Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Southwark Council...let's be charitable, there is an element of transparency and accountability with them. You may not agree with them (90% of the time I don't), but there you go. And before I'm accused, the only relationship I have with them is as a council tax payer.


Now, EDIBA. They're responsible for the posters up and down LL. I've only asked two shop owners, and they had never heard of EDIBA. They just agreed to put posters up for someone.


EDIBA are referenced as a respondee to their CPZ consultation.


Next - the validity of the facts has now been debated on my other thread to death with no agreement.


Who is EDIBA? There's no contact. Not even an anonymous email address or even PO Box. They're more secret than the Masons.


Or are ED residents happy for completely anonymous organisations to campaign on their behalf?

In answer to your question


I am happy for the traders to be part of the overall response to the CPZ


However I find it sinister that you seem to have a vendetta and that you are also anonymous


Who are you, what's your email, how do we contact you, what's your address


It's no good saying at the traders are hiding if you do the same 🤔

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

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

> In answer to your question

>

> I am happy for the traders to be part of the

> overall response to the CPZ

>

> However I find it sinister that you seem to have a

> vendetta and that you are also anonymous

>

> Who are you, what's your email, how do we contact

> you, what's your address

>

> It's no good saying at the traders are hiding if

> you do the same 🤔


PM me, all will be revealed!

Why start another new thread on the subject you started your previous thread on? Makes no sense, and actually gives the impression that, well, you seem obsessed with this topic, let it rest man. Have you considered that the posters may have been produced for and by a group rather than an individual?


If you had a business that was threatened you'd surely do something to raise awareness and protect your livelihood, wouldn't you?

I would guess that they are an association comprised of independent businesses in East Dulwich.


They are not campaigning on behalf of anyone except for the members of that association.


They are not funded by compulsory taxation threat of imprisonment and so to compare them to the council is absurd.

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> Southwark Council...let's be charitable, there is

> an element of transparency and accountability with

> them. You may not agree with them (90% of the

> time I don't), but there you go. And before I'm

> accused, the only relationship I have with them is

> as a council tax payer.

>

> Now, EDIBA. They're responsible for the posters

> up and down LL. I've only asked two shop owners,

> and they had never heard of EDIBA. They just

> agreed to put posters up for someone.

>

> EDIBA are referenced as a respondee to their CPZ

> consultation.

>

> Next - the validity of the facts has now been

> debated on my other thread to death with no

> agreement.

>

> Who is EDIBA? There's no contact. Not even an

> anonymous email address or even PO Box. They're

> more secret than the Masons.

>

> Or are ED residents happy for completely anonymous

> organisations to campaign on their behalf?


Get a life.

This, your second thread, is moving from bizzarre to sinister. You clearly have a very tedious axe to grind. Maybe it's you who should be open or more transparent? If not, it's just somemone unknown on the internet trying to undermine local businesses and the results of the consultation because presumably you don't like the consensus

alice Wrote:

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

> Nobody wants the CPZ.

>

> Elaborate arguments only serve to muddle and

> mystify.


25% of those who responded supported the CPZ.


Blanket generalisations also serve to muddle and mystify.

One of the EDIBA spokespeople at last Saturday's meeting mentioned they had heard the concerns of residents who wanted a CPZ and EDIBA were suggesting alternative arrangements.


Does anyone know what those are or how we can find out about them?

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.).

Well this thread was not supposed to be about the CPZ but some people can't help themselves. To reiterate, I don't care about the CPZ and wouldn't vote either way on it.


I would like to politely contact EDIBA about something. A one line email. They can either respond, or ignore me. I'm not going to waste my time chasing them.


I've contacted Southwark council on many occasion; they humour me and provide me with info.


Instead I've been drawn into some weird Little Britain episode here, only without the humour.


EDIBA are like a cult; everyone draws around them and denies their existence, yet at the same time promotes them.


Anyone who dares to try and ask a simple question is shot down in an amateur hail of crappy insults. It's beyond weird. It's beyond far out. It's nuts.

write to your councillor, copy to Richard Livingstone, complaining that the council is re-publishing and may be taking notice of the views of an organisation which appears to have no substance ie no name/address/email/twitter etc.


I think they must have given more detail to the council otherwise they could not have received any opinion from them ie the opinions of this group must have been sent by email or by post. If by email then there will be an email address, if by post then I would assume some sort of signature and address and phone no.


However, if the council persists without explanation (they might say that given the level of confrontation and hostility on this issue the shopkeepers who comprise it fear a boycott if their names are published) then I would start to use the council's complaints procedure which rapidly escalates to the Local Government Ombudsman.

there must be a reason why the people behind this are not disclosing their names. This thread doesn't reach everyone in ED (or even probably a high proportion) but no one is coming forward to say "it's me/us".


They are well-defended but not by people with names.


The posters are being put up in shops but the owners of the shops disclaim all knowledge of whose they are. That seems weird to me but shop-keepers want all their customers and 25% voted for a CPZ.


that's one reason I thought of -- it could be wrong -- I couldn't think of another but I expect others can.

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.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

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.


I was going to suggest that. Two shops aren't enough; maybe if 6+ shopkeepers had no idea, then Lowlander would have a point. It is also possible that a young person, unrelated to the group, put the posters up with permission.

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> I don?t have photo. I happen to know two ship

> owners quite well, both have posters up but

> neither has heard of EDIBA but I?m never going to

> get around asking more in the foreseeable future.


It's no good talking to pirates LowLander, shop keepers are better then ship owners


Arrrggghhhhh, pieces of CPZ eight Jim Lad

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

    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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