Loz

I misread the original title - and wondered why it wasn't in the 'wanted' section.

puzzled Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mr barber is a councillor and not a counsellor. > you really would have to be disturbed if you went to him counselling Blaim mi spelchequer

It's about Harrods opening a branch in the East Dulwich Deli. Do keep up.

puzzled Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > on a factual note: it is NOT possible to be unfair to cllr james barber How many counsellors are there on Southwark council? Lots. How many are on here engaging with us? One. Having a pop at the one counsellor at least willing to make the effort is somewhat shooting the messenger. A better question is: why hasn't Cllr Barrie 'Mr CPZ' Hargrove got the cojones to come on here?

Personally, I'd condense most of the three year uni courses down to two. I doubt many of the courses really need to be three years. That would save everyone 33% straight up.

Well the 5269 will not only leave you "sucked away by its utter fabulousness", but will vacuum the floor as well.

What?? Of Harrods?

I still think there is huge amount of irony in a school forcing students to wear a poppy.

snowy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 47% said people?s attitudes towards them have got worse over the past year (May 2011: 37%) > 66% of disabled people say that they have experienced aggression, hostility or name calling > (May 2011: 41%) Stats like this amuse me. What do they mean? How many non-disabled people have 'experienced aggression, hostility or name calling'? Not saying that disabled people don't have an issue, just that I hate crap stats.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > thanks nashoi read the f ing top of the thread annette well hung! You mean this thread? That you started? The one about a deli? That half way down you claim suddenly never to have heard of? :))

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well La de Dah. I'm obviously not in the > Advertising demographic as I have never heard of it. It's a deli. In East Dulwich.

Otto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > C'mon forumites. Make me laugh. I am still fuming! Wouldn't it be awful if he was to return to his car tonight and find a couple of flat tyres...

easytiger, as he's made clear, SJ is anti-CPZ. Having a pop at him isn't helping the clause, especially after the two in question have just resolved their differences. So... easy, Tiger.

I'm looking for something similar, but more central London. Any sort of pub-upstairs type place that can accommodate about 50 people cheaply?

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Play nice, Strafer. No need to get all personal, an' ting. To be fair, it is starting to get a bit heated in here on both sides. Calm everyone. Getting hot under the collar makes for unpleasant reading and we need people to read this thread. Ad Hominem attacks are not good - play the ball, not the man. This forum can make a difference - we had a grand debate in here over the AV referendum and I think it was significant in the good people of East Dulwich putting in one of the biggest pro-AV votes in the nation. (Sadly, not everyone in the UK reads the EDF!). The number of people who read, but don't post is, I suspect, very high. This is a great soapbox if used correctly. Many good points have been made in this thread and the anti-CPZ people have made a really, really good case. People are reading and hopefully it is swaying their vote towards 'No to the CPZ'. Let's keep reiterating those points. Calmly.

Should the worst happen and this get pushed through, then I think immediate complaints should be made to the Local Government Ombudsman. I think that valid complaints could be made in the following areas: 1) Failure to consult with all stakeholders. Stakeholders are defined as anybody who has a stake in the outcome of the scheme or project. That means people in surrounding streets that may suffer a knock-on effect should be included. They should have been invited to be included in the consultation survey directly (i.e. invited in THE SAME WAY as residents inside the CPZ were invited), which they were not. The could also be an argument that the consultation questionnaire was designed to dissuade non-CPZ area residents to participate (the drop down box only listing certain streets). 2) Consultation need to be neutral; they should not presume, directly or indirectly, a bias in favour or against the creation or extension of a CPZ. The consultation questions and its associated consultation document are plainly biased in favour of the CPZ. 3) The conduction of the survey during a time of parking problems caused by major roadworks in the CPZ area, biasing the results in favour of a CPZ. There are probably many more areas for valid complaint. Should the ombudsman find fault in the consultation process, I believe the whole CPZ process has to be restarted from the very beginning. Hopefully by then either sanity will prevail, the TFL funding will expire and/or Cllr Barrie Hargrove will have been moved to a new job.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Grandpa in My Pocket is much improved after a > couple of glasses. > > Indeed, I'm not sure if there are any viable > alternative ways of seeing it. I imagine 'Go The F*** To Sleep' would take on a whole new level after a few shots of vodka.

> You can wear a purple one as well to remember animals who die in the war. Good grief. Can I wear a brown and green poppy to remember the trees and shrubbery that were cleared during the war? A grey poppy to sympathise with the buildings? The world - well, it's people - never ceases to amaze me.

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (Ps. Hitler wasn't a veggie, his doctor encouraged > it for his health but H just didn't have the staying power) But he was a fascist, so that's close...

No, I think it is indicative of how standards in parenting and their ability/willingness to control their children has dropped.

gsirett, I am against this flawed concept as much as anyone, but I do believe James is trying to give you some honest help and advice here.

Please note - as well as signing the petitions, don't forget to fill in the Southwark Consultation here (click on "We invite you to submit your comments online now"). PLEASE NOTE So that the CPZ is effectively opposed: - Ensure you answer NO to Question 5 - DO NOT PUT ANY ANSWER against the 'trick question' - Question 11.

I reckon it was William Hague, based on that description.

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No wonder the chair if the EU committee in > climate change is encouraging people to do a meat free day! But has he factored in all that extra methane?

Spam is very hard to filter. But you can help the admins out by bringing it to their attention with the 'Report This Message' link. It's at the bottom of each and every message and is very easy to use.