Jump to content

Recommended Posts

eastdulwichlocal99 Wrote:

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

> This is a fair comment although it still fails to

> explain the logic in applying the CPZ boundaries.


I stand to be corrected but I suspect part of the issue is with Melbourne Grove. It is a long road and I think only around a third of it, closest to the station, was in favour of CPZ. The rest against. However, if it was viewed as one long road it would be a majority against. I think this might account for the North South approach that was introduced by the Council.

  • 2 weeks later...
The biggest scandal is how much weight the Council placed on "only" taking views on a street by street basis not by "area"- see earlier posts from Cllr McAsh as an example. Yet when it suits the Council, Melbourne Grove is dealt with as though it is two separate roads even though the majority was against CPZ, and roads closest to the station, school and health centre, are viewed as an "area". Of course, the "area" of East Dulwich was clearly against CPZ.

Yes I agree. To paint Blair/Brown supporting as ?centerist? is off the mark with their awful track record of Tory-lite policies which have bankrupted society literally and metaphorically. Hard right can lead to a swing to the other side as people express their disgust.

Stick to the issue of the impact of the CPZ please.

Peckhamnearbe Wrote:

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

> Yes I agree. To paint Blair/Brown supporting as

> ?centerist? is off the mark with their awful track

> record of Tory-lite policies which have bankrupted

> society literally and metaphorically. Hard right

> can lead to a swing to the other side as people

> express their disgust.

> Stick to the issue of the impact of the CPZ

> please.



What are you referring to in the first bit?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Would wholeheartedly recommend Aria. Quality work, very responsive, lovely guy as well. 
    • A positive update from Southwark Council - “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.“  
    • A solicitor is acting as the executor for our late Aunt's will.  He only communicates by letter which is greatly lengthening the process.  The vast majority of legal people deal by modern means - the Electronic Communications Act that allows for much, if not all of these means is now 25 years old.   Any views and advice out there? In fuller detail: The value of the estate is not high.  There are a number of beneficiaries including one in the US.  It has taken almost three years and there is no end in sight.  The estate (house) is now damp, mouldy and wall paper falling off the wall. The solicitor is hostile, has threatened beneficiaries the police (which would just waste the police's time), and will not engage constructively. He only communicates by letter.  These are poorly written, curt or even hostile, in a language from the middle of last century, he clearly is typing these himself probably on a type writer.  Of course with every letter he makes more money. We've taken the first steps to complain either through the ombudsman and/or the SRA.  We have taken legal advice a couple of times, which of course isn't cheap, and were told that his behaviour is shocking and we'd be in our right to have him removed through the courts. But.... we just want him to get on with executing the will, primarily selling the house. However he refuses to use any other form of communication but letter.  So writing to the beneficiary in the 'States can take a month to get a reply. And even in this country a week or more. Having worked with lawyers in the past I am aware that email, tele and video conferencing and even text and WhatApp are appropriate means for communication.  There could be an immediate response to his questions.   Help!        
    • Labour should be applauded for bringing in the Renter's Rights Act.  But so many of you are carried away with slagging them off. Married couples with busy lives sometimes forget who did what. On this occasion Mr Rachel Reeves was sorting out the rental agreement.  Ms Reeves was a bit flumoxed with all the grief/demonsing/witch hunts she is getting so forgot to check with her other half.   Not the first or last time this will happen with couples. (That's not having a go at the post above)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...