Loz

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s not rocket science Train Stations = Parking > Problem. Fazer - if that is the case, why have the two closest roads to the station - Melbourne Grove and St Francis Place, rejected the CPZ? Why are these fabled 'commuters' rejecting these closer roads to park on the already-overcrowded Derwent Grove? And even parking and trudging to the station from the reasonably far-away Tintagel Crescent? Or could it be that something else is the base cause of the two roads' parking issues? Like just too many people with cars live on these roads?

Maybe, Santerme. But the downside is that you have to live in Dorset.

Surely councillors from South Camberwell and Village wards should be allowed on here, as they represent quite a bit of E Dulwich?

Hi Jasmina, You can find it here: http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=25008&ISATT=1&bcsi_scan_6BDE16B5925DEBDF=bsVQNVUpm9OZIYogZOdgZGjO/SsKAAAA/elzIg==&bcsi_scan_filename=mgConvert2PDF.aspx

Is that a bad pun, Thomas?

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The no campaign is going to be very vocal but I > would urge you to represent the clear democratic > wishes of this self centred area. Fixed that for you.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So Gsirett you are in favour of a trail CPZ as > long as you have absolute reassurance that it will > be removed if it fails. I would have no problem with that, provided the success/fail criteria are agreed and published beforehand. And agreed not just with the streets within the CPZ, but with streets bordering the zone as well. If there are knock on effects to non-CPZ streets, it must be considered to have failed.

milk76 Wrote: -------------------------------------------------- ----- > Loz > > Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other > residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime, > Monday to Friday. That works just fine. No > commuters parking all day and residents will still > be able to use their cas to drop off the kids and > get the heavy loads of shopping and park back near > their own front doors. Nope, sorry. It should be a complete ban. If Derwent wants to opt out of the idea of 'community parking', then it should be completely.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Plenty pro on Derwent. Two to one in favour on a forty percent response rate. Please approve the > scheme here at least for a trial peroid. Only if CPZ permit holders are banned from parking in other residential streets. Why should we share with you if you won't share with us?

Milk76 - would you still be in favour of a CPZ in your street if it meant that - as a CPZ permit holder - you were disqualified from parking in any other residential street in ED? After all, why should we share our parking with you if you won't share with us? Why should you be able to park on the next street when your street is full, as it will be?

If I had to choose between driving a bus and tube I know what I'd pick. And salary wouldn't come into it. Bus driving the rude and unpleasant British public would just be hell. Give me nice comfy tube seat and two buttons.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yet at the same time 378 of their senior staff earns more than ?100,000 per year. Do they? That's rather excessive, I must say. Sounds like an across-the-board lowering of salaries, from tube drivers up, wouldn't go astray at TFL. Mind you, aren't the RMT and ASLEF senior people on over ?100k a year as well?

easytiger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, you really are a piece of work and selfish. > Readers, i am not making this personal. I'm not actually sure how you could make that sentence *more* personal...

You can quote averages until to cows come home Chippy - all I'm saying is that the deals are out there. Car insurance down 15% this year for me (20% if you take the renewal rate my current insurer tried to get me to take). And let's not forget that mortgage interest rates are at an all time low, either. Absolutely. Take food - 3.8% up this year according to your figures. If you can't shop cleverer and make the best of the deals to get your supermarket bill down 3.8% then you just aren't trying. That's ?1.52 of a ?40 bill. Doesn't take many special offers, etc to save that. Yes, people at the poorer end of the scale can't afford to make the most of BOGOFs, etc. I appreciate that. But if you have a reasonable income you can do OK out of the current climate.

Chippy Minton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz - help me out then, electricity was up 14.1% > and gas 19.8% up last year. My fuel costs also > went up by 9.4% and Mrs Minton's season ticket > this month has also increased by above inflation. > As a smart shopper where would you recommend I > find some bargains that buck these increases? Do you read posts? I said those sorts of things were up, but there lots of good deals out there in goods and services. I've got my broadband and Sky costs down with a phone call, supermarket specials abound and as for big ticket household items... But, as you ask, when did you last check/change your gas and electricity supplier? Are you on the best deal?

I'm sure I've seen a curry house called Lahore House somewhere round Tooting way.

Power prices are up, yes. Travel/petrol prices are up, yes. But prices for goods and services can be found at bargain prices by the smart shopper.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst reining in spending strikes me as sensible, the constant bleating about austerity is sending > out a message that is sucking away confidence which brings about a self-fulfilling situation of > economic shrinkage, which means jobs are lost, which shrinks confidence, which curbs spending, > which...etc. There is a lot of truth to that, on both sides. Everyone seems to be talking the economy down, which IMHO is doing far more damage than any economic plan could do. People are more scared than they really need be and that is really taking its toll. As I (touch wood) still have a job, I find the recession to be personally beneficial - prices are down, bargains are to be had. A good time to buy stuff. Not everyone in that sort of position is seeing it that way.

Bit harsh on Bell. Though he was entirely bamboozled by Ajmal, he was in pretty good form leading up to this series. Besides, whilst the bowling stocks are good, England have a pretty bare bench when it comes to batting. Ravi Bopara for Bell is not an inspiring thought.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. The cuts are ideological I think that much is so. But, on the other hand, a lot of the opposition to the cuts is entirely ideological too and refuses to acknowledge quite the mess we are in. The Tories believe in small government; Labour in large government. So Tory cuts are as much ideological as Labour's expansion of government was ideological. But I do think that cuts needed to be made - and so, it seems, does Ed Milliband and the rest of the shadow cabinet. I think these are Tory figures (so treat with due caution) but I believe Labour would have cut ?16 for each Tory ?17 cut? So I think spending our way out of the recession is not on the table for any major party. > 2. I think they are damaging the economy, but I'm asking if perhaps the economy is simply screwed > and regardless of the approach we'd still be here, hence my question about whether a change of tack > would be beneficial, pointless or whether it's worth the pain to bring government debt down in > the long run. I think changing horses mid-stream is never a great idea, whatever the breed of horse. A lot of the 'damage' by the coalition plan is theoretical and it should be allowed to proceed until proof one way or the other is established. No one was ever going to solve the recession in the short term - it's a medium to long term plan.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Who was in charge during the most recent > > recession? Oh, yes that Labour PM Gordon Brown. > > > > Honestly - do actually believe the tripe you > type? > > Oh yeah, anything negative about the Tories is > tripe. Not at all. There is a lot to criticise about the current coalition and the Tories in general. And as I do not vote Tory generally (I think Boris was my only Tory vote ever) then why would I mindlessly defend the Tories as you mindlessly as you attack them? So writing "A Tory government is synonymous with recession" when it is pretty demonstrably not so is tripe. And it seems you believe it. Thus the question.

The council will automatically dismiss your appeal. The Parking & Traffic Appeals Service may be more sympathetic. Try here for some good info: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/parking-ticket-appeals

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The good (?!) thing is that it's obviously a > slack/stale/tired/rusty approach and careless > execution - Boycott was right, rather than being > got out they got themselves out. I'm not sure that being so clueless about the length and spin of a ball and so deciding that the only solution was a wild cross-batted swipe can be entirely called 'getting yourself out'. That would assume there was an alternative.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A Tory government is synonymous with recession. Who was in charge during the most recent recession? Oh, yes that Labour PM Gordon Brown. Honestly - do actually believe the tripe you type?

Atticus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeez and the Aussies are really shit too, aren't they. *Cough*