Sinister anti-CPZ posters in shop windows

[Passiflora]

Quite sad to see that somebody would be-grudge paying ?3 to pop in to see their mother in law just because they lived in a CPZ!

[Abe_froeman]

Lowlander your "67%" stat for the poster is more of a 'lie'.

You've 'lied' twice now about this poster: once that it claims 67% of something amd second that it says people 'voted'

To me this seems sinister.

[Lowlander]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander your "67%" stat for the poster is more

> of a 'lie'.

>

> You've 'lied' twice now about this poster: once

> that it claims 67% of something amd second that it

> says people 'voted'

>

> To me this seems sinister.

I didn?t lie about the word ?vote?, I made a mistake. Please do accept my apologies and consider me contrite. In my defence there?s a difference between making a mistake on an Internet forum and another on a public poster.

What?s the first lie?

[Penguin68]

Would you accept 'Two thirds of those who expressed an opinion in a consultation survey of residents in streets which might be impacted by a CPZ proposal were against any proposed CPZ'? - and in what way does this (really) differ from '67% were against' - other than being somewhat more clunky in expression?

Remember that virtually no politician is ever elected by more than 50% of the eligible electorate - so for every politician it is true to say that more than half the electorate didn't express a wish for him or her to be elected - but where does that actually get you?

[Lowlander]

It would indeed be fairer to say ?69% of respondents were against the Cpz?

I?ve yet to meet a truthful politician; and was hoping whoever is behind the poster was above their tactics.

[Abe_froeman]

The other error was that it was only 67% who voted against a CPZ . In fact 68% rejected it!

[Galileo]

67 or 68% of people said they did not want a CPZ to be introduced in their street.

You can still view the questionnaire here should you wish to check the phrasing of the question: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8765/CPZ%20questionnaire%20ED%20v1.1%20East%20Dulwich%20parking.pdf

[nxjen]

?Would you accept 'Two thirds of those who expressed an opinion in a consultation survey of residents in streets which might be impacted by a CPZ proposal were against any proposed CPZ'? - and in what way does this (really) differ from '67% were against' - other than being somewhat more clunky in expression??

The poster states ?68% of East Dulwich residents rejected ...? which as only 37% responded to the consultation is quite an extraordinary claim. This is how it differs.

[Abe_froeman]

When you look at it like that 32% of 37% of East Dulwich Residents actively asked for a CPZ.

That means that only 11.84% of East Dulwich residents actually want a CPZ.

The poster should therefore have said - "88.16% of East Dulwich residents have rejected a CPZ"

[TheArtfulDogger]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?Would you accept 'Two thirds of those who

> expressed an opinion in a consultation survey of

> residents in streets which might be impacted by a

> CPZ proposal were against any proposed CPZ'?

>

lol

That would have left about a square inch to show the rest of the details in the poster

Ultimately th poster seems to have done something, it's got people talking about the officers recommendation and galvanised opinion

So good or bad, I applaud it

Still can't see how it is sinister

[goldilocks]

without getting into whether its sinister or not - I'm still not clear how anyone wanting to would get in touch with the 'EDIBA'?

[nxjen]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When you look at it like that 32% of 37% of East

> Dulwich Residents actively asked for a CPZ.

>

> That means that only 11.84% of East Dulwich

> residents actually want a CPZ.

>

> The poster should therefore have said - "88.16% of

> East Dulwich residents have rejected a CPZ"

No because you?ve included the 63% of East Dulwich residents who did not respond to the consultation in with those who reject the CPZ. It?s not a binary situation, for or against, there is a large majority of East Dulwich residents who aren?t bothered either way but cannot be included in the stats for rejecting the CPZ. And I think you know this.

[Abe_froeman]

There is no other rational way to deal with the 63% who chose not to participate. It's illogical to conclude that someone who wanted a CPZ would not bother telling the council that.

Regardless, the fact is that only 11% of ED Residents asked for a CPZ.

[nxjen]

?There is no other rational way to deal with the 63% who chose not to participate. It's illogical to conclude that someone who wanted a CPZ would not bother telling the council that.?

Statistics is based on data, not on a subjective view of what is considered rational or illogical. In this instance, I suspect a large proportion of East Dulwich residents who did not express a preference either way are not car owners and wouldn?t be for or against a CPZ.

[Galileo]

The question was whether they wanted a

CPZ on their street.

There was no question of do you want a CPZ in another street. So 67 or 68% of people did not object to a CPZ in the area depicted on the poster.

[first mate]

But if you don't want CPZ in your own street why would you want it in another? Given the repeated cautions about parking displacement it seems more than likely that if you do not want it in your own street you will not want it anywhere in your area.

You make a clever and accurate point about use of language but, to my mind, it doesn't really stack up if the intention is to dilute the notion that of those responding more are against CPZ than in favour?

[Rockets]

And therein lies the beauty of the council's very cleverly worded and designed questionnaire....very much designed to give it the mandate it wanted to deploy CPZs.

One wonders why, given the furore around the proposals in the run-up to the consultation, why they didn't ask whether people wanted a CPZ in East Dulwich and whether people were worried about the impact it might have on the local area......hmmmmm....I wonder....

The reality is that a small number of streets around the station will now get their desire for a CPZ whilst everyone in the rest of the area lives with the fallout.

[exdulwicher]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But if you don't want CPZ in your own street why

> would you want it in another? Given the repeated

> cautions about parking displacement it seems more

> than likely that if you do not want it in your own

> street you will not want it anywhere in your area.

>

Because people are NIMBYs. Most people agree with things like "we need to do something about the traffic / parking problems" but what they usually mean is "I want everyone else to stop driving (or to drive less or not to park there or whatever...) but I should be allowed to carry on as normal".

The poster itself may or may not be sinister but what is unsettling is the figure on there with (apparently) no reference to exactly how it was obtained. See my previous post about the massive dumbing down of statistics whcih in turn allows them to be twisted to fit pretty much whatever agenda you like. And that part is sinister.

[first mate]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And therein lies the beauty of the council's very

> cleverly worded and designed questionnaire....very

> much designed to give it the mandate it wanted to

> deploy CPZs.

>

> One wonders why, given the furore around the

> proposals in the run-up to the consultation, why

> they didn't ask whether people wanted a CPZ in

> East Dulwich and whether people were worried about

> the impact it might have on the local

> area......hmmmmm....I wonder....

>

> The reality is that a small number of streets

> around the station will now get their desire for a

> CPZ whilst everyone in the rest of the area lives

> with the fallout.

Rockets agreed,

I think the majority are very clear about the council's carefully designed questionnaire and its slippery ways. Many of us recognised their long game years ago. I don't think anyone is fooled at all. What is shocking is that they will still be able to impose CPZ although it may take a little longer than they would wish- but they now have the small number of streets they need to get the CPZ domino effect kick-started and well on its way.

What remains to be seen is if Cllr Livinstone listens to the recommendations of our Ward Cllrs in removing some of the streets from the CPZ zone? The cyncial side of me wonders if these proposed compromises are genuine or were always part of the grand plan? To quote another poster, the idea being to make us feel grateful we are only being punched in one eye rather than both.

[Penguin68]

To get back to the OP's apparent original point, no I do not find it sinister - indeed in any way concerning - that local shopkeepers who fear loss of trade should continue to campaign against CPZ introduction, before the final whistle is blown - nor do I feel that their use of statistics (which at least broadly ape those released by the council) is misleading. Two thirds of those polled in what was in fact a census (in that every effected household was at least contacted) who bothered to reply were against a CPZ at least in their street - even where they may have had a different view when threatened with a knock-on effect - an effect which, were the initial response not be ignored, would not come into place. One third did want a CPZ in their street. A whole area was polled - to then cherry pick elements who might go be prepared to stomach a CPZ is hugely disingenuous. However you play the figures - the only thing we can be certain about is that, of those directly to be impacted who expressed an opinion, two in every 3 were against a CPZ. Which is pretty well what the shopkeepers are reporting.

[Abe_froeman]

It's not quite the only thing!

We can also be certain that of all those asked only 1 in 10 replied to say they actually wanted a CPZ.

[EDPineapple]

When you get to comparing posters about parking restrictions in your local bookshop to the propaganda of ISIS it's probably time to step away from the keyboard.

As for the fact that not all residents opted to have a say either way, the result of the EU referendum is always given as the familiar 52:48 split. I don't think it's misleading to base a statistic only on those who responded, rather than the population as a whole.

[first mate]

There is a brief piece in SE22 magazine where Cllr Charlie Smith reports on the CPZ Consultation results and I quote:

"The overall response showed the majority (69%) were against a parking zone."

He also calls the 2244 responses received "a very high response rate of 37% which is a record for the Council."

[dbboy]

If you had a business and it was potentially threatened as a result of a CPZ, it is not surprising that they have done something to protect their livelihoods and customers ability to purchase goods and services from them. I know if it was me, I would have done exactly what they are doing and good on them.

[Rockets]

And then you consider the real motivation for the council doing this and that's when people take action......

The great find by MarkT posted on another thread sheds light on what the council made from parking, parking permits and the policing of parking last year - a ?6m surplus. And each year the revenue has been increasing - no doubt based on more CPZs, associated pay and display and increased policing by traffic wardens:

Parking permits made them ?3.6m last year

Pay and display another ?3.7m

Penalty Charge Notices a whopping ?6.2m

CPZs are council cat-nip, not for our benefit but theirs and ostensibly a stealth tax on car owners...

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/8423/Southwark%20Transport%20Plan%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202017-18.pdf