Loz

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just can't get past this fundamental point. > > You ask the people who would have the lines in > front of their houses if they would like them. > > Job done. If only it was so easy. Unfortunately in ED there is not just one space per dwelling available. Once you take into account houses without parking in front, flats/multiple occupancy and local businesses then you are trying to fit 16 eggs into a carton. Ask all the people with the space if they would like a personal car space reserved for them and them alone in front of their house and you would get an overwhelming 'yes'. And a huge big parking problem would follow once everyone else realised the implications of this (otherwise it would have been done years ago). That's why you need to consult more widely.

They're not designed that way, but it's a natural consequence.

I'm sorry, mastershake, but as someone who has posted quite a few points against the CPZ, when exactly have I been 'shouting'? I'd like to think I have made a calm, reasoned argument and not shouted in the least.

Parkdrive Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can buy alcohol from petrol stations which seems to be a bit of a paradox. You want to go to Australia - home of the drive-thru bottle shop (off-licence).

m&n by any chance? :)) Probably some crap under the keyboard. Stick your hoover on it.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely you don't need to get a train to Lewisham > to go to Charing Cross? > > You can go from ED to London Bridge then get a > train from there to Charing Cross, short walk to > platform 5/6 and a very frequent service. Or the 176 will take you straight there.

That's coz it is a 'newspaper'.

I really don't know the answer to that, SJ. Is what was 'sweet' 20 years ago considered 'unsweet' today? For instance, 20 years ago people didn't feel they needed to fork out a week's salary for a iPhone to keep up with the Joneses. I would like to see a study looking at, say, standards of living for incomes at the 25, 50, 75 and 99/100 percentile levels of UK salaries now and, say, 1991 (20 years ago) and 1976 (35 years ago). It would be interesting to see if all had risen, some had risen and some has dropped or (unlikely) all had dropped. What %age of income then and now was spent on staples like rent, food, etc.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rich should be relative to how far your money will go not just a number compared to other parts of > the world. Noone living in London on an average London salary could be seen as rich in my opinion, > even if that put them in the top 1% in the world. No, but it would put them in the top 5% to 10% of the world, even taking cost of living into account.

Anyway, slight chutzpah for UDT to describe anybody else as 'obsessed'.

I wish...

If anyone finds the answer to the envelope window question, please post it. I used to diligently rip the windows out, but have stopped since the new regime came in. Is this right? As for plastics - I base my plastics decision on if it has the triangle mark on it or not. No mark -> bin. http://www.recyclelogos.org/images/recycle-logos-1.jpg

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no lies here Just some advanced cluelessness?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Regarding the 'guessing' I was merely balancing the books on your 'guess' ( as per this commment: > "...they are just starting a consultation to expand it. I presume because of the edge > concentration problem" © Loz ) Yes, but at least I plainly said I was presuming. > I wasn't suggesting the council did the survey. Why not? Why should the residents of ED to do the council's work. If they want the CPZ, they should prove it is going to work. > There seems to be tens of people and traders mobilised without good reason on a speculative, > aggressive and ambitious no campaign - a much better use of their energy would be to actually > find out if they're useful or not? > > I suspect they don't want to do that because they're scared that the answer may inconvenience > them (which is what I suspect this no campaign is all about anyway). This campaign - due to the council's poor publicity - has only had a few short weeks to get itself together. In that time it has done brilliantly in highlighting all the issues that *should* have been in a fair consultation document, but the council decided to keep quiet about. The council should be justifying why it is putting in a CPZ and they should have done the research to show this. I can reverse your logic and ask that, if Herne Hill was really a success, why the council has not done the survey you are suggesting to show this. Maybe *they* are the one's scared of what they'll find. As I said, it should not be up to the residents of ED to do the council's work. If they want a CPZ they should prove that a) there is a problem and b) a CPZ will actually solve this problem. At the moment it sounds more like 'TFL have given us some cash to install a CPZ - let's put one in around ED station". And that's not good enough.

An interesting website... http://www.globalrichlist.com/ ?26K looks like the cutoff.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or maybe the local residents have discovered just > how pleasurable life is without parasitic > commuters and lazy shoppers hijacking their > neighborhood? You're guessing now, aren't you... > Seriously... easy way to find out isn't there? Go > survey the local residents and see who wants it > removed and who wants it kept? The council are claiming limited funds in not consulting all the right ED residents about the CPZ. I'd be surprised if they fork out to survey another part of the borough. > Or are the 'no' group not keen on that? I'm sure we'd be OK with the council doing that. But, as I said, I can't see them doing it.

Oh, well deduced David. Alice - you've inadvertently turned on 'show paragraph marks'. If you are using Word 2007, on the 'Home' tab in the 'paragraph' section there should be a button that looks just like that backwards 'P'. Click it and they should all disappear.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This may sound daft - but if the Herne Hill CPZ is > installed and working, then why isn't there > feedback on the success of that scheme? > > Is it just that the people opposed to the CPZ > don't want to hear that it actually worked? And > the edge concentration didn't have the impact > people thought? And that in fact everyone's > happier and the communters have been pushed out > and local residents are free to live their lives > without the sensation that they're living in > someone else's carpark? Is that true - or are you guessing? The only facts I've heard about Herne Hill is that they are just starting a consultation to expand it. I presume because of the edge concentration problem.

Too simple, Hugo. And also wrong. Is there a problem at the moment? Yes, but not as big as the council makes out - their own figures confirm that. But will it create a bigger problem on the borders of the CPZ? Of course it will. If there is 1 or 2 commuters on each street parking inside the proposed new CPZ, then they will now be concentrated to the small number of streets on the border. So now a small number of streets are taking the hit. And then, of course, you will also have a number of people on the inside border of the CPZ who will decide that parking on the next street and saving ?125 a year is an option. But that will also add to the 'edge concentration' problem - that problem that didn't exist before, but has been created by the CPZ. Also, when the CPZ doesn't solve the problem in side the designated zone (which in streets like Elsie the council figures suggest it will not), then those people will still park on the next street, again pushing cars to the streets adjoining the zone. Again increasing the 'edge concentration' problem. A CPZ car can park anywhere. A non-CPZ car cannot. It sort of like saying 'I can park in your driveway when I need to, but you can't park in mine', which is more than just a little bit unfair. All this is why people bordering the CPZ should have been consulted. They are stakeholders. They will be affected - quite adversely - by the proposals. And that is what the council has failed to do which, in my opinion, makes the consultation incomplete and invalid.

Hey - me too Applespider! Really chuffed to get my call back email this morning. Only had my audition on Sunday. Our group was the very, very last audition, so all of the registration/costume staff/etc joined us for the last five minutes. It was huge fun!

As I said in an earlier post, should they try to push ahead with it then an immediate appeal to the local government ombudsman should be made.

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rather fitting actually, a large % of alcoholic > drinks do contain fish/egg/milk! I think you are talking about wine fining agents, in which case the amount remaining is minute. Enough to upset a veggie, though, so silver linings and all that...

reggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also how we can tell whether a protest is futile or not? Well, a good question is, has it achieved it's aims and objectives? In the case of OccupyLSX, well it doesn't seem to have any aims and objectives. Except, of course, it's name "OccupyLSX" and in that it has singularly failed.

Meat Liquor? What an awful name. Reminds me of the Rich Hall joke about the bar with the sign, "Liquor at the front, poker in the rear".

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed. I've already bought my Christmas tree and its up in the livingroom. I'd have thought you'd have eaten it by now.