buddug

I agree with Carrie's comments about the pavement works around the crossing at the Grove Vale end of Oglander. There's a little lake there when it rains. Pathetic. Obviously the same quality of Southwark contractors who have consistently bodged and wrecked at my flat!

James Barber wrote: "But if you have an issue still I'll happily take it up as I have with other leaseholders." So why didn't you at the time? I wrote you a very long email and chatted with you at length about the catalogue of disasters I've had to put up with over the 13 years I've lived in my flat due to a string of cowboys contractors sent to do 'repairs' or major works botching, having to be sent back on numerous occasions, and finally causing water damage to the internal of the flat twice in two years due to 'work' done to the exterior. Never mind the bogus service charges that had to be taken off our bill on several occasions, such as being charged for a new gate - which replaced the one damaged by their contractors! All this - and much much more - has cost the council (or rather taxpayers!) at least ?10,000 in compensation payments to make good the damage and replace damaged items, a sum which has been admitted by the head of housing in writing to me. This shocking fact alone should have inspired you to look into the matter, but you showed complete indifference to this. At the time, all you could say, and kept saying until I told you to stop, was "buy the freehold". My upstairs neighbour and I have been told by the council this could cost up to ?10,000 between us - ironic when you consider the compensation they've already paid out. You obviously felt this kind of money was small change to those living in "aspirational" East Dulwich. You also said you couldn't help as you didn't "know" the head of housing, as she was new. So what's changed? As to your comments about the CPZ, where you say: "As for businesses on Grove Vale I'd have thought having more local parking available with commuter parking gone would be of help to them." I'm speechless!

Huguenot wrote: "Those who aren't supporting a CPZ should graciously accept that not everyone shares their views." Hello? Surely you meant: "Those who support a CPZ should graciously accept that not everyone [in fact the majority] shares their views." Or am I missing something?

:))

Zip it? Se?or Chevalier, just as James Barber hates democracy, it seems his apologists don't like freedom of speech either. Nice to hear you disagree with his curious stance on the CPZ though.:)-D

Why should this thread be restricted only to issues other than the CPZ? James has called it: "East Dulwich councillor - can I help? The CPZ threat is something he should help with as it would make the lives of many people and businesses who are based here more difficult, both financially and in terms of stress and upset. But he is refusing to do so, despite the pleas for help coming from the majority. And whenever someone posts a burglary, mainly to warn others or simply to be given 'tea and sympathy', all he does is callously pontificate on how the statistics prove how the LibDems have brought crime down and the need to mark belongings - when I posted my first burglary I specifically told him not to do it with me and thankfully he didn't. And despite his posting somewhere that leaseholder victims of Southwark Council should bring their problems to him to sort out, all he said to me when I did this was advise me to buy the freehold! As I've said before, he's all mouth and trousers. Or mouth and no trousers. Whatever. Out of interest, has anyone been helped by him?

One for James and Barrie: Don't know if this has already been posted aeons ago, but it's from 2008 government guidelines on consultations regarding introduction of parking changes, section 5.2 (my underlinings): "The Secretary of State expects local authorities considering major changes to their parking policies to consult fully with stakeholders. As a minimum, local authorities should consult the following groups: ? those involved in the implementation and operation of parking, including the police, neighbouring local authorities, the DVLA and the Traffic Enforcement Centre; ? wider stakeholders with an interest in parking, including businesses, motoring groups and representative organisations; and ? those who will be affected, including residents, motorists and the general public. Authorities should include socially excluded groups.

Fantastic gsirett! Well done. Hargrove, honestly. He even did a 'James Barber' when he said (or spluttered): "There are a number (70%) of people that said no thank you but there?s also a substantial number (24%) of people that said yes". Er, shouldn't that be the other way round, Barrie? You and James are beginning to sound like something out of communist russia.

James wrote: " Three of those businesses responded to the consultation that they didn't want any controlled parking. That feels to me like asking to have your cake and eat it." You really do hate local businesses don't you James. I suppose they're not "aspirational" enough for you [see his Waitrose thread]. Maybe local businesses are simply asking to be given a fair chance to trade without hindrance. And anyway, it sounds to me like you're doing your usual "interpreting" of consultation answers - did they really respond by saying they didn't want "any" controlled parking or is that your word and they simply meant they didn't want a controlled parking zone? And as to "I'm afraid Southwark has never nuanced its consultations asking people how long they've lived or worked in an area and factoring that into any recommendations" - what on God's earth does it matter how long people have lived or worked here?!!? Do you think that should also be applied to voting in council elections - that people's vote should be discounted or not taken seriously if they have only lived here for three years, rather than say 12? Or for that matter, in the General Election? This is getting bonkers. You have a very warped idea of what a democracy is what with your flagrant dismissal of what are clearly the views of the majority, classifying local businesses - who were actually consulted, as was right and proper - as "commuters" and therefore irrelevant, and now this time-scale thing.

"who or what has such a hold over him that he cannot make his mind up?" Interesting point, First Mate.

James wrote: "If it's clear they are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens" Well, James. You now know that approx 40 residents in the affected areas want a CPZ, 1,500 odd don't!!!! How clear is that! So why in heaven's name do you need to wait until the end of January to make up your mind?? You are too slippery for your own good. And as to calling local businesses who responded to the consultation who voted against a CPZ 'commuters' and therefore to be discarded, well, go figure.

Peckhamboy wrote: "According to the report, three were businesses". Ha! I knew it. And I wholeheartedly agree with your comments on that PB. Commuters indeed. Beneath contempt. This is all very clear, a vast majority in and around the streets targeted are against a CPZ. Therefore, according to James: "If it's clear they [residents in street affected] are for or against that will be what I try to ensure happens." However, that isn't the message we're now getting from you James. In fact you're flying in the face of all the evidence. As Peter John says in his letter to Zak: "This is not Westminster". Maybe James should move there - then he can get his higher house prices ["I was under the impression such zones boost house prices"]. Of course, he adds that this fact would not influence his vote...

James wrote: "I believe 3 of the no's counted on Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents." So James, I suppose the ones who voted against in the other streets you mentioned where there was a majority against also included commuters? Are you saying the consultation was so lax and unconstitutional that people walking in the streets were asked how they'd vote? You've gone too far now, this is shameless.

James said: "I was curious why anyone on Scutari Road would be so anxious about potential controlled parking near East Dulwich station. Equally I wouldn't expect the residents of Derwent Grove to make decisions for you and your neighbours on Scutari Road." Do you live in any of the affected roads then James?

Aha. So we finally have proof that James is not being honest with us: Melbourne (8 against/7 for - therefore residents (the majority) do not want CPZ); similarly, Zenoria (7 against/6 for); Oxonian (2 against/0 for); Tintagel Gardens (1 for/1 against); and Elsie (10 against/7 for). Well, James, what do you have to say for yourself? Oh, of course, you only said "residents", but you intended it to mean "some residents". Do you think we're stupid?

There he goes again: "The consultation shows that residents on Derwent, Tintagel and Melbourne want controlled parking. That residents on Zenortia, Oxonian and Elsie would want controlled parking if a neighbouring street has controlled parking." James, you know very well that only a handful of residents on these six roads wants a CPZ, so please stop this disingenuous use of language and in future say after me: "some residents" or "a few residents", or why not surprise us, and say exactly how many, such as: "four residents on Derwent, two on Tintagel" etc. It's not difficult to be forthright and open, you know James.

And why do you say the "apparent" majority. You really don't accept that most people on or near the targeted streets don't want a CPZ do you?

James Barber said it "would make perfect political sense to go with the apparent majority..." Yes, and we live in a democracy, James. Deal with it.

Great work Deviant. And yes, Tony Quinn, it is typical of James Barber to not know any other remedy than a CPZ, his current obsession. For James, the only solution to anything is to expect people to pay out. He did this with me when I catalogued the horrors of having Southwark Council as a freeholder. His only suggestion: 'Buy the freehold'. He thinks East Dulwich is Fulham, or maybe wishes it were, and that we're all loaded. So woefully out of touch.

Right James, you just keep believing the police stats, won't you. You're like a stuck record. As for marking kits - horse, bolted. I wish people wouldn't do this stats/marking kits thing every time a burlgary is mentioned, as it doesn't help (I was burgled in Oglander July). I suppose when I posted about my burglary I just wanted to share, as well as warn re people tightening security - the main reason to post burglaries, really. I have to say police and forensics were wonderful. If only they could catch them.

Huguenot wrote: 'Surely, the fact that the second area did not want a cpz suggests that actuslly the 'edge' concentration had not impacted them significantly? Does that lay to rest one of the 'no' campaign arguments?' Not really. This is actually the main argument of the 'yes' campaign. Like lemmings heading for a cliff, they are saying that streets not in the CPZ proposals but very close - most of yes campaign are in this group - should also be included in the CPZ because otherwise they won't be able to park in their own streets at all. I know, crazy isn't it?!

Ahh. Thankyou, Chener Books, and you Huguenot, even though I don't agree with your views.

In 2031, Strafer Jack?! Don't encourage him, that's all I'm saying.

This post by James about the population in London rising by 1 million by 2031 and how many of these hordes will be coming to East Dulwich is just a shameless and scaremongering attempt to distract us from the current CPZ proposal and some of you, Strafer jack, are running with it. Can we please return to planet earth?

James, this is almost as off-the-wall and crass as the times when, as soon as someone posts about a burglary they've just experienced,you immediately post statistics that crime is down in East Dulwich. Are you saying we must accept this proposal for the CPZ now because by 2031 there will be an extra million Londoners? No, actually, I don't want to know your answer. Can we just ignore this little distraction and get back to the real world...