The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[first mate]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Interestingly one way of discouraging burglary is to turn off street lights.  But most would see the wider benefits of lighting urban streets at nighttime.

Yes, I think people walking or cycling at night may benefit from street lights.

But let's stay on topic. This thread is about a specific LTN in Dulwich Village- although confusingly, the council ( and Earl) say it is not really an LTN. 

The Melbourne Grove South LTN is proving a smashing little speed rat run for local delivery e-bike riders (sorry 'motorbikes' which, along with cars, are meant to be blocked).

Have not visited Vanity Square for a few weeks. What's the bike/ red light situation like? Are more beginning to heed light changes?

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Do you have the actual links rather than the headlines?

I love how you constantly request the data from others yet you get a free pass.

You denigrated a report without even reading it. You cherry pick data to suit your needs. You've now alleged - with no proof whatsoever, I'm guessing mostly because it's almost impossible to prove or disprove it either way - that the police are walking round knocking on doors saying "watch out, there's been a spike in crime because a junction was closed to cars 5 years ago"

And yet as soon as anyone else dares post anything positive or rebuts your increasingly obvious nonsense, you're straight onto them questioning the source, the data, the authors, the validity, the process...

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Have not visited Vanity Square for a few weeks. What's the bike/ red light situation like?

It's like a little slice of Gotham City down there, honestly, pal. I was robbed twice at knifepoint and once at gunpoint, three happy slappers happy slapped me, and at one stage there were four street urchins trying to steal my pocket watch. And all because of the LTN!

[first mate]

52 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

watch out, there's been a spike in crime because a junction was closed to cars 5 years ago"

 

 Nothing like a spot of exaggeration to plump up a rebuttal.

What is much more likely is the police went round urging residents to take care, noting that there seems to have been a rise in certain types of crime in the area and- in the course of a doorstep chat the LTN as a potential factor may also have been mentioned. I see nothing unusual or far-fetched about that?

As you say, proving the LTN is a contributing factor (or the obverse) is well nigh impossible, but would not stop people making a potential link, whether residents or police.

12 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

It's like a little slice of Gotham City down there, honestly, pal. I was robbed twice at knifepoint and once at gunpoint, three happy slappers happy slapped me, and at one stage there were four street urchins trying to steal my pocket watch. And all because of the LTN!

Just stop drinking Tango in Vanity Square then!

[ianr]

45 minutes ago, first mate said:

 Nothing like a spot of exaggeration to plump up a rebuttal.What is much more likely is the police went round urging residents to take care,

Urging!?

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is all such obvious nonsense. If Rockets had any evidence that the traffic filter had increased pollution, increased road danger for pedestrians, or that crime had increased as a result of the filter, he would obviously produce it. It’s very clear that these claims are simply made up.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

As you say, proving the LTN is a contributing factor (or the obverse) is well nigh impossible

It’s really not. You just have to compare crime rates before and after implementation alongside a control area, and take account of background changes in crime rates over the period. It’s the kind of study that has been done across a large number of LTNs (72 of them), and which found that they reduce crime. Rockets of course hasn’t produced any evidence, and hasn’t read the research that has been undertaken. And if he did, even you know that he would conclude it was methodology flawed, regardless of what it says.

Edited August 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

You denigrated a report without even reading it. You cherry pick data to suit your needs. You've now alleged - with no proof whatsoever, I'm guessing mostly because it's almost impossible to prove or disprove it either way - that the police are walking round knocking on doors saying "watch out, there's been a spike in crime because a junction was closed to cars 5 years ago"

@exdulwicher in the words of MC Hammer...back up. 

In the words of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast: No!...No! No! No! No! No! No!

And in the words of Public Enemy: Don't Believe the Hype

Let me clear up some less than accurate nonsense someone has been trying to pin on me.

I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions (that no-one was, funnily enoigh capable or prepared to answer). Now, would those answers have allowed me to denegrate the report? Probably. And I very much suspect that's why no-one answered it. But to suggest what you have is utter nonsense and deliberate spin from a cohort of yours.

Also I told people what a PCSO had told me when they knocked on my door, not that they were knocking on the doors saying that there was a spike in crime because a junctiom was closed 5 years ago.

Please, try to get your facts right. There are those on here who go out of their way to deliberately skew what people like me say and it looks like folks like you are falling for it. Come on, surely some of you are better than that, just look at the childish nonsense some of us have to put up with? 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is all such obvious nonsense. If Rockets had any evidence that the traffic filter had increased pollution, increased road danger for pedestrians, or that crime had increased as a result of the filter, he would obviously produce it. It’s very clear that these claims are simply made up.

As I was saying..why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now? A clear attempt to distract. Honestly the attempts to bully people into submission is getting ridiculous. Its funny that @dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda. I think of the likes of @heartblock and @legalalien who used to also try to fight the nonsense but we're seemingly bludgeoned out of the debate.

What I love is that some of you get so irate and agitated when someone challenges the nonsense. There is such a pattern: someone challenges your position, you denegrate them,  call them names, a lot of others from the pro-LTN lobby pile on and then you try to change the subject when your position is shown to be wrong. Some of you have been doing it for 5 years! 😉

4 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

I love how you constantly request the data from others yet you get a free pass.

Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data. In fact I have often used data to prove the nonsense some of your cohort are spouting.  I shared robust data (with links) on crime levels in Dulwich and then people retort that there is this report and that report from 72 London LTNs and yet when I ask for links they dont reply.

Maybe it is not me who is making things up...or maybe all of these reports are behind a paywall and people subscribe and dont want to share them because they are terrified of IP infringement.......

[Earl Aelfheah]

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions

Nope. You immediately dismissed it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ only to later admit that you hadn’t read it.

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now?

I think it’s perfectly clear why. I’m pointing out how you have repeatedly made unevidenced and easily disproven claims. Entirely false claims.

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda.

Here we go, it’s a ‘pro-LTN lobby’ spreading ‘propaganda’, rather than individuals challenging unevidenced claims and pointing to data and research that proves them to be false. Tin foil hat nonsense.

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data.

🤣🤣🤣 

Yeah, if your idea of data is ‘my hair has got greyer since they put in a road filter 5 years ago. This proves LTNs cause aging.’

You’ve produced no data at all, to back up claims about supposed increases in pollution, reductions in pedestrian safety, or increased crime linked to a road filter. None. Meanwhile you have ignored or dismissed all the data that shows the exact opposite. 

Edited August 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I also noticed that Earl had suddenly slipped in pollution.

At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area. Presumably they would not do this if crime in the area was reducing? Limited resources and all that.

A key rationale given by the council to install this LTN was to make the area 'safer' (how was not specified; it was vague). Would the police really make the effort to go round knocking on doors just for the fun of it? If certain types of crime are up in that area is it fair to assert streets in the LTN are safer?

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I’m pointing out how you have repeatedly made unevidenced and easily disproven claims. Entirely false claims.

Yup, right....and you claimed there was majority support for the DV LTN in the consultation...honestly, talk about laughable. What do they say about people in glass houses...

14 minutes ago, first mate said:

I also noticed that Earl had suddenly slipped in pollution.

Because that's what they do. Get to be proven to be wrong and then throw something in that has nothing to do with the discussion to try and take it down another track.

15 minutes ago, first mate said:

At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area.

Which was what started this all off. Clearly @Earl Aelfheah didn't believe it, look at the angrily agitated way they tried to demand answers from the Dulwich Safer Streets Team.

It seems that if you mention something some on the pro-LTN lobby dont agree with they all go a bit purple Minion and start screaming. It's like a shark feeding frenzy with all the usual suspects desperate to have a bite.

The irony is of course they all say why can't we forget and move on as it has been 5 years but it is their over-excited and aggressive pavolvian responses as they try to manipulate the narrative that continues the debate.

The facts are clear. In the Dulwich Village area there is a growing problem with certain types of crime. The police (via PCSO door knocking and leaflet drops) are clearly trying to do something about it. So are the people who live on the streets being impacted whilst interested on-lookers try to tell them it is not happening because it might upset their personal agenda and ideology when it comes to LTNs.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area.

As I said right at the beginning. This bit I don’t doubt. The claim is that the police are stating that a 5 year old traffic filter is responsible for increased crime. Something they have said to Rockets and to no one else remarkably.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

If certain types of crime are up in that area is it fair to assert streets in the LTN are safer?

And there is the rub. No evidence at all that crimes are up around the LTN over and above local crime rates. And of course none has been offered. It’s just entirely made up. As are claims about supposed increases in pollution and reductions in pedestrian safety. 

You may just as well state that the LTN is making people older and point out that in the last 5 years you have developed more grey hairs as evidence. This is the level of statistical illiteracy being deployed, by people criticising peer reviewed academic research without reading it first. It’s embarrassing. By your logic, the fact that average salaries have risen since a traffic filter was installed, is evidence that LTNs increase earnings.

There is lots of academic research and plenty of official pollution and reported crime data available. It all suggest falling pollution, fewer collisions and serious injuries, and lower crime around LTNs.

To ignore the conclusions of all the available evidence, and claim the exact opposite to be true, is simply to make things up.

Edited August 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Apologies I keep referring to Earl as 'he', I see that others do not.

I got the impression that Earl was casting doubt on the assertion that police had visited homes in Dulwich Village, advising on a rise in some types of crime in the area and that a potential link with LTN's was mooted.

Since Earl has cast doubt on any of this, I wonder if they have checked it out with the local SNT?

The pollution aspect is, within this thread, a red herring, as you well know.

The interest here is not in stats for LTNs generally but this specific LTN- if it even is one, and you have cast doubt on that.

You and Rockets will continue to disagree on how the stats are interpreted but I am more interested in the fact that police have felt it necessary to visit households on streets in and around the locale and, it is said, considered the possibility that quieter streets post 'LTN' may have facilitated an increase in certain types of crime in this specific area.

I guess we could add that if, as is suggested by your last comment on crime in the area compared to other areas locally, there is no evidence crime rates are down either what do we make of the rationale that this LTN would make for a 'safer' environment?

 

 

 

Edited August 2 by first mate

[heartblock]

Ha ha …no I don’t get into any debate now, I stopped when Southwark Council stopped measuring pollutant levels on my road - so I don’t know what the current levels are on East Dulwich Grove?

I imagine when the new nursery, new JAGs building and the Harris School alternative entrance on EDG open then traffic will increase.

I also became fed up of being characterised as some sort of pro-car, Reform voting, vaccination denier - instead of the Green Party member, senior academic in health and someone who has actively campaigned for cleaner air for the past 40 years. So yes I’m out of this convo.

[jazzer]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

@exdulwicher in the words of MC Hammer...back up. 

In the words of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast: No!...No! No! No! No! No! No!

And in the words of Public Enemy: Don't Believe the Hype

Let me clear up some less than accurate nonsense someone has been trying to pin on me.

I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions (that no-one was, funnily enoigh capable or prepared to answer). Now, would those answers have allowed me to denegrate the report? Probably. And I very much suspect that's why no-one answered it. But to suggest what you have is utter nonsense and deliberate spin from a cohort of yours.

Also I told people what a PCSO had told me when they knocked on my door, not that they were knocking on the doors saying that there was a spike in crime because a junctiom was closed 5 years ago.

Please, try to get your facts right. There are those on here who go out of their way to deliberately skew what people like me say and it looks like folks like you are falling for it. Come on, surely some of you are better than that, just look at the childish nonsense some of us have to put up with? 

As I was saying..why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now? A clear attempt to distract. Honestly the attempts to bully people into submission is getting ridiculous. Its funny that @dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda. I think of the likes of @heartblock and @legalalien who used to also try to fight the nonsense but we're seemingly bludgeoned out of the debate.

What I love is that some of you get so irate and agitated when someone challenges the nonsense. There is such a pattern: someone challenges your position, you denegrate them,  call them names, a lot of others from the pro-LTN lobby pile on and then you try to change the subject when your position is shown to be wrong. Some of you have been doing it for 5 years! 😉

Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data. In fact I have often used data to prove the nonsense some of your cohort are spouting.  I shared robust data (with links) on crime levels in Dulwich and then people retort that there is this report and that report from 72 London LTNs and yet when I ask for links they dont reply.

Maybe it is not me who is making things up...or maybe all of these reports are behind a paywall and people subscribe and dont want to share them because they are terrified of IP infringement.......

 

 

Edited August 2 by jazzer

[Earl Aelfheah]

To be clear, for the first 5 months of this year burglaries across Dulwich Village are down (on the same period last year). This was one of the specific crimes Rocks claimed had recently spiked. I can’t really be bothered going through all the stats on this, but the first one I did look at showed his claims were (not surprisingly) quite wrong. A very quick glance at the crime map, and it’s obvious that there is no spike around the road filter, most of the local ‘hotspots’ (such as they are) are focussed on other areas.

The evidence of a link between a recent (supposed) ‘spike’ in crime and the filter (established 5 years ago), is exactly zero. Rocks has offered none. It’s the usual tactic of making something up and throwing out random / irrelevant numbers and / or deflecting as much as possible when questioned.

There is strong evidence that the filter in Dulwich has reduced collisions and serious injuries (Rocks has again claimed the opposite offering zero evidence) and that local air quality has improved. Whilst on this second point it is likely the result of numerous factors, pollution has clearly not risen as claimed.

All in all, the pattern is one of making completely unevidenced or simply false claims, whilst dismissing all the available research. 

Edited August 3 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

To be clear, for the first 5 months of this year burglaries across Dulwich Village are down (on the same period last year).

Huh? Did I ever mention burglaries? I have consistently shared data for 3 categories of crime: robbery, theft from person and other theft (i.e. the street robbery categories).

And when you look at the annual police data for all of those 3 theft categories in DV what does it tell you? I will tell you, again, as you seem incapable of acknowledging it....that the theft categories have been going up every year since 2021 with theft from person more than doubling between 2023 and 2024 and on course this year to be higher again.

Are you throwing burglaries in as a distraction/deflection? Or is that the only one you can find that is going down...Come on @Earl Aelfheah these tactics are getting ridiculous now, everyone can see what you are doing?

It's all getting so predictable and tiresome now. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I can’t really be bothered going through all the stats on this, but the first one I did look at showed his claims were (not surprisingly) quite wrong.

Well it is a good job I did it for you then for those three theft categories. I could be bothered because I wanted to see what the annual trends were and those are the numbers I presented - I went through each month and added them up for the annual total. I did the research so you didn't have to...!

Edited August 3 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 03/08/2025 at 08:09, Rockets said:

Huh? Did I ever mention burglaries?

My mistake, I meant robberies (which is the category you referred to). Robberies down for the first 5 months of this year (the months for which we have data), compared to the same period in 2024. Originally you were claiming a recent spike, which there hasn't been. You now seem to have pivoted to describing longer term, general crime trends across the whole of Dulwich, which is irrelevant.

Edited August 4 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

Longer term crime trends across a wide area don't tell you anything about a traffic filter on Calton avenue. There have also been increases in average earnings since 2021, does that mean the traffic filter is making people richer? It's just nonsense. 

Research looking at crime rates before and after implementation of LTNs and which control for background changes, show that they do not increase crime, and you've offered no counter data to suggest they do. So like your other baseless claims around pollution and collions, you're just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

Edited August 4 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Research looking at crime rates before and after implementation of LTNs and control for background changes in rates, show that they do not increase crime and you've offered no counter data to suggest they do. So like your other baseless claims, you're just making stuff up.

But @Earl AelfheahI am not making stuff up and you know this. I shared with you three crime statistics based on numerous years of police data that show that those three categories of crime have been (in the main) growing since 2021.

You have then decided to respond that one of the categories is trending lower for the first 5 months of this year. Are we supposed to put out the bunting and have a street party to celebrate this clear deflection technique? I mean, do you have nothing to say about the increases in any of the others?

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Research looking at crime rates before and after implementation of LTNs and control for background changes in rates, show that they do not increase crime and you've offered no counter data to suggest they do. So like your other baseless claims, you're just making stuff up.

You still haven't sent the link for the 72 London LTNs that you say proves crime falls in LTNs and I suspect I know why - because those results were derived by comparing crime in the period of October 2020 to February 2021 to the corresponding months in 2018/19 and 2019/20. Of course, the potential Achilles heal for that research that is that was that pretty much all crime fell massively during lockdown periods and their review period was across the second Covid lockdown period.

Has anyone done anything since that report that compares pre- and post-Covid lockdown period analysis?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

I shared with you three crime statistics based on numerous years of police data that show that those three categories of crime have been (in the main) growing since 2021.

So three categories of crime have risen generally since 2001. That wasn't your original claim was it? Which is why it's posted in this thread and not one on crime generally. You've suggested crime is rising because of a traffic filter introduced 5 years ago. You have offered exactly zero evidence for this. Anyone who is remotely statistically literate understands the difference. As I pointed out, using the same logic, I could state that a road filter in Calton avenue, has raised average earnings.

You've been pointed to several studies in this thread, across different time periods, looking at the impact of LTNs on crime. They all come to the same conclusions and they all compare data with background trends in crime so as to control for general rises and falls (so covid is a complete red herring). I note you've quoted 2021 data for Dulwich yourself, but have not controlled for background changes. Neither have you looked at areas which are inside or outside of an LTN. You do not hold yourself to basic statistical standards, even though you do seem to understand them. That seems massively cynical. 

To anyone worried about a supposed spike in crime around Dulwich Square, I would reassure you that there is no evidence of this, and direct you to the online crime map where you can see for yourself how little crime is recorded there compared to other parts of Dulwich.

Edited August 4 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

(covid is a complete red herring)

Ah, so that is the research to which you refer - I thought so. Has anyone done one post-Covid lockdown? Also, what was the control in that 72 LTN research as it doesn't seem to be referenced in the Methodology section? Interesting as well that that piece of research sat outside Aldred and co's larger body of work funded by the DfT to evaluate the Active Travel Plan - any research folks provide any input on why that might be and why that would be referenced in the Conflict of Interest section of the abstract?

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So three categories of crime have risen generally since 2001.

Yes those 3 categories of crime have risen since 2021, not 2001 (2021 was a far back as the police records available went back when I started the exercise in 2024).

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I note you've quoted 2021 data for Dulwich yourself, but have not controlled for background changes. Neither have you looked at areas which are inside or outside of an LTN. It's nonsense. You do not hold yourself to basic statistical standards, even though you do seem to understand them. That seems massively cynical. 

But I only said that certain types of crime had increased significantly within the Dulwich Village ward and that a PCSO was telling people there is a link between closed streets and an increase in crime. You have filled in the rest.....and come to your own conclusions (again).

So, do you agree then that within the Dulwich Village ward certain types of crime have been increasing since 2021? You don't have to be a statistical genius to agree or disagree with that surely?

Edited August 4 by Rockets

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah you said "The claim is that the police are stating that a 5 year old traffic filter is responsible for increased crime. Something they have said to Rockets and to no one else remarkably."

What is your evidence that the police are stating this? I felt what was being suggested was correlation rather than causation. What is your evidence the police have only had this conversation with Rockets?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

So, do you agree then that within the Dulwich Village ward certain types of crime have been increasing since 2021? You don't have to be a statistical genius to agree or disagree with that surely?

I mean I didn't really want to spend any time checking your clearly cynical misapplication of Dulwich wide data to try and draw a link between the filter on Calton avenue and crime (a link there is no evidence for). But I took a quick look.

Across your three categories, no; For the first five months of this year (the most recent data that is available), compared to the same period over the previous two (so 2023, 2024, and 2025), 'other theft' and 'robbery' have fallen. The only one that is up is 'theft from person' (which seems mainly to be centred towards Herne Hill / Brockwell Park. The numbers are all low (Dulwich Village has a low crime rate compared to London or even the national average) and so are unlikely to be statistically significant for any of these categories. There is no evidence of a significant upward trend. As the graph you posted shows, the crime rate appears to be broadly flat.

I do not believe that crime has:

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

increased significantly within the Dulwich Village ward

I don't see any evidence of this in recorded crime data. But even if it had, it would not tell you anything about a traffic filter on Calton avenue. There have been increases in average earnings over the last few years. That does not mean the filter is making people richer either.

I also do not believe that:

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

a PCSO was telling people there is a link between closed streets and an increase in crime.

There is nothing to suggest that this is true, and it seems incredible that the only person who reports being told this happens to be the same person with a 5 year grievance and a history of making false claims about the negative impacts of a Dulwich traffic filter on pollution and road safety.

Again, research looking at crime rates before and after implementation of LTNs and which control for background changes, show that they do not increase crime. You have offered no counter data to suggest they do, generally, or specifically (in relation to the Dulwich filter).

Edited August 4 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

For the first five months of this year, compared to the same period over the previous to (so 2023, 2024, and 2025) 'other theft' and 'robbery' have fallen.

But what happens when you look at the annual numbers from 2022/2023/2024 and the trend thus far for 20205....?

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no evidence of a significant upward trend.

Except, of course, that when you look at the annual numbers they have all been (in the main) all going up....and the only way to really understand the trend is to look at the annualised numbers as there appears to be a seasonality factor at play here, with peaks around certain times of the year. You don't have to be a statistical genius to see the pattern......

A brief reminder of the actual annualised numbers:

2021 (data from Jan 21 missing due to 3 year cut-off):

Robbery: 17

Theft from person: 4

Other theft: 45

 

2022

Robbery: 28

Theft from person:  23

Other theft: 96

 

2023

Robbery: 49

Theft from person: 35

Other theft: 77

 

2024

Robbery: 62

Theft from person: 61

Other theft: 78

 

2025 up to and including May

 

Robbery: 16

Theft from person: 34

Other theft: 18

 

8 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I also do not believe that "a PCSO was telling people there is a link between closed streets and an increase in crime". There is nothing to suggest that this is true, and it seems incredible that the only person who reports being told this happens to be the same person with a 5 year grievance and a history of making false claims about the negative impacts of a traffic filter on pollution and road safety.

I am glad you have corrected the incorrect narrative you were trying to spread about what I had said - it's always best to try to be as accurate as possible. But that is exactly what they told me. You don't believe me and think I am making it up but that's your prerogative. But that doesn't alter the fact they did say it. If only my partner had an account and they could come on here a validate what they said - but I suspect you probably wouldn't believe them too!!! 😉

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

• You appear to be cherry picking - looking at only three crime categories from a list of many.
• You then compare partial data for 2021, with whole years' data from subsequent years. You also fail to account for background changes in London crime rates (across the whole set, but it's particularly relevant for 2021 - covid lockdowns remember)
• You ignore the fact that 'other theft' actually falls according to your own numbers - one of the categories you claim to have risen.
• You use partial data for 2025 (apparently the year in which you've been told there has been a recent spike in crime) and compare it to whole, previous years. You ignore the comparisons which are available for the same period in those previous years and which show falling crime in the first 5 months of 2025.

You've also shared a graph which show trends over a 3 year period to be broadly flat.

Of course it's all irrelevant to the claim that there is "a link between closed streets and an increase in crime". There isn't, and as usual you don't actually offer any evidence.

I really don't know what you think you're proving. 

It appears to be the usual tactic of throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Edited August 4 by Earl Aelfheah