E.D.Station controlled parking zone

[TheArtfulDogger]

I am getting pretty bored of this thread now, it's going to be discussed at Community Council (and everyone should attend to get their voices heard) and the consultation has been done so until a decesion is made I am going back to licking my

[northlondoner]

Thanks AD for sone much needed levity . And for the record I think Bsrber has got it dead wrong on this. But fair play to the bloke for his committment and engagement.

[fazer71]

buddug

Are you talking about the kind of fascist state we had under ken livingstone and the introduction of the congestion zone ? ken was voted in twice... I guess if he was in James?s position we wouldn?t have any say?.. democracy ?

do calm down you're going to do yourself a mischief.

first mate

have a read of the faq in the consultation information sheet it covers everything

and a CPZ can?t be run for free so what if the council makes a profit that profit will go to pay for salaries for council employees who are actual doing a job which needs doing ,,, for a change?.

gm99

That CPZ has been going for a short time let?s see what the situation is in 6-12 months.

What?s going on there now is not a true picture.

TheArtfulDogger

Enjoy?

Delaying the inevitable is only good for commuters and business owners who park all day in the spaces they should leave for their customers. They?ll have the option to pay ?525 a year for a permit, maybe they?ll then get the bus or car share or maybe they?ll get a business near where they live and let a local take over their business who knows.

CPZ?s have been introduced all over London and they seem to work.

They operate without much problem.

There few other alternatives for residents parking within 5 mins walk of a Tube or Train Station.

It?s inevitable may as well get it in now.

[Penguin68]

It?s inevitable may as well get it in now.

So, of course, is Death

[gsirett]

fazer71 Wrote:

> CPZ?s have been introduced all over London and

> they seem to work.

You should get a job as James Barbers chief of staff. He seems

to think that everybody wants a CPZ.

I lived under a CPZ (well established) for 18 months. Still had to park on the next street, got tickets , friends got towed, plumber charged an extra ?20, always feared that coming back from holiday there would be the dreaded "bay suspended" sign and my car gone. All in all a REALLY sh*te experience. Oh, and it cost me ?100/year for the privilage.

That was a similar situation to ED: we were about 1/2 mile from the tube station, I guess commuter parking had been the motive originally. I don't know how bad (if it was) the parking was before the CPZ there, but I know what it was like under a CPZ: terrible. It was certainly as bad, if not worse, than the current situation around here (I've been walking up Derwent Grove twice a day) I guess it was shear demand: lots of houses converted to flats, lots of affluent people with cars.

In that Southwark plan to reduce parking spaces AND will sell a 130% ratio of cars to spaces, is a CPZ really going to work here? REally ?

Edited to say: some CPZ do work, I'm sure. I had offices in SE1 for years and the CPZ's there did a very good job. I think this was becuase there was a relative (to here) low density of residents as it was manily offices

[fazer71]

Penguin68

Yes Death would also sort out the Parking problem.

Are you waiting for the next plague or offering to sacrifice yourself?

[easytiger]

Nice to see a comical side developing here.

What i do not find comical is james barber taking down the notices in the community notice boards, AGAIN. This is the third time he has taken down a notice that is informing people of the up and coming meetings to discuss the CPZ in ED.

James, you really are a piece of work and selfish. Readers, i am not making this personal. But he is.

[gsirett]

easytiger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nice to see a comical side developing here.

>

> What i do not find comical is james barber taking

> down the notices in the community notice boards,

> AGAIN. This is the third time he has taken down a

> notice that is informing people of the up and

> coming meetings to discuss the CPZ in ED.

>

> James, you really are a piece of work and selfish.

> Readers, i am not making this personal. But he is.

Easy EasyTiger: thats a pretty seroius allegation (even by my standards). How do you know it's councillor Barber?

[James Barber]

I've have not taken down any notices telling people about any community councils. I'm usually the one placing them.

I did originally take down notices about the CPZ making wild assertions about Southwark Council - but it is a Southwark COuncil notice board and I don't want all material controlled by the press office if it ever discovered what had been put up.

Throughout I have suggested people make their view known and attend the community councils - it was my request to cabinet cllr Barrie Hargrove that he allow community councils to review the officer papers and make their recommendations to him - which he kindly agreed to. Otherwise this would have been all decided by him in December.

I get sent community council poster/notices by the committee chair and I place them when next passing notice boards.

I also get frustrated at them being removed. I don't know who has the keys for them near Grove Vale. Also the locks on Melbourne Grove notice board appears to have been changed so I've not been able to place a community council poster their for some time.

[gsirett]

"I did originally take down notices about the CPZ making wild assertions about Southwark Council "

James. I think you need to be clear with people here. What EXACTLY did you take down? - is it your position to decide what the public see in these things ?

I'm guessing only councillors have access to these?

[peckhamboy]

In fairness to James, I don't believe that anything he does is malicious or ill-intended, and there has been discussion on here previously about initially removing the posters advertising the consultation after the consultation had ended. My recollection is that although that was done in good faith, since the posters also had details of the council meetings, they were subsequently restored. And I believe that there are community keyholders as well as council keyholders so james is not the only person with access to the boards.

On the whole, james seems to have been a good councillor, and one who is willing to put his head above the parapet and actively engage with both his own constituents and others in the ED community. Nobody wants him to be put off from doing that so let's play the ball not the man on this and keep discussion to the CPZ itself.

[fazer71]

From what James has written it's clear.

He removed notices which should never have been on the notice board placed there by someone who had no business posting notices there.

Pretty clear though he could have made it even clearer for the hard of reading.

Sounds like Monkey business / Politics as usual then?

Edit to add

+ what peckhamboy said

[grumpyoldman]

Since writing Controversial which has been moved to the Lounge.

I have been reading a lot of the comments made, and although this is a public forum, there is a possibility that the comments on here could be construed as Libel.

To save people looking it up please find the page from Wikipedia below:

Defamation?also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)?is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[2][not specific enough to verify] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[3] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[4][not verified in body]

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[5] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[5]

In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.[6]

A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a famacide, defamer, or slanderer. The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.

[Loz]

easytiger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James, you really are a piece of work and selfish.

> Readers, i am not making this personal.

I'm not actually sure how you could make that sentence *more* personal...

[easytiger]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've have not taken down any notices telling

> people about any community councils. I'm usually

> the one placing them.

> I did originally take down notices about the CPZ

> making wild assertions about Southwark Council -

> but it is a Southwark COuncil notice board and I

> don't want all material controlled by the press

> office if it ever discovered what had been put

> up.

>

> Throughout I have suggested people make their view

> known and attend the community councils - it was

> my request to cabinet cllr Barrie Hargrove that he

> allow community councils to review the officer

> papers and make their recommendations to him -

> which he kindly agreed to. Otherwise this would

> have been all decided by him in December.

>

> I get sent community council poster/notices by the

> committee chair and I place them when next passing

> notice boards.

> I also get frustrated at them being removed. I

> don't know who has the keys for them near Grove

> Vale. Also the locks on Melbourne Grove notice

> board appears to have been changed so I've not

> been able to place a community council poster

> their for some time.

I am quoting James's post so there is a record directly on here, should he decide to delete or edit posts as he has done so.

James has admitted to taking down public notices placed by residents and SSBA members which were there to alert the public of this CPZ. He took them down.

The posters have never made wild assertions about Southwark council but have been designed to make people aware about what is going down and who to contact.

The one on Northcross rd has been removed and JB is the keyholder.

[Otta]

Of the Southwark owned notice board? And if JB is the only key holder, as you seem to be suggesting, why would he take down something which, to follow your logic, he would have had to have put up in the first place?

[Chippy Minton]

"libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)?is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published."

Looks like there's going to a hell of a lot of people on the EDF suing each other!

[easytiger]

Read above again otta. JB has taken them down before and is A keyholder of the board. He did not put up the SSBA's notice to public about the cpz.

[Otta]

My mistake, when you said "JB is THE keyholder" you seemed to be implying something altogether different.

Silly me.

[James Barber]

The keys are standard across Soutwark notice boards. So my guess is several hundred sets across Southwark.

I explained ages ago that I took the first anti Southwark Council CPZ notice down. The notice boards are Southwark Council property.

Currently the notice boards are left to locals to use. My fear then and still is that if anti Soutwark notices are placed then local discretion might be removed and our community and others would lose out and we might've need to submit em via some central Southwark Council function.

If Southwark were to allow partial notices it would be legally required to ensure balance.

The whole thing a minefield which is why after the first notice I'd hoped it wouldn't crop up again.

[Jasmina]

I live on Tintagel Crescent and I'm against the CPZ scheme. My neighbours that I've spoken to are also against the scheme. I'm wondering if there is anyone on Tintagel or Elsie Road who supports this scheme?

[gsirett]

Jasmina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I live on Tintagel Crescent and I'm against the

> CPZ scheme. My neighbours that I've spoken to are

> also against the scheme. I'm wondering if there

> is anyone on Tintagel or Elsie Road who supports

> this scheme?

You need to speak to councillor barber, he knows loads of people who support the scheme. Apparently

[milk76]

Plenty pro on Derwent. Two to one in favour on a forty percent response rate. Please approve the scheme here at least for a trial peroid.

[DJKillaQueen]

But that still means that only 26.6 % of people on Derwent expressed a positive response....that's hardly the majority of people living there is it?

[Loz]

milk76 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plenty pro on Derwent. Two to one in favour on a forty percent response rate. Please approve the

> scheme here at least for a trial peroid.

Only if CPZ permit holders are banned from parking in other residential streets. Why should we share with you if you won't share with us?