first mate

Precisely.

As I understand it, Southwark Council are taking over installation and management of cycle hangars, so that might explain the delay.

It is good to hear from people who actually know what has gone on. Good also to hear James McAsh own words, showing how he has reneged on promises to listen to all residents rather than simply impose.

This has stitch up written all over it. Registering for a place allows the council to know in advance who wants to attend and they can cherry pick. I bet the room is full of supporter groups and, as was evident earlier in the year, there is the mailing list that gives such groups advance notice. Further manipulation of outcomes by Southwark Labour. Sorry to sound so cynical and my post will no doubt set off guffaws about conspiracies and tin hats, but I have no trust in this council.

So the second, 'official' consultation is a meaningless exercise simply to tick a legal box. People can say 'no' to CPZ in their droves but it will be imposed, against their wishes, anyway. What then was the purpose of the first consultation if public opinion does not matter? Where is the mandate for this CPZ imposition?

Unlike LTNs and CPZ, working to improve and increase bus and train services was a Southwark Labour manifesto promise. Can anyone say what has been achieved to date, locally?

I think I had understood that bit Ex. I am more interested in what the report says about Nunhead residents being told they will have an opportunity to say no to a CPZ but that CPZs will go ahead anyway. This may be poor reporting or just badly expressed, but it could sound like 'you can say no and we will note your objection but our minds are already made up'. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? Also, if this is what Nunhead residents were told then what is the mechanism by which they will be/ are able to express an objection?

But I thought the journalism was sub standard and on a par with The Daily Mail. At least that was what was being said a few days ago. That little volte face aside, I think it is a balanced article with one man who used to live in Camberwell saying he liked the CPZ, another, who also says he is from Camberwell and who is Southwark Cyclists but wishes to be anonymous, also likes the CPZ. The article also points out major opposition to CPZ in ED and Nunhead, and that residents in Nunhead have been told they will have a chance to say no to CPZ but borough-wide CPZ will happen anyway!? Can anyone shed light on the last bit?

It is just more iffy tactics to derail, distract and undermine. You have one poster describing others as irrational, as adopting the tactics of US Republicans and Tories, of lying or putting words into that poster's mouth. Another insinuates those who do not agree with them are hate filled or have mental health problems. What a lovely bunch.

Yes, I'd also like to know what a fire bike is.

How does one "act as if your view is some sort of null hypothesis". What gobbledegook. Hilarious. The flaw in your argument is that it is Southwark Labour cllrs who have claimed the election result showed a majority of residents were in favour of LTNs and CPZ. I have always said many are against, but numbers for and against locally would only really become more clear if a properly designed, transparent consultation is held, with the option to state you don't want either.

EA, How an you possibly know a majority of ED are in favour of LTNs, unless you follow the SL line that the 2022 election result was a vote in favour, even though neither LTNs or borough-wide CPZ were mentioned in the manifesto? I and others on here, are interested in the local picture. Sadiq Kahn expressed a view that not all LTNs work equally well. What is your evidence that a majority of ED residents support local LTNs and imposition of borough-wide CPZ?

A true example of moving goal posts is the stance of Cllr McAsh on CPZ. First he stated only streets that wanted CPZ' would get them, next he did a complete about turn and said that now there would be borough wide CPZ and this had been supported by the results of the last election, despite there being no mention of borough wide CPZ in the manifesto. He claims door step conversations somehow mandated a borough wide CPZ. Cllr McAsh' door step conversations were also used to shoehorn in and justify part closure of Melbourne Grove, despite a clear majority against doing that on that street. If you want to see moving goal posts on a large scale, look no further than Southwark Labour's imposition of borough wide CPZ.

Poor show Chicken. Trying to frame those you don't agree with as adopting tactics of the far right is a rather despicable smear and reflects badly on you.

Well Chicken, you did totally misquote Spartacus and I called you out on it. You do seem to regularly accuse everyone else of lying but it is good you are over your more shouty in bold/caps phase.

CEO's will be paid for by the huge amount of money for roads, currently in surplus. That is why CPZ and the infrastructure to support its imposition and management/ enforcement, which includes upscaling CEO's, is self -funding and will reap profits, probably paying for bike hangars etc.. too. So with all those CEO's running around issuing FPN's for parking infractions why not make further use of that 'force' which is/will be very healthily funded. Or PCSOs, who as I am sure you know have only limited powers, so would not be taken away from more serious police work, but are a useful street presence. PSPOS are another flexible instrument that could be looked at (although Ex does not agree). I believe something is to be trialled in City of London where there will be powers to issue fines to cyclists on pavements and for running red lights.

Rocks, it was at the scrutiny session when Williams went off at Clive Rates and then at the Assembly when McAsh spoke, although the sound was so appalling you could only hear the odd sentence.

I'm surprised you don't know what CEOs are...or PSPOS for that matter?

Can I just point out that Cllrs Williams and McAsh have made a big deal about how being voted in mandated LTNs and CPZ because local residents had expressed their support on the doorstep for those measures. It is they who have spun their success at the local elections as evidence of a vote in favour. So presumably you also disagree with them? And no, as I have also said, no vote at that time could ever just be about LTNs.

The fact remains, you cannot claim a massive mandate for something that was not mentioned in the manifesto.

Since when have PSPOs and CEOs and volunteers been run by the MET? Community Police officers walk around the local area on bike or foot, easy for them to interact with those exhibiting inappropriate cycling behaviour or with volunteers out with speed guns, in the course of their rounds. You seem to be labouring incredibly hard in your efforts to try to score the odd point.

It is stretching things to suggest you win an election on an issue that you never mention. The notion that a vote for Southwark Labour was a massive all round thumbs up for LTNs and borough wide CPZ is pure spin.

I don't agree. If it was such a big vote winner it would have been centre and front in the manifesto, along with borough wide CPZ. I think lots of people did want improvements in trains and buses, which they flagged. You cannot argue people voted for something that was not even mentioned.

Community police on the beat, so at certain points already in situ, volunteers, and PSPOS/ CEOs, the latter a maybe because further scrutiny as to parameters of PSPO required. However, CEOs will be very well resourced, so it makes sense for them to be involved in policing. Can you indicate what you were paraphrasing with "oh some of those people should".

Chickster, your repeated attempts to discombobulate and derail are sweet but not very effective. Can you please point out where I have used the exact phrase "oh some of those people should" ?