Controversial

[grumpyoldman]

I do not know James Barber, and have not voted for him, but would like to say in his defence that if I was him I would withdraw from all these threads.

He decided to post and tries to help the majority of people on here, but it has now got to the stage where people are being abusive, which if this was to do with children could be classified as bullying.

Yes we can all moan about things, but when does one stop?

We do not live in a perfect world, if you do not like things that is fine, we live in a free society where we can complain, eventually if you do not like where you live, you can always move somewhere else where you may live your utopian lives.

Sorry but it has got to the point that this forum is getting abusive to those that post here.

Say what you want about me, I am thicked skinned and do not know any of you personally.

[gedwina]

I agree - the level of vitriol directed towards this man has been excessive, especially from a few posters concerned with the cpz. Regardless of party affiliation I for one think James voluntary participation on this forum and his attempts to help should be commended.

[i*Rate]

Hello,

I agree in some ways with this; I saw a post to James Barber once saying something to the effect that 'your name and truth don't go together in one sentence' - that's strong stuff and pretty offensive. I would have thought that that tone of message was not acceptable on this forum.

I was involved with him on a local planning issue last year and he seemed decent and considerate to me.

Regards,

[PipD]

Grumpyoldman, well said.

[Worker]

I agree. Sure he's a politician and therefore should expect criticism, but I think this forum would be a poorer place if he decided he'd had enough and logged off permanently.

And though it's an issue on all internet forums, I agree as well that too many posts on here cross the line into abuse and less robust posters may be put off contributing. This will skew any 'aggregate opinions' noted here toward the extremes and make the forum a less useful tool for gauging ED opinion.

Here?s hoping grumpyoldman that the responses to your post do not prove your point.

[grumpyoldman]

I await to see what the antagonists say overnight

[Otta]

I've not seen the nasty posts, but would agree that there is certainly no place for that sort of thing.

My only issue with James, is that he uses the one user name to post as James Barber Clr, and to post as James Barber the man with his own opinions. As a result, there can be some mix up, and once or twice, it's looked a bit iffy.

I agree that he seems a decent man, and my advise to him would be to have 2 distinct usernames.

If there are posts that you think are out of order, click on "report this post", and admin will be made aware of them.

[Chippy Minton]

There is no place for outright abuse on here...however, just because James Barber posts on here does not make him a good councillor and the fact that he does, doesn't make him "brave" or mean he is putting his "head above the parapet."

He, like all the others, is one of our elected representatives - democratically accountable - and is duty bound to the community and its constituents (including those that did not vote for him!).

Clearly, James Barber has identified this forum as a good way of honouring his duties, which is great for us forumites, but other councillors obviously find they better serve the needs of their constituents using other mechanisms e.g. ward surgeries etc.

If James wants to withdraw from this forum then that's fair enough - it will just be poorer without him.

[buddug]

Hear hear Chippy Minton re your post: "just because James Barber posts on here does not make him a good councillor and the fact that he does, doesn't make him "brave" or mean he is putting his "head above the parapet." He, like all the others, is one of our elected representatives - democratically accountable - and is duty bound to the community and its constituents (including those that did not vote for him!)."

Let's remember that shall we. James is a politician, and he should indeed expect criticism. 'Bullying' does not come into it. He is not a child, he is a grown man and one of our representatives, God help us.

Grumpyoldman (and I consider myself an official Grumpyoldwoman), as you said, we have the right to complain (though not, I agree, to be abusive), but then how does it follow that we should up sticks and leave? I love living here. It infuriates me that James Barber and his ilk want to make East Dulwich/Peckham borders a less pleasant place with their defence of a CPZ. It would make it a hostile place, as someone else has said, and hurt our unique local businesses, which have helped in the main to enhance the area. Some councillors and southwark officials want to turn East Dulwich into Camberwell - just one long bus lane, where no one can park. Good businesses can't thrive and grotty ones take their place, so the place looks deprived and ugly - something that came out in the Camberwell community council meeting on the 9th.

James, you have to admit, has said some pretty fantastical things over the past few weeks, bringing into extreme doubt his acceptance of democracy, spinning the obvious majority vote against the CPZ beyond the wildest dreams of even Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell, and still, disingenuously, says he hasn't made up his mind. I'm sorry, but I find that sinister. And yes, I'm fed up of his party political posting of crime statistics every time some poor sod wants to share that they've been burgled. I told him not to when I was burgled and he didn't, thankfully. And to invite southwark leaseholders to come to him for help nauseates me after he told me he could do nothing when I went to him for help a year ago. 'Just buy the freehold' is all he could say. He thinks we're all loaded here and he's living in a gentrified bubble - witness his thread on Waitrose which he initially termed 'aspirational supermarket', with no idea of how the other half lives. I think his wish, which is apparent to all despite what he says, for a CPZ, unlike other southwark lackeys who only want to bring East Dulwich down, is to elevate East Dulwich to the uber gentrified likes of Fulham, where residents have their own rather posh private parking bays. Just as bad.

I for one will be glad to see the back of him on this forum, and at the next election.

[????]

Unpleasant post budug you rude old bat, would you say any of that to his face? No course not - I hope he stays as a poster and councillor and there were more like him from ALL parties

[Chippy Minton]

Weird how some people on here can moan about, criticise and generally slag-off local tradesmen, shops, businesses etc and then get loads of "I agree" and "thanks for warning us" type messages, but then if someone has the temerity to complain about their local democratically elected representative not performing their DUTY very well they get accused of being abusive and rude.

[Otta]

Sorry, but what DUTY did JB not perform. During all of dubbug's posts, all I can tell is that JB wasn't an expert on housing law, and didn't have the power to make Southwark do something.

Councillors don't have the power to just tell different council departments to do this and do that.

I've disagreed plenty with JB on here, but dubbug's posts are really nasty in tone.

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, on the CPZ issue, JB has manipulated figures to suit his own agenda - an agenda which he failed to make explicit when the whole "consultation" process started. I'll criticise him strongly for that, which is not the same as bullying. Politics isn't usually about nicey-nicey consensus, it's about give and take - if you can't take the rough and tumble, you shouldn't get involved. If he's been libelled, he can sue or complain to the moderators. I appreciate much of what he's done on the forum, but I'm sure he's grown up enough not to need a gaggle of easily offended supporters.

[Chippy Minton]

Errr....read buddbug's previous posts for an explanation of why she thinks he hasn't performed his duty of representing her very well.

Obviously it's subjective as to whether he has or hasn't done this, but for buddug, he clearly hasn't and she is perfectly entitled to say as such.

[ed_pete]

If you are implying that only children can be bullied then I think you are wrong. Anyone can be bullied - either physically or electronically - regardless of their age.

[Otta]

I agree, but she's saying more than that.

Yes politicians are to be held to account. That is very different from just being rude to them to make you feel better.

[buddug]

???? wrote: "Unpleasant post budug you rude old bat, would you say any of that to his face? No course not"

Ha ha! "rude old bat" - I love that! But yes, I would say all that to his face - it's not abusive, (like rude old bat, although I always hoped to become one!) - and will do so when I see him at the East Dulwich community council on the 24th. Although I hasten to add I shall keep my comments strictly to the issue of the CPZ as that is why I'll be there. And he already knows exactly who I am.

Chippy Minton: Thanks for your support of my right to criticise. I wonder sometimes whether James started his 'help' thread without realising it wouldn't be all praise and lovey-dovey gratitude.

To be honest, I'm sure he's not too bothered by my comments - he's already getting enough stick from the many other posters who are baffled by his pushing of the CPZ and his spinning of the results of the consultation which flies in the face of reason.

Otta: I don't expect James to be an expert on housing law. But I expected more than "just buy the freehold" from a local councillor. And yes I am bitter when I see him on the CPZ thread pulling out all the stops for the handful of residents on two roads (while ignoring the majority of nearly 2,000 residents and businesses against)simply because they are being inconvenienced by commuter parking, when he was able to ignore the request for help from someone (and I can't be the only one) being terrorised in their home by Southwark housing department and watching helplessly as it's wrecked internally as well as externally by their cowboy contractors consistently over the years, with no end in sight to it all.

[jaybee82]

I think constructive criticism is fine (as nothing would progress without it) but this should be levelled in a way that it doesn't become personal or liable to be misconstrued as character assassination.

Providing the complaints are on-topic, where's the issue?

[Annette Curtain]

Hmmmmm..

Clr JB has set him self up on a very active forum, which in its self is a fairly new platform for political dialogue.

He may well be ruing the day but it is interesting. I'm sure people have always held these views and wanted to ask questions, it's refreshing to be able to listen in collectively to it all. In the past it would have been different & near impossible to see other peoples written views.

Now, where JB goes from here is is anyones guess. If he stays and fronts it out I wish him well. If he signs out, never to be seen again, then it's been a thought provoking experiment.

Either way it isn't going to be a bed of roses for ol' Jimbo.

I just wish we had such access to more people in 'Politics'.

NETTE

[northlondoner]

I don't always agree with JB - especially about this accursed CPZ -but at least he's always active and engaged. Easy target for a growing band of assholes and furios.

[maxxi]

northlondoner Wrote:

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

> I don't always agree with JB - especially about

> this accursed CPZ -but at least he's always active

> and engaged. Easy target for a growing band of

> assholes and furios.

Wasn't he in The Sopranos?

I didn't realise people had it in for JB that much...

[Huguenot]

"Easy target for a growing band of assholes and furios."

Yeah, I kind of think you've nailed it there. I mean, let's have a look at some of the things that have even been said on this thread?

Buddug has obviously not had the greatest of experience with Southwark contractors, and I can see how infuriating this would be. However, buddug hasn't bothered to tell the truth, and has massively inflated their problem in order to inflame the situation.

"I expected more than "just buy the freehold" from a local councillor"

That was just bollocks. From other correspondence it's clear that JB has been working with buddug for months trying to resolve this situation. However he has limited power and influence and hasn't been able to resolve to buddug's satisfaction.

"he was able to ignore the request for help from someone being terrorised in their home by Southwark housing department "

This is absolutely barking on so many levels. To suggest that unresponsive poorly skilled contractors is tantamount to terrorism shows a separation from reality that knows no bounds.

The thing is that buddug cannot distinguish between this unfortunate occurence and JB as an individual. Buddug has projected all their frustration completely inappropriately onto JB and now stalks him on the forum haranguing him at any opportunity regardless of the issue.

"JB has manipulated figures to suit his own agenda - an agenda which he failed to make explicit when the whole "consultation" process started."

This is yet another outrageous accusation. It positions James completely inappropriately as a liar and a fraud, whilst BrandNewGuy is trying to pass himself off as a reasonable commentator.

James does not stand to benefit financially or otherwise from a CPZ, he is likely to create for himself a difficult task at the elections by supporting a minority view. It's pretty safe to say that James has no fucking agenda at all other than supporting the not unreasonable requests of disadvantaged residents.

So this accusation isn't funny or clever. It actually is an example (as is buddug) of the venal lengtths that people are willing to go to, to abuse a reasonable and hardworking public representative just because they don't share his views.

So 'assholes or furios'? Yes, and bullshitters to boot.

[buddug]

Huguenot wrote: "it's clear that JB has been working with buddug for months trying to resolve this situation."

That is hilarious Huguenot. It's clear he's been working with me for months? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I've made it clear that all James had to say when I approached him was "just buy the freehold." Nada, zilch, full stop, end of story. I think that is grounds enough to "harangue" him publicly, especially when his thread is titles "can I help" and he has invited leaseholders in the past to come to him for assistance. It's all fake.

And as to: "To suggest that unresponsive poorly skilled contractors is tantamount to terrorism shows a separation from reality that knows no bounds", just to give you one tiny insight into my life as a southwark leaseholder - I had just finished decorating my flat and laid new carpets. Five months later water damage came in through the wall into my living room caused by southwark contractors leaving rubble in the guttering when 'repairing' the chimney stack. Rubble 'removed', charged for having rubble removed, (!), charge when challenged taken off service charge bill.

Wall had to be hacked out, terrible mess, left like that for a couple of months to dry, replastered, redecorated by my own decorators. Two years later, same thing happened on other side of wall as all the rubble hadn't been taken away and had gone down the gutter down pipe, bursting it. Again, wall hacked out, left to dry for months, replastered, redecorated. This time I'm told I have to use decorators on southwark's 'approved' list. They bodge so badly I refuse to pay their extortionate ?1,800. For instance, green paint all over my white bookshelves and cupboards, skirting, picture rail. They take me to court. One year later, and three court sittings, judge rules in my favour, having seen the pictures. Meanwhile, my own decorators come in again. Wall hacked out as plaster the bodgers used was in fact polyfilla, replastered, redecorated, this time including all the woodwork because of the paint splashes.

So after three lots of major works in my living room, carpet looks 15 years old, according to carpet cleaner, and beyond repair. Southwark coughs up ?3,060 for me to replace them and shells out ?2,000-odd for the redecorating needed.

On another occasion, newly laid lawn wrecked by scaffolders - both playing football on it and dumping an old bath full of cement on it. Southwark pays out for new lawn. Garden gate wrecked by another set of scaffolders. We are charged to repair it. Charge taken off when challenged. Shall I go on? There's plenty more.

And finally, as to James Barber not manipulating the CPZ consultation results, just take a peek at some of his posts on that thread.

Out of interest, Huguenot, are you James Barber?

[Huguenot]

You and I, and many people on this forum know that your exchange with James was much more than that, and that you're simply lying because you were unhappy with the contractors and you want to make it James' fault.

Shit contractors? Who knew eh? Never heard of that before.

And none of it, buddug, is terrorism - and none of it is James Barber's fault.

You've jumped the shark.

[buddug]

Huguenot writes: "You and I, and many people on this forum know that your exchange with James was much more than that"

? (evidence, please).

And you didn't answer my question. I claim my ?5.