Sinister anti-CPZ posters in shop windows

[Lowlander]

For the purposes of this thread I'm neutral about the proposed CPZ. I am, however, disturbed about the campaign against which certainly isn't winning me over.

I've waded through the various threads and can't find anything about the organisation behind the blue posters in Lordship Lane business windows, which are akin to pro-regime propaganda I've seen in Syria and Iraq.

Why do the posters not have a contact? And why can none of the shopkeepers give me contact details? If the artist wishes to remain anonymous, surely they can find someone amongst ED's 12,000 odd residents to support them (especially if more than 6,700 are with them)?

Where did the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'? figure come from? It might be fairer to say '67% of ED residents are not in favour'...even then, turnout for the last local elections in Goose Green was 47%(a)...so to say 67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ is stretching the truth...

Unless I'm missing something, people did not vote against a CPZ. They were invited to respond to a consultation.

Finally, the wording is pure hyperbole. "Misery and Chaos"? Those are strong words. Homeless, hungry, abused people experience misery and chaos.

(a) https://www.southwark.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/voting-and-elections/2018-borough-council-electio

[Rockets]

Lowlander....I am afraid you are missing something......67/68% of the people who responded to the CPZ consultation said they did not want a CPZ.

If you are a shopkeeper who relies on footfall to sustain your business then the CPZ will bring misery and chaos....and probably put you out of business.

[Lowlander]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander....I am afraid you are missing

> something......67/68% of the people who responded

> to the CPZ consultation said they did not want a

> CPZ.

>

> If you are a shopkeeper who relies on footfall to

> sustain your business then the CPZ will bring

> misery and chaos....and probably put you out of

> business.

Thanks Rockets. There's plenty of healthy discussion on other threads regarding the cons/pros of a CPZ.

I'm specifically concerned by these posters. They state that '67/68% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'.

Their words. Not mine. If you're going to fight a campaign, fight it fairly, truthfully and with conviction.

If the stated facts can't be backed up, how are you going to win me over?

[MarkT]

Lowlander, you ask that people fight a campaign truthfully. You ask:

"Where did the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'? figure come from? It might be fairer to say '67% of ED residents are not in favour'."

Well perhaps you should read the Report which states: "The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone,"

You claim "Unless I'm missing something, people did not vote against a CPZ. They were invited to respond to a consultation."

Again, read the Report. The Council allowed one response per person and separately counted addresses within and outside of the zone. Throughout, the Report analysed by numbers. In what way do you think this was not a vote?

[Lowlander]

Thanks MarkT.

Would you be so kind as to link to this report? For the third time, I'm open to be converted to your cause?

[Rockets]

Lowlander....how are they not truthful....they are the council?s own stats from the responses to the consultation document?

Now you could get pedantic and suggest that ED?s boundaries are wider than the CPZ area...is that your point?

I think a lot of residents and shopkeepers would encourage the council to be fair and truthful in regard to the methodology and motivations for implementing the CPZ....

[Lowlander]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lowlander....how are they not truthful....they are

> the council?s own stats from the responses to the

> consultation document?

>

> Now you could get pedantic and suggest that ED?s

> boundaries are wider than the CPZ area...is that

> your point?

>

> I think a lot of residents and shopkeepers would

> encourage the council to be fair and truthful in

> regard to the methodology and motivations for

> implementing the CPZ....

All I'm asking for is a link to the stats. The cons/pros are debated to infinity on other threads.

Can you answer the questions in my first post:

Why do the posters not have a contact?

And why can none of the shopkeepers give me contact details?

If the artist wishes to remain anonymous, surely they can find someone amongst ED's 12,000 odd residents to support them (especially if more than 6,700 are with them)?

Where did the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ'? figure come from? It might be fairer to say '67% of ED residents are not in favour'...even then, turnout for the last local elections in Goose Green was 47%(a)...so to say 67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ is stretching the truth...

[Charles Martel]

Lowlander Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> [...]

> All I'm asking for is a link to the stats.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/results/eastdulwichparkingconsultation-interimreportfinal.pdf

The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25%

wanting a zone and 6% were undecided.

[edanna]

You?re absolutely right Lowlander, the language of the posters is extreme and the statement that 67% ED residents voted against is completely inaccurate. But saying 67% of those who responded to a consultation weren?t in favour wouldn?t make such a good poster I suppose. I share your concerns about the anonymity of these posters because if whoever is behind them believes in what they are saying they should be happy to stand by them and be accountable. It?s somewhat ironic to talk about ignoring democracy while running an anonymous campaign with hyperbolic statements without evidence to support them and the very cavalier use of stats.

[Rockets]

And in case you are unable to open the link posted earlier...pasted below are the results of the consultation as presented by the council. As to who the person responsible is maybe speak to EDIBA but you can see the posters have a pretty solid factual grounding.

Just out of interest, now you have had time to digest the report and read the numerous threads on the subject has this swayed your views on the CPZ one way or the other? And do you perhaps think now that calling the posters sinister and comparing them to Iraqi pro-regime may have been slightly OTT?

Overall results

? A total of 7,180 consultation packs were sent out to 81 streets within the consultation area and the consultation was extended due to mail delivery issues to a period of eight weeks. We received 2,244 responses from residents and businesses/organisations within the consultation boundary which represents a very high response rate of 37%, a record for the council. More than one response per address was accepted but duplicates removed where the same name was used. 418 responses were received from visitors to the area taking the total of responses to 2,662. The largest proportion of responses (80%) were from residents followed by visitors (16%) businesses (98 responses, or 4%) and organisations (<1%).

? The overall response showed the majority of those who responded (69%) were against a parking zone, 25% wanting a zone and 6% were undecided. Results were very similar when excluding visitors to the area (68%, 25% and 7%). Visitors to the area included those visiting or caring for residents, those visiting or working at businesses or institutions such as schools, as well as those living just outside the zone.

? The vast majority (91%) of the 98 businesses that responded were against the zone which reflects the sentiment expressed in two business meetings in which traders voiced concerns about impact on footfall, the cost of business permits and workers not being able to park. Traders also raised the concern that if only a

2

section of the study area was to be implemented, that this would cause parking displacement on surrounding roads and the zone would eventually be expanded. The independent businesses raised awareness about the proposed zone through posters in shop windows ?Save our high street? and collected signatures against the zone: A petition of around 8,000 signatures was sent by the East Dulwich Independent Business Association (EDIBA) for presentation at Council Assembly 27 March 2019. EDIBA expressed a willingness for further discussion and to collaborate on delivery of mutual objectives requesting a dynamic and bespoke strategy. In addition, an estimated quarter of all responses to the consultation cited concerns about the impact parking restrictions may have on the high street.

Figure 1. EDIBA poster displayed in shop windows

? Street-by-street analysis shows that within the whole study area 15 streets supported a parking zone while 54 streets were against. 10 streets were undecided and there was no response from two streets. Figure 2 below shows, based on responses, majority support in green, majority against in red, and undecided in blue.

[tiddles]

Weird but i dont find them sinister at all....the perps probably dont want their

Identities revealed in case their residence (probably in southwark) will have a new bus stop

Plonked on their doorstop plus quadruple yellow lines 6 metres in each direction...

[Sally Eva]

Election literature is required to carry a name and address so that those responsible can be known and held to account if, for instance, the literature is racist or fraudulent.

it seems good practice to put contact details on other campaigning literature but it's not required by law. One of the basic purposes is to stop outside interference with elections (ie the Russian bots which seem to have interfered in the US).

The internet makes this harder to police because so much is anonymous on-line. The anonymity seems to make it easier for people to be rude and abusive.

[Lowlander]

Thanks Rockets - I've read your figures, which suggest that 37% of ED residents are against a CPZ.

The posters very clearly state that some 67% of residents voted against a CPZ.

There was no vote. 67% of ED residents did not tick a box on a ballot paper at a voting station.

This campaign is deploying the same tactics used by extreme groups (of all flavours):

1. Using frenzied language

2. Using fake stats

3. Using anonymity

As I said I started this thread to talk about the posters. There is a thread about the CPZ itself which I'm not going to spend time on.

Tiddles - Out of the 12,000 odd people in Dulwich I'm sure this campaign can find someone willing to put their name to it.

At the very least an email address or website...

[Sporthuntor]

You can?t be very good at reading lowlander - the 37% was the turnout. The proportion voting against the CPZ was 69%. Sure you don?t have an agenda?

[nxjen]

37% responded to the consultation of which 69% were against the CPZ so to find the percentage of those living in ED who are against the CPZ it is necessary to find 69% of 37%. This comes to roughly 25%, a figure at great variance to the '69% of ED residents voted against a CPZ' quoted in the poster.

[Lowlander]

Sporthuntor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can?t be very good at reading lowlander - the

> 37% was the turnout. The proportion voting against

> the CPZ was 69%. Sure you don?t have an agenda?

Thanks Sporthunter. You?re absolutely correct, although I wouldn?t call it a vote.

My agenda is clear - I?m against anonymous posters using misleading stats. It would be more accurate to say ?8000 ED residents signed our petition against the CPZ?.

Still no-one can provide a contact?

[nxjen]

?My agenda is clear - I?m against anonymous posters using misleading stats. It would be more accurate to say ?8000 ED residents signed our petition against the CPZ?.?

Actually it wouldn?t as it emerged on another thread that half of those who signed the petition were visitors to the area.

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2009737,2010055#msg-2010055

[Penguin68]

37% responded to the consultation of which 69% were against the CPZ so to find the percentage of those living in ED who are against the CPZ it is necessary to find 69% of 37%. This comes to roughly 25%, a figure at great variance to the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ' quoted in the poster.

The corollary of course being that whilst 25% of ED residents polled were against a CPZ - using your maths - only 11.5% expressed themselves in favour - or just under half as many as those polling (in the Market Research, not the election sense) against.

And it should be noted that those 'creating' the council analysis have placed those wanting an all day CPZ time in just one results bucket whilst keeping those who wanted a shorter time in the various buckets they created for expressing an opinion - a 'majority' of those expressing an opinion in fact wanted a shorter time than all day, but different shorter times. The 'all day' bucket only 'won' because the other 'shorter than all day' 'votes' were kept discrete.

Numbers can be made to dance to anyone's tune.

[nxjen]

This thread is about the accuracy or otherwise of the anti CPZ posters that have appeared, analysis of Southwark?s methodology is for other threads.

[Penguin68]

This thread is about the accuracy or otherwise of the anti CPZ posters that have appeared, analysis of Southwark?s methodology is for other threads.

I rather think, nxjen, that it is up to Admin to determine what is, and is not, off topic in these threads; you are accusing anti-CPZ people of mis-using statistics, it is entirely reasonable to suggest the other camp may be too.

I would also add that whilst many of those people (8000 was it?) who signed the shopkeepers' petition were not SE22 residents they were people who come into ED to spend their money - something which ensures that Lordship Lane is no longer the home of second hand pram shops and failing businesses of 30 years ago and is a vibrant shopping and entertainment hub, from which those of us living locally can only benefit. I can recall James Barber working hard (and correctly, in my view) to encourage 'attractor' business into LL to push start such an economic resurgence.

Shopkeepers see their market potentially falling away if the draconian version of the CPZ (indeed any CPZ) is implemented. They may be wrong, but if they're not, then we too will be the sufferers. I would support their efforts to continue to put their case whilst the decision is yet to be made, and if, in the context of misused statistics they too over-egg their pudding, well it's right to point this out, but not by placing our shopkeepers in the same list as ISIS and Assad.

Hyperbole has been used by both sides in this debate - and both sides are guilty of misleading interpretation of statistics. To pretend otherwise (or try to keep part of the debate off this thread) isn't necessarily helpful.

[nxjen]

If you are able to find a flaw in my arithmetical reasoning as to the percentage of East Dulwich residents who are against the CPZ, I will be happy to change my opinion. However, in the meantime, I think you?re just trying to obscure the fact that the anti CPZ posters contain emotive misleading statements. Like the OP, I have no agenda but am against the use of misleading statistics.

BTW where were all these second hand pram shops you keep referring to? I can only remember one at the Goose Green end of Lordship Lane!

[Jacqui5254]

Talking about 'hyperbolic statements without evidence to support them", wasn't there a MASSIVE Southwark Council poster on the railings outside M+S that claimed..

"FACT. People who walk to the high street spend 40% more than those who drive to the high street"?

[Lowlander]

Jacqui5254 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Talking about 'hyperbolic statements without

> evidence to support them", wasn't there a MASSIVE

> Southwark Council poster on the railings outside

> M+S that claimed..

>

> "FACT. People who walk to the high street spend

> 40% more than those who drive to the high street"?

Err, if you copy and paste that into google, you?ll find the source (and it?s been quoted in the media too).

Rather not talk about that on his thread thanks; I?d be interested in a dedicated thread you could start?

[Penguin68]

If you are able to find a flaw in my arithmetical reasoning as to the percentage of East Dulwich residents who are against the CPZ, I will be happy to change my opinion.

I'm sorry, I did not challenge your mathematical analysis that only 25% of those polled declared themselves against a CPZ - I simply pointed out that using the same analytical sleight-of-hand only 11.5% declared themselves in favour. It is not that your reasoning is flawed, it is just that you did not then extend the same reasoning to declarations for the other camp.

However you look at it, whether as a percentage of those who responded, or of those actualled polled, more were against a CPZ than for it.

Your implied reasoning, that if 25% were against a CPZ, then 75% were not against it, is rubbish, if that is what you are implying. You cannot call 'no response' as belonging in either camp - even of the camp that is indifferent. I might as well say (but I don't) that if only 11.5% were in favour of a CPZ, then 88.5% were against it. That, too, wouldn't be true (or at least, not derivable from the information available).

[nxjen]

Actually I didn?t imply 75% were for the CPZ but it seems that this is what you?ve inferred. The reason I have calculated the percentage of residents who are against a CPZ was to demonstrate that the figure of 67% (or maybe it?s 69%) who are against a CPZ quoted on the poster is most clearly an even bigger load of rubbish.