The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Earl Aelfheah]

31 minutes ago, Rockets said:

despite what the usual suspect lobbyists try to claim.

🥱

Absolutely embarrassing.

[first mate]

39 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The argument that StreetData does not say what it says is beyond ludicrous. Denial is reaching epic proportions!

This is the truly embarrassing aspect of it all. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Literally no one has argued that it 'does not say what it says'. 

Rockets has made objectively false claims however. Not for the first time. And first mate will defend the indefensible if it aligns with his sense of grievance over the filter. 

C'est la vie

Edited 6 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Anyone that has the slightest familiarity with statistics or criminology knows that trying to make out crime trends from 1 or 2 years of data in relation to a single street and then trying to pin it on a single cause is completely futile. The data pool is too shallow and the phenomena too multicausal. That's true whether it shows that any type of crime has gone up, gone down or stayed the same. Drug offences have gone down 80% in Dulwich Village SNT area since 2021: you'd be a complete idiot to suggest that "LTNs prevent drug crime" on the basis of this data.

But I suspect that's not the point of our frieds who passionately believe that "LTNs cause crime". Their intention is to throw enough shi- - I mean, spaghetti - at the wall and hope enough sprays around that casual observers can't be bothered to wade through the mess.

It's classic FUD tactics, it's a load of old toot, and it's failing miserably - in the real world, away from the fevered posts of a few on the East Dulwich Forum, there is little interest in a junction that closed five years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt : 

"Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a manipulative propaganda tactic used in technology sales, marketing, public relations, politics, polling, and cults. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and is a manifestation of the appeal to fear...In public policy, a similar concept has been referred to as manufactured uncertainty, which involves casting doubt on academic findings, exaggerating their claimed imperfections.

Manufacturing controversy has been a tactic used by ideological and corporate groups to "neutralize the influence of academic scientists" in public policy debates. Cherry picking of favorable data and sympathetic experts, aggrandizement of uncertainties within theoretical models, and false balance in media reporting contribute to the generation of FUD. Alan D. Attie describes its process as "to amplify uncertainties, cherry-pick experts, attack individual scientists, marginalize the traditional role of distinguished scientific bodies and get the media to report "both sides" of a manufactured controversy."^[13]

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Literally no one has argued that it 'does not say what it says'. 

Ah so are you finally agreeing that it does say what it says then! Thank goodness for that. You took your time.

46 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Anyone that has the slightest familiarity with statistics or criminology knows that trying to make out crime trends from 1 or 2 years of data in relation to a single street and then trying to pin it on a single cause is completely futile.

Are the trends in theft from person over the last 5 years not enough either then? How far do you want to go back then because that category of crime is higher than at any (recorded) point previously.

[Spartacus]

One of the issues with crime stats is that it relies on people actually reporting crime. 

As a result of reports and stats, resources are deployed to an area if there appears to be a problem.

In reality, if people don't report crimes as they see little point or accept it as the norm then there is little actual evidence of what is really going on.

As such we should view any stats with caution as the real picture may be different to what the numbers say. 

I don't doubt that a PCSO has given crime advice out, and it may well be true that they said what they did as was reported earlier, as there may be a short term crime issue in the area, normally caused by one or two individuals, but I wasn't there, didn't hear it so can't question it but equally I can't deny it happened and nor should anyone else unless they have actual proof it wasn't said. 

Bit of a Schrödinger's cat issue, without proof either way the statement can both be true and false. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

6 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

One of the issues with crime stats is that it relies on people actually reporting crime...In reality, if people don't report crimes as they see little point or accept it as the norm then there is little actual evidence of what is really going on.

As such we should view any stats with caution as the real picture may be different to what the numbers say. 

Not correct. There are two principal sources of crime data in E&W: crime recorded by police and the Crime Survey for England & Wales, which does not rely solely on reported crime. Please see the note above from the ONS on the limited utility of recorded crime data, especially in shallow pools.

[Spartacus]

14 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Not correct. There are two principal sources of crime data in E&W: crime recorded by police and the Crime Survey for England & Wales, which does not rely solely on reported crime. Please see the note above from the ONS on the limited utility of recorded crime data, especially in shallow pools.

I'm sure the crime survey goes down to street level data 🙄 

[Penguin68]

7 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

There are two principal sources of crime data in E&W: crime recorded by police and the Crime Survey for England & Wales, which does not rely solely on reported crime.

The England and Wales crime survey goes to about 40, 000 households (out of 24.8 million). Although it reports, at a national level, far more crime than through the police statistics it is still not statistically significant at the ward, let alone the LTN level to draw any actual trend statistics. None of the figures being quoted actually tell you what is happening, good or bad, at the individual LTN level. They may be of use at the borough or constituency level. All of us can find the comfort we are looking for in our own interpretations. Those arguing for a worsening of the situation are probably wrong, based on the published figures, AS ARE THOSE ARGUING THE OPPOSITE. It's simply a case of 'nobody knows' at the level of granularity being examined. 

[ed_pete]

If the focus of the discussion is Calton then there we only 6 crimes reported. The other are on nearby streets. 

Also the below is confusing:

In 2023, 309 crimes were reported near Calton Avenue . 39% of streets in the UK are more dangerous. This street can be considered not safe. 

Is it "This street" including or excluding "near" - it doesn't make sense.

The bot that creating this nonsense is flawed.  I could live in an impenetrable gated community with private security guards where murders were taking place outside on a daily basis and my street would be considered unsafe.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

9 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

I'm sure the crime survey goes down to street level data 🙄 

A single street is never, ever going to have enough data of any sort to draw sensible conclusions about crime trends. It is a totally futile exercise to try to do so, in any direction.

And it is not true that "crime stats [rely] on people actually reporting crime". This is basic stuff for anyone with a passing knowledge of criminology.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

I'm sure the crime survey goes down to street level data 🙄 

It does and this is what triggered all this because that street level data was being used to defend against my accusation that certain types of crime have increased in the Dulwich Village area. And lo and behold the website summarises it on a street postcode by postcode level and shows that certain types of crime are, in fact, increasing to the highest levels since the records have been kept.

2 hours ago, ed_pete said:

Is it "This street" including or excluding "near" - it doesn't make sense.

I suspect this is because the data is being collated on a postcode by postcode basis.

[ianr]

Dunstans Road SE22 0HA, Melbourne Grove S. SE22 8RR, Woodwarde Road SE22 8UN  all rated dangerous by streetscan.co.uk.

Edited 1 hour ago by ianr

[malumbu]

As tedious as some of the discussion is you have presented perfect evidence of why people should not trust, and certainly share, everything on line.  This random website appears to rate all London streets as dangerous as crime in London is higher than the national average.

[ed_pete]

Couldn't agree more.

I'm thinking of creating a web page that says "Ignore the fake news ! Carlton Avenue is 100% safe !" and sending to R.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

It does and this is what triggered all this because that street level data was being used to defend against my accusation that certain types of crime have increased in the Dulwich Village area. And lo and behold the website summarises it on a street postcode by postcode level and shows that certain types of crime are, in fact, increasing to the highest levels since the records have been kept.

I suspect this is because the data is being collated on a postcode by postcode basis.

So when you're quoting the website saying Calton Avenue is unsafe, do you mean Calton Avenue or the postcode SE21 7DE ?  Are all the streets included in the numbers impacted by new square ?