BrandNewGuy

Maybe you could let us hypocritical fat lazy idiots and stupid cretins who are off their tits know what you would actually do.

gedwina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 47 pages on the CPZ > > 4/5 pages in the sales section about a local > resident facing homelessness > > Interesting contrast. In what way?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 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. The compromise solutions involved limited CPZs on an "experimental basis". When I asked the perfectly reasonable question as to how the success or failure of the experiment was to be judged, I didn't get an answer - because they haven't thought of one yet. No-one in their right minds would allow an experiment to go ahead without knowing the parameters by which it was being judged. But "experimental" sounds sort of cosy and votable for... Oh, and not all compromises are necessarily the right solution. > 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... This is a thread about the CPZ - please take your argument elsewhere. > 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. And what would those be? > 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. "large numbers"? How many? Are these the "commuters" we're talking about? Let's get this clear - the council's own research counted 100 commuters in the whole area - but their definition of a commuter is someone who parks for more than 6 hours in a day but not overnight. So that includes local teachers, shopworkers, office workers, health workers etc etc. Not quite the thoughtless station users that were painted last night, though they don't know for sure because no-one tried to find out what proportion of these commuters used the station. "aggressive bullies"? Really? Show me some evidence of bullying. "exploit their neighbourhood as a free carpark"? Do you mean "park their car"? It seems to me that the issues talked about last night including freeing up spaces in the area, looking for other parking options, encouraging the use of public transport by local schools and employers etc etc have been ignored or downplayed throughout the CPZ process. I only hope they get the prominence they deserve to see how much they can help. > That took some balls guys. Maybe they could have done with your gracious praise last night, H. Why weren't you there? Oh yes, I remember...

But the zone residents won't be the only ones affected by a trial, therefore all non-zone residents affected should have their views tken into account. Otherwise it's not democratic. And I don't know why anyone would believe that the trial period would be reversible. Southwark would see it as a foot in the door for CPZ-creep and more lovely cash in the bank for them and no overall improvement in the parking situation for East Dulwich.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brandnewguy. > > I don't and have not advocated universal parking > restriction. Yes, you said it was OK to ban you from nearby streets. Who would be administering this and who would pay? You?

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two thirds of Derwent want this. > > If you spent any time on this street you would see > that it is hell caused by people who park here > first thing and leave in the evening. They will be > gone. Gone where? Oh yes - somewhere else that you don't give a stuff about. That's not democractic, that's selfishness pure and simple.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz > > Yes absolutely. Ban me from parking on all other > residential streets for one hour, at lunchtime, > Monday to Friday. That works just fine. But you're still happy to pay for all that to be administered, yes? After all, the people in the neighbouring streets who don't want and wouldn't have a CPZ can't be expected to pay to make sure you don't evade the ban you're happy about.

Well, on the CPZ issue, JB has manipulated figures to suit his own agenda - an agenda which he failed to make explicit when the whole "consultation" process started. I'll criticise him strongly for that, which is not the same as bullying. Politics isn't usually about nicey-nicey consensus, it's about give and take - if you can't take the rough and tumble, you shouldn't get involved. If he's been libelled, he can sue or complain to the moderators. I appreciate much of what he's done on the forum, but I'm sure he's grown up enough not to need a gaggle of easily offended supporters.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi BraandNewGuy, > Apologies I really had thought I'd responded. > Of course any solution for some will be better > than any of the other proposed recommendations. > Recommendation 1 - do nothing - is clearly a > rubbish option if you passionately want something > done about parknig on your road. > No.2 - is rubbish if you regularly park on corners > and couldn't care less about the impact that has > on others. > No.3 - Melbourne Grove - if you don't care about > parknig pressures perhaps don't have a car then > this is a rubbish option to you. > No.4 - if you live outside the proposed streets > this is a rubbish option for you as you may well > prefer the problem to stay where it is. > Etc. It's all down to perspective. With respect, the question was: "Is it possible that there is currently no "solution" that is better than the status quo?" And you haven't answered it - you've just said that the status quo isn't ideal for everyone, which I don't disagree with. And it's not "all down to perspective", otherwise we might as well just decide the issue by having a shouting match. In my naivety, I'd hoped that our elected representatives would be able to weigh up competing interests and wishes in an attempt to come up with the best solution for the community as a whole. There's been little sign that this has happened.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The current system does not work! > > Objectors bleat on and on about being against it > but have no alternative! > > Unless objectors can think up a better system > please STOP objecting to something which (if > correctly implemented) is going to be better for > the great majority of locals. At the risk of boring everyone to tears, I'll repeat the question I asked James Barber (twice) and garnwba - without reply: is it possible that there is currently no "solution" that is better than the status quo? It is not the responsibility of those opposed to the CPZ to come up with a better alternative to the CPZ that is not the status quo. Please stop suggesting that to be opposed to the CPZ is in some way ignoring the concerns of those who do see a real problem with parking near the station. In my case, I'm not ignoring them, I'm trying to weigh them against the interests of all who would be affected by a CPZ. Which is what the Council should be doing. And which is what they're plainly not doing.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do we say to residents on that street? > Do we say to them many people who never park on > your street, who have little or nothing to do with > you and your street have decided you can't have > what you feel you need on your street. ... that will almost certainly have a knock-on effect on others. Therefore they too are stakeholders in any decision to be made.

garnwba, Good luck with your idea of reducing the cost to residents - one major purpose of the CPZ is council revenue-raising, so you haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of them lowering costs.

Undisputedtruth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @BrandNewGuy, > > I'd be surprised if anyone can understand > employment law in half a day. Why employ lawyers > if it was so true? Lawyers, like all professionals and "experts", often pretend that what they do is horrendously obscure and difficult. Don't always believe them. > The problem with the law is that they don't > involved on who is right/wrong but whether the > process of dismissal was fair. Therefore the case > sometimes depends on the contract of employment. > Guess who writes the contract? This is just one > example but there are plenty of other reasons. I'm quite prepared to accept the possibility that society / the system / capitalism is "against" humble employees, but tribunals are not responsible for that - what's more, "unfair" contracts might not be binding. I was merely suggesting that tribunals are a valuable resource for employees who have been hard done by. My father was a Tribunal Chairman (now called an Employment Judge) and spent most of his time trying to discover matters of fact and very little time listening to arcane arguments over obscure matters of law.

garnwba Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's sad as those residents who struggle to park > have almost become irrelevant I'll ask you the question I've asked Mr Barber twice without reply: is it possible that there is currently no "solution" that is better than the status quo? It is not the responsibility of those opposed to the CPZ to come up with a better alternative to the CPZ that is not the status quo. Please stop suggesting that to be opposed to the CPZ is in some way ignoring the concerns of those who do see a real problem with parking near the station. In my case, I'm not ignoring them, I'm trying to weight them against the interests of all who would be affected by a CPZ. Which is what the Council should be doing. And which is what they're plainly not doing.

Hare Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BH: Well the.. um.. there are a number of people > that said no thank you but there?s also a > substantial number of people that said yes, we do > want a CPZ and er we have looked at this carefully > and we?ve come up with a number of different > options that th.. er.. people might want to.. to > go for. Many thanks, Hare, for posting this. Total spin and bull***t from Southwark. No credibility whatsoever. Do we really expect Barrie Hargrove not to introduce a CPZ? Email him at [email protected] to let him know what we think - but please resist the strong temptation to use intemperate language ;-)

Undisputedtruth Wrote: > The system is very much against the employee when > it comes to taking a claim to an Employment > Tribunal. In what way? Tribunals were deliberately set up to avoid the full formality of the courts and make it unnecessary for applicants to have expensive legal representation etc. Employment law relating to unfair dismissal, sex and race discrimination etc, is not complex and the average person can grasp it with half a day's reading. Tribunals do weed out most frivolous claims at a pre-hearing review, but the full hearing is informal and is predominantly concerned with deciding matters of fact rather than arguing over obscure points of law. Compared with the rest of legal system, employment tribunals are very accessible IMHO.

James Barber Wrote: > People who have asked for controlled parking also > care about East Dulwich Really? How do you know? Did you ask them? They might do or they might not - produce the evidence. > They just have > different perspectives on what the problems of > East Dulwich are. Or possibly what the problems outside their house is... Possibly not a different perspective on East Dulwich as a whole, unless you asked them. Did you ask them? They might do or they might not - produce the evidence. Throughout this CPZ "consultation", I've been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusations of bias, manipulation of figures and spin, but you've given us precious little evidence to suggest that you're anything other than pro-CPZ, regardless of public feeling on the issue. Shame on you.

Used to love the CPT back in the early 90s - TV football in the bar, Sunday papers in the lounge and a decent quiz. Can't help thinking it's gone downhill recently, capped by the behaviour of a bunch of coked-up pissed-up wannabe crim geezers who tried to ruin the Goose Is Out singaround the other month, without the management giving a toss. Haven't been tempted back since then...

And why do *we* have to come up with another "solution", otherwise we get a CPZ? I've said it before, so I'll bore you by saying it again: it's possible that there isn't a "solution" that is better than the status quo. Do you agree or not?

Road Of Plenty - Neil Young

Up the Villa!

Indeed - and it's the reason why nuclear power was never going to be "too cheap to meter".

Perhaps it's not quite as simple as that, though. The world is gradually exhausting supplies of easy-to-extract fossil fuels, so greater financial investment and higher energy inputs - usually oil - are needed to extract and process newer and more-difficult-to-extract sources of fuels. If you could make an honest calculation as to shale gas's EROEI - energy returned on energy invested - the picture might not look as rosy as the industry PRs suggest. More expensive fuel needed for extraction and processing, combined with a chronic squeeze on finance, could mean you'll have to wait forever to get at all that gas. The article I flagged up highlights the current financial side of the problem - it looks suspiciously like a bubble, which utterly obscures shale gas's long-term potential as a significant source of energy.

Hard Driving Man - Eddie and the Hot Rods

They might have lost their licence in the summer after having "a bit of bother" involving ten bin-liners filled with herbal cannabis... :-)