Spartacus

I wonder if the council have asked the residents or done studies to show thete is an increased demand for eBikes or if they are just driving their own personal agenda through at the cost of their voters ?

As mentioned in the Lordship Lane bus diversion thread, TfL are expecting bus to divert down Barry Road till Tuesday afternoon so somethings got to change or tjete will be zero buses serving Central East Dulwich

Alice, with all your interest I am wondering if its a case of A) you want to buy the property and want to know its history B) you are crying `Curiouser and curiouser!' C) you are trying to disrupt the sale by finding a clause previously forgotten

P13 is not impacted at all. No idea what will happen to the 197 or the 12, both currently still running happily up and down Barry Road. Maybe contact conways to see what the plan is or ask James mCash as he is responsible for streets.

Sadly I think you will be correct Bic. That will obviously massively improve the ptal score for the area 🤣 If only one of our absent councillors could read this and ask "hello Conway can you delay by a few days?"

BBC News - Paris says au revoir to rental e-scooters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66682673

The TfL website The tfl website says the following: LORDSHIP LANE, SE21: Until 16:00 on Tuesday 5 September, routes 40 176 185 are on diversion in both directions due to an infrastructure issue. Meanwhile Conways have plans to resurface Barry Road at the junction of Upland Road on the 4th and 5th. Can someone join up the thinking for the council?

According to tfl website, the diversion is on till 4om Tuesday

I think that's all anyone really wants and if it had happened all along, 100s of posts may not have happened. But instead it feels like a council steam roller is trundling back and forth on local residents and their views (positive and negative)

Although if Mal is going soon can he help rescue the lake of wine that's about to be destroyed. Maybe there is a use for cars after all 🤣 (the author of this post is not advocating drinking French wine whilst driving) BBC News - France to spend €200m destroying wine as demand falls https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66623636

Don't forget to also add VAT at 20% on a new car Insurance Premium Tax VAT on spares and services All of these are costs to the motorists to own (and park) a car so no one really gets free parking space as cars raise a lot of revenue for the government that is distributed to other areas. The numbers that heartblock above quotes are taken from an article discussing how will the UK government replace lost revenue when all cars are electric.

Complain to your specific MP as well as to royal mail and copy the newly appointed chief exec of royal mail . Our MPs are or were building evidence on the issue. Martin Seidenberg new chief executive Email format could be [email protected] so try adding Martin that way.

See my response to EX above concerning the statement from Charles. Obviously they were muddying the waters to say a CPZ can only cover administration costs. But the response from you and Ex does explain why people see it as tax for parking as it can be used to generate revenue for the council as well as control parking. 🤔

So ex, are you saying what Charles quoted above is incorrect as a council can raise extra revenue from a CPZ ?

Ex, you aren't getting the issue, if the CPZ fee should cover only administering the scheme then tiered charges are technically a breech. Whilst they are employed elsewhere legally (tax ...) , to the letter of the CPZ rule charging more for "a more polluting vehicle" is variation of charge and not related to administering the scheme as Charles claims it can only be used for above. You / the council can't have it both ways ! Or are you saying that the council can create revenue from a CPZ ?

Your own track record speaks volumes about your modus operandi in that area.

An interesting point Charles, so technically the council are breaking that rule by applying different fees for different vehicle types as a permit costs the same to produce and administrate regardless of vehicle size! One they could face challenges over if taken to judicial review. Also you forget that fines for parking in a CPZ aren't covered by the rule so revenue can legitimately be raised that way which can reduce the amount the council needs to add additionally to the Road maintenance fund and that reduction can be redirected elsewhere in the council budget. I believe that the council use a CPZ as an exercise in creative accountancy.

Only because you are so prevalent on here spouting nonsense that you are make yourself infamous, so its hard to avoid mentioning you 🤣

Careful.Mal, you are starting to sound like Chicken, and you have always been way above that line.

@Rockets you just got strong respect there from the Queen of personal attacks. 😅

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/23732027.ulez-expansion-motorcyclist-protest-charge/

Another attempt by chicken to bounce the post back using "no you the scammer" type response. You are predictable and boring Mr C !

Mr C Keep going, you are amusing in your failure to answer challenging questions by trying to deflect them back against the questioner, sometimes mixing up who you deflect it back towards. 🤣 You remind me of a scam Indian call I received once, my broadband router was apparently infected, and when I called him out as a scammer he responded by shouting repeatedly "No you the scammer" down the phone at me before hanging up. Similar to the sort of behaviour we are observing from you. PS are you a defence lawyer because you are defending and arguing that the council, who have been caught lying to their residents, aren't lying but elected to have misspoken. This is the crux of the debate introducing something that they said they wouldn't and doing it without a consultation. Raises questions concering are the council officers working for us or themselves?

Mr c You're the one who's asking daft questions and then trying to make out people are stupid when they call you out on them. Shame on you, but your technique is so transparent.

Are you trying to claim that a Borough wide CPZ was preexisting as a statutory requirement mandated by government so it doesn't need to be mention because rubbish collect, which is a statutory requirement of running a local government is also not mentioned? If so, please show us where it is heralded as a statutory obligation on the council prior to the local election. Come now, thats a clear case of apples and pears as a comparison there Mr c