eddie

Is this for real?

CONTROVERSIAL 20mph speed limits designed to cut road casualties are not working, official figures show. Deaths and injuries in 20mph zones are UP a quarter in a year ? while on 30mph roads they are DOWN. A report from the Department for Transport shows there were 2,262 fatalities and injuries in 2011 on 20mph roads in built-up areas ? 24 per cent more than in 2010 when 1,827 were recorded. That compares to a one per cent reduction in casualties on 30mph roads in built-up areas. Experts say motorists don?t concentrate and become frustrated in 20mph zones ? and pedestrians are lulled into a false sense of security. In Portsmouth, a blanket 20mph limit on built-up roads was introduced five years ago. The number killed or seriously injured in the city rocketed from 79 in 2007 to 143 last year. More councils are setting 20mph areas under powers introduced by Lib Dem Transport Minister Norman Baker. Road safety campaigner Claire Armstrong of Safe Speed called for a halt to lower zones. She said: ?A 20mph limit does not make the road safer. Thirty is absolutely adequate.? The number of people killed or seriously injured overall on all roads in Britain increased by two per cent last year ? the first yearly rise since 1994. Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4481938/Official-Casualties-soaring-in-20mph-zones.html#ixzz24TVdwLw4

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Drivers should indicate all the time for > everybody, whether they see other people/road > users or not. you do not have to indicate at a roundabout if you are going straight ahead

Ken Livingston once told us the Olympics would cost ?2.2b. Now the costs are running at about ?11b. So we are told ?55m to build a tram link. Get real. That would just be the management fee!!

Local resident to local politician: ?Can the area behind the police station be used for parking? Local politician; ?Southwark council does not have the sort of spare cash required to buy the land? Seems to be a perfectly reasonable response by a local politician in looking after what all our local taxes are spent on. However this is the same local politician that has proposed the following council expenditure; 1. Buy a business, knock down the building it is located in and extend Burgess Park. 2. Knock down the flyover on the Old Kent Road as it? only serves commuters from Kent? So nice to see local politicians looking after our local interests! Ya have to smile. Did I see that the Lib Dems were beaten in the local election by a penguin?

I would like to know what an elected local councillor is doing entering into discussions with Waitrose about their options in opening a store in East Dulwich. On what authority does Councillor Barber do this?. To state that he has discussed with Waitrose options about taking over the Iceland store, or other buildings does not in my opinion fall within his remit. Iceland is a private business. So are all other businesses. Does this mean that Councillor Barber has identified other buildings that would suit Waitrose?. Buildings that are owned or leased by private individuals and private companies. The big question is how has this been reflected in other local council decisions that are being taken. Councillor Barber appears to have been working on this for a long time as reflected in his ED Forum post starting 1st Jan 2011. His objection to the revised planning process, although deemed more cost effective and efficient, may not suit his agenda if he is unable to influence decisions like M&S taking over Iceland. Local businesses are extremely concerned that local councillors, that are elected to represent us, appear to be in negotiations with other companies with a possible view to taking over their leases. Councillor Barber has been asked to declare his interest in this matter on a number of occasions. He has failed to do so in a satisfactory manner. He uses the East Dulwich Forum endlessly for his own political agenda and maybe his own private dealings. I call on him to now clearly declare his interests in these matters and disclose what discussions he has had with Waitrose. Eddie

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only if he sits on the Committee for that decision > because I think he has expressed views and met > with the applicants and others who have an > interest. Also if he is lobbied by his > constituents he cannot be part of the decision. I think James Barber should declare his interests on this matter.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi alice, > The freeholder who has applied for planning > permission talks about M&S. > Seperately I know the Iceland lease is close to > ending. I'd be amazed if Iceland would offer as > much rent as M&S would/have. > I'm also clear that Waitrose would like the site > as is without the extension - and I've spoken at > length to them about options. > > Hope this helps. James, I thought you were on the planning committee. Is this not a conflict?

It looks like on a national basis that Labour has re-gained some ground but a lot of that was at the expense of the Liberal Democrats. Some political pundits say that that is because they are in government and it is normal when there are elections mid term. However the Libs got severely hammered at the last local elections as the public remember their broken promises just for the sake of power. It may be that trend is continuing. People may feel that that they are not being listened to and in some cases blatantly ignored. Our own local councillors should take heed of that and the impact of voting for things that are proven to be completely against the will of the majority of the people.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi grabot, > The Dulwich Village ward councillors manuervred > the ?18,000 of the ?30,000 allocated for CGS > revenue (covering East Dulwich, College and > Village wards) spend this coming year and into > perpetuity to be forever allocated to Dulwich > Village School Crossing Patrols. The patrols are > needed. > So if no other funding is available reducing the > Sotuh of the Borough event budget looking, begging > for a home would be better than the extremely > limited revenue funding we have. I was under the impression that the ?18k comes from the Council mainstream traffic road safety budget and not from the CGS. Is that not the case then?

I think that it is quite refreshing to hear the views of another councillor on the forum rather than being subjected to the biased dribble that is often churned out by the local Lib Dem councillor. The latter whose view, in times of financial difficulties, is that the way to help a business that has run into difficulties is for the council to buy the premises, knock it down, and make Burgess Park bigger.

Councillor Barber As you so blatantly use this forum for your own political ends and never shrink to have a dig at your political opponents, perhaps it might be better if your actually found out how many times the roundabout was damaged and repaired while the Lib Dems were in power and what has happened under the current administration, rather than your statement that the council has not repaired the roundabout for 2 years. As a driver I have seen the brickwork on the roundabout smashed up on many occasions and subsequently fixed. This scheme sounds sensible if it reduces maintenance costs and reduces pollution, something that may not have seen obvious to the previous council administration.

I wonder if I can get someone to take the rap for my parking tickets, you know, like the Liberal Democrat MP who appears to have had his wife take his points for speeding? Oh well, perhaps not.

> > edited to say: sorry this is now party > political......but thats not my fault. Before > anybody acuuses me of being an agent of Cameron or > Milliband, I'm not. The Liberal Democrats have proven at a national level that they will only follow their own agenda so that it suits them best. They promised to scrap tuition fees ? they voted to treble them, they promised to oppose a rise in VAT, they voted for it. I could go on. Why? Because power is more important to them than ethics. The local people have voted against CPZ. Local councillors, like their counterparts in Camberwell should vote against it at the Community Council Meeting and prove that they truly represent the people. BUT, I suspect as previously suggested, that they will abstain so that in the future they can state that they did not vote for CPZ. I hope that the local politicians, unlike their ?dear leader? have the balls to vote as representatives of the local people. ATTEND THE MEETING NEXT WEEK

On a lighter note????? Traffic wardens will be prevented from issuing parking tickets to councillors by a new computer system in Southend. The number plates of councillors cars will be entered into the handheld devices used by wardens so that if they try to issue a penalty charge notice it will be rejected. The council says that this is to save on the cost of printing permits for its 51 representatives to use. [b]They will be trusted to pay when they are off duty.[/b] Made me smile.

lpool Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My wife mentioned the problems with the traffic > yesterday and that it took 20 minutes on the bus > to travel one stop towards Goose Green because of > the roadworks. Someone needs to get the council > to move the bus stop by the works to a temporary > location and create a no-parking zone near the > works to prevent the bottle-neck that seems to be > being created during the day. My wife tried > calling the Highways Office yesterday but just got > passed around their office with no one wanting to > take responsibility. > > If James Barber (or any other local councillor) is > reading this then grateful if they can have a > sensible word with Southwark. Better get used to it! It seems that it will take up to 3 months before it is finished. Then there will be another crossing up by the co-op. 1 crossing is fine and needed, 2 is just daft. But I guess that is Lib Dem for you.

When is a consultation not a consultation? It seems that Southwark Council set up some sort of democracy commission last year, and despite spending 6 months ?listening to local residents and attempting to balance local democracy?, the council just did what it wanted. One local councillor was ?deeply concerned? about this and stated; ?This consultation, what is it good for, absolutely nothing?.it would appear under Southwark Labour? Was that genuine or just a cheap political dig? http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/11/27/when-is-a-consultation-not-a-consultation/ ?So much for representative democracy? Regarding another issue, one local councillor has stated he was ?saddened to read that big money appears to have stomped all over another aspect of representative democracy.? Further on the same councillor stated ?I?ve never read a report whose recommendation was so at variance with the body of the report? Was this a genuine comment or again just a political dig http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/12/07/so-much-for-representative-democracy/ I know neither of the above have anything to do with CPZ but I feel that it is important that the local residents and businesses understand what their local councillors say.

Councillor Barrie Hargrove, the Cabinet Member for Transport, will be taking the final decision on the CPZ. Councillor Hargrove in the past has stated they he makes decisions based on the advice from the Community Council. My big fear is that some local councillors may abstain from the vote at the community council meeting. The result of such action may well be; 1. The council have not received ?clear guidance? from the community council and therefore believe they have a mandate to push the CPZ through, 2. Some local councillors will be forever able to say that they did not approve the CPZ (hiding behind their choice to abstain). The reality is that they did not oppose it based on the majority view of the electorate. I implore all local councillors to stand up and be counted and either vote in favour or against the CPZ at the community council meeting.

I am not surprised that Southwark Council refuse to release the raw data. In a previous ?consultation? on another matter, the council admitted that they had ignored any returned forms that did not have all the data they wanted, even though their own consultation forms did not declare that would be the case. It is heartening to see that Westminster Council have had to abandon plans to introduce late night and weekend parking charges after a High Court Judge ruled against them. Westminster's decision came after the judge decided that there were grounds for a judicial review of the way the council reached its decision. Giving his permission for a full judicial review of the charges, the judge said "there is a real risk of substantial damage to businesses and churches if it goes ahead" adding that the current consultation process was ?arguably far too limited? Southwark Council officers and councillors should take notice of that action.

E.d. Warehouse is open late for shopping on Thursday Nights.

Hi James The lamp outside 1 Zenoria St has stopped working. The number is 2660 02 Thanks Ed

One part of the consultation results that has not been mentioned was that the actual forms were misleading. There was space on the form for those households taking part in the consultation to complete their name and address. What the form did not say was that if residents did not complete their name and address, then their returned form would be ignored and not included. A large number of returned forms were ignored. The Council have admitted that this was the case. One of the reasons that this crossing did not go ahead as planned was because that legal action was planned against Southwark Council. The actual FULL consultation results should be easily available from Southwark Council for review.

Hello Just a quick message to let you know that Zenoria Food Hall has now opened at E.d. Warehouse Indoor Market (behind Caffe Nero on Lordship Lane) Visit us for some delicious sushi, oysters, bakery, cheese, deli, olive oils, plus our own coffee shop with cakes and sandwiches. If you have not been in E.d. Warehouse recently, do pop in and see us. We have been re-vamping it over the last few months to give a more open and relaxed atmosphere. The feedback we have had from our customers has been very positive, and we are striving to get it right, so feel free to let us know your views! We are open 6 days a week from Tuesday right through to Sunday. Thanks Eddie

ED Warehouse, East Dulwich indoor market is now open 7 days a week. They also have new casual traders during December.

I love the fact that the topic has now moved onto the history of the warehouse. (thanks for all the comments about E.D. Warehouse, we will continue to address all of them to make the market better and better) I believe that Edwards Electrical moved in to the warehouse in 1978. I also understand that the warehouse was used as a hospital during the second world war and that prior to that was a livery station. I plan to research the complete history of the building from the 1890?s to date. Does anyone have any interesting information about the history of the building?. It would be nice if we can display some old photos inside the warehouse. Eddie