Loz

Absolute Radio. Tends to play the most songs I know the words to. I don't think they own a song released in the last 10 years.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Arse. Where did the word originate from? Behind you!

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are statistics that show reduction in crime in areas covered by CCTV. Don't believe the nay > sayers. They are right it doesn't erradicate crime but IT DOES REDUCE IT. Actually, stats and studies show CCTV is pretty ineffective. The home office did a study that showed CCTV had little effect in street crime levels. And a study from the University of Leicester concluded that CCTV had a temporary effect on shoplifting that wore off within six months. And the return on investment for CCTV systems in shops was approximately 57 years.

Aardvarks. Did they call themselves that so they'd be first in the phone book?

caro ed Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was thinking that actually it would be quite good to know which streets do have > cameras from the perspective of feeling a bit safer as a girl walking home late at night.. any > ideas? CCTV doesn't make you any safer. You just get to watch a repeat of your attack on a television at the local police station next day. ED is comparatively safe, but - male or female - just use some common sense. Stay on the main roads/busy areas as much as you can and don't go flashing smartphones around.

So the profit from the CPZ will go towards subsidising other parts of the Southwark budget. The CPZ won't be 'self-funding', but accruing a surplus that will be used elsewhere. Well, I thank you for your honesty. Can't say it's helped your case much. But it has really supported the anti-CPZ argument.

ed_pete, The council has a policy of discouraging car use in favour of 'sustainable transport'. That's why they like CPZs so much as they cut down on the total car space, thereby 'encouraging' people not to use cars. So, your idea has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell, even though it might go some way towards solving the problem.

This is the UK. We have over 20% of the world's installed CCTV cameras and ED has it's fair share. There are about 50 in Sainsburys alone.

EDmummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And to JMT - you certainly need to get out more! To say that a 'large proportion' of families in > Southware are not on the breadline is ridiculous. Outside of East Dulwich, Dulwich Village and > borders there is plenty of poverty! And inside those borders there are many, many middle class and rich families. They are going to have the council tax of people much poorer than them going to feed their kids at the time that other services are being cut back. School meals are a great idea. Feeding the rich is not. This really is a stupid policy. It was only put into place to buy the votes of the self-interested. And, to everyone's shame, it worked.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Loz, > TfL funding is for research, consultation and set-up costs and not revenue running costs. This > is how almost. All CPZ's have been funded across Southwark. The last big batch was funded to off > set the issues of the Central Congestion Charging Zone. James, In a previous posting you said, So, with those two out, what are the costs of running a CPZ? A few lines and some signs do not require tens to hundreds of thousand of pounds to upkeep. I think the people of ED are being fleeced here. Are the proposed budgets for the CPZ (including revenue from parking enforcement within the zone) going to be made publicly available so we can see how much these 'running costs' are?

Just re-iterating an earlier question, as there doesn't seem to be an answer forthcoming... If the CPZ is 'self-funding' and TFL is paying for it, why aren't the permits free?

So if you have been fatally injured, then yes, you are indeed dead. Chainsaws can have a fatal effect on trees, for instance.

Whilst I agree that they deserved to be arrested, I was a bit shocked at the sentences, especially Amir and Asif's. I mean, who got hurt? Six months for bowling two or three no balls that meant (usually illegal) bookies lost out? Seems harsh.

Not true. If the people in the CPZ decide to park in the roads adjacent to the CPZ to save buying a permit, then you actually create a problem. Which no doubt the solution will be 'a bigger CPZ'. And James, you've not answered an earlier point of mine. If the CPZ is self-funding and TFL is paying for it, why aren't the permits free?

Yep - more info needed. What is your source for this?

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ahh - so one of you against the CPZ finally admits there is a problem....! Most people realise there is a problem with parking in ED. Most people also realise that a CPZ is a piss poor attempt at a solution.

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gsirey - your concern for those of us who are currently affected by the parking problem is truly > touching...... ... and your concern for your neighbours who you are casually shoving your problems onto is equally touching.

So if 20% of parking is the 'fault' of commuters, therefore 450 cars owned by residents = 80%, so therefore all cars - 562. Since there is 558 bays then there is no problem. Or all your figures are wrong. If TFL are paying for it, why are you charging for permits? Sounds like a rip off to me.

Pickle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I tend to feel thankful for what we get - my parents in NZ have to pay extra on top of their > council tax to have a wheelie bin collected weekly, it has to be taken down to the road by > them by 6am on collection day, and their recycling facilities are very limited (basically newspaper > and cardboard only). If my parents in Australia don't put their bin out in just the distance from the kerb (where the automated bin grabbing thing can reach it), it doesn't get emptied.

I was pleasantly surprised when I first moved here that the bin men fetched the bins. As with binary_star, I've lived in places where if you don't put them out, they don't get emptied. Yes, sometimes they shove things out the way and they don't put them back neatly, but have you seen how fast they work? So, I think the service is pretty good.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh Oh ... a referendum in Greece is now being > proposed. I must admit I didn't see that spanner on the horizon Very interesting - and it's not a proposal, it's going to happen. A 'no' vote will be massive. It could see the Greek economy plunged into chaos for decades and the knock on effect may just bring the Euro down. All those cushy Greek pensions won't be worth a bean, then. I'd say it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas, but the Greeks have never been fond of Turkey.

plimsoul Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i would therefore suggest that as fact: some parents control their kids = no problem, others > don't = a right pain. I think that sums things up rather nicely.

If you don't like the smokey types, steer clear of any of the Islay whiskies.

gsirett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 3. The pressure on parking AROUND the proposed CPZ will only increase (thats where I live). So, I > guess in a year or so Southwark will find that they have "received feedback from residents > indicating that parking demand has increased in uncontrolled streets" and we'll have another > consultation, this time for the surrounding streets. Give it a few years and everybody will be > paying to park their car in SE22 And so... to extrapolate that further, in five years time the whole of ED will be a CPZ. There will still be the same parking problem, but lots of people will be ?250+ a year poorer. But the council will have hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more. Brilliant. As they say, beware of what you wish for, you might just get it.

ClareC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree, the posts are extremely aggressive and quite disturbing. Seems the vent is more often > or not aimed at mums and babies (distinctly remember the parent parking thread). If I recall, the mums (and dads) demanding special parking privileges didn't come across terribly well in that one. Probably not a good choice for an example.