Loz

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > - Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as > > people avoiding the annual fee migrate their cars to there. > That's their problem not ours ... Maybe they should get a cpz too. And that, folks, is in a nutshell all that is wrong with a CPZ. It just makes bigger problems elsewhere and sod the consequences.

fazer71 Under 'bad' things about a CPZ, you missed: - Bad for the permit holders inside the CPZ, as a smaller number of car places are provided, due to extra road markings - Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as people avoiding the annual fee migrate their cars to there. - Bad for all the streets around the CPZ, as the local shop workers (known by Southwark council euphemistically as 'commuters' for effect) are now concentrated on a smaller number of streets. ... and under 'good' you missed: - Good for Southwark council's bank account

zeban Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Salsaboy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What about the unwanted men? > > aisle 15 I thought they'd be in the far corner with Xbox games.

1) Start a page on http://www.justgiving.com/ (if your charity is listed there) 2) Spam all you friends, family, workmates, lovers and anyone else you can think of to go there and give you some dosh.

According to Wikipedia, the demands by the hunger strikers were: 1) the right not to wear a prison uniform; 2) the right not to do prison work; 3) the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits; 4) the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week; 5) full restoration of remission lost through the protest. Really? Surely there was more to it than just this?

mastershake Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "He said one in four overall wanted it, that still > means three quarters didn?t, and in a democracy > that means it shouldn?t happen, surely? " > > no matter how badly the councillor answered, it's > a really stupid question and is not how democracy > works. Whilst that may not be how consultations work, surely that is exactly how democracy should work?

She might run, but the chances of her winning are pretty much zero.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 22 streets of residents were asked if they wanted > their street to be included in a controlled > parking zone. A tiny few have a very clear > majority of residents who want controlled parking > on their street. Some more have said that if a > neighbouring street were to have controlled > parking they'd want it. > > What do we say to residents on that street? > Do we say to them many people who never park on > your street, who have little or nothing to do with > you and your street have decided you can't have > what you feel you need on your street. In a word, James, 'yes'. In cases like this it always useful to extrapolate a little bit. Why draw the line at a street? Why not the bit of street in front of a house? If the owner of 123 Somewhere Street asked the council to install a CPZ (permits issued to their household only) just for the area in front of their house, would your argument also apply? I mean, why should those neighbours have a say what that person feels is what is needed for the bit of street in front of their house? It is a nonsensical argument. It is a selfish argument. Unless, of course, that my suggestion that any CPZ permit holders may not park in non-CPZ residential streets. Otherwise, they are having their cake and eating it too. If - and only if - there were no knock on effects then you'd be correct. But you have acknowledged that there will be probably significant knock on effects and so that is why the surrounding streets have to have their opinions included. Because the word you are looking for is 'stakeholders'. And I believe that, by law, ALL stakeholders have to be consulted. And listened to.

Nope, UDT - I think El Pibe has summed your argument up perfectly. If you meant something else, you've expressed it poorly.

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For all those belating on that is doesn't work......Just saying....... But garnwba, in Barnet those are almost certainly commuters in the more normally established sense. Now we are finding that the ED 'commuters' are actually local employees that will be able to purchase permits, will it still work? Besides, the consultation has spoken and the majority should be listened to. That should have been the end of the matter.

All, First and foremost, check how much disk capacity you have left. If you don't have enough at least 1GB or 2Gb free you won't have enough for the swap file and other system files and it will kill any performance.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Loz, > From memory business permits for CPZ are over ?400 pa. Which reduces the demand for them > significantly but obviously runs the risk of parking elsewhere. James, the point remains that the 'commuters' that this CPZ is supposed to get rid of, will actually be allowed to purchase parking permits!

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So why has the pay of UK CEO'S in big corporations > risen to 100 times the average salary of their > workers post Thatcher from 40 times the average > which it was pre-Thatcher? See I don't care what some CEO earns - I just care about what I earn and what it buys me. Anything else is the politics of envy. I still maintain that the standard of living across the board has improved since the 70's. Better to be a poor person today than a poor person back then.

Actually, James' (and I suspect Southwark's) definition of local businesses as 'commuters' is rather interesting. When the original issue was raised, the purpose of the CPZ was to, supposedly, solve the issue of 'commuter parking'. Now I suspect that everyone was like me and thought that this meant people driving their cars to somewhere near the station, leaping out and jumping on the train to central London. But it seems that a goodly proportion of these 'commuters' may actually be parking and then working in local shops. Why is this significant? Well, businesses inside the CPZ can also purchase CPZ parking permits (albeit at a greater cost). So, a good proportion of the 'commuter problem' will still exist AFTER the CPZ has been put in!! The 'commuters' will still be able to park inside the CPZ, so people dreaming of parking outside their house will still be parking the same distance from their house, but now paying ?120 a year to do so. The only problem that this CPZ will fix is the hole in Southwark's budget.

But Chippy, surely you are just looking at those acts being repealed and saying that were bad, without then looking at the good stuff that Hugo mentioned (to which I'd add the DDA). Taking the pluses and minuses into account, surely you can see that, on balance, the right of the worker are much, much better now than any time in the last 50 years?

Have you looked at Task Manager (Start->Run and type in 'taskmgr' and click OK)? The CPU column should tell you what is taking up all your processor time. It should mostly be used by a process called 'System Idle Process', unless you are doing something.

Probably the best thing is to rebuild it. Windows tends to fill with crap after a while.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel pretty unwell whenever I see those huge > posters of 'her' on the Buses.(Didnt she always > say you were a failure if on a bus?) Mis-attributed to her. From wiki... "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure." Attributed to her in Commons debates, 2003-07-02, column 407 and Commons debates, 2004-06-15 column 697. According to a letter to the Daily Telegraph by Alistair Cooke on 2 November 2006, this sentiment originated with Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life". In a letter published the next day, also in the Daily Telegraph, Hugo Vickers claims Loelia Ponsonby admitted to him that she had borrowed it from Brian Howard. There is no solid evidence that Margaret Thatcher ever quoted this statement with approval, or indeed shared the sentiment.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The consultation shows that residents on Derwent, > Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking. James, In what weird reading of the data does Melbourne Grove say it wants controlled parking? The consultation document clearly states that only 41% saying that they want one, with 47% saying they DO NOT want controlled parking. Of course, there were 12% undecided - I really hope you aren't claiming the undecideds as supporting this madness? It is pretty clear that the result of the consultation is a rejection of the idea of a CPZ. I am disappointed that you - of all people - are refusing to heed this result.

It's for Thursday, LadyG. Congestion charge on that route.

Appropriate? For a politician trying to swerve around an uncomfortable question, maybe...

Would that class as 'arts' or 'humanities', DD? I suspect that 'creative interaction' would be a no-no. :))

Dodging the question, UDT?

Really thought it would not happen from reading the newspaper articles. Sounded like the defence was casting a lot of doubt on the evidence storage. But, seems the Met pulled it around. Now for the other two... If they don't then hopefully they will have lots and lots of time in there to make some.

South Circular to Kew Bridge -> M4 -> M25 -> M40. A better route even if the flyover is working.