Penguin68

Thirdly is the aggression and baseless, nasty accusations being laid out on this forum by people who live nowhere near the zone Er, that would be you, then?

If people are really opposed to any controlled parking then please survey those streets Hey - you could run a consultation - using a survey perhaps, to see if people wanted CPZs. I can't imagine what the result would be. And I'm really taken with the thought that ED might become the first place in the world with a one (small) street CPZ scheme, Cool, eh?

CPZs 'work' when these conditions are fulfilled:- 1. The number of 'resident' cars are fewer than (or the same as) the parking spaces which would be available - lots of suggestions that this wouldn't be so - supported by the fact that parking is often more difficult at night (when commuters have gone but resident cars have returned) 2. There are a large number of incoming cars (normally associated with transit commuters) - no real evidence of this has ever been produced - many 'incomers' turn out to be local business people who would be able to apply for permits anyway (and load the costs onto their charges to us). 3. There is a generally percieved problem that it is 'never' (or nearly never) possible for residents to park during the day. Reports on this forum don't support this. As I understand it - particularly with the council's clear intention to reduce parking space available which would exacerbate condition 1 - none of these conditions are now true. I have also lived in CPZs, and I can tell you that my life was made worse by them - equally I have a close friend in inner Kennington where the conditions above were all met and where life has been considerably improved by having a CPZ. No one (I would guess) who is an anti for the ED CPZ proposal is suggesting or has suggested that these are never, under any circumstances, beneficial - they have been discussing the specific (except that it's now changing all the time) proposal for ED. There may well be a problem associated with parking in streets close to the station (although when asked a lot of people said there wasn't, for them) - if it is a condition 1 problem then no CPZ proposal under the sun will 'cure' it - unless tariffs are set so high that poor(er) people living locally give up their cars. Is that what you want?

I think, based on those assertions by Mr Barber above, that it is pretty clear which way he will be voting, and it will be the brave choice of supporting the minority opinion. I am however concerned that he clearly believes that the length of residence in ED is a qualification for being 'more' heard than otherwise. I had thought that being a resident at all, and paying council tax etc.. would be a sufficient reason for him to be listening to constituents - or is he playing the 'incomer' card to wind people up against anti-CPZers. They are just newly arrived foreigners and not worth listening to, not like the 'real' constituents (un-named and only counted by him) who have been petitioning him over the years to have a CPZ (actually, I guess raising issues about parking getting worse, the CPZ soluton being rather more his own suggestion). Maybe the businesses that didn't want a CPZ in Melbourne also didn't want the existing parking controls either (not questioned in the survey) - to suggest that they both want these and don't want a CPZ (and are thus selfish 'having their cake' people) is a calumny - but quite typical of his attempts to smear opponents (incomers, commuters, selfish, not local (i.e. in just those streets petitioned) and so on). Despite his protestations about following the will of the people he only ever makes one case, and that is only made by some desparate spinning, now, of quite clear consultation feedback. For a Liberal Democrat his position seems neither liberal, and certainly not democratic.

Despite the very strong local views clearly expressed about the introduction of a CPZ I would not be at all surprised if one of the 'wedge' options is not chosen, with the sure and clear belief that adjacent streets (not allowed to park in the wedge street/s when those residents are allowed to park in their road) will cause a CPZ cascade. Mr Barber's weaseling about this is I suspect symptomatic of an agreed 'line' amongst councillors and is (outwith any of the 'rules' about use of revenues) all about revenue generation. Mr Barber belongs to a car-hating party so I am sure hitting car owners will not cause him many sleepless nights. The fact is that if 100% of people had voted against a CPZ, sufficient flaws would have been found in the survey by the councillors and apparatchiks for the councillors to convince themselves that a CPZ was still the right answer. They are already discriminating between the views of local employers (with a considerable stake in the community and who of course create an economically vibrant community) and 'residents'. They (Mr Barber) have branded these employers as 'commuters' - to suggest they are somehow ciy fat cats making use of ED station - when they are the people who are providing incomes to local workers, and services to local residents. This from a man who launched the pointless Waitrose and M&S thread about bringing in focal shops - who certainly will not to come into an area with CPZ restrictions hanging over it - why open where your footfall is being restricted by local councils?

I must share a concern that such a significantly clear view expressed in a consultation should still leave Mr Barber 'considering his options' - particularly when earlier he had been quite clear that he would represent the views of his constituents, once these were known, as they are now. The concept of a one or two road CPZ is a lunacy - and can clearly only be seen as a wedge to force other street residents to ask to 'opt in' as well as a defence. Mr Barber's considerable reluctance to come off the fence does suggest that he has an agenda which does not march with those of his consituents - were promises made to support the scheme which he now feels under an obligation to keep to? (and please note I am not, in any way, suggesting that those promises were made for any form of personal gain, but politicians do offer support of one colleague's scheme to gain support of another of their own, and of course politicians do make promises to support schemes to their own parties)

What in Gods name makes people blame Romanians I don't think anyone actually means Romanians here - this is all about (well, it probably isn't) the Roma - or what we would call gypsies in the UK - one group of travellers (this group probably originating in Northern India and not, in fact, Egypt). In fact the travellers most associated with the scrap trade are probably the Irish travelling tinsmiths - what were once called tinkers - who had a tradition of metal working and a reputation of not being too careful about the sources of that metal. These have now been grouped (particularly by programmes such as Big Fat Gypsy Wedding) with what are also called Roma - although their backgrounds and traditions are entirely different (other than being travellers). As one of many groups of travelling tradespeople, tinkers were providing a very valuable service of mending and selling small domestic utensils - outwith the remit of the backsmith - they had to travel as there was never sufficent work in one location (other than the very few large towns) to keep them occupied through the year. It has long been traditional to blame certain types of theft on transient individuals - it should be noted that without the very much non transient scap metal dealers who provide an outlet for sales of stolen metal - and without whose cash-based transactions (no questions asked) - this trade couldn't flourish. If there are tinkers still thieving, they certainly aren't themselves using the metal (as the old-style tinker did) - but selling it on to British through and through scap metal merchants.

I believe 3 of the no's counted on Melbourne Grove were commuters and not residents. Is there documentary evidence of this, or is it an assumption (or belief)? If they were not qualified to take part in the poll, how were they able to? I believe (without any evidence) that 5 of the yes's counted on Melbourne Grove were from aliens visiting for Mars. Can I have their votes discounted for the poll?

I am sure that Mr Barber is being very brave to be prepared to represent only a small minority of his consituents against the clearly expressed views of a majority - obviously he has had (but I'm not sure why) till now to hide his clearly deeply felt views about the suitability of a CPZ for his constituents even when they are too foolish to agree with him, but now I am sure he will be prepared to explain in detail why he is happy to over-ride the express (and expressed) wishes of his electorate and why he feels that on this occasion a democratic process has failed. For any politician to be so convinced of the rightness of his cause that he is willing to forgo the future trust of his constituents on what must obviously be a point of principle for Mr Barber shows great personal courage - I am sure that on other occasions he would strongly argue that the expressed views of a majority should prevail, but clearly this is an occasion when for him they don't. It is just a shame he didn't feel he could sail under his true colours before this, but I am sure he will have a clear and convincing explanation for his earlier caution to express his true views (save by only putting the case for a CPZ, of course).

I told you once and I told you twice - but you never want to take my advice - this could be the last time...or not.

James wrote:- 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 neighborunig street has controlled parking. Actually - to use your own totaly weird way of dealing with figures it doesn't - it shows that a small majority of people within a much larger polled area were 'sort-of' in favour of a CPZ - but break this down further (as you have done to pick out streets) and you would find (numbers are only for illustration and don't refer to actual people voting) that the vote 'for' is outside numbers 8, 17, 23 and 56(etc. etc.) Derwent, but 'against' outside 7, 14, 24 and so on... So on the councils's (and your) weird view of 'agreement' the CPZ should actually only be trialled oustide the houses that voted for it. Those 'voting' in favour if adjacent streets are so blighted are not voting for a CPZ per se, they are voting against their street being overspill from a CPZ they didn't want in the first place. You are actually suggesting that people are in favour of 'CPZ creep' as a matter of principle, rather than self protection. Actually - CPZ creeps - not a bad name for those councillors and apparatchicks working to force this through against the will of the majority.

It's really quite simple, you ask a question, if you don't get the answer you'd like, you ask it again, and again, and again, until the people who were giving you the answer you don't like get bored, believing that they must have made their views clear by now. Then you take the decision you always intended to take, saying that, at the end, no one was against it. And you insist you had no axe to grind, you were just following the will of the people. I said in an earlier part of this thread, and was flamed for it, that this smacked of Stalinism (give or take 20 million dead). I perhaps should have said that it smacked of a totalitarian approach to governance. Do what you want, hide it behaind a semblance of popularism. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, liberal or otherwise.

I can confirm that trees in Underhill were being collected, including ones with trunk diameters much over the standard 'branch' width that is proscribed for normal garden waste disposal activity. In the wind this morning it was a matter of catching them sometimes as they skipped along the roads. (They were being moved out of shelter by the bin teams for the van to deal with, then being blown about as they waited pick-up. No one's fault, just inclement weather).

I would have absolutely no problem with Mr Barber, who is after all a politician with his own views, making the case for a CPZ, as so many on this thread have made the case against, but I am concerned that he continues with the assertion that he is simply open to listening to debate and has no views or axe to grind when that is very clearly not so. The 'normal' route for someone in his position, I would have thought, would have been to openly share his views on the values of a CPZ - why wouldn't he? - his views are as valid as anyone elses's and indeed I would expect him to have well thought-through opionions (even if I don't agree with them). However, as a local representative I would also expect him to either follow the clearly declared wishes of a majority of those expressing a view (once they had done so) and support these in council or, if he could not do this in conscience, withdraw from the debate or even resign. I would not expect him to continue to fight 'his' side against the wishes of a majority of his constituents who have expressed an opionion. Yet his blog suggests that the issue is still open for debate and discussion (of course, this is based on the weasely way in which new options have now been introduced after the 'consultation' is closed). He writes on his blog "I can see arguments for and against all of the proposed options. If you have views tell me" Against the 'no CPZ' and for the 3 trials I would guess. As Bertold Brecht wrote (almost) "if the people vote the wrong way, "Change the people."

Mr Barber also says in this blog "I suspect everyone agrees with some degree of controlled parking ? even if only disabled parking bays outside disabled people?s homes " - I'm sorry - but that's quite disengenuous - to equate 'some' support for CPZs - as he implictly does, with support for disabled people to have special treatment in respect of their disability - presumably also to suggest that people who don't support controlled parking are 'against' the disabled, is simply a rhetorical device, and not really a nice one at that. I urgently suggest that those who do not support a CPZ and are James' constituents make sure that they register their unhappiness on his blog, since I suspect he will use reponses there to pray-in-aid his support for one of the 3 'trials' being proposed. 'Trials' by the way - and I wonder who will be judging their success and continuation? - presumably the same people who decided to propose these outwith the clear direction from the 'consultation'. As to 'some streets voted in favour' well, I'm sure that's true of the local elections for streets voting 'in favour' of a conservative or labour candidate - James was elected because a majority of those voting in his whole constituency voted in favour of him (as they have voted against the CPZ). It was the apparatchiks who created the CPZ voting constituency who determined this constituency and they are hung by their own petard - or should streets who voted labour or conservative now call for a councillor of their choice to represent them on the council? On a trial basis of course, with them determining the duration and success of the trial?

Peckhampam The first 2 options that they are proposing, as reported by gsirett are exactly what you suggest - the remaining 3 (any of which could, on the day, be their choice) all impose a CPZ (even a limited one) and for 2 on streets (1 - option 5 and in option 4's case 5) who clearly voted against. In what way is this democratic? - in what way, if the council makes their decision, is this not (millions of deaths apart) not Stalinist in its approach to the people's wishes? Additionally the votes were not cast for any of the schemes listed under options 3-5. How can you consider it a win for democracy when the proposal (for an ED CPZ) was voted down and 3 out of 5 proposals are to introduce a CPZ. We all know that CPZ creep is an immensely common occurance, this is about wedging in a CPZ anyway. It will be a resounding win for democracy only when option 1 (or, at a pinch Option 2) are the choice. 60% of the options being considered by the council are wholly undemocratic.

People voted for or against a specific proposal regarding CPZ scope - the set of roads in the map. It is astounding (no, of course it isn't) that propsosal 2 was never tabled. Proposals 3-5 have NEVER been consulted on, so any action taken on those would have to be clearly stated was based on NO CONSULTATION WHAT SO EVER (excuse screams, but that's what it feels like). The logic of the road by road proposals would be that, if you had voted for a CPZ, wherever you lived, one could be put just outside your own house. I don't supposed I should be surprised by the Stalinist approach to democracy - but I am.

A number of councils have considered, I believe, some have actually made resin casts of key metal street and park art, replacing what is on view with these scrap-valueless copies. This could certainly also be done with memorial plates - with the originals being kept more securely (but still allowing access to them). Non metallic casts certainly can't be used for power and communications cables, they have to be in the metal they are in for purely functional reasons, and that is probably also true of street manhole covers, but 'art' can be copied. Maybe the insurance for the Hepworth might be best used securing other vulnerable art and memorial work in Southwark.

I have lived adjacent to Langston Rise for about 23 years - there have been in that time 2 or 3 occasions when tyres were dumped there, and a small number (perhaps 5-10) abondoned/ burnt-out cars. There have been annoying building and road repair works, and it is frequently used by the council etc. as a place to leave spoil heaps and machinery while work is going on in roads which do have houses fronted in them. And there was a short period when skips were being left there for later pick-up and used by others (people living locally would be my guess) for their own rubbish. I really haven't noticed it being that much parked up - except when someone on Underhill or Wood Vale is having a party and street spaces are all used. Sometimes commercial vehicles do park up there - and we have had a few overnighters sleeping in their cars - but that is, I guess, because it is quiet and relatively traffic free in the small hours. This may have changed recently, but I haven't noticed it. The most parked up it has been in my recent memory was during the snow last year and the year before, when cars who couldn't or wouldn't manage the hill were being parked up and left by stranded motorists. But this positive Toxteth of a description is alien to me.

The smell could be caused by an oven cleaner being 'burnt off' when the oven is switched on, but that wouldn't explain it appearing in a number of houses, unless they have all, fortuitously, started using the same cleaner at roughly the same time. It is also true that some cleaning people are peculiarly wedded to over use of bleach, but that smell should dissipate quickly. Solvents are used in the production (illegal) of some drugs - do you have cellars in your house - often in terraced or semi-detached houses there is some connectivity between cellars and smells etc. can cross over (and would then tend to seep up. It is unlikely that smells from discharges into drains would impact - traps work to keep any smell out - I think checking with environmental health would be a good idea, if the smell persists at all, or comes back again. If chemicals were discharged into the ground they could get into groundwater - then they could start to seep up through foundations etc. (this is difffrent from discharge into the drainage system, which should be impervious).

Sadly, as described, 'behaving in an aggressive manner in the area for some time' it is possible that this young man was suffering from some psychotic episode - most frequently these result in self harming but on occasion to 'unprovoked' attacks on others. Of course drink or drugs might also be a cause, but not uncommonly 'care in the community' is actually lack of care in the community. Random attacks by singletons who are in full control of their faculties as described are very unusual. (Attacks by groups or for clear gain - mugging - are of course more common). This makes the attack, as far as the man attacked is concerned, no less awful, but may be a symptom of madness, not badness. The perpetrator clearly also does need to be found and detained, but it is possible that nothing criminal (mens rea) has taken place. Whatever, it is very sad.

Remember that Southwark is just letting out pavement space - out of the weekly rent that JC Decaux are getting must come: Depreciated cost of equipment, maintenance and cleaning Cost of putting up and taking down posters Marketing costs and admin costs, inc. travel to the poster sites (often 30-40% of total costs) Site Rentals (to Southwark etc.) So on a revenue per face of ?100 a fortnight Southwark would be picking up 8.5% - with no on-costs etc. I don't think that's bad - when Decaux have to provide and maintain the equipment, sell the advertising space etc. etc. They are, I think, bringing everything to the party save pavement space - already for Southwark a sunk and written down cost.

major or greater tithe (wheat, etc) as opposed to minor (eg, hazlenuts). Yes, it's worth remembering that we are not talking about a money economy here - hence tithe barns being places where the tithe (in produce) was stored. It's also worth remebering that at this time Anglo-Saxon (actually by now Middle English) words were being included in Latin texts. Legal texts mix French with English as well ('il jecte un graund brickbat' being quite a famous one). Hence 'Est' for East (as opposed to 'it is') is quite possible. Google translate works in classical latin - medieval latin (which anyway often has local variants) is beyond it. The 50 year old Revised Medieval Word List I have confirms Decima Maior as 'great tithe'.

Does the existing ground etc. meet current FA rules about what grounds should be (at whatever level they are now playing or aspire to play) - I know that improvements to grounds are frequently required for teams aspiring or actually playing at higher levels? I cannot see anywhere (mainly because I cannot be bothered to look) whether there is a rationale being put forward for this change.

and possibly with a small moustache Movember?