northlondoner

OK fair play - that actually did make me laugh!

A grand total of 216 people out of the 2,148 properties surveyed voted in favour of your scheme. If the vote had gone the way I had wanted i would have been glad - but wouldn't have performed the intellectual gymnastics to persuade myself and others that it was anything other than a bullshit result of a bullshit process.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How exactly is the consultation 'bogus'? It was > asked for by the people, voted on by the people > and supported by the people. Or in your eyes was > it the wrong sort of people? The phrase "the people" commonly means a groundswell of opinon or a popular movement. A 52 per cent majority of an 18% turnout sounds more like "some people" rather than " the people". How many of "the people" were cryigng out for this "consultation"? And if by "emotional" you mean "objecting to wishes of a tiny band of agitators being foisted on the rest of us" or "irritated by a miniscule minoruty presuming to speak for 'the people' "...then so be it. At least have the grace to acknowledge that there is litte popular support for this scheme.

rupert james Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Perhaps you should ask from the 18% turnout who > was for and who was against. > > That would give you a better idea of how the > decision was arrived at. > > From experience if 10 people vote for something, 6 > for and 4 against southwark will say 60% were in > favour and forget those against. I think I know how the decision was arrived at. And its nothind to do with the abysmal 18% turnout. Here are the council's own words. " In the last complete year, the approximate figure for permit fees from residents was ?1.3 million and the approximate figure from visitors parking was ?275,000. The remainder was from business permits and suspensions." This is without the fees raked in from parking fines.

I think the majroity was closer to 52 per cent. Remenber - that's just over half of the 18% of local residents who voted. There is clearly no mandate for this scheme - which will affect the quality of life for hundreds of people. If the council had an iota of integrity it would make it quite clear that its scheme atttacted miniscule amounts of support amongst the commuity it's supposed to serve . Instead you have to badger and dig before it diviulges the 18% turnpout figure. Utterly shameful. But those facing similar shcemes must stand warned that so far as Southwark is concened , silence means consent.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Strange how democracy becomes North Korean when > you don?t get the outcome you wanted! I campaigned > heavily for a YES vote and the truth about what > happened is simple. The council was not remotely > interested in giving a CPZ consultation as > previous toastrack votes had always been ?no?. > > The parking situation had got vastly worse and > several residents, including myself had > independently been setting up campaign groups to > get the situation looked at again. We all worked > together very effectively to talk to the council > who made clear the only way that a consultation > was happening was if over 250 local residents > signed a petition asking for a consultation to > happen and acknowledging the cost. > > This led to many months of work on peoples > doorsteps and leafletting trying to build local > support for a CPZ. We were overwhelmed by > responses, and presented a petition to the council > at a public meeting last summer where the case for > a CPZ consultation was put to them. They voted in > favour of the peoples request (e.g. they listened > to the will of the people and acted on it). > > I also spent a lot of time during the month long > voluntary consultation campaigning for a yes vote > and to a lesser exent during the statutory one > too. At each point the message was clear, the > democratic majority of the people voted yes not no > for a CPZ. The council commented in writing that > there was statistically significant turnout at the > voluntary consultation (far more than usual which > is about 5-10%). > > Ultimately this went through because people > campaigned hard for a Yes vote and the No vote > didn?t try to campaign against the CPZ. I > appreciate not everyone likes the CPZ result, but > I find the suggestion that its being imposed by a > tiny number is simply not true ? this has been an > intensely democratic process with the people > setting the agenda and the council acceding to > their requests. > > I am delighted that the CPZ is coming and cannot > wait for the peace quiet and calm that it will > bring to the Toastrack. I cannot wait for the life > changing difference it is going to make to elderly > residents, disabled residents and parents with > young families, many of whom have told us (often > whilst deeply upset) about the stress that not > being able to park is causing them. This is not > about not being able to park outside your house, > its about getting palliative care nurse visits > cancelled. Its about people spending upwards of an > hour waiting for a space to appear nearly half a > mile away with tired toddlers and then trying to > handle shopping. Its about people withdrawing > their child to nursery because there wont be a > space for the other mobility impaired child on > their return (who doesn?t qualify for a disabled > badge). Its about another elderly almost > housebound resident with limited mobility being > unable to park and soiling themselves in the car > while they waited for a space. Its about not > having to call the police because of fight s > breaking out between non resident drivers over > parking spaces. > > I am over the moon that this will all soon be a > bad memory. I am only to happy to pay a tiny > amount of money for the peace of mind that it will > bring and the difference to peoples lives it will > make. > > Thank god for democracy, it seems here to have > been thriving and flourishing and anything but > 'North Korean'. The council's bogus "consultation" exercise got an 18% response rate. So the selfish wishes of a miniscule minority are being imposed on the rest of us. That is not democaracy. The council has an acgtive policy of silence equals consent. Again - not not democratic - and yes....highly north korea.

Council are imposing the cpz here despite having a tiny vote in favour. Odious. Very North Korea

Maybe call then directly?

Yep another vote for Blenheim Motors. Got them from recommendations on here. They Revived my ailing Peugeot . Super accommodating and straightforward and honest. A definite keeper :)

Hang on ...has this been confirmed? Very bad news if it has. Yes a lovely couple...very accommodating of my chromic indecision over a birthday gift once.

Really sorry to hear this. I hope the times you've shared together, live on.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No offence but clearly someone with nothing better > to do. First world problems and all that. The guys > are doing a job, give them a break, all this > health and safety bull it does my head in. Who > actually stops and takes a photograph anyway? > Really? > > Louisa. Yeah sounds kind of bedwetting. But you should read the thread about the guy puzzling over which bin to put his printer in.Priceless

Race. Class. Kids. Parenting. Smart ass remarks. This has the makings of a classic EDF thread ! Carry on ...

Looks great!

Mustard Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have lived in other parts of London, all built > up areas, and was never subjected to this kind of > onslaught before. > Some people are even setting them off in the > street, which is illegal. Wow. Get a grip.

Very good

James . Really. What did her ethnicity and class have to do with it? Did it make you smile and doff your cap?

Peckham - and the surrounding hype - seems to be on the up still. Been here close to a year and have really enjoyed it...despite being initially trepidatious..Does feel quite central and can have a great vibe - especially with all the bars, restaurants clubs and art etc.Transport links are a revelation.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point is that a technical infringement isn't > necessarily wrong/punishable. And also that > council vehicles are not subject to the same > restrictions as the rest of us, and there's no > point pretending they are. > > I'm contributing because to me this just looks > like misguided revenge. I'm being sarcastic > because it's in my nature. And also because, > naturally, I am a southwark camera car driver. There's this new thing called Twitter. Tweeting this photo might make an impression.

Salsaboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Illegal parking by a camera car whilst in pursuit > of illegal parking is not an offence. There is > case law about it somewhere, just can't remember > where. North Korea

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mickeymonkey Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Mustard Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > Hadn't thought of an asbo, just wanted an > idea > > if > > > this was normal behaviour now. It happens > > > frequently. Their English is poor, and they > > are > > > in social housing. They also do many other > > things > > > which aren't acceptable, such as congregate > > > outside with friends, smoke, and litter the > > > pavement with cigarette butts. They also > leave > > > broken down and discarded items outside the > > house > > > for months on end. It might be a cultural > > thing. > > > > > > Wow...... > > > Indeed. Well. Dear me

I think Seabag must be right and it must derive from a quarter off - but perhaps bastardised to "of"

It's American for a quarter to three

Only a matter of time before one of the usual suspects complains about the threat to cyclists posed by selfish blind people.

Oh an adulterous affair ?