Penguin68

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.

37% responded to the consultation of which 69% were against the CPZ so to find the percentage of those living in ED who are against the CPZ it is necessary to find 69% of 37%. This comes to roughly 25%, a figure at great variance to the '67% of ED residents voted against a CPZ' quoted in the poster. The corollary of course being that whilst 25% of ED residents polled were against a CPZ - using your maths - only 11.5% expressed themselves in favour - or just under half as many as those polling (in the Market Research, not the election sense) against. And it should be noted that those 'creating' the council analysis have placed those wanting an all day CPZ time in just one results bucket whilst keeping those who wanted a shorter time in the various buckets they created for expressing an opinion - a 'majority' of those expressing an opinion in fact wanted a shorter time than all day, but different shorter times. The 'all day' bucket only 'won' because the other 'shorter than all day' 'votes' were kept discrete. Numbers can be made to dance to anyone's tune.

As the council is effectively privatising pieces of the street for individuals who want to use it for long term car storage If only that were true - actually the council is rationing (at a price, over which you have no control) the right to park in specific areas - with the hope that this will also exclude you from being able to park anywhere else locally (if they can extend the CPZs as they are trying to do by fair means or foul) and with absolutely no guarantee that you will in fact be able to park within the area that have paid to be entitled to (and certainly not in any fixed point close to your residence). If the area is blocked by skips, by other 'entitled' vehicles etc. etc. then you will be stuffed.

you mean "computer says no" and they are incapable of resolving the error, really???? And then asking you to provide proof of identity, it just beggars belief. Actually it doesn't. There are 2 sets of problems here, neither entirely of the practices making - firstly that the IT solutions that the practice has 'bought into' (pretty well with their arm up their backs, but they could never have afforded to develop their own) are flaky - and interlinking their own systems into them is difficult - hence difficulties about e.g. appointment making on-line - NHS computerisation has a tragic history, frankly - and secondly that no one is sure how data protection should actually work - hence proof of identity stuff in case anyone inadvertently hands over personal data. Combine that with a slightly jobsworth attitude (almost certainly because individuals feel, or are, disempowered to buck the system) and you have a recipe for bureaucratic nightmares.

The problem with back pain is that it can be caused by mechanical problems with the spine, by problems associated with muscles, by problems associated with discs slipping and trapping nerves (different from mechanical problems where manipulation or exercise may be a remedy) or referred pain from some other condition - when I had a back pain problem (broadly) some years ago I was sent for a chest X-ray in case I had a lung tumour pressing against the spine (I didn't). So back pain can be very difficult to diagnose as it may have multiple causes, and be difficult to address. Some causes will respond to e.g manipulation and exercise regimes, others very definitely won't. Most specialists are specialists in their particular problem area. At times it may just be a matter of ruling things out, rather than quick identification. There are often no quick or sure fixes for chronic back pain, and little pain relief medication which is helpful and can be used long-term. Don't want to sound depressing, but don't hope either for miracles or believe that a 'good' doctor can sort it. Some of the diagnostic tools (full MRI for instance) don't come cheap, and NHS practices will aim to avoid over-use. And some remedies (like CT guided spinal injections of steroids) aren't normally available on the NHS. And some remedies (e.g. spinal surgery) have pretty serious possible side effects, like paralysis. The NHS tends to look for palliatives for chronic back-pain where they can (acute may be different, and opioids can address this, which aren't useful for chronic conditions).

The letter the council has sent out states 51,000 street properties impacted. The income expected would not just pay for the garden waste collection but also the entire foo waste collections. Effectively this proposed scheme is a tax on some who volunteer for all the food waste collections. This assumes that all 51k households will opt for garden waste collection - generating an annual revenue of ?1.53m. This accounts, as far as I can see, for under 10% of payments made to Veolia by Southwark (you can google for these though very up to date figures aren't available) - although these payments may cover more than just waste collection. Assuming Veolia costs are split 50:50 between organic waste and inorganic recycling/ non recyclables (as there are two collections a week) then that ?1.53m covers under 20% of the costs of Organic recycling. Southwark spends around ?65m on current account for Environment and Regeneration, I'm guessing no more than a third or less on waste collection. My guess is that the ?1.53m will not cover all of Southwark's organic recycling waste collection - and that is assuming that everyone with a large brown bin will decide to pay the tax and keep their bins. And the practice of many other boroughs not to collect garden waste at all, or to charge for it, suggests that a court challenge to this would not fly. This is not to support the proposal - which I think is ill-thought through and the processes for which appear to be stupid and costly - nor is it to support the council's clear desire to move as much revenue stream as it can off its Council Tax books to give it price-hike freedom, but I think you may have over-egged the pudding here in your analysis. Happy to stand corrected if you have access (or had access) to better Veolia contract cost figures.

It goes against what the majority of people who took part in the survey said they wanted, and will have a huge impact on everyone living in the area. But it doesn't (1) go against Tooley St.'s stated policy to drive cars out of the borough or (2) their desire to create revenue streams off-community charge or (3) in order to further aims 1 and 2 above to ensure that decisions will force neighbouring locations to clamour in their turn for a CPZ to exclude 'foreign' cars from their streets. This is not and never has been about meeting the needs of local residents - these are just a wedge for a far wider agenda. Herne Hill (Lambeth, not Southwark) is a good example of a listening council here - with a limited CPZ around a station, on limited hours. Something you won't see in Southwark (or I think Lewisham) with a very different agenda.

New Southwark question - 'and how would you vote if the alternative was for your children to be sold into slavery and your spouse's brain hooked out with a boat-hook? Oh, it looks like 100% in favour of a CPZ, then!' Putting in a consequential in a survey like that is deplorable, once again confirming that politicians, certainly in Southwark, cannot be trusted and certainly cannot be respected.

I thought biomass was being used for energy by Veolia. If so, charging for the one thing being put to good use seems... odd. Veolia's finances and Southwark's are entirely separate. I assume Southwark, in determining the fee they pay Veolia will have factored in 'value' in the waste collected - of course if less garden waste is collected because of price rationing then Veolia may be able to claim a higher fee from Southwark for waste collection, depending on the terms of their outsourced deal. But the ?30 annual fee is going to Southwark as a further tax on residents, it is not going to Veolia (although if they have to incur further costs by Southwark's action they may be able to be recompensed for that). Delivery of new bins and collection of old ones, if Veolia does that, will be charged out to Southwark, I'm sure, and reasonably. But Veolia's income streams, and Southwark's are connected only through the outsourcing fee paid by one to the other.

Ah, so the answer to the food waste is we put the bags in the tiny brown caddies and our large brown bins are taken away if we don't subscribe. Could not see that spelt out anywhere. No, I think they will issue, on request, 'kerb-side caddies' - with about 3-4 times the capacity of the tiny kitchen caddies. And you will not be able to put any kitchen waste in a large brown bin, even if you have retained one. They will now only be for garden waste.

Can uou pay cash for this service? I imagine you can buy the paper sacks for cash from an outlet, but the council suggests you can only pay for the brown bin service via credit (and I suppose debit) card, although they are examining a direct debit option for the future.

Although if all the people who use the garden waste collection service continue, or a good number of them, the same work levels will operate.