first mate

The point is you clearly do recognise the potential downside to something you love and are prepared to take that into account, others do not. I think nothing after 9 pm is good ( except New Year) and giving neighbours plenty of notice. I'm sure you'd agree that planning is vital around fireworks anyway, so plenty of notice should be a given. I try to encourage pet owners to use desensitisation CD's for their pets, and advise them on how to act around animals that show mild anxiety, as you are right some owners can inadvertently increase anxiety by being overly anxious about their pet's anxiety. However, you may not be aware that some dogs are born with super- sensitivity to loud noises, especially the multiple frequencies of fireworks, so the problem is genetic and innate and these animals and their owners do suffer terribly around firework periods. If there is enough warning to get medication into the animal that can relieve some of the terrible fear but you'll never be able to desensitise that dog to firework noise, in the way you might with one that is fearful but does not have the super sensitive gene ( it's to do with a specific type of non- habituating neurone, if you are interested).

JackRCH, my concern is for pets who develop an extreme phobia to the noise and lights, it is distressing to see an animal in an extreme state of fear. The pet can be kept inside, so the visual effects can be controlled. If the fireworks used are low noise that is also going to help. A few days notice allows the owner to get anti panic medication from the vet, but since it must be given a few hours before the event to be effective a clear timeframe for start and finish is also really helpful. That said, you'll appreciate these drugs are strong so you don't want to be giving them more than a few times a year. Bear in mind some animals, for medical reasons, will not be able to tolerate these drugs at all, so every firework event close by induces a state of abject terror, the sort that causes non-stop shaking, vomiting, as well as loss of bowel control. On my own account, I don't have a problem but would prefer to know when stuff is going to happen so I can prepare my animals. I do though object to being woken in the early hours by random bangs, or by someone who wants to celebrate an event by letting off a few bangers...the louder the better, it seems. I accept the right to have large organised firework events, professionally managed with plenty of notice to neighbours, but random stuff, any time someone fancies, no.

Hi James, What reasons are given for non-withdrawal, and can the cabinet councillor be more vigorously encouraged to reply/comment?

And I quote: "DMC Healthcare Anil Gupta is the co-founder of DMC Healthcare and DMC Healthcare International. Having been raised in a family of GPs, Anil has combined his love of medicine with valuable business skills gained through working as a chartered accountant and in the audit and tax teams of Pfizer and BDO Binder Hamlyn. Having successfully brokered a deal with his father to manage the family practice, Anil and his brother, Ravi, have transformed the family business from a small single-site operation to a successful international operation that is embracing change by bringing new primary care services and walk-in centres closer to people?s homes. Ravi Gupta Managing Director (Clinical), DMC Healthcare Alongside brother Anil, Ravi Gupta is co-founder of DMC Healthcare and DMC Healthcare International. As clinical director he is responsible for ensuring patients receive safe, quality care. Ravi has extensive experience of redesigning clinical care pathways to bring better health services to the doorstep of patients, introducing physiotherapy, dermatology, ophthalmology and COPD services. With brother Anil, Ravi has successfully grown DMC Healthcare primary care services and currently operates five practices and four walk-in centres across London and the South East, treating approximately 45,000 registered patients and over 90,000 walk in patients per year, employing 200 staff and clinicians." Pity they cannot be sued under trades description!

James, has there been any response to objections to the parking consultation? Will this consultation now be withdrawn?

Mako, well said. There is a feeling that we are being bulldozed. I do hope that anyone who feels strongly on this has taken time to object the parking restrictions on Lordship Lane...consultation ends today. Another disgusting example of political dishonesty, manipulation and bulldozing.

If people care about losing parking on Lordship Lane please take the time to fill out the consultation, as it might be your last chance.

Wulfhoud said: "No, but I'd imagine "they've locked up the boy-racer tw@ts and cut the accident rate in half" will be enough for a few more kids to be allowed to walk to school on their own". You see, I just don't think that is going to happen- and believe me I would like it to. Instead I think you'll get the iveterate speeders getting even more wound up when they are stuck behind someone like me who tries very hard to maintain 20 mph. The tw@ts then tend to react by driving even more recklessly. The police don't wnat to/have no resources to police this and Southwark seem to think it'll be self enforcing. I actually think a lot of money will have to be spent on speed cameras to make this work.

James, Thanks for being clear. I hope that you will fight this as hard as you can. It is outrageous that the Southwark can so easily brush away and dismiss the valid concerns of its residents and voters.

James, obviously appreciate you getting involved and actually coming on here to answer and to help, but, please be clear, do you think the current consultation form on parking in ED is fit for purpose, yes or no? Do you think the two issues currently combined should be separated? Yes or no?| James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm trying to untangle this with officers and a > helpful resident beign the guinea pig to try the > fixes being suggested. > ANother example adds weight that the problems are > sufficient that the deadline should be extended > and the form made easier and I've requested > everyone who has responded so far be alerted to > the problems and given opportunity to add more > responses.

James, do you not feel it worthy of objection on your own account? I know you are objecting to the unrestricted parking aspect but surely you must agree that the consultation form is a farce and a disgrace. Are you not able to object to this yourself? Or do you think the form is okay as is?

James, can you please lodge an objection to the design of form for the parking consultation which is misleading and may not allow for fair and accurate consultation. The issue of currently restricted parking being extended from 30 minutes to one hour should be completetly separate from the proposal to make large stretches of Lordship Lane, currently unrestricted, to restricted. Moreover the form does not allow you to comment on the whole of Lordship Lane, but, for some reason, divides it into sections, arguably diluting objections to the whole.

carolb, thanks for those really useful points- espeically about division of Lordship Lane into sections for consuktation purposes, as though shoppers and residents only ever limit themselves to one section. Please everyone, take the time to read this form and fill it in

deleted as problem solved

Here's link to form, it literally takes 1 minute to fill out https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=1195 However, a word of warning. By mixing in already restricted areas with proposed changes to unrestricted it seems to me that the Council have tried to pull a fast one. If you oppose introduction of new restricted parking on L'dship Lane you need to object to the whole package and explain why. I also hope that James Barber is prepared to take the Council to task on the design of this consultation and the Council's attempts to get a result by sleight of hand. Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was today, 10:40am by first mate.

By mixing in already restricted areas with proposed changes to unrestricted it seems to me that the Council have tried to pull a fast one. If you oppose introduction of new restricted parking on L'dship Lane you need to object to the whole package and explain why. I also hope that James Barber is prepared to take the Council to task on the design of this consultation and the Council's attempts to get a result by sleight of hand.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades See map, page 30 for detail of proposed changes from unrestricted free parking to restricted, under S'warks free parking scheme. Consultation us ongoing. Without objections this is due to be implemented late March, early April thus year.

Here's a link to proposals on free parking...again has consultation passed us all by http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/3654/one_hour_free_parking_in_local_shopping_parades

This is a link to Southwark's forward plan http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/mgListPlans.aspx?RPId=153&RD=0 But you can also do a bit of a search backwards by putting in key phrases like "speed limits" or "licensing". I can already see that a big meeting on licensing residences is coming up, as well as management of leisure facilities ( thinking of the poo in the pool thread, and many complaints about ED leisure). I wonder if admin could dedicate a tab to this and a few other key links? This link about how S'wark intends to consult on the S'wark plan is also of interest http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11085/consultation_plan

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1725/response_to_reports_concerning_20mph_limit_and_cyclists A search on S'wark website indicates that that cllr barrie Hargrove announced in oct 2013 that 20 mph would go to statutory consultation. The above is a press release in June 2014 which indicates the consultation has been done, it also contains interesting information on enforcement, whereby the limit won't apply to cyclists, only motorised vehicles.....bizarre and a bit of a mess.

Hi James, appreciate the links though I'd add that looking at the second the information on key stuff is overly general and you cannot get into any if the detail as though this is signposted it us not linked to.

ED History. Thank you. Do you know if the Society have a stance on any if the issues under discussion here? Tessemo, yes and if I have my facts right some special interest groups/ activists are also local councillors- someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Hopskip, Nicely put. I think we need a consultation on the consultation process and most likely some kind of reform. It is worrying and while I do not have such a major beef about 20 mph (though feel it may prove ineffective until the council shells out huge sums on cameras- also on the cards btw)I do feel strongly about changing unrestricted parking into restricted under the guise of the council's call for "free parking". I see that Southwark Living Streets are also part if a national drive to challenge free parking and presumably thereby rid the streets of as many cars as possibly. Jeremy Leach was/is Lib Dem councillor for Newington Ward, he is also the main man for Southwark Living Streets and Southwark Cyclists.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is "the Gazette" the London Gazette? An official > UK journal, in which it is required that certain > statutory notices should be published. Yes, ZT it is, though I had not felt it was something I needed to peruse on a very regular basis in order to find out about proposed major changes to my locale. Do others read this often? Perhaps I need to start.

And I meant to add that one of the special interest groups- Southwark Living streets- is a branch of the national charity Living Streets who have been driving 20mph from the start, and have worked in an advisory and partnership role with the Council to make this initiative happen, so they have had the inside track, as it were. Thus to see them mentioned as consultees in some sort of statutory box ticking exercise seems a little rich.