Penguin68

On the one hand, everyone obviously wants the normal council services - refuse collection / recycling, schools, libraries, road repairs - but the councils have systematically had their central Government funding cut and cut over the last 10 years. Technically they are not allowed to use money derived from motorists in this way for things other than those associated with road conditions, public transport etc. So they can't tax motorists to collect refuse. In practice of course if they have more money to spend on roads they could re-allocate funds, but this must not be in any way transparent. So if this is a result you want, then you are asking your council to lie and cheat.

1) "Over the course of a month, people who walk to the high street spend up to 40% more" - TFL Study 2013 The dependent variable here is the distance walked. It is reasonable to assume that many people will walk short distances to a high street because they live close to it. So they will do their shopping there because it is convenient. People who have to travel to a specific high street by public or private transport may well be 'local' either to other high streets or take public transport or cars to e.g. a mall where there is parking. This statistic may be no better than the obvious - people who live close to a shop are more likely to spend more in it than people who don't. A more valuable statistic for LL would be the overall revenues driven by 'close' customers and by those who have travelled further. If LL shopkeepers and restaurateurs derive most of their revenues and profits from local walk-through trade then that's fine - a CPZ won't impact them. If not... 2) "People who walk and cycle take more trips to the high street per month" - TFL Study 2014. See above - if you're local that's not surprising. But also - just how much can you carry walking and cycling? maybe you have to make more trips. Equally, maybe living close means that you tend to pop into the shops going to or coming back from work and only buy what you immediately need. Again - it is revenue and profit, not frequency which will be important to shop keepers. Finally - the study being used is (as far as I can see) a general one on 'high streets' - LL is a very untypical high street (e.g. virtually no chains, high proportion of cafes etc. and specialist artisan shops) - so conclusions drawn from the study simply may not be locally applicable.

If there was to be a short period in which a CPZ came into play (which would be relevant only if 'through' commuters are blamed for congestion - rather than 'in' commuters serving in the area) - then a suitable period would not be mid-day - when punters might be expected to be coming to the many cafes and restaurants in LL - but, say 9:00-11:00 - or 3:00 - 4:00. That at least would cause least damage to trade. But that isn't what the game is - it is 'squeeze the punter' time. So we may expect the worst possible times to be inflicted on the largest areas - and if LL ceases to be a hub drawing in trade - well why should Tooley St mind - they don't live, work or shop here, so we can go hang, so long as the money keeps rolling in. Which it will from anyone unfortunate enough to keep a car in an area with relatively (for the rest of Southwark) deplorable public transport options, most regularly suspended (save buses) at the weekends when residents might want to travel locally rather than banging into work.

Baskets and trolleys are put out by supermarkets partly at least to encourage purchase (it's marketing) - of course using them is convenient but it's not obligatory. If I just want one or two items I will normally just carry them, without basket, to the check-out. Putting items openly in your own bag, with no intent to steal (and intent is key here) is absolutely fine, particularly in a relatively small outlet where (and additionally) you may already be known. If you think someone is stealing, alert a member of staff. I suspect that if the assumed perpetrator had been six-two and in a hoody the OP might not have been as keen to confront him. Indeed, and in that case, the OP might have been very foolish so to do.

though one of the great advantages of segregated cycle provision is that without motorised traffic they don't develop potholes, or at least I've never encountered any But to get to, or from, segregated cycleways you will need to cycle on side, and even main, roads - those around us in ED - last year certainly - were in a disgraceful state.

Thank you, now amended...

But if safe and segregated cycle provision is available, people may be encouraged back onto bicycles, to the benefit of their own health and the environment - I know several people who wouldn't have dreamed of cycling in London ten years ago who are now very happy cycle commuters due to the superhighways. Each to their own re cycling in winter of course - personally I long ago realised I'd be warmer riding at a good pace with suitable clothing for half an hour than I would be standing still on a windblown railway platform for half an hour waiting for a train to battle its way through half an inch of snow! Whilst my second broken arm was caused by an uninsured driver in a stolen vehicle coming out of a side street without looking (and knocking me clear across the Strand), the first was caused when I came round a bend and straight into a pile of rotten fruit dumped in the roadway - I slipped and fell awkwardly. Cycleways would not have helped me there. Friends who chose not to cycle in the winter do so less because of inclement weather per se but because this leads to adverse road conditions (ice or to pooled water) which can obscure pot holes etc. making cycling more hazardous. Most are robust enough (and have enough bad weather clothing) to cope with rain and chill on its own.

By the way, comrades, is this the most prolix troll in the history of the forum?

I agree that cycling should be equally promoted as a form of active travel Remembering (I would hope) that a significant number of people may be excluded from cycling through age or infirmity - particularly relevant in the ward you used to represent which is hilly and does not replicate the flat plains of northern Southwark. It should not be promoted to the detriment of those who cannot, or choose not, to 'benefit' from it. Keen cyclists I know in SE22 still chose in bad weather (the winter) not to cycle, or may have been scared through bad experiences to stop. After my arm was twice broken (when I was much younger and on two wheels) I chose discretion as being the better part of valour. I doubt whether I would be alone in such a decision.

s anyone having problems with BT at the moment, I have no landline, internet etc. for last 2 3 days coincided with trying to connect to new fibre broadband so thought i?d done something stupid. Anyway rang BT outside fault! Anyone else having problems? If you are changing over your service I'm afraid that it is all too likely that the fault has appeared as a result of work within a cabinet or other flexibility point to achieve this. If you have seen inside the cabinets you will know they are a mass of wires and connecting points and it is all too easy for work in the cabinet either not to be fully connected, or for connections to be disrupted by other work going on (they are known as working-party faults, and in the 70s accounted for 25% of external local loop faults). Moves by BT over time has been to 'nail-up' the network as much as possible to remove flexibility - as this (whilst clearly of economic benefit) was generating faults.

To add another stir to the pot - the gentleman in question may have been well-known to the staff as someone who habitually placed shopping in his own bag and then paid for it. And therefore to be treated with natural courtesy and respect. He does not appear (based at least on the ease in which you spotted his behaviour) to have been acting covertly or suspiciously as regards his placing of items openly in his own own bag before paying for them.

Hi there I had bt the broadband was terrible been with sky now for 4 yrs have no problems at all. BT Openreach is the underlying local network provider for both BT Retail and Sky. Did you buy an uprated service (copper to fibre for instance) when you moved to Sky? Otherwise there really isn't any obvious reason why pipe badged 'BT' should perform worse than pipe badged 'Sky'. Just changing over from the same level of service wouldn't have required any work in the local network at all, just, probably re-terminating on a different line card in a different rack on the exchange. Line-card performance is pretty well identical (unless you have a faulty line card). The back network (again) from the exchange is going to be technologically very similar (and probably again bought wholesale from BT). I have been with BT for very many years and problems have been very few - never lost service for more than a couple of hours - and much less than once a year for such a loss. As I have upgraded my deal (from dial-up to ADSL to fibre) my service quality and performance has ramped up with the price. I have not had any real problems with network congestion (slower speeds at key times) although this has been noticeable when e.g. snow has piled people in to work-from-home. Network resilience is not designed around such worst case scenarios. As far as services locally are concerned, there are only two local infrastructure providers, BT (through its arms length BT Openreach subsidiary) and NTL Cable trading as Virgin. If you're not on Virgin you are on BT if you have a wired connection.

And if not, why are "they" having another consultation? Because you got the answer wrong (cf 'People's Vote')

Its purpose is to benefit residents. How sweetly naive. The apparat (paid officials) who plan and execute these ideas have no interest or care for any resident - they wish (a) to pursue council policy which is to reduce car usership (and ownership) in the borough (for a raft of good and not so good reasons) and (b) to create revenue streams to benefit the borough. Local (elected) councilors do care (in the main) for their electors, but these have little say or influence (here in the south) on council policy. They are certainly not, in the main, driving it, although local councilors and past councilors are on the record of supporting some schemes (and opposing others, it must be said). But do not believe that these proposals have any basis in 'benefitting the people'. Such benefits will be prayed-in-aid for schemes (ringing the self-interest bell where they can) - but this is simply marketing. Most of the pressure on parking is coming form (a) reduction in parking space by double-yellowing the borough; (b) people coming into the area to serve (doctors, nurses, teachers, shop staff etc.) local residents, © genuine increase in legitimate local residents with vehicles and (d) some amount of 'through' commuters - but probably less than you'd think.

A lot of restaurants and cafes are open all day. Exactly - restaurant and cafe economics require 'sweating the assets' - and there is generally quite a buoyant lunch time trade in LL - fueled in part by ED mums. How many of those come in by car is moot, of course, but I suspect, with all the impedimenta children now require that quite a few will bring a car closer before walking the lane. Removing local daytime visitor parking is quite likely to have an impact on local trade. And, like Brexit, once done always done. I have never heard of a CPZ, anywhere, ever, being removed (happy to stand corrected on that). A link https://campaigns.confused.com/email/newsletter/January2019/on-the-road/cost-of-motoring/councils-cash-in-on-parking-charges?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=brandawareness&utm_term=20190115&utm_content=nsl-nslopeners0-12months suggests that the motorist is a council cash cow - and it's getting worse. Without any concomitant investment in improving e.g road conditions. Once the CPZ is in, ramping up annual fees is a no-brainer. I see no evidence that Southwark's agenda includes supporting (or at least not undermining) local shops and high streets. The planning rules about not changing usage notwithstanding (and frequently they don't stand, when push comes to shove).

Does it mean so many people in SE22 replace their doors and windows?8 Much of the housing stock locally is around 100 years old - looking at windows quite a lot still have original sashes etc. - and of those that don't many will have replacement double glazing 20 or more years old which will have started to blow (mist) by now. Many houses in the 70s' and 80s (before ED 'came up in the world') will have underspent on maintenance, meaning that the need is greater. People are spending money on uplifts on every street - partly because they aren't moving, or want to make their houses more saleable if they have to move. So I suspect that good Door and Windows shops will do well.

The question you have to add to this to make sense of it is travel frequency. Not how much per journey but also how much per time period. Someone travelling from a given point (some distance away from LL) and driving may well go more frequently, but spend less on each individual trip. Walking or cycling may be a 'bigger' ask (it will certainly take more time, putting time taken to look for a parking space aside). So the equation is probably distance plus frequency plus spend in order to make sense of these figures. If I live in LL then I will walk to shops and, since I can, spend more. If I live well away from LL I will have to travel further, but, if I drive, may travel more frequently. Again, if I live on a bus route which takes me to LL I am more likely to make that trip than if getting there by public transport is more difficult or unreliable. The simplistic figures provided by TfL need to be explained. There is otherwise no obvious mechanism whereby people who drive buy less than people who don't. Indeed and in general I would expect car ownership to be more closely correlated with higher levels of consumption.

"Add their names to a piece of labour policy with which they don't agree"? How are they doing that, exactly? Apologies - I had assumed in first reading of your post that the words "Labour is committed to returning Royal Mail to public ownership as a public service focused on delivering for residents and businesses, rather than the poorly performing asset stripping company it has become since privatisation." was included in the survey text that they would be completing, and not just Helen Hayes' covering letter. I assume the labour policy and the survey are entirely separate, and that the survey form to be returned does not include these words?

8. It does ask for personal details including the address, however given the nature of the questions it would be a bit stupid not to include that, wouldn't it, if the results are going to be communicated to Royal Mail in the hope of improving the delivery situation? No, this is simply not true. The method of questionnaire distribution in and of itself guarantees that respondents will be drawn only from the area impacted by the closure of Silvester Road - that obviates the need for any further identification in presenting results to anyone! Hand delivery to relevant streets is actually a good idea. Further, you need to be aware that this data collection falls straight under the GDPR regulations. The questionnaire must identify what uses this personal data will be put to, what safeguards in protecting it there are, who to contact to check, add or remove information - the fact that the data is not (at the moment) held on computer is irrelevant to GDPR. You should also note that if areas are left out it would be entirely possible for Royal Mail to claim that the survey is intentionally partial. That is why I have said that surveys need to be undertaken professionally if they are to carry any weight in negotiation. I am against neither surveys undertaken by political parties nor, and especially, the work undertaken by Helen Hayes in this particular instance. I am against wasted efforts, failure to understand the implications of data protection (if there have been any) and unprofessional attitudes to survey data collection. Oh, and there may be residents who do not endorse the re-nationalisation of the Royal Mail who nonetheless do wish them to address the pigs-ear they have made of this DO closure. But who may not wish to add their names to a piece of labour policy with which they don't agree. Helen Hayes represents all electors in her constituency, not just the labour ones. [The amazingly poor management shown by Royal Mail in dealing with the DO closure is a function of terrible management at a local level, not the fact that it is now no longer a nationalised industry, even if you could argue that the driver for the closure (I'm not sure it was) is solely naked capitalism.]

Actually the CPZ is about Southwark trying to drive cars out of Southwark, by reducing parking spaces and increasing the costs of car ownership. This is a stated aim. It ignores such issues as the hillyness of the south of the borough, making cycling and walking less attractive even for the young and able bodied, it ignores the lack of alternative public transport in the south of the borough, it ignores the actual reduction of bus services by TfL locally - i.e. by reducing frequencies and proposing route changes. The CPZ is 'sold' to locals as improving their chances of parking, but this is only true in some circumstances and is certainly not the intent of the apparat proposing change, who care nothing for 'entitled' who can afford their own transport.

I didn't think that element was enabled. I can see what appointments are booked, but I can't remember being able to book any myself on-line. Happy to stand corrected.

As a former member of the Market Research Society, and someone involved in market and social research and research techniques over a number of years, and someone who has campaigned and worked against 'sugging' (selling under the guise of research) my agenda is to ensure that when 'research' is undertaken it is undertaken properly. Were political parties to commission proper ward research, and additionally - and on a separate sheet where this is a 'postal' survey ask for political support and commitment I would be entirely happy - these are two exercises properly separated. I am entirely unhappy for research findings to be misrepresented. Any findings this ward publishes will be 'true' only for that ward. Experiences in other wards may be worse, better or simply different. I am also unhappy that, where SE22 is represented only by labour held wards these could not have come together to undertake joint research to support Helen Hayes' case across the postal district. It makes me think that this is less about gathering data for intelligent use in supporting a unified and informed case 'against' Royal Mail and more about publicising and recruitment within one ward. Nothing against that, of course, except where it pretends to be about research. I have made it clear that, not being a ward member, I have not seen this 'survey' - I am simply going on my past experience of ward surveys (and not just those conducted by the labour party). And a poorly conducted survey (in terms of 'proper and professional' market research - if it is typical of its type) in only part of the affected area is not going to 'improve our local postal delivery service'. To make a case backed by survey research the sampling must be robust, the questionnaires must be well designed, and the metadata sufficient for a sample result to be extrapolated to a whole population. Ideally it should be independently conducted and analysed. My 'agenda' is about professional conduct of research. Nothing more.

How do they use the surveys as "recruitment vehicles for membership etc"? The local Labour party have been very involved in the mail problems right from the outset, including demonstrating in Sylvester Road at a time when the decision to close it might still have been influenced. Our MP Helen Hayes was there. Hardly any local residents were, despite it being advertised on here. Helen has also attended all the local meetings about it, both before and after the move to the Peckham office. I absolutely agree that Helen Hayes has worked tirelessly on this, as have many local labour people. My experience of Labour ward 'research' is that the questions are poorly designed, with no attempt to acquire metadata to support any analysis, and inevitably with requests for contact information, which will be used in campaigning and to attract support. Because of this some residents chose not to complete and return such surveys. I have no problems with local parties doing this, merely with them doing this 'under the guise of research'. If this survey, which I have not seen as I'm not part of that ward is any different, then I apologise. ['Real' market and social research is required generally NOT to disclose the names of individual respondents to the research commissioners] But I will note that if it's titled as this thread is ('SE22 Royal Mail Postal Survey') then it is not being issued to constituents in the wards that cover that postal District (SE22) but only in one of them, and I would hope would not publish any results which purported to represent SE22 residents as a whole.

This was delivered separately from my post. It's headed Goose Green Labour Action Team. So - hand delivered and only within one ward, despite all wards now being firmly Labour. That's joined up of the Party then. Of course, the former ED Lib Dem councillor always assumed he spoke for all of SE22 and all of East Dulwich (geographical grouping, not electoral ward)- but Goose Green (new ward) is even less representative either of SE22 or of those served by the old DO at Silvester Road. Let's hope when they analyse the results they don't purport them to be representative of SE22 or anything other than their ward (if that). Edited to add - of course The Party tends to use these surveys as recruitment vehicles for membership etc. so those not wishing to play that game may choose not to complete the survey, hence making it even less representative of SE22 feeling about Royal Mail services.

And we've had no deliveries today; perhaps not the best vehicle then for determining if the post is working. No survey deliverey, no problems reported!