Huguenot

The LU gets around 1 billion pounds of subsidy from the tax payer every year. This means that any additional expenditure comes straight from the taxpayer. Unions create 'fake' enemies of the 'management' and the 'government'. The people they are stealing from when they demand more money for eff all contribution is the taxpayer. So when you ask whether ?500 -is a "big wad of cash?", who don't you ask it of the 1,000s of Londoners scraping by on the breadline worried about their jobs and their future from whom it is being stolen to give to these 'put-upon' station staff?

They sped off as you were approaching them for insurance details? Surely you'd have remembered the plate? Did you not call the police? They'd have had plenty of cameras that would have picked up a stoved in Smart Car?

I don't see what manhours have got to do with the LU staff, Chippy? If they were working more hours then I'd expect them to get paid for it, and to get a bonus if they were pressured into it. That's not what YOU said though: "see page 1 of this read - they want more money for increased workload and pressures" Those are your words Chippy, and you're hoist by them. They've simply demanded money for working a bit harder. They're extorting money under menaces because they might have to get off their streaked undies twice in 8 hours. They've said 'give me a big wad of cash or I'm going to fuck up your Olympics'.

No, I'm not saying that extra journeys don't mean extra man hours. I'm saying that nobody can claim that extra journeys DO mean extra man hours. If 30 people go through your gate in an hour, or 300 people go through your gate in an hour, you've still only worked for an hour. It would take a particular type of union dickhead to claim that if 10 times more people walked through your gate in an hour that means you've worked for 10 hours. The DLR have explained why there are more hours - they need more staff at more stations and want the stations open for longer. Since the overall universe of staff remains the same, then even a mathematically challenged union shit stirrer can see that the hours must go up. The DLR have calculated not unreasonably that the total comes to 45,000 and incentivised workers to deliver that on their behalf through overtime. Conversely, LU station staff in the time between getting out of their faces on piss smelling lager and hiding the empty cans in the air circulation ducts like 13 year old mentally defective schoolboys, have decided that they just want more money because of 'pressure' and are going to hold the city to ransom. If the LU needs more man hours, then fine - but nobody has actually said that yet.

Extra journeys on the tube do not necessarily mean extra man hours. Empty train = full train = 1 driver. The DLR has been clear where the additional man hours are required in additional staff at 20 currently unstaffed stations, addtional trains and later services. The RMT did not say that what extra hours had been requested (or that was what the payment was for), they said their guys were having to work under 'more pressure' and so deserved more money, which is not the same thing at all.

The ?100 bonus is only payable to DLR staff who work an additional 45 hours of overtime across a two month period, workers will also get an additional uncapped incentive of overtime+25% for the same period to benefit those who work longer more proportionately. Since the DLR requires a minimum of an additional 45,000 hours worked across the period to increase station staffing and train numbers this is a clear case of bonus linked to minimum performance increases. If the tube drivers are expected to work similar additional hours to achieve performance targets than I'd expect a bonus to be created as incentive. It remains to be seen whether their demands are as honest as the DLRs.

Penguin68, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're insisting that the moon is made of blue cheese. I'm sorry if after all these years you still insist that view is treated with respect instead of derision.

Penguin68 old man, you don't want to believe anything that doesn't give you what you want. Like a couch potato with a triple heart bypass and lung cancer, you think the people telling you to stop eating chips and smoking are either doing it because they hate you or because they've been paid off by cabbage farmers. What you're hoping to do is feel better by persuading everybody else to share your delusion.

No additional space for cars at all - no more parking space, nor more carparks and no more garages. I'd put a fixed and annually reducing quota on the number of vehicles allowed in London and regulate older cars off the road. Any available permits (between quota number and deregulated vehicles) would be available on an auction basis with 'second cars' and those for the genuinely needy put at differentiated prices. The funds generated would subsidise a citywide taxi service aimed at 1 taxi per 200 people, available by SMS, Phone App or online with a view to any call for a taxi resulting at a taxi at your door within 7 minutes 80% of the time. That would create a taxi service of 75 cars for ED alone - enough to guarantee access for everyday tasks, but put people on public transport for work journeys. A new approach to Keynesian economics would see 'austerity' strategies exchanged for a massive investment in public infrastructure including a citywide monorail scheme to rival the tube and standard rail systems and more buses running more routes at more predictable intervals. Needless to say, cars would face increasing restrictions on road use, with more time given over to bus and cycle lanes. Every school would have a 'no stopping' rule extending to 400 yards in all directions.

If you don't know what the problems are with increased car ownership then you're off your head. Let's start with creating one - every 1.5 tonne car generates 25 tonnes in waste during it's manufacture, it generates as much in atmospheric pollution in creating it as it generates in 10 years of running it, the resources consumed in the creation of cars creates disproportionate distribution and demand around the world giving rise to international conflict. What about acccommodating them - 50% of the land space in London is given over to cars for roads, parking spaces, car parks and car related services like petrols stations and garages. Roads that could otherwise be used for beautiful metropilitan open spaces, efficient public transport systems and environmentall friendly acccommodation for our spiralling populations. What about running them - not just the contribution to climate change by running them, but the particulates give rise to the massive modern incidence of respiratory diseases such as asthma and allergies. Hypocritical British people with an insatiable greed for the oil to build and run cars march in the streets in protest at the wars necessary to feed their greed. Idiots. What about health impact - the sedentary nature of public transportation has generated a new generation of fat lazy Britons whose cardiac and general fitness problems cost the nation billions a year that could be spent more wisely on our communities, gainful employment and social services. What about the social impact - cars have contributed heavily to the fractured society in which we now live, isolated from our peer groups, with divided communities and escalating social divisions. Mothers are so pertrified of stranger danger that the drive their kids to school every morning, so they can get to work on time to pay for the car that took them. How stupid is that. Moreover, like any addiction, the more we consume them, the more they prevent and create barriers to finding a solution. Isolated individuals living miles from friends, scared of empty streets with dim lighting, prevented from accessing underfunded overstuffed ineffective public transport systems who use their vehicle to hide from strangers on streets filled with stress generated by vehicle congestion. If you recognised these problems, you wouldn't be voting for cars. If, like Penguin68, you still think they're a great idea and we should knock down more buildings to make more space for cars, you're quite simply off your tits. A cretin.

Well, you should also be aware that it's possible the spam isn't coming from you at all. If they've already got your address book first time around they can keep sending spam and just make it look as if it's coming from you... If you want to know if this is the case, temporarily suspend the account and see if the mail keeps arriving at your friend's account. If it does you're no longer the problem. As you can see, there is NO definitive 'what to do' - just a series of things you can try.

You felt that having a CPZ was going to open the floodgates to McDonalds and Rumbelows?

"the way local businesses and residents all came together... to fight for East Dulwich and its uniqueness and to stop it from being turned into Camberwell high street" Have you been drinking? You know it was about the CPZ yes and not opening a McDonalds?

I don't know what James said regarding the figures - but it's apparent that they can be used to represent several diffferent perspectives. It's certainly not disgraceful, certainly not undemocratic, and in no way should it be supported by claims that he should 'stand down'. As for 'political suicide' - this is just silly grandstanding from people who think making decisions about our community should be made by lurching from one single issue crisis to another whilst spitting and blustering about how hard done by we are and how everyone's a thief and a liar. Ridiculous. Anyway, technically you're incorrect. The majority of people in this country believe in the death sentence. Fortunately a brighter minority prevails. :)

Since the Lib Dems voted for CPZ on limited streets, and there was clearly at least one street that wanted it, it strikes me that the Lib Dems were the only councillors trying to find a compromise solution for everyone - the very spirit of democracy. Why buddug thinks James is going to come out into the foyer to be accosted by a furio who wants to get their freehold for nothing is beyond me. I can imagine buddug raising her voice and crowing as she plays to the gallery... There has also been a ridiculous amount of unnecessary attacks on the Lib Dems and particularly James throughout this thread from people using the CPZ as a vehicle for their own issues. Whilst Mscrawthew only wants to thanks those who opposed the CPZ I'd like to state my admiration for those residents who had the temerity to stand up to the large numbers of aggressive bullies who want to exploit their neighborhood as a free carpark. That took some balls guys.

Off to pursue your personal attack in public now buddug? ;-)

The coffin looks like it might impede access to your front door? Could you pursue that line to get it removed?

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406890_3131718649894_1172591611_33333168_1411089315_n.jpg

"It only takes one for there to be an injustice" That's an illogical proposition. Cars have all sorts of running costs associated with them, and this is just one of those. Cars are a privelege not a right, and owning one comes down to have suffficient income to sustain them.

http://damnyouautocorrect.com/images/butterpecan.jpg

http://damnyouautocorrect.com/images/aunt-haircut.jpg

http://parentsshouldnttext.com/img/aunt-died.jpg

Loz I was only responding to Penguin68's assertion that people outside the CPZ were acting altrusitically by campaigning against it. I thought that was really stretching it! :)) I have no doubt that everyone is acting in their own interests. Penguin68 I know what you're saying, but reciprocity and altruism doesn't apply when the costs of this parking behaviour is being carried disproportionately by such a small part of the population. Besides which, you're trying to have it both ways: Either... If the streets the CPZ are on are usully empty anyway then there will be no edge concentration, no zone creep, no impact on traders (their customers don't park there anyway) and no impact on the community - the costs will only be carried by the residents of those streets. Or... If the roads are usually packed with over-subscribed residential parking, then the edge concentration will exist anyway from overflow, so there will be no zone creeep, no impact on traders (their customers can't park there anyway) and no impact on the community - the costs will only be carried by the residents of those streets. In both these 'failure' scenarios the cost is only borne by the residents. However, the CPZ is a winner if suspicions about commuters are true. If that is the case then a one hour ban will deliver more space for residents, more space for traders customers, the community rids itself of transport parasites, and the commuters will have to use public transport: a winner for everyone. In other words the entire community reaps the benefit. This is a no-lose gamble for them!!! It's the CPZ that represents the most altruistic solution, as it regulates self-interest out of otherwise essentially parasitic activity.

To the contrary Penguin68. Residential streets can be presented as a resource being exploited by greedy residents outside the CPZ by who wish to control and consume other people's resources, whilst paying no penalty from their own assets (since the residents inside the CPZ would not drive up to Scutari Road to park their own car). This is not a collaborative action, and could not be presented as remotely altruistic. That's like a school bully stealing your lunch and saying 'it's for your own good'. The convenience of this bullying mob is seen to vastly exceed the needs of young families, older people and the disabled to park within a reasonable distance of their home. If those outside the CPZ were in any way collaborative, they would recognise that the CPZ is small compromise to make the lives of less mobile groups marginally easier. But they don't because they're greedy and selfish.

I've never heard anything so idiotic as an insistence that a persons guilt of a crime should be determined according to the crimes they may have committed previously. Of course they're going to dress smartly - they're hardly going to come in wearing black and white stripes, an eyepatch and a bag marked 'swag' are they? As for being 'briefed' by a barrister, well duh? Preparation of the client is a key part of the legal process and is a key part of ensuring justice is done. If you are suggesting that barristers are 'coaching' clients (i.e. telling them what to say) then that is illegal under perjury laws and a breach of the barristers own code of conduct. As for 'five years means five years', it's just the sort of tub thumping block headedness that you'd expect from a fat conservative politician pre election. The good behaviour arrangements are a key part of rehabilitation and keeping order within the prison system. You let that slip and the whole thing turns into a riot.