlondon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/london-borough-of-lambeth-temporary-traffic-and-parking-restrictions-brockwell-park.pdf

Its a Jerusalem artichoke?

It's a criminal offense. CICs can't fundraise on the street - they're a less regulated form of organization and that lighter touch means you can't do certain things until you commit to greater regulation. If you want to fundraise on the street then you need to become a charity. if they have mislead a shop by stating that they are a charity, they're breaking criminal law. if they're on the pavement, again they are not licensed to do that and are breaking the law.

Isn't it because any bladed item now needs to sold with a new set of legal conditions (age verification etc) which this forum doesn't have? Even if there's a tool to remove stones from a horses hoof, and a tiny pair of tweezers its still got a blade.

Unregulated fundraising. To start with; They're not registered as the right type of organisation that can do street collecting, which they could register as but that would expose them to more responsibilities and liability. They don't have permission from the property owners and aren't following any Fundraising Regulator guidelines.

I mean good luck to you, but with 4 staff you have still failed to submit your statutory accounts for your two eligible years of operation and are overdue with them this year too. Companies House have taken steps to close you twice. Your annual loss in trading is increasing each year. You have had two directors resign in 2022 leaving only 1 in place which isn't the best if you want good governance- but that also stops you from being able to raise funds from trusts and foundations.

Its the Just Asking Questions approach isn't it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions https://thelogicofscience.com/2020/05/31/the-problem-with-just-asking-questions/

Why are you asking me? I don't use strava. i rode along it again yesterday, people cycling to the pub and the park...

I cycle it regularly and see a broad range of people using it.

Tellingly no comment on any of the other points? Come on - give us a yes or no answer- were the sydenham hill road changes put in to reduce driver speeds irrespective of the cycle lane addition? and on cycle lanes: https://gprivate.com/6g4et

It will probably do your blood pressure no good to hear that cycle lanes aren't compulsory and aren't recommended if you're cycling over 12mph. None of the anti-infrastructure comments reflect that the road narrowing was implemented because drivers were consistently breaking the speed limit and causing collisions. What's the usual line - 'when will the driving community accept responsibility for the actions of some of its members "? It wasn't installed to create a new cycle lane, that was an ancillary project.