Jump to content

Commercial research recruitment in the Lounge


????

Recommended Posts

These aren't academic researchers they are commercial companies or freelancers who get paid for this - the one whose constantly using the forum doesn't even have the decency to go in the right section. (and I suspect they aren't local anyway). can't they get a ban?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, I guess that's why my posts got deleted, I was trying to figure it out. Genuinely didn't realise I was doing the wrong thing, sorry! (And hello quids, we've actually met before in person at a poker game, but no hard feelings). I am indeed a freelancer, and getting paid for it (and a fairly long time forum member under a different name), but not sure I understand why this is bad? If it makes a difference, I do this for museums or educational organisations, not giant corporates looking to find better ways to flog you stuff.


But mainly I just need lots of people to respond, and last time I got a great (and friendly) response from this forum and others, and people are usually quite happy to be interviewed afterwards and compensated for their time so I thought this was a good place to post. Of course I won't post again if it's against forum rules, I wouldn't have done so if I'd realised. Would be great if someone could explain why it is though, and which section I should have posted in. Thanks! Would rather you didn't ban me, though, ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, just seen bit in terms of use about "Abuse of this site for commercial gain" which I guess you feel this would come under. Genuine apologies if it's seen this way, I'm not making any extra money for people who do the survey, I get paid either way to do the research, so didn't really think of it in those terms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other one is on here a lot so it was more aimed at him/her than you...and you are local so I'm sure admin won't mind if you're in the right bit. Plus you don't think online poker's rigged which is good in my book!


Nothing personal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • No idea. Ask One Dulwich   No. There are two seperate issues. I believe some cover their plates deliberately (delivery drivers etc) and a number are confused by signage. I spend a lot of time in that area and have only ever seen one car drive through and it was an elderly couple who were incredibly confused (and subsequently very apologetic to an angry cyclist who was calling them all the names under the sun).   Some questions for you to answer now: 1) Which consultation are you referring to? 2) Did you agree with the council's insistence on keeping the junction closed to emergency vehicles despite the emergency services telling them it was delaying response times?   3) At a time of funding crisis do you think £1.5m is a good spend to redesign a junction and those redesigns: - potentially increase emergency vehicle response times - do nothing to stop persistent number plate covering offenders - do nothing to slow cyclists at a pedestrian area  
    • I tell you what, I've answered every question you've posed to me on this thread so far, so before you deflect any further, why don't you address the simple questions I've put to you several times first. Here, give them a go: Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Do you genuinely believe that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the square due to inadequate signage?  
    • Which original consultation?    Err be careful with the expert opinion and data part.....if you think the cycle lobby and Aldred et al is the sole source of sound opinion on such issues! 😉 And this is where they fell foul of the law and had to re-run the consultation. It actually casts huge doubt on a lot of previous consultations (including the latest DV one) as they do not pass the legal watermark because they do not provide a yes/no response. The council are terrified of a judicial review because, I suspect under legal advice, they know they cheated the system in many previous consultations. Do you remember when the council claimed they had a mandate for the CPZs because of some seriously dodgy research conducted with a large tranche of students in the north of the borough in 2018.....
    • Perhaps the issue is that Southwark don’t listen. They didn’t take account of responses. The proposed CPZs for west Dulwich  stopped when the Council was threatened with a judicial review. Not before. Whatever consultation process was worse than flawed with McAsh arguing that because they were in power, they had a mandate and didn’t need to listen to anyone’s views, rendering any democratic process void. The criteria for LTNs was high population density, high public transport usage and low car ownership so Dulwich Village was a perfect candidate…not. Just a coincidence but I believe some councillors live within the scheme 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...