Penguin68

What we need is a wet market. Especially in LTNs

it will flash back to burn the fingers of @SouthwarkLabour. I doubt it. The 'fury' you read about in these pages represents only a small number of the electorate. There would need to be very clear campaigning around a single issue to make any difference, and it is most unlikely that sufficient non Labour and non Lib-Dem votes - for just one candidate, to succeed - could be mustered. Lib Dems broadly support Labour as regards being anti-car (that's anti private car ownership, a stated Labour policy). You need a cause as big as Independence (vide The Scots Nats defeat of incumbent and entrenched Labour party 'couldn't give a damn about the electorate' local and national politicians) to make any difference. Southwark is not a 'swing' council in that way. At least, not about a car issue.

Pavements are safe routes for walking. The huge widths instituted at the height of the pandemic are almost certainly unnecessary on health grounds. Release road widths back to vehicle, from pedestrian, usage and there's probably space enough for cycles. The idea that LTN areas provide a 'cycle route' that leads anywhere is very moot. They aren't really linked in that way.

So - we've got Metallic who is suggesting reopening everywhere and putting in place a community bus (funding tbc) Spartacus - remove everything and wait for ULEZ (note even TFL thinks that 80% of cars are currently already ULEZ compliant) It would be at least consistent with the Pareto Principle to suggest that 80% of vehicle pollution (not CO2 but other pollutants leading directly to ill health) might be caused by 20% of vehicles - in which case the 20% of vehicles which might immediately be to blame would most likely be those not meeting ULEZ limits. So maybe the ULEZ will actually, in a stroke as it were, address 80% of the health problem. It would certainly be worth waiting for its effects to bed-in to see if this is so. With a much reduced problem the appropriate remedy might be something less draconian?

Dulwich has the highest car ownership in a borough where 58% of residents don?t have access to a car. Think about that for a moment. Is it fair that Dulwich residents get permits to drive around and through poorer areas (as supported by the Dulwich Alliance) or do affluent areas try to drive less and play a full part to give others who are less fortunate a fairer future? It is worth remembering that the majority of Southwark (the northern part - the original borough of Southwark) is much better served than the south with public transport, including the tube. Car ownership in Dulwich matches more closely that in e.g. Bromley - where public transport again is less available - fewer bus routes etc. and fewer stations. The northern part of Southwark gets the natural concentration of public transport you would expect where dispersed routes around London concentrate into the centre. This is not a plea in mitigation of the location of Dulwich's LTN - which protect the wealthy from pollution at the expense of the less wealthy around them, but the high penetration of vehicle ownership in this area is partly at least a function of the low penetration of useable public transport, the topography militating against cycle usage by the unfit and the greater distances (and hence public transport time) needed to get anywhere much.

Water back on for me. Hope others have slso been restored

From Thames Water's Twitter feed Network latest SE22 & SE23 No water or low pressure Last updated: 14/07 14:11 We?re working hard on site. Our specialist engineers have now arrived in Overhill Road, SE22 and are working hard to get your water supply back to normal as quickly as possible. As soon as we have an update, we?ll let you know. We know this has happened at a difficult time. We?ve answered the most common customer questions about coronavirus, including how we can provide extra help for those who need it most. We?ll update this page when we have more news.

Are others suffering this? The Thames Water messaging suggests a burst water main. After all the disruption over the last 12 months they're having a laugh?

Surely it must have dawned on you? Elderly and sick don't count. With luck they'll be dead before the next election - so nothing to worry about there... And sick and asthmatic children don't have a vote - win: win if you ask me.

Could be a fledgling fallen out of the nest - we've had a couple. A fox or cat will sort your problems.

...start protesting along EDG each week about the unnecessary car journeys. All car journeys you take are unnecessary (to me). No car journey I take is unnecessary (to me) Discuss

I think it's clearly 3. The council have an agenda; if the 'results' so far met that, they'd publish. They don't, so they are now trying to work out (a) if they can get more support or (b) if they can exclude results already received to get to the answer they first thought of. There is absolutely no chance that they are seeking wider or more informed input if it had already gone their way.

125 responses out of 236 households represents a 90% confidence level. This is statistically meaningless. The form used by those who undertake surveys is that, at the 95% Confidence level, a particular result of a sample survey falls within +/- y% of the published result of x%, 95% of the time. Based on a sample survey. If all 236 households were surveyed (polled) then its a census - and the result is as it is, with no requirement for a confidence level. The range of any properly conducted sample survey will differ on the basis of the actual result. If around 50% (half say one thing, half another) the range will be wide - but at 10%/ 90% the range will be much smaller. This is driven by the small tails on either end of a standard bell curve distribution. There are rules of thumb to take into account different sampling methods, from truly random to quota sampling. There are different sets of statistical rules of thumb when your have, as you have here, a small 'universe' - (236 households). Most surveys are of very large (comparatively) populations. If all 236 households had an equal opportunity to participate (but remember that on-line surveys are only available to those with communicating IT and the capability of using it) then you might assume that 47% (almost half) were indifferent as to the result, having expressed no opinion, either because they didn't have one, or because they couldn't care either way. What you cannot do is then to 'allocate' in your mind the missing responses pro-rata to those made. For political polling (using sampling) a sample survey of 1500-2000 respondents will give a 'reasonable' result at the 95% confidence level, where 'reasonable' gives a range of =/- 3% or so. Assuming the sampling is well conducted. Famously in one US election telephone sampling was used (it was cheaper than face-to-face) at a time when telephone penetration was highest amongst the middle class and wealthy. Which is why Dewey was called by newspapers using that survey as the next President in 1948 and not the winner, Truman.

Where is this house of dreams based? 45 Melbourne Grove http://www.stephenwrightartist.com/houseofdreams.php

Is there also the risk that it's a self-selecting cohort so not representative of the wider community? Absolutely none of the 'surveys' or 'consultations' undertaken for this particular cause, from either or any side, would meet the criteria for sample selection for market, social or academic research. Or unbiased questions, or analysis, or scrutiny (probably). The data collections and presentation throughout is political flim-flam to prove (or at least to shout) a point. (Even where some, perhaps, of the other surveys prayed-in-aid to support cases were better designed and executed).

I don't understand how FB can suddenly 'take over' a search term like that? It didn't, a person did - just like all the people who share our names and also have FB Pages. What FB does do is to promote (though payments) any FB link high up Google search. I save the site as a bookmark - that way I always get where I want to go - I don't search every time I want to log-on.

But ex- wouldn't it be nice if the council put as much effort into trying to change the mush larger sources of emissions and pollution beyond cars - they seem to be focussing an unprecented level of energy and attention on the private car and private car owner when much bigger issues remain - 79% of the problem comes from buildings. To be fair to the council - that figure is about CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases and not about the emissions which directly cause ill-health. Two entirely separate issues are contained here - 'clean breathable air' - which is what I think the traffic restrictions are on about - even where the actions are wholly misplaced and even counter productive - forcing more polluted air into areas already badly polluted - whereas the 'statistic' about houses addresses a different problem - global warming which may be long term bad for health but which is not a short term issue for the council. CO2 is necessary (even vital) to life as we know it - without it we would have no vegetation - and, breathed in as part of normal circulating air it is entirely harmless to health. We breathe out CO2 naturally. CO2 in and of itself is not a pollutant - it is its effect as a greenhouse gas (nothing really to do with the air we breathe) which is the issue here. Houses are a 'source' of CO2 because of the power needed to heat them. If we had entirely nuclear sourced power that wouldn't be nearly so much an issue, as that power is 'CO2 clean' energy.

When I log in with East dulwich Forum it takes me to the face book page. It gas never happened before. If you clear your cache and history on your browser you should find that that rogue site no longer pops up - your browser is probably 'remembering' what you see as an error. I'm guessing you searched at some time on Google and as the FB page is now top of the search list (at least it is on mine) if you clicked on the first thing you saw it would link in to the rogue FB page and then just remember that as an action, until you clear your cache.

Milk contains fat, which you can turn into cholesterol, but any cholesterol you actually eat will be excreted. Both eggs and I think crustacea are high in cholesterol, comparatively, but eating them does not raise your cholesterol levels. However there is now more concern about dietary sugars than fats, as far as health is concerned. Doctors would be happier for you to consume very little of anything!

There is a sub-site of My Local Forums which also calls itself The East Dulwich Forum. As well as the FB one which comes first on a Google search. Neither are of course this well respected and long standing East Dulwich Forum. I am loathe to suggest name changes - but re-branding to The Original East Dulwich Forum (with the same web address) might avoid confusion - without litigation if someone steals your name it may be simpler just to change it! The Original East Dulwich Forum is probably (but I haven't checked) easier to register as unique now, for future litigation.

I am absolutely the last person who would want to defend this council, but there is a difference between data collection ('the council has all the data'); data analysis and data interpretation. Not that I trust the council either to analyse the data fully (rather than concentrating on the bits that make its case) or to interpret the data without bias - but these later stages do take time, if done properly (or even improperly).

passenger cars are 55.4% of UK transport emissions The report you quote is on greenhouse gas emissions - mainly of course CO2 - which is intrinsically harmless (in the open air, not enclosed and sealed spaces), without it we would have no growing plants. The emissions of concern, to human health at least, are particulates, e.g. NOx and the output from wood burning stoves. These are what cause respiratory problems and exacerbate asthma, not CO2. [And by the way the references above (I think, so many threads, so little time) to housing being a major problem is also about global warming and not healthy streets]. Oh, and if you do want to 'decarbonise' Southwark, may I suggest nuclear weapons, which will remove all those pesky carbon-based lifeforms which so plague us. Like us.

after 19 July the date the UK govt has decided the country will use the herd immunity idea to live with COVID. Oh, come on - herd immunity? - Yes perhaps for the young (under 18s), where the chances of serious illness are very limited - but the vast majority of those older/ at risk are double vaccinated, and even more single vaccinated and on track for double. And they (the UK Govt via its agencies and advisors) are seriously considering the balance of risk in reducing vaccination age to 12. We will have to live with Covid like we live with flu. Southwark is surprisingly unvaccinated, of course, and you should be worrying whether it is mind-sets like yours (when you were a local influencer) which have discouraged vaccine take-up here. Or do you want an Australian style permanent lock-down in the UK?

Without imputing intentional result skewing the concept of research(er) bias is well known and understood. https://www.tutor2u.net/sociology/reference/sociological-research-objectivity-and-subjectivity As the Professor is already aligned (as regards her voluntary work) with a particular viewpoint it would not be surprising if researcher bias was contained within her work - cognitive dissonance would tend to cause her not to 'see' results which did not fit her Weltanschauung. That does not imply intentional bias, clearly... And I have already commented on the value (or possibly lack of it) of peer review in determining any fundamental validity of interpreted results.

Out of interest - 'Peer Reviewed papers' actually means that the papers were published in journals which are ostensibly 'peer reviewed'. As a number of academics have submitted entirely spoof papers to such journals and had them published, as a test of the system, this is not, exactly, an academic gold standard. Indeed, if you put forward a paper which has conclusions consistent with the editorial line your are far more likely to be 'published' - and this will count as publication in a peer reviewed journal (the 'peers' chosen for review are far more likely to be sympathetic to an editorial line). 'Peer Reviewed' Journals are still, it should be remembered, commercial publishers. Far more telling as a mark of academic quality is whether you paper is subsequently cited by other academics in theirs, (particularly when cited in papers published in other journals) and the frequency of such citations. I'm afraid also that, with academic papers as with e.g. novels, there is an abundance of log-rolling, where one 'peer' will applaud another's paper and be applauded in return. Most academic specialisms are quite small pools. [And equally, of course, academic feuds are also pursued through the peer review system.]