buddug

Furthermore, James wrote: "Nothing would give me greater pleasure (in the next 36hours) than voting NO tomorrow with a clear solution to the problems residents in some East Dulwich ward streets have." You are being disingenuous here. You know very well that there can be no clear solution to the minority of residents suffering at tomorrow's meeting without hurting the majority who voted against the CPZ. That is not acceptable in a democracy. What is so wrong with how the Camberwell vote went on the 9th, i.e. option 2, whereby other more reasonable solutions can now be debated for badly affected streets? It's time to put your democratic thinking cap on James. Because, let's face it, if you don't know how you'll vote today, you certainly won't tomorrow. Nothing will have changed over the next day, and you know it (I'm beginning to smell an abstention...)

James wrote: "Clearly the majority of people who responded are against controleld parking. I'd be delighted to know what the alternatives you're proposing are?" Well James, think of it like this. We now know what is not an alternative, and that's a CPZ. You say above that the majority who responded are against it. Does that help you make up your mind? Therefore, at tomorrow's meeting let's knock it on the head once and for all, shall we. Then, it's up to you and your little band of merry men at Southwark council to come up with a solution to help those few people having problems on their streets. After all, it's what you're paid to do.

James wrote: "Are you really surprised that as an Easy Dulwich ward councillor I've had my constituents contacting me in the way and proportions described." I'm speechless. So when you posted: I've had lots" for and "some" against the CPZ you really meant it! Well yes, I am surprised, considering the majority of people in your ward voted against. Really really surprised.

Attila the Hun!?! Because you supported fazer71 in his assertion that voters don't always know what's best for them. And bugger my housing issues, which I've brought up on his "can I help" thread. This thread is about the CPZ, so let's stick with that, shall we. And I'm surprised that you, who has also suffered MAJOR problems as a Southwark leaseholder, are now an apologist for someone who so clearly represents, more than his constituents, the ideology of said council. You're a paradox, if you don't mind my saying. And let's not forget, James, as our representative, is supposed to represent the majority. He is not doing so. Ergo, he is bad at his job. And by the way, the day I grow up will be the day I die. (Edited a thousand times because I am frothing at the mouth)

Pip D: >:D< (but, fair play, he didn't mention nazis or Hitler!)

Fazer71 has just fazed me! He wrote: "He [james] probably has a better balanced view of what the majority want and need" and "Voters don?t always know what is best for them." Ok then, let's just have a fascist state with a nice little dictator who cares only for our best interests. Are you insane?!!!!!!! And Otta. Do you not think the name Attila would serve you better? Edited a hundred times because I'm frothing at the mouth.

Otta wrote: "HAHAHAHAHAHA" Well, yes, maybe it is personal then. I guess it does get personal - for me and others - when one of our political "representatives" starts reneging on his duty to represent us while also trying his best to make our lives the poorer, financially and emotionally, and does eff fanny adams to help with really serious problems while throwing himself into piddling irritations such as dog poo and litter, which is his normal remit. Urgh (sorry everyone!).

Trouble is BobbyP, is that James is not "a reasoned individual who hears the arguments", and has proved this during the whole debate. It's not a personal thing against him, but I for one feel he is far too much a "company man" when it comes to Southwark Council. His agenda is, basically, theirs.

Siduhe wrote:"he [james barber] stands up and gets involved for better or for worse." but then adds: "That said, in my view, the role of a councillor on this sort of local issue is to represent his constituents by taking proper account of their views. Not follow the for/against slavishly as if it were a referendum, not follow a party political or local council line, but to look at what the overall views of his constituents in this area are on whether they want a CPZ." er, well yes. Don't you think the two are mutually incompatible, i.e. "for worse"? The key words here are: "represent his constituents". He is not. He is following his own agenda. God knows why.

Huguenot, if James gets his way on the CPZ - and it's obvious what that is - it is the ramifications that will prove to be personal - to most residents and business who live here as well as to the whole character of East Dulwich and adjacent areas.

Puzzled, "obfuscate" is spot on, and so is "twist", "spin" and "mislead". On his "Can I help" thread he's unbelievably just written: "I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't." To which I could only answer: "I can't believe it! He's spinning again. "I've had lots" for and "some" against. This is beyond shameful James. Your wording deliberately implies most are for CPZ, when the figures clearly show, and you have admitted it, that the majority are against. You are really digging your own grave here.

Gsirett wrote: "Personally, I'm feeling quite bullied by Southwark Council over controlled parking." Nail. On. Head.

James wrote: "I've had lots of East Dulwich ward residents and some businesses tell me they want controlled parking. I've had some say they don't." I can't believe it! He's spinning again. "I've had lots" for and "some" against. This is beyond shameful James. Your wording deliberately implies most are for CPZ, when the figures clearly show, and you have admitted it, that the majority are against. You are really digging your own grave here.

James wrote: "The Labour party ran on no student fees but introduced them." Oh, so that's all right then. God, do you people not have any ethics?! And he added: "As for Liberal Democrats. We have no whip on this or any other commmunity council decision." So why did you tell davidh in a letter that it was "very awkward" for you? Come on, James, what have you been promising to people?

It's 5.30pm - and now off completely! No water. So much for my earlier praise.

Oh! It's back! But at slightly low pressure. I have to say I'm very impressed by information given out by Thames, both from their website showing the exact location of the leak, and by customer service and by the speed with which the repairs were done. Didn't think I'd ever say all that...

Oglander Road experiencing water loss - there's just a very slight trickle. Looked on Thames Water website which shows a leak in Marsden Road. Rang Thames - they say they're working there now, trying to re-route water through another pipe as a faulty valve is affecting original pipe, in order for us to have some water while they do the repairs. They think water will be back to normal by 4.20 today at latest.

Is anyone else experiencing this? Edited to say two neighbours also experiencing water loss - it's just a very slight trickle. Looked on Thames Water website which shows a leak in Marsden Road. Rang Thames - they say they're working there now, trying to re-route water through another pipe as a faulty valve is affecting original pipe, in order for us to have some water while they do the repairs. They think water will be back to normal by 4.20 today at latest.

Huguenot must miss East Dulwich...

:)) I guess I do go on a bit...

Oy, ???! There are six paragraphs in my last post! And not one literal.

Hi there. I said I wouldn't post again, because of the laxness of one poster in reading my posts properly. But I've suddenly realised he's just a troll (by the way Chippy, 8,500 miles away - where is he based? Do tell all). However, I'm impressed by the good sense of the recent posts by Djkillaqueen (your post name terrifies me!) and you Chippy, and the fact you've bothered to even address this issue of mine (and fazer71's and probably many others), even though not all of you may agree with everything I say. I don't understand, DJ, why your problems were not addressed simply because they're under guarantee for a year. Surely, at any time within that year, they can be? For me, the only good thing about southwark as a freeholder is, despite the myriad and ongoing problems, they can be held to account and forced back to make good - even though this takes up hours of my time. As to taking southwark through the legal system, Undisputedtruth, it took a whole year for a court case to be resolved, which I won. But I was exhausted at the end of it. The idea of going through more legal hoops is so disheartening for me. Nevertheless I will be going to the LVT in the near future despite this. In addition, Gerri Scott knows all about my case. She authorised the payment of ?3,060 to replace my damaged carpets by southwark contractors when the housing department were refusing to budge on this. And she admitted that southwark council (or rather taxpayers!) had spent ?10,000 on damages etc to me and my neighbour in a letter to me. But I think it's all so out of control, even she can't deal with it. One of her housing officers told me the current contractor is "the worst southwark have ever had" - and that's worse than Botes, which went into administration, after causing havoc at my place for years. As to James Barber, I am in no way laying the blame at his feet. Of course none of this is his fault, though it's something he should have addressed a long time ago on behalf of leaseholders. But what I do take umbrage at, and I make this very clear in my posts, is the fact that on another website he has told southwark leaseholders to come to him with their problems, but then when I did he told me he could do nothing. That's in addition to his "can I help" thread here. No, he cannot help. Maybe his hands are tied, for whatever reason (what reason?!), but he shouldn't then promise the earth and deliver nothing. "Just buy the freehold" he told me. Pah, as if money grew on trees! Anyway, thanks to all of you for your feedback. Much appreciated. (Sorry for all the edits - I'm a sub-editor, and can't help myself!)

Huguenot wrote: "You see? I know you've been working with James for months because you said so yourself." Huguenot, with what distorted logic do you deduce that my post "[James] I asked you for help on some ongoing problems early last year and you said you couldn't do anything" means I have been working with James on my leasehold problems for months???! Early last year I approached him with one email and one phone call, and he said he couldn't help, saying: "buy the freehold". End of. As to your comment that I suffered "an enormous 2 incompetent jobs in 13 years", read that post again! I said very clearly those examples (there were five actually, rubble causing damage 1, more rubble causing damage 2, botched paint job leading to court case damage 3, lawn wrecked damage 4 and gate destroyed damage 5) were to give you only "a tiny insight" of what I've had to put up with from southwark contractors. I also said near the end: "Shall I go on? There's plenty more." I'm bailing out here, it's getting a bit bonkers.

Huguenot wrote: "I believe that 'old bat' was referring to a suspicion that 'buddug' is in fact a reincarnation of 'batdog' Aha!! But sadly wrong. This, I believe, may be why you think James has been "working with me for months" on my leasehold woes and why you posted: "You and I, and many people on this forum know that your exchange with James was much more than that!" So poor old Batdog has been through the southwark council/james barber mill too, then? Buddug is the Welsh version of Victoria. Confusingly, my real name is Anne. But I am Welsh. Interestingly (or not) Boudica was actually called Buddug (the early Britons being Welsh and speaking a form of Welsh) because she was so often victorious. I'm probably horribly wrong on all that. So maybe an apology, Hugo, for calling me a liar based only on gossip. Tut tut.

Huguenot writes: "You and I, and many people on this forum know that your exchange with James was much more than that" ? (evidence, please). And you didn't answer my question. I claim my ?5.