Penguin68

If this were to happen, it will also affect the water table. This need not happen if your use porous materials (gravel over membrane; brick paviours) which allow water through to the subsoil; indeed where gardens are part paved with stone or concrete slabs and these are replaced sensitively the run through (as oppose to run off) can be increased rather than diminished.

You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to. - Humbert Wolfe Perhaps (some) councillors as well? - no names, no packdrill

The data from that Transport Assessment is based on the 2001 census. The data provided to me by officers for the 1,146 homes in the proposed streets was from this summer and I was told 41% homes have access to a car So, Mr Barber, your view, based on information received by you, is either that the CPZ area, as I (not Peckhamboy) said is unusually out of line with the rest of your ward, or that car ownership in ED has, uniquely for the UK, actually fallen between 2001 and 2011. I think such a fall, if national, might have registered on me. In 2008 the Daily Telegraph noted By David Millward, Transport Editor 6:28PM BST 28 Aug 2008 The statistics from the Department for Transport show that the number of British households without a car fell from 30 per cent in 1995-7 to only 25 per cent last year. So the fall would need to have happend in the last 3 years.

It may be worthwhile thinking through this one strategically. 1. The Garden Centre developers don't want a CPZ (why would they? it would reduce the attractivenes of their development - they have been forced by an anti-car council to propose building flats without parking, if there is close uncontrolled parking then their flats will be more attractive, if a CPZ is introduced their flats won't be allowed to apply for permits, so making sale etc. less attractive. 2. Mr Barber could have used the threat of a potential 25+ additional residents cars coming into the area as a further threat to anti-CPZ-ers - but chose not to or didn't think this one through. 3. The Garden Centre developers have been forced to pay money towards a consultation which wasn't used but which will be 'banked' - with that money the consultation could have been extended to adjacent streets and the weird topology of the CPZ made more sensible. All very strange

It is true that the averages for ED ward would suggest that 'speaking with forked tongues' would be a viable epithet here, but the polled part of ED ward (such a strange and truncated area) might still have lower car ownership than the ED average - the fact is that nobody, including Mr Barber, knows - and the ONLY information which Mr Barber had of any accuracy, but which he chose not to share, shows that this part of the ward would have to be, on average, unusually car free for his arguments to hold any water at all. His previous discussion about the plans for the Garden Centre development, and his participation in the relevant decision, make it clear that, at the very least, he was compartmentalising issues to an extraordinary extent not to see, admit or discuss the linkages here. When it comes to the next opportunity to exercise a democratic vote which is not obfuscated or gerrymandered no doubt some of us will remember.

The bin-men at my end of Underhill are polite, cheery, tidy, do their jobs well and effectively. But the roads are wide enough for them not to come under too much continuous pressure from traffic trying to pass, which must be slightly less stressful, and (possibly) the housing is less dense than in some other roads reducing their workload per metre. Does anyone know if they work in 3 teams (by bin colour) or whether the green bin team one week is the blue bin team the next (assuming the brown bin team remains constant)?

The value of a capon or capon-style bird is that, as it is 'built' so to say, over a chicken carcase a 6-8lb bird has a much better meat to skeleton ratio than a small turkey - hence better value. It is argued by many butchers that until you get a turkey over 10-11lbs, it is more bone than meat. As to where in ED you can get this - any of the 'proper' butchers - Libretto, Wm Rose etc. can order one for you - most wouldn't carry them normally in stock, as the demand is small except at Christmas, when they would want orders anyway.

You will not be able to buy a capon as described - roosters are no longer actually castrated - instead they are 'caponized' which means chemical castration. That is why they are more honestly sold as 'capon style'. I am told that the chemically castrated roosters grow similarly and taste very similar to the old-style capon (which, like a child castrated before puberty tends to grow both large and fat) but I would prefer not to eat one myself.

The figures are slightly misleading, as it is wrong to assume that each house is burgled only once - in fact it has been quite common for a house to be burgled, the burglar to wait until electric etc. goods have been replaced under insurance, and then re-burgle it, this time getting brand new items. Certain houses etc. are also more vulnerable, therefore more likely to be burgled more than once, and burglars tend to 'hit' quite a small area at a time, so burglaries are often clustered, leaving other areas burglary free. All this means is that a simple divison of total households by total number of burglaries does not really generate a statistically sound probability of being burgled. You will always reduce your chances the more 'costly' you make it to the burglar to attack you, in terms of locks, alarms, security measures. Marking your property (which James advocates and has got funding for) does not, in fact, reduce your chances of being burgled, but it does raise the chances that your property may be recovered, perpetrators caught etc. [if it was widely known that a whole area had ALL their property marked this might reduce burglary attacks, but that assumes that burglars are generally well-informed and act sensibly, not so true of those stealing to feed a drug habit, or teenagers. The prime time for teen burglary used to be (don't know whether it still is) the school lunch break.

The green man was showing so he stepped out into the road Of course it is awful that he should have been in an accident - and clearly he was in 'the right' - but I do recall my late mother repeating - when I had nearly been knocked over on a zebra crossing ' He was right, dead right, as he walked along, but he was just as dead as if he'd been dead wrong'. Even though as pedestrians we have 'rights' (as we do as drivers) - looking out for danger - the idiot who hasn't seen the lights, or the zebra crossing, or you signalling to turn etc. etc. is still good advice. In the end, your safety is primarily your concern, assuming that a driver will stop if you are crossing 'legally' may be an assumption too far - it is always still worthwhile watching the traffic and judging whether drivers are going to do what you expect them to do; indeed what they are legally obliged to do. Which is not to say that your son, in that incident, hadn't anyway been properly cautious and observant.

If I was a cynic I might suggest that they just sent the consultation papers to the (quoted by James Barber) 50 or so people who have complained in the last few years.

I am not saying they are innocent, I am saying that the law requires that there is proof, not suspicion or innuendo, that they are guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. There are a multitude of reasons why an individual, who left no forensic evidence at the scene, who was not seen or identified as your burglar, might have had one item stolen from you in their possession. Your belief that they are guilty is not sufficient to convict someone without further evidence. Stolen goods get passed around very quickly. The CPS recommend prosecution when there is a better than 50% chance of conviction - in this case any good defence brief could suggest sufficient alternative reasons for the known facts (someone in possession of a phone stolen from you found in unusual circumstances) that most juries would not feel comfortable about convicting - recalling that if this person had a criminal past (did he, do you know?) this could not be disclosed to the jury. The only evidence is circumstantial - and frankly it is not strong. I don't think they are innocent, I have absolutely no idea if they are or are not, but the CPS believed that their prosecutors had a less than even chance of convincing a jury or magistrates that they were. Given the lack of evidence linking them to your home or to the burglary itself (as opposed to one item stolen from you) this is not surprising. Do not confuse an interest in the iaw being applied fairly and appropriately to a naive belief that everyone who protests their innocence is innocent. Suspicion, even well founded suspicion, must be backed up by hard evidence to convict.

pocket of known criminal This could not be used (and should not be used) in any prosecution - we cannot impute present guilt from past behaviour- thank goodness. 'Lying under a car' sounds like drunkenness - a different offence. We should be very pleased that we live in a society where guilt is a matter of proof, not assumption and inuendo.

How do you 'prove' they didn't just pick it up lying in the road? Generally 'handling' requires a premises (for resale) or a lot more stolen goods than just a phone. Burden of proof - 'beyond reasonable doubt' is what protects us from the state, it also protects some criminals. That is the penalty we pay for freedom from oppressive state action.

There were two of them so there's some kind of question over which of them actually stole the phone. Which to my mind is kind of missing the point. I'm afraid that is very much the point - although it is clear that the balance of probabilities is that one of the two was the burglar (and possibly the other an accomplice) if you cannot demonstrate with proof which one was, then you simply have an individual (albeit in a quite compromising position) who is in possession of a stolen item, but without any proof that they knew the item was stolen. Any half decent brief would ensure that there was no conviction here, which is why the CPS wasn't prepared to waste public money (presecution plus defence costs) in pursuing an unwin-able case. It is very sad for you, but the CPS haven't acted stupidly here.

James is of course being wholly disengenuous here - nobody has suggested that the weight of posts here against the CPZ is any sort of democratic numbers game - the ED forum is just that, a forum, not an agora where democratic votes are cast. However where weight of votes isn't an issue, weight of argument might be - we have had victims of other CPZs share their experiences of CPZ creep and of draconian policing of CPZs, we have had quite detailed exploration of the 'figures' presented in support of the case, most of which suggest an overall reduction in parking space in the CPZ which will leave less space for residents than they had when they were competing with 'commuters' - it is clear that some of these 'commuters' are actually people traveliing in to ED to ad value to our lives, rather than transients using ED station as a port of convenience, we have had clear evidence of a gerrymandered 'zone' and of gerrymandering in the scope of the consultation. We have also had some posts in favour - I have not heard it suggested that these come from posters with multiple IDs and not from the area - but if James is so sure that those who disagree with him are some sort of frauds, then surely we might wonder about those agreeing? For the record, I have only one ID on this forum and (as I have made clear before) as I have multiple off-street parking spaces I would benefit financially from such an introdution in time (I am not immediately adjacent to the proposed first phase of the scheme) as my house price value would increase.

From today?s Private Eye Rotten Boroughs section, headlined ?Stink in Southwark?. Southwark Council was criticised by an appeal court judge last week for ?exceptionally murky dealings? which lead to the closure of a successful black-owned nightclub?.Lord Justice Thomas raised the possibility of ?corruption? in the way that Southwark failed to consult [sound familiar?] club owners? ?There appears to be a very strong case of maladministration against Southwark? he said. ?It emerged that Southwark hid, under the desk of a senior manager, vital independent expert reports that should have been shown to the ombudsman, the district auditor and the Fraud Squad? Witnesses heard former Lib Dem leader Nick Stanton offer the couple ?500,000 in compensation, which they accepted. Stanton, who denies the meeting ever took place, later reneged on the deal. It looks like this consultation will be well up to the demanding standards set by the council.

I think it is quite clear that the Lib Dems are in favour of CPZs - they instituted the last (failed) ED consultation - which suggests they wanted it then (nobody bothers to consult when they don't plan to take action if the consultation is favourable) and Mr Barber is pretty clearly in favour - (nothing wrong with that except he keeps suggesting a more even-handed approach). Mr Barber would not see that the introduction would be 'letting down' constituents - as he clearly believes CPZs are good things. The Lib Dem track record is that they want them. So does Labour. There has been a certain amount of weaseling and twisting in all this, but then why would we expect politicians, even local ones, not to act politically? Speaking with forked toungues is almost a job description requirement - as electors we just have to remain savvy to this.

Vehicles may in the future be dual or hydrogen fuelled - interestingly more and more people may become 2 car families, with an electric car for the town and one which can get anywhere distant for the country. Both will need parking. In the end, as our lives become less regimented and more free, operating in our choice of 24/7 lives - public transport, based around regularity and repeatability will look less attractive - once we go into work and return, if at all (working from home, not unemployment) in our timing and not within uniform 9-5 the public transport economies, such as they are, look less compelling - but this is very much off-topic. If commuting patterns change (as they may well) then the whole rationale of this CPZ (in so far as it has one, however forced and based on false assumptions and figures) looks even less sensible. Maybe CPZs are just a 20th century solution to a problem we will be seeing less and less of in the 21st century. Another good reason to vote NO then!

StraferJack The ideology comes in taking a view that a 21st century city is not about private vehicles - granted we are trying to have a 21st century city within a 19th century framework - but nevertheless it is an ideological position which says that car ownership and making space for cars is a less valuable option than some others. Just because you agree with it doesn't make it less ideological. You can also be 'practical' about planning around car ownership - it's just a different sort of practical.

What sort of lazy @#$%& drives to the bloody train station anyway One who lives a number of miles away and wants to use a cheaper zone, one who has just delivered their handicapped relative/ neighbour somewhere and has to get to work, one who has to rush off somewhere this evening and doesn't have the time to get home and pick up their car, one who is going to pick up a very heavy package in town and will need the car to get it home... Doesn't excuse selfish parking, of course.

Straferjack I had not known that you were a Southwark councillor and member of the ruling labour party, to whom I was addressing those remarks - those who support this proposal may well to so for whatever reasons they want, those who proposed it have a political agenda - which is why they were elected in the first place - I keep arguing that there is nothing wrong with having a political agenda, I would just like to see it being argued openly (and indeed would like to have had the opportunity to exercise my vote in an election knowing about it).

Why didn't you do a consultation within a equal arc of distance and then draw up a plan? or is that too logical and fair. It's really very simple - if you don't ask a group who will be impacted by parking being shifted into their streets, then when you do ask them, or wait for them to scream, you can extend, and extend, and extend the zone. By only asking a small number you get your wedge in, then all you have to do is leverage. All you have to rely on is individual selfishness, and you can certainly rely on that. If I think everyone else is having 'their' parking space preserved, but mine is up for grabs, I'll join the gaderene rush - notwithstanding the fact that everyone's 'freedom' to park, including those first asked, will be wholly compromised. When everyone had a chance of expressing their opinions then everyone realised that it would be a bad thing, just ask a very few (and lie to them about the benefits and don't disclose the downsides) and soon you will have your nice little earner, and in spades. A great idea, particularly if you are ideologically opposed to private car ownership and the aspirant middle classes. Or, to put it another way, the majority of home-owners in ED, who represent, I believe, the majority of those living in the residential streets around the station (I know there is both rented and housing association accommodation there as well, but I don't believe it represents the majority of tenure).

The route out to the M4, then M25, then M40, M42, M6 Toll is the one I prefer (but listen out for any traffic announcements about problems, obviously). Choosing your time to go is key, if you can. Leaving early (say 6:00 am) I can be going past the M40 turn off to Oxford (Junction 8) by 7:15 - and its motorway into Manchester from there. The M1 route may be technically shorter, but the time taken through London is much longer, as are, often, the M1 hold-ups.

Curiously, there is a name for politically motivated map-drawing in order to achieve a politcial end - it's called gerrymandering (from a constituency with a slight look of a salamander created to make sure of the election of a US politician called Gerry something or other). It looks like we now have a bartriangle to go with the gerrymander.