Rockets

But @Earl Aelfheah by the same measure you must support the conclusion of said report - surely? Come on, you can't have it both ways. And if it is proved that this report was buried due to the conclusions it came to then will you accept that it then calls into question anything else published by TFL to defend the LTNs? One suspects it was only not fully completed (I mean there was 112 pages of the report and one person said they were a month away from publishing) because it didn't come to the conclusions they wanted/needed. Unfortunately, this is how activist research works - people tend to pick and chose what they decide to share. This could be a huge smoking gun - you know, we know it and the person who warned others about the fact that everything was FoI'able clearly knew it as well. It is starting to unravel one piece at a time....

Hmmm, are you sure according to some of the items uncovered by the FOI it seems a report was one month away from being published and there was a discussion about extending the research (or taking a one year hiatus) to see if more LTNs would have a more positive impact on the results but there were no more LTNs planned. @Earl Aelfheah by your own measure then if we will dismiss the content of the report then you will surely embrace it and agree that there is no link between the LTNs and lower car use? And this one seems to pour scorn on one of the key strategic objectives of LTNs does it not? Commissioned, written and allegedly buried by the very people who were claiming the exact opposite. What's interesting is that if this does prove to be the smoking gun some are claiming it is then it massively undermines the argument that everything has been fair, balanced and transparent. I also see that someone called Will or Will N is mentioned in the FOI communications as being involved in the review and the decision........ To some of us what is being suggested is of no surprise. As we have been saying the truth always comes out eventually.

@Earl Aelfheah are you sure as this article says funding was withdrawn two years into the three year project….seemingly when they realised the results weren’t what they wanted. Funded by taxpayers money too…ouch….if true a massive smoking gun. FoI’able is a fascinating concept and clearly shows the mindset of those rolling these things out. As more of the report gets leaked it will be fascinating to see how this develops. If the accusations are true then it’s yet more proof of what many of us have been saying for years, that they don’t deliver - the irony is of course that a lot of you accuse us of trying to manipulate narratives…. It will be fascinating to read the exchanges between the university and TFL because surely “independent” researchers would insist on publishing the paper no matter what the results? Emails between Transport for London (TfL) and the university show that officials were concerned about the report’s results coming out, the newspaper reported. The correspondence discussed how they might present the findings in the most positive light before a decision was made not to publish, the Times said. An official is said to reminded others in one email that “all of this stuff is FoI-able” (available under freedom of information laws) before reassuring them that no one outside TfL yet knew about the study. Funding to finish the three year, £82,095 project, was withdrawn in June last year after the study had been underway for two years. It does indeed, good find. And here appears to be the offending text from the report…. While there is evidence that respondents living in areas with more LTN roads do use a car less frequently, there is only weak evidence that this could be driven by the LTN itself. Once other area- level and infrastructural characteristics are accounted for, there is not a significant effect associated with car use. This suggests that the lower car use in areas with more LTN roads is the result of the other area-level and infrastructural characteristics rather than the LTN.

Ah that started to happen in Dulwich Square too way back when but the fun police soon put a stop to it....apparently the space was opened for the exclusive use of bikes only - skateboards were seen as a potential hazard and the kids doing it were told to go somewhere else!!!

Only in your, and some of the other usual suspects', mind. Not sure you can accuse someone of being "massively dishonest" when all they have done is shared lots of data from many sources to back up their view of what is happening and I don't know why you seem to always have to revert to name-calling and demonising anytime anyone presents a view you disagree with - it's seems to be that aggression and name-calling is where a lot of people go to in some sort of Pavlovian response mechanism anytime they see something they do not agree with. Let's also remember PCSOs told me (I was going to say "told people" but didn't want to trigger the usual ultra defensive/aggressive response) that they thought there was a correlation about the increases in crime in the area whilst door knocking on properties within the LTN....but that was dismissed as me telling porkies....perhaps PCSOs were being massively dishonest too or perhaps it did really happen and they do think there is a correlation! Like so many things time will tell how this plays out and it would be impossible to make a 100% positive link but the data and crime type correlations are very interesting and there is more than a lingering question about whether there is a link between quieter streets and massively increasing crime types.

The data is the data - not sure any of the data has been "comprehensively debunked" at all. It is there for all to see. Only the usual deniers are trying to argue against it but they'll always come up with some sort of argument/excuse! I didn't say political parties will try to link crime to LTNs but they're certainly likely to run on the increasing crime rate in Dulwich Village - the data speaks volumes and any politcal party that doesn't go after Labour on that would be foolish - it wouldn't surprise me if one party didn't try to link it to LTNs if they think there is a case. The Lib Dems are on it already (in terms of the growing crime problem in the Village) and it is one of their key pledges in election leaflets dropping through Dulwich Village doors...perhaps someone will try to suggest I am lying about that as well after the PCSO issue some of you took issue with!

@Earl Aelfheah I would suggest it appears you only seem to have concerns about crime if your beloved LTNs are not involved......if they are involved in any discussion you will then go out of your way to argue with anyone who doesn't subscribe to the "everything is awesome" narrative you project. ANd you have the gall to accuse me of being dishonest and shameful. You and I often, and probably always will, disagree but the evidence presented is more than compelling and with local elections approaching I suspect you'll have a hard time trying to drown out the noise about crime in Dulwich Village and the causes therein. It's a local discussion point amongst local residents whether you like it or not - and no-one has weaponised it - it's the local reality and the debate is stimulated by worried local residents. I would expect weaponisation in the lead-up to the local elections but that is to be expected - that is, after all, politics and every party in opposition will zero in on it as the data is there for all to see.

Whatever @Earl Aelfheah we have seen these tactics 100 times before. We see what you do....! 😉 You'll probably be really upset to hear local residents are discussing whether crime is increasing based on the Met Police data...and you cant try to get to them....that must be really frustrating for you. You can argue with me all you like but ultimately no one can hear you scream in space! 😉

@Earl Aelfheah ha ha, you've clipped the graphic to suit your agenda...my goodness me. How nakedly dishonest. I have explained the rational for this, that some crime benefits from quieter streets...but I know you know that and I know you have seen me say this before...so one wonders why you ignore it and keep asking the same question. I know why.

@ianr on the SctreetScan website you can break the information down to the individual street/postcode level so the trend charts are for Calton Avenue. The police share data for ward by ward crime levels so those figures for Dulwich Village are from their latest 3 month comparison report. London City is, I am presuming, the all London average but I have never been able to find the breakdown of what that measures.

Should we change the title to Is Starmer toast? The real infighting is just starting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgy79yr74do

@malumbu no one is suggesting there needs to be a referendum but the council documents online certainly suggest there needs to be/will be a statutory consultation which, as far as I am aware has not been executed yet. The Record of Decision is very clear in that regard. I mean, let's be honest, the council regularly chooses to ignore the results of stat consultations anyway but if they go ahead without it then that's a significant point of attack for campaigners against the measures - although weren't there stories of the government wanting to give councils more power to roll these out without the need for consultations etc?

Well there most certainly has been, and, consistently year on year growth in theft from person. In fact, according to StreetScan that growth start with 2021's annual crime figures - interesting the significantly lower theft from person crime numbers pre-2021 - can you explain why that might have been? So, no proof of causation but an interesting increase since 2021's and a problem that is getting consistently worse not better and it looks like 2025 numbers will be another record high and seemingly now even significantly bucking the claimed 13% reduction in London-wide theft from person numbers. You can deny it all you want but there is a problem and I am glad the police and residents are aware and trying to tackle it.

But can you show me where theft from person in Calton has followed the London average and if, as a recent BBC article claimed, London theft from person was down by 13% in the same three months as it was up by 180% in Dulwich Village, how do you try to explain thaylt one away? You think that but, to be honest, you always react aggressively when you read something you are ideologically opposed to and will argue incessantly even when the actual facts are clear for all to see...you did it every time, regular as clockwork. We are well used to it and expect it now. Let's see how the rising crime story gets amplified in the run-up to the local elections. Lib Dem flyers are already flagging it as a hot topic in the village....interestingly they are also saying its time to be heard...which is always difficult given the lengths folks like you will go to try to drown out dissenting voices or anyone who dares present something you don't agree with - which seems to be pretty much anything and everything! 😉 As usual, time will tell and the truth will out - a bit like your erroneous claim that there was majority support in the consultations for the DV closures which was hilariously devious, utterly wrong and perhaps even nakedly dishonest! 😉

Perhaps you ought to practice what you preach....what has happened to the crime categories I have been referencing.... "A little" - ha ha......in percentage terms what is the theft from person increase.....hmmmm? 😉 Also, when was there ever been any correlation between theft in person around the LTN and the London average? In the last 3 months, according to the Met, theft from person increased more than 180% in Dulwich Village (compared to the same period last year and against a 13% drop in the same category across London) and that is on a background of sustained growth year on year over the last 3 years figures to the highest numbers ever recorded in Dulwich Village. So please, don't try to tell us it isn't happening. It's ludicrous for you to even offer that when the data is so compelling. You're trying to manipulate the narrative (again) but you are absolutely 100% wrong. The data speaks volumes and those of us who live in the area know full well what is happening and are concerned by a rising crime category that often leaves the victim traumatised. Maybe you're more concerned about dismissing claims that don't suit your narrative. Well, that's your prerogative but rest assured those of us based in the area, along with the police are actually trying to do something about it rather than burying our heads in the sand.

The Record of Decision materials on the link says (point 3): Notes that the design of the permit scheme will be amended to include only the roads noted in paragraph 1 for the statutory consultation. That is dated May so does that not suggest there will be a statutory consultation? Record of Decision.pdf

@malumbu now that is a politicised post if I ever read one....bravo!

I would also suggest using this too as politicians seem motivated to respond as I believe their response rate is monitored. https://www.writetothem.com/

What are you talking about @Earl Aelfheah - not all crime fell. Because Calton Avenue has never followed the London trend for London-wide theft from person - until 2021. Look at the chart. Nonsense. From day one I have been looking at those crimes most likely to increase with quieter streets. I have explained this to you numerous times before - you're just not listening. Trust me, I am echoing the concerns of many of my neighbours who live in the area. People are concerned and are talking about it and local street What's App groups are full of concerned residents reporting crimes taking place in the area. Police are knocking on doors telling residents how to protect themselves from crime and distributing leaflets (and of course a PCSO was saying that some crime has increased since the LTNs went in). So please, don't try to tell me how people in the area are feeling because I actually live in the area.

Other opinions may exist..... Yes. Well the role that LTN's have played in them.

Ah @Earl Aelfheah resorting to taking certain quotes out of context again...what a surprise....creatures of habit and all that. Perhaps you would be so kind as posting the rest of the quote and context from Dec 2024 in relation to when I was arguing about the junction being more dangerous for pedestrians now? I still stand by my comment about LTNs making congestion and pollution worse. And on crime I post the below again. The London trend is a red-herring as you can see that Calton has never previously followed the London trend until, mysteriously, around 2021......right now theft from person across the whole of Dulwich is massively outpacing our neighbouring wards and, if the news about Sadiq Khan saying theft from person was trending at 13% down year on year for the same period as the charts below across London https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62nqvzzq79o, it is now significantly above the London trend.

And let's be honest it was the lack of appropriate process that got the LTN in West Dulwich removed so good on @first mate for trying to hold the council to account. They cannot be allowed to cut corners.

Ah at it again @DulvilleRes...... Edited 1 hour ago by Earl Aelfheah But was that discussion back in July not based on the numbers from police tracking of crimes over the last three years? I think you're losing track of the conversation rather than me... Except the Met police published data over the last 3 years for Dulwich Village, the StreetScan information and the recent powerpoint from the Dulwich Village Ward Met Police meeting....how much data do you require exactly....;-)

@DulvilleRes I am definitely no lawyer but I do know your repeated and relentless insinuations/allegations that I am somehow involved in OneDulwich or part of a political party, and that I am lying about that, are crossing a line. I have told you repeatedly I have nothing to do with OneDulwich or any political party. You clearly do not believe that but you should probably stop trying to harm my reputation by repeating it ad nauseam. I am not trying to chill scrutiny and debate - far from it - I am just trying to stop you from resorting to desperate tactics to try to harm my reputation. So, stop the petty playground stuff and debate but try not to resort to what amounts to childish name-calling.

I have been very clear and specific about what I have said. You try to manipulate that for your own benefit - it's what you do. I have shared more than enough data to back up the claims I have made - some of which you linked to but then tried to discredit. As I say, time will prove I am right with my summation of what is happening with certain types of crime in Dulwich Village. Mark my words....;-)