Sporthuntor

Curiously the second worst meal I've ever had in my life was at Franklins - bones in the raw rabbit terrine, frozen steak reheated and instant coffee (worst ever was at Chez Bruce!)..... I think by slating both Franklins and Chez Bruce in a single sentence you have demonstrated that your view on restaurants should be treated with real caution. Unless, of course this was a (well-disguised) comedy message. In any event I am sure Tim, Rod and the team will be delighted to be ranked over Chez Bruce!

Thanks for the update James. It seems that your comments reflect the institutional bias that has been a source of great frustration for many, with the tacit acceptance that LTNs are preferable (often based on highly contentious interpretation data like Waltham Forest). The bias is fuelled by the pre-determined agenda of the council (as evidenced by minutes of council meetings) and the fact that many of the pro-LTN groups are funded by Southwark Council and the Mayor?s office. Please can you step back from this approach and try to represent your constituents impartially rather than on party lines / biased pressure group inputs. Thanks!

What a shame the food was fantastic and it had a nice ambiance. Good that they are not giving up on the space, good luck to them!

I note this 100 Dulwich account was opened yesterday...just to attack what appears to be a bona fide local residents group???

James can you please urgently look into the huge amount of congestion caused by the closure of roads in Dulwich Village (which as noted above is based on dodgy data...now where did I see that happen before...CPZ you say?). During every afternoon last week congestion stretched down Lordship Lane from the junction with the south circular almost to Townley Road and backed traffic up down Barry Road. I have lived here 15 years and it has never been like this. This is causing significant pollution across a large area of our neighbourhood and wastes huge amounts of time on a cumulative basis. It is also causing additional concerns to local businesses in east Dulwich who fear a further disincentive to potential customers visiting the area on top of the impact of COVID-19 and the CPZ. All for the sake of a 20 square yard space... For once can you please look past the desires of Richard Livingstone and the politburo in Tooley Street and do something to help the community you purportedly represent. And yes, before you point me there, I have responded to the feedback site which asks as loaded questions as I would expect from the Southwark council traffic department. Really hope you can do the right thing here and get this reversed as quickly as possible. Thanks.

Proving the parking levels have absolutely nothing to do with commuters...a key premise of the rationale for introducing it. This flawed, anti-democratic project should be cancelled but won?t be as we all know what it is really about: raising money. And local businesses and the majority of residents can go hang. roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Traffic & parking levels are almost back to pre > Covid levels - when is the East Dulwich parking > zone going to get back on track and implemented?

?

?

?

?

?

It?s just so depressing. When are the next elections so we can boot this shower out? Need strong independent councillors to represent us properly rather than their political party and personal aspirations. James Barber come back all is forgiven!!!

Thank you Rockets. It is entirely telling that engaging with the community is James? last area of pride and says little about general representation of the wider community: no wonder many of us feel there is no one who stands for us. CPZ was a massive betrayal of our community: lies, gerrymandering and finally bulldozing through just as Covid-19 hit our local businesses. The first 3 points are Labour/union Party issues: whatever help you climb the greasy pole James...

You are right in that it will not help you get re-elected James: the plans are nuts and we are all quite fed up of Southwark council?s persistent false manipulation of data and total disregard for local opinion (as per the disgraceful CPZ process). Link this to your slavish following of the Tooley Street party line and I?d say you?ve got a pretty slim chance of getting back in. But we shall see...there?s still time to stand up for the majority of your constituents...

34 objections, 33 rejected. This borough is like North Korea. I hope we all remember this when the next local elections come around. No support from our local councillors (again)

So as expected here comes the CPZ...surprise factor = 0 after the super biased consultation! https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/roadworks-and-highway-improvements/traffic-management-orders?chapter=5

You can?t be very good at reading lowlander - the 37% was the turnout. The proportion voting against the CPZ was 69%. Sure you don?t have an agenda?

Hi James, bit of a disappointing response. My comment about being arrogantly detached from reality was in response to your view that people thought the council were doing a good job, not the CPZ. I choose to maintain that view. My "you should be embarrassed" comment was in reference to those within the council responsible for running the CPZ consultation. I maintain that view as well. The comment about "treating people as though they are stupid" I'm sorry about, as per my earlier post. Let's move on, but you might rethink your future approach to responding to an apology!

Crimes how much did the council pay you to write that rollflick? Absolutely nothing you say here is supported by the statistics. Hold on...did you write the consultation documents? That would make sense...

Hi James Thanks for coming back - I did not read your note properly (sorry about that), glad you will push for the reduction in CPZ area so that contiguous streets that did not back it are excluded and hours of operation reduced. I really hope you can get the Tooley Street machine to accept what local residents and businesses want.

So no response to the clear manipulation adding the group of streets to the west of Lordship Lane below Matham Grove to the proposed CPZ despite none of those streets voting for it? I thought this was supposed to respect people?s wishes? Doesn?t look like it.

Wow and just saw Cardelia's point re Melbourne Grove voting split. What a stitch up.

Looking at the data relating to East Dulwich, it seems pretty clear that a small controlled area around the station with limited hours of operation is a fair outcome, but the bias of those controlling the process is quite clear from the conclusion. You should be embarrassed by this James. None of the streets to the west of Lordship Lane south of Matham Grove wanted a CPZ. But they get pulled in to the proposed zone. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out that this is designed to create parking pressure on the streets to the east of Lordship Lane, and how very convenient that the council could add these streets in and stay just over 50%) Overlaying the proposed area onto the results for "What if an adjacent street had a CPZ" in the first instance is just pure misrepresentation. With regard to the hours of operation, even in the carefully (and oddly given voting profiles per my point above) selected "Melbourne Grove Area" more people wanted partial controls than not, yet this is the choice you go for. And giving the area that name when the street in question did not support the CPZ is a nice ironic touch. We're not stupid, so please can you stop treating us as though we are. It's like you looked at Brexit and though that cracking on with something divisive is something that should be done at local level too. And as for the poor sods in the Peckham West consultation, I really feel for you guys. Keep fighting.

What an absolute shower the Council and our local councillors are. Anti-democratic.

James your belief that most people think Southwark council does a good job is at best misplaced and at worst arrogantly detached from reality. Dissatisfaction is high given the recent initiatives that have been introduced or proposed, and if there were an election tomorrow the chances of you retaining your position as a councillor would be slim. You and your fellow councillors really need to reconsider your approach.