The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[snowy]

Trump percentages - a 100% rise could be from zero to one. 
 

And I'm clearly not laughing at crime but at your ridiculous Swiss Cheese argument.

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, snowy said:

Trump percentages - a 100% rise could be from zero to one. 

But it is not in this case. I refer to the chart - theft from person is at a high since 2010 and seemingly getting worse - it has been increasing since 2021 doubled between 2023 and 2024 and is on track to be higher again in 2025.

 

It's not something to laugh at. In fact, the site @Earl Aelfheah sent me to to see those stats actually refers to Calton Avenue as "not safe" and that the "Crime Domain" is 7/10 with an above average risk of crime.

Edited 23 hours ago by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is the description from that website:

Quote

 

Overall crime rate on Calton Avenue in London near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level.

Violent crime rate is 85% lower than London average and 57% lower than national average.

Property crime rate is 78% lower than London property crime rate but 22% higher than national average.

Public order crime level is 87% lower than London average and 49% lower than national average.

Level of crime connected with drugs and guns is 91% lower than London average and 64% lower than national average.

 

Your cherry picking, blatant misrepresentation of data, and your attempts to cause fear amongst local residents is actually getting out of hand. 

Please stop it.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Your cherry picking, blatant misrepresentation of data, and your attempts to cause fear amongst local residents is actually getting out of hand. 

Please stop it.

@Earl Aelfheah you owe me an apology.....

 

Pasted below is a screenshot from the very website you shared with everyone. Click on the link and scroll down to Safety....what does it say......I look forward to your response (I presume you didn't bother checking that part of the website).

https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode/se21-7de

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Since before the filter was introduced:

All crimes have fallen

Violent crime is down

Robbery has fallen

You've cherry picked the one category were crime has risen (basically mobile phone theft) and ignored the background trend. Theft from the person has massively increased everywhere. As the graph shows, it's actually trended up much more slowly here, than across the rest of London.

And yet, you've suggested the filter has caused it, ignoring the fact that you could produce a similar graph for almost any area, with or without a road filter. Both average earnings, and life expectancy have increased since 2020. Applying your 'logic' this is ''proof' that the filter is making us all richer and extending our lives. I assume you accept this too?

Overall crime rate on Calton Avenue in London near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level.

Violent crime rate is 85% lower than London average and 57% lower than national average.

Please stop trying to convince people that Calton Avenue is somehow uniquely dangerous relative to the UK, London, or the local area generally; It clearly is not.

You are just going out of your way to paint a false and alarming picture for your own purposes.

Edited 8 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ha ha....we see what you're doing - so predictable! Nice try at deflection....but it does refer to Calton Avenue as "not safe" and that the "Crime Domain" is 7/10 with an above average risk of crime doesn't it? Come on, admit it does!

I would suggest you properly read the materials you are sharing to everyone in future.....;-)

Edited 9 hours ago by Rockets

[ed_pete]

"Households in this area have a much higher level of wealth compared to the average household in England and Wales. 99% of analyzed areas in England and Wales have lower average household annual income than this area."

Do you think this might have anything to do with it ? Robin Hood and all that....

[Earl Aelfheah]

We're considered a low crime area. Don't believe the stuff Rockets is shovelling.

Dulwich has 75.9 crimes per thousand resident population. This can be rated as 3 out of 10 or low crime level compared to other local areas in England and Wales.

Annual total crime rate in Southwark is 129 per thousand population, which can be rated as 7 out of 10 or high crime level compared to other local authority districts in England and Wales.

It's the 7/10 figure for Southwark that Rockets has quoted above.

[DulvilleRes]

On 09/08/2025 at 16:34, Rockets said:

@DulvilleRes is your concern here that we should not talk about things that might shine the council in a less than negative light? Is this why you object so much that it might mean people start holding the council to account for their actions - after all some on here claim the ballot box is the only time you are allowed to ask for accountability from our councillors. Whether people support the LTNs are not they are all united by their concerns over the crime in the area - probably best the councillors try to address it.

I've no issues with any one being held to account for their actions, and that includes you. The constant stream of factual inaccuracy and misleading statements from you which keep having to be fact checked and corrected is exhausting. These threads should be for genuine debate amongst neighbours, not having to deal with an endless culture war tropes and misinformation. It really makes me question the motivation of what lies behind it. There comes a point where such a blind disregard for facts and any kind of balanced debate tips into trolling.

[Penguin68]

7 minutes ago, ed_pete said:

Robin Hood and all that....

You presumably didn't intend to praise the criminals who steal from us as 'Robin Hoods', but if you did, shame on you. Once you believe and preach that stealing from those you perceive to be wealthy is acceptable, then pray no one starts considering you wealthy, compared to them, because you will have few grounds for complaint when you are robbed. Or your loved ones. This is the mindset which sent kulaks to the Gulags and confiscated all privately owned property. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

28 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha....we see what you're doing - so predictable! Nice try at deflection....but it does refer to Calton Avenue as "not safe" and that the "Crime Domain" is 7/10 with an above average risk of crime doesn't it? Come on, admit it does!

I would suggest you properly read the materials you are sharing to everyone in future.....;-)

Those figures are for Southwark, not Dulwich. The figure for Dulwich Village (including Calton Avenue) is  3/10 which is considered a low crime area compared to other areas across England and Wales.

Calton Avenue It is not a dangerous area and there is no evidence whatsoever that the road filter has increased crime. As I suspect you know. 

Please stop trying to scare people.

Edited 8 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We're considered a low crime area. Don't believe the stuff Rockets is shovelling.

 

@Earl Aelfheah I am not shovelling anything - that comes from the report you shared with everyone to supposedly show how wrong I was. Do you agree now that it says Calton Avenue is "not safe" according to the report you shared? Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention

 

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Those figures are for Southwark, not calton Avenue. The figure for Calton avenue is 3/10 which is considered a low crime area. It is not a dangerous area as I suspect you know. 

Also where are you finding the 3/10 as when you go to the Calton Page and scroll down two sections below to the Deprivation section within the Affluence sub-head it clearly says the following:

https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode/se21-7de

• Crime Domain - 7/10 (above average )

  The Crime Domain measures the risk of people and property being victims of crime in a local area. There is only reference to Calton Avenue on that page.

[Earl Aelfheah]

That 7/10 figure is for Southwark. I’m not going to keep spoon feeding you. Fundamentally, if you’re looking for data to try and prove something you already, wrongly believe, you’re always going to get to an incorrect answer.

Dulwich has 75.9 crimes per thousand resident population. This can be rated as 3 out of 10 or low crime level compared to other local areas in England and Wales.

Annual total crime rate in Southwark is 129 per thousand population, which can be rated as 7 out of 10 or high crime level compared to other local authority districts in England and Wales.

The fact is that crime here is not just low against the national average, but remains so in the context of a high crime Borough.

Edited 8 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

11 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That 7/10 figure is for Southwark. I’m not going to keep spoon feeding you. Fundamentally, if you’re looking for data to try and prove something you already, wrongly believe, you’re always going to get to an incorrect answer.

No I am sharing data that's there in black and white from a report you linked to.

Here is the title page for the Calton Avenue page (note how safety is also two out of five stars):

 

Then you scroll down to Deprivation and this is what you see - I have highlighted the 7/10 element.

That is referring to Calton - there is no reference to anywhere else (I suspect this is why the Safety overview is two of five stars for Calton).

It's there in black and white. I cannot make it any clearer.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You’re wrong. Cross reference the stats. Your error is a classic example of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to understand the data, you’re only attending to information that might align with your pre-held belief. 

Here is a clue. If you click on the street level data and see that the overall crime rate on Calton Avenue near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level, but the high level summary (which appears on a different page) states that it's a high crime area - you should question that. So the first thing you might do is look at whether they use the same source data. They don't. One is using street level crime data, the other OFS area data. Look at how the OFS analyse it and you see that they're cutting the data at Local Authority level. A quick cross reference against both the available data for Southwark and that for Dulwich Village ward respectively, and it's clear that the 7/10 figure (along with the other summary data) is taken for the whole borough. 

The relevant, street level data, shows that Calton Avenue is a low crime area. There is no evidence of the filter having made the area less safe. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[ianr]

https://streetscan.co.uk/crime/se21-7de

https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode-district/se21

https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode-district/se22

https://data.police.uk/docs/

 

Edited 7 hours ago by ianr

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’re wrong. Cross reference the stats. Your error is a classic example of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to understand the data, you’re only attending to information that might align with your pre-held belief. 

I am wrong or the Calton Avenue StreetScan summary is wrong? It's pretty clear what it says on StreetScan is it not? 

Do you have an argument to put forward to the reference to Calton Avenue as "not safe" too....? I presume that is confirmation bias too?

These quotes are being taken, very much in context, from a report you shared so I presume you validate this as you shared it? It seems a bit odd that you are trying to argue that black is white over a report you shared and anyone can see the information for themselves. 

You seem to be getting yourself into a right muddle over this. One minute saying it's proof I am wrong the next arguing that elements of the report are wrong. Which one is it?

Edited 6 hours ago by Rockets

[snowy]

1 hour ago, ianr said:

https://streetscan.co.uk/crime/se21-7de

https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode-district/se21

https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode-district/se22

https://data.police.uk/docs/

 

And this one too using the same data:

https://crystalroof.co.uk/report/postcode/SE217DE/crime
 

"Annual total crime rate in your local area [se217de] is 43.6crimes per thousand resident population. This can be rated as 2 out of 10 or low crime level compared to other local areas in England and Wales.

The address is located within Southwark(borough). Annual total crime rate in Southwarkis 129 per thousand population, which can be rated as 7 out of 10 or high crime level compared to other local authority districts in England and Wales."

Edited 5 hours ago by snowy

[Rockets]

Again @snowy are you saying the report @Earl Aelfheah linked to is wrong then?

It's pretty clear what is says - I have made it larger for you all as some seem to be having problems acknowledging what is written in the report. It's very easy to find, follow this link (https://streetscan.co.uk/postcode/se21-7de) then scroll down to "Safety" and then "Affluence" and the statements will appear for you.

Notice how the Safety element refers to "this street can be considered not safe" - not this area or this borough but "this street". And there is nothing to suggest the deprivation score is anything other than for Calton Avenue and within that the Crime Domain is 7/10 - above average.

The next section follows to talk about Average house prices on Calton Avenue. After that comes employment (in the Calton Avenue area) - this is the report and scores for Calton Avenue. 

I think you're all desperately trying to deflect away from what is printed in the report that @Earl Aelfheah shared with us.

 

[ed_pete]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

You presumably didn't intend to praise the criminals who steal from us as 'Robin Hoods', but if you did, shame on you. Once you believe and preach that stealing from those you perceive to be wealthy is acceptable, then pray no one starts considering you wealthy, compared to them, because you will have few grounds for complaint when you are robbed. Or your loved ones. This is the mindset which sent kulaks to the Gulags and confiscated all privately owned property. 

Maybe Robin was wasn't such a great example. Maybe more Dick Turpin.  Point is the theft of have's by the have-not's is nothing new. And no, I'm not condoning theft. Nice try.

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, ed_pete said:

Nice try

It was you who chose to endorse thieves, if only for literary effect. But that's a slippery slope. Of course the wealthy are slightly more likely to be the target of thieves, but probably opportunity rather than comparative wealth is a more likely driver. A lone member of the working class on an empty lane is a more likely target for casual theft than a Duke in a crowded ballroom. If course a Duke on an empty lane... 

[Insuflo]

8 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

 A lone member of the working class on an empty lane is a more likely target for casual theft than a Duke in a crowded ballroom. If course a Duke on an empty lane... 

What year is it on your planet? 1925?