Melbourne Grove South CPZ consultation

[Sue]

22 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Forum Rules at the bottom of this page. Point 2:

• Post with respect towards others at all times. The following will not be tolerated:
  • Using insults or profanity directed at another forum member.
  • Trolling, i.e. intentionally instigating controversial arguments with the sole purpose of provoking reactions or winding up other forum members.
  • Questioning other forum members sanity or mental health.

Thank you, I haven't noticed  those before.

[Rockets]

Yes they are very clear and the fact @Earl Aelfheah still hasn't done anything to self-police the post and decided to double-down instead speaks volumes.

[Sue]

38 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes they are very clear and the fact @Earl Aelfheah still hasn't done anything to self-police the post and decided to double-down instead speaks volumes.

Well, it's always easy to find something to criticise others for.

I don't think Earl has ever been banned?

[malumbu]

This is all worthy of a separate thread as it is not necessarily black and white.  Profanities are fairly obvious and some (not in any of this and other recent threads) have been quite direct with me.  Oddly enough this is easier to deal with than other issues, if you swear you have lost any moral high ground and it hardly warrants a response.

However the subject of winding people up is a difficult one, in part as this may not have been the intention as in prose it is often not clear the tone in which the comments are being made - as opposed to face to face, or when you know someone personally (and in the latter case things quickly become 'normalised' often when they shouldn't be).  The question here is would you use this language to a colleague?

Light hearted comments can be construed by some as offensive/passive aggressive by others.

And there are some things that really wind me up but I usually refrain from comment.  Emojis could be used to like or dislike comments.  Smileys should be for when there is a fun conversation.  If someone posts a smiley after I have made a serious comment what am I supposed to feel?  Similarly if you find my post confusing tell me why don't post a confused face.  I find terms like the "usual suspects", "lobby" or "hee hee" unnecessary and this comes across as puerile/playground stuff.  Similarly being accused of being a troll.  But not sure if any of these are specifically covered in the forum rules. 

In all of this we should be more aware of our own behaviour.  There are some that I try to avoid anything that sounds personal as it may be misconstrued.  Others you can joust with.  I've made mistakes, at times though feel I've been criticised unfairly, but rarely feel that it is worth challenging. @Sue I know you have had your ding dongs too on other threads.  Hopefully not too many with me 😃 (meant in a self deprecating/jolly manor as I have a smile on my face).

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 hours ago, Rockets said:

Yes they are very clear and the fact @Earl Aelfheah still hasn't done anything to self-police the post and decided to double-down instead speaks volumes.

I have never questioned others sanity. I have edited the post anyway, as you are clearly exercised about it.

@Sue no I have never been banned or received any kind of warning. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Back to the MGS CPZ.

The reduced CPZ was meant to begin in October, subject to statutory consultation. There has been no further consultation and the newer version of the CPZ has not been imposed. Does anyone know why? In the last SE22 magazine our local Cllr made no mention in his roundup?

Does anyone know what is going on?

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I have never questioned others sanity. I have edited the post anyway, as you are clearly exercised about it.

Well done @Earl Aelfheah. It took a while but I am glad you self-policed, the forum rules are very clear that you cannot post that type of comment. Let's see if @Dogkennelhillbilly does the same.

1 hour ago, first mate said:

The reduced CPZ was meant to begin in October, subject to statutory consultation. There has been no further consultation and the newer version of the CPZ has not been imposed. Does anyone know why? In the last SE22 magazine our local Cllr made no mention in his roundup?

Does anyone know what is going on?

Has anyone seen or heard from Cllr McAsh in a local capacity since he won and lost the council leadership election? I see Charlie Smith seems to be doing the SE22 councillor page now. Might the CPZ consultation have been put on hold with council elections approaching next year?

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Has anyone seen or heard from Cllr McAsh in a local capacity since he won and lost the council leadership election?

Yes. He was actually very helpful in resolving an issue I had been chasing with the council for some time. 

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Does anyone know what is going on?

I don't. It might be worth emailing your local councillor if you haven't already.

Edited 11 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah given you have a channel open with him might you ask him about the latest on the CPZ and then you might be able to answer the question about it for the forum?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't have an 'open channel' - I emailed him about something I that was of concern to me. You can do the same.

[Rockets]

I don't live in his ward and he will only engage with those that do.

[march46]

Rockets perhaps you could suggest that @first mate does? I have tried but without success. 

[first mate]

I shouldn't have to. There ought to be publicly available information on CPZ implementation plans, especially for the streets involved, but it seems there is nothing. 

Rockets may have a point, perhaps this has all been put on the back burner until the elections are over.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I've sent an email to Cllr Richard Livingstone. I'll let you know if I get a response. 

[first mate]

Thanks Earl, is Cllr Livingstone now the Cabinet Member in charge of streets?