Penguin68

The scheme is ?30 for a full year, ?25 for the initial part year. They said that retained large brown bins would have a sticker to identify them as for legitimate garden waste (but no further paper bags would be collected with the brown bins). And yes, it probably will be a complete mess.

I managed to get in, register and pay my ?25 - I've got a confirmatory e-mail and I've seen the charge on my CC bill - but I've certainly been sent no stickers etc. Does anyone know when/ if they will actually fulfil their order? Clearly they have 3 weeks to go before they stop collecting garden waste except from those who have paid, but it would be nice to think they would be efficient highwaymen/ persons.

Take the blinkers off! What world do you live in? A world where there is a difference between theft (where the objective is gain) and personal attack. It is very easy to take theft personally, as if it is you, not your belongings, which are being targeted, but that is not normally so. You are targeted only as the owner/ holder of those belongings - if you didn't have them you wouldn't be targeted. That is very different from most of the knife crime in London, as it is reported, where it is the individual identity (sometimes mistaken) which is the trigger, and where violence, not the threat of violence, is the significant element. People involved as victims of crime (mugging, robbery and burglary) frequently add to their pain by considering that the crime is personal to them (targeted at them as individuals 'why me?') - and therefore becoming more fearful of future events than is necessary. That simply adds to a burden of trauma and that addition is not normally justified. Additionally some muggings in particular may be about 'showing off' to others - 'look how brave I am to mug someone' - but again (unlike the attack of a bully) that has little to do with the victim. The victim may be a 'trophy' but the actual persona of the victim is irrelevant to that.

It's about realising that they are not being targeted personally - of course it's terrible and scary, but it's not about them, but about their phone/ bike etc. That's a very different position for those targeted for knife crime, where who they are or what gang they belong to is an issue.

School-boy muggings have been a (sad) constant over the 30 years I have lived in ED - they seem to go in spates - maybe crime is as fashion conscious as other things. And mugging by gangs is also common. Which is not to say this shouldn't be reported and cracked down-on. Normally the police end up by targeting an area and forcing the crime elsewhere. The private schools around here, with boys (and girls) with good quality phones and bikes are of course an attractor. It is awful of course when we are in one of these spates, and huge sympathy to any victim. But they should be reminded of the 'Godfather' maxim - 'this is business, not personal' - however personal it feels at the time.

The 20 mph limit on Sydenham Hill is a bit unnecessary in my opinion. Agreed, it's not really in any way a suburban residential street comparable to others round ED and with its wide pavements, people (and children) are far less likely to be forced into the road. It is interesting that the speed camera there is sited at the bottom of a dip in the road, where a car's speed is being aided by gravity - a cynic might suggest that a revenue generating conscious council might find that appealing - although I know of only one person actually flashed and fined there.

The major problem with the 20mph limit is that modern cars sold in the UK are optimised to run at 30mph (that's just a matter of tuning) so that the car can appear to 'struggle' at a steady 20mph (if you are used to listening to the car to change up and down). But just get used to it. The difference in damage to human bodies that extra 10mph makes is significant.

What I'm looking for, but then I'm a bit chubby, is a zero waist shop!

Thought I'd bounce this one back - in the light of some element of contradiction about what exactly different parts of the council are saying e.g. about CPZs - what the actual responses were (in detail) and what they are going to do on the basis (or not) of those responses. Also in the light of the recent local elections where the two main parties have not done so well, and where protest vote parties have done significantly better. Shame, really, that all the wards in London come up for electoral scrutiny only once every 3 years - interesting to see what might have happened here if a third of Southwark's wards had been competed for this year, particularly in the south of the borough.

And so, Southwark council, your job is done, you have turned street against street, each now selfishly to demand their own parking and then, lo, finding the spaces available to park are severely truncated and lost forever, to everyone, through your imposition of double yellows.

You do all understand, I hope, that the objective of this exercise is to flood the area with 'concerns' about e.g. road safety to help justify ('public demand') whatever draconian and probably inappropriate 'traffic management' schemes they plan - more CPZs; more extended double yellows, less parking etc. etc. There will be no more buses, with no additional frequency (of course, as that's TfL not Southwark) let alone any improvements in the rail services. Every time you add a concern you add another nail in the coffin of cars in Southwark, the stated aim of the council.

Long leads can, clearly, be dangerous when used wrongly, but as long as dogs are 'reeled in' if they approach people, or if they try to cross over paths, then, properly used, they can allow dogs to run more naturally whilst their owners remain in contact/ in control of them. Obviously they should not be used just to allow the owner to remain static whilst the dog is effectively out of control. And they should be used sensibly and preferably well away from paths, cycle tracks etc.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but if the above is the case there has been misrepresentation on a grand scale. So no surprises there...

and 25% voted for a CPZ. Actually the best that can be said of any of the CPZ poll results is that ''x%' of residents of specific streets who expressed a preference expressed a preference for 'y' in their street'. That is all. So most of the LL shops could be pretty relaxed about 'offending' customers since I guess (1) most of their customers do not come from streets polled at all and (2) the actual numbers of those who did express a pro CPZ view about their own street would not impact their trade in the slightest, and might anyway be relaxed about those in streets nowhere near theirs with opposing views. We (those against CPZ introduction) wanted it to be an ED wide poll, with one result for the collective - but the council has chosen to cherry pick the few pockets of support they can muster. And to attack a group of shopkeepers because they fail to provide full information about themselves on the web? Let's just assume their members (or sympathizers) are those displaying their publicity, shall we? If you're that interested, walk up and down LL and collect the names and addresses yourself.

Does anyone know what those are or how we can find out about them? For a short period last week or so the people who manage the car park for Sainsbury's Dog Kennel Hill were advertising weekly and monthly paid parking - presumably a capacity sponge deal for weekdays when the far end of the car park is normally virtually empty (give or take a batch of film set lorries currently there). Maybe these guys saw a market emerging if CPZs really hit commuters - either through or actually commuting to ED. Southwark sees the problems as any cars (and driving up their revenue streams) - we in ED see the problem (in so far as any do - presumably those asking for a CPZ) - as over-parking. Proper local car parking might address this. Of course, the council will be against this, as it doesn't play into their agenda, but only into their residents' (and we know how much they care about us in Tooley St.).

Yeah, I'd just turn up with a ladder and a toolbox, and take it down myself. If anyone else actually wanted it, it would already be gone. Actually, a pub sign such as this has commercial value (and may even be listed, if the building itself is). Taking it is theft, for which you could be prosecuted. The fact that something hasn't already been stolen doesn't mean it is available to steal without consequence.

The former Bethlem Hospital Which one? There were at least 4 sites for Bedlam - including what is now The Imperial War Museum. Bethlem Royal Hospital (aka St Mary Bethlehem) in Beckenham is the current site - and is still a working hospital, part of the South London and Maudsley Trust - with fine grounds and a central House which acts as a Museum (Museum of the Mind). https://www.nhs.uk/Services/hospitals/Overview/DefaultView.aspx?id=RV505

50 years ago a B and a C were all you needed to get in ;) Actually, 50 years ago, if memory serves, the basic GCE qualifications for entering both Oxford and Cambridge were 5 passes at GCE, 2 of which had to be at A level (no grade specified). One of the passes (at Oxford at least) had to be in Latin. The Colleges could (and did) specify higher grades in some circumstances, although not if the candidate was under 17. This was at a time when entry was actually by competitive examination (set by the Universities) and interview. A friend of mine got 4 Es at A Level (the lowest grade of pass) and then won a Scholarship at Cambridge to read Philosophy. Those universities frankly did not take GCEs very seriously. So the statement, whilst true, did not disclose the whole truth about entry qualifications to Oxbridge.

Parking permits made them ?3.6m last year Pay and display another ?3.7m Penalty Charge Notices a whopping ?6.2m And remember, none of these charges (like the garden bin tax) are covered by the same increase limits that the Council Tax is - these charges fall outside any central government caps on tax increases. Over time the Council will move to generate all the revenue that needs to spend on area such as roads to direct, uncapped, 'taxation' allowing them to divert monies that should have been spent in these areas to their pet projects. Just because a revenue source is hypothecated does not mean that monies which would otherwise be spent in this area need to be, it's a way of diverting capped funds elsewhere.

To get back to the OP's apparent original point, no I do not find it sinister - indeed in any way concerning - that local shopkeepers who fear loss of trade should continue to campaign against CPZ introduction, before the final whistle is blown - nor do I feel that their use of statistics (which at least broadly ape those released by the council) is misleading. Two thirds of those polled in what was in fact a census (in that every effected household was at least contacted) who bothered to reply were against a CPZ at least in their street - even where they may have had a different view when threatened with a knock-on effect - an effect which, were the initial response not be ignored, would not come into place. One third did want a CPZ in their street. A whole area was polled - to then cherry pick elements who might go be prepared to stomach a CPZ is hugely disingenuous. However you play the figures - the only thing we can be certain about is that, of those directly to be impacted who expressed an opinion, two in every 3 were against a CPZ. Which is pretty well what the shopkeepers are reporting.

Would you accept 'Two thirds of those who expressed an opinion in a consultation survey of residents in streets which might be impacted by a CPZ proposal were against any proposed CPZ'? - and in what way does this (really) differ from '67% were against' - other than being somewhat more clunky in expression? Remember that virtually no politician is ever elected by more than 50% of the eligible electorate - so for every politician it is true to say that more than half the electorate didn't express a wish for him or her to be elected - but where does that actually get you?

It's a matter of control and responsibility, surely? Make dog owners (or walkers) responsible for the actions of their dogs, so that they could be personally arrested and charged for assault if their dogs attacked someone - the dog being treated as a weapon in the control of their owner/ walker and it will be up to them how much control they wish to display, either through good training or through a lead. If their dog attacks another dog they should similarly be treated as the agent of that attack - as if they had attacked the other dog. And the police should treat dog attacks as assault - the 'weapon' might well be seized and destroyed, but the proximate wielder of that weapon - the person nominally in charge of the dog, should be the target of arrest and prosecution in no different manner than if the dog had been a knife or club used to attack someone.

BTW where were all these second hand pram shops you keep referring to? I can only remember one at the Goose Green end of Lordship Lane! There was one at the other end, close to where Franklin's Farm Shop is now, if memory serves.

If you are able to find a flaw in my arithmetical reasoning as to the percentage of East Dulwich residents who are against the CPZ, I will be happy to change my opinion. I'm sorry, I did not challenge your mathematical analysis that only 25% of those polled declared themselves against a CPZ - I simply pointed out that using the same analytical sleight-of-hand only 11.5% declared themselves in favour. It is not that your reasoning is flawed, it is just that you did not then extend the same reasoning to declarations for the other camp. However you look at it, whether as a percentage of those who responded, or of those actualled polled, more were against a CPZ than for it. Your implied reasoning, that if 25% were against a CPZ, then 75% were not against it, is rubbish, if that is what you are implying. You cannot call 'no response' as belonging in either camp - even of the camp that is indifferent. I might as well say (but I don't) that if only 11.5% were in favour of a CPZ, then 88.5% were against it. That, too, wouldn't be true (or at least, not derivable from the information available).

This thread is about the accuracy or otherwise of the anti CPZ posters that have appeared, analysis of Southwark?s methodology is for other threads. I rather think, nxjen, that it is up to Admin to determine what is, and is not, off topic in these threads; you are accusing anti-CPZ people of mis-using statistics, it is entirely reasonable to suggest the other camp may be too. I would also add that whilst many of those people (8000 was it?) who signed the shopkeepers' petition were not SE22 residents they were people who come into ED to spend their money - something which ensures that Lordship Lane is no longer the home of second hand pram shops and failing businesses of 30 years ago and is a vibrant shopping and entertainment hub, from which those of us living locally can only benefit. I can recall James Barber working hard (and correctly, in my view) to encourage 'attractor' business into LL to push start such an economic resurgence. Shopkeepers see their market potentially falling away if the draconian version of the CPZ (indeed any CPZ) is implemented. They may be wrong, but if they're not, then we too will be the sufferers. I would support their efforts to continue to put their case whilst the decision is yet to be made, and if, in the context of misused statistics they too over-egg their pudding, well it's right to point this out, but not by placing our shopkeepers in the same list as ISIS and Assad. Hyperbole has been used by both sides in this debate - and both sides are guilty of misleading interpretation of statistics. To pretend otherwise (or try to keep part of the debate off this thread) isn't necessarily helpful.