Hemingway

Revoking article 50 wise? First of all it's never going to happen - for the tories it would be eectoral suicide Tories are never going to do it; and Labour could only achieve it via a GE with it in their manifesto (which would be electoral suicide) I voted remain and would vote remain agauin but so many remainers are delusional about the demand for either a second refeendum, which as it happens I think would probably return the same result, or far more worrying revoking article 50. This delusion really is echo chamber stuff.it's really not what much of the country is thinking. We'd end up with a significant, populist, proper Right Wng party with millions of voters.

Remainer here, but UK has not been in reccession since referendum. Recession is two quarters of negative growth not a reduced growth rate....as you were

That's it really. They should have the courage of their convictions and say Southwark Council is implementinfg this as they wish to curtail private car use on page 1 - than pretend it's anything to do with significant and majority local resident and business demand. It's a Labour council - anti-car, anti-business, anti 'private'/individualism ; there's an argument for all of these, largely based on top down paternalistic socialism but they shouldn't pretend it's something else.

I am sorry to hear you are ill Dulwich Fox But being really ill doesn't excuse potentially ruining someone's buisiness with ill informed and ignorant speculation just two days ago. And, at the end of your long post, you couldn't even say: "sorry, I was wrong"

mmmmmmm *strange* first post? Signed : A cynic

Of course, it's an insult to the vast majority of people living in poverty and lacking opportunity both in the UK (and more so globally) who don't resort to murder and crime to blame everything on Society/poverty

In case you haven't noticed practiaclly all of the active businessess on the Lane have stop the CPZ posters and petitions, I'll trust their judgement rather than a greedy Leaseowner. Accusing me of being childish! "LOL? What are you, six? Actually, that would explain a lot of your posting history" - straight out of the playground! You seem to make a habit of falling out with a lot of people on here - always their fault I notice. Maybe some self-reflection might help. I am sure you're fine in real life, on here you come over as bit of a tosser to be honest!

Oh gawd, I seem to have aroused the wrath of the EDF's angry Policeman LOL Kensington and Chelsea being comparable to SE22. I don't have complete knowledge of Wandswoth CPZ's but I think they tend to be in its central/high retail/high flat density areas, not East Dulwich type places. Unrelated, I hear The Palmerston is not getting its lease renewed, so is closing in June - I do fear for the Lane at the moment, and the CPZ will not help

So basically.. Top Down, statist goverment Anti-car Anti-Business Labour 2019 writ local

it's interesting, maybe even instructive, that nothing like that has happened in ED that I'm aware of. I've never heard anyone ever stalk about commuter stalking in 40+ years in London, so remain a but cynical it's a big 'thing' , certainly not in my part of SE22. By the way, being delayed for your own funeral sounds a mild inconvenince in the bigger picture.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James, > Once again thank you for taking the time to > respond. > > I appreciate that the council is a fan of CPZs > but, in the same way Brexit was sold to people on > the basis of untruths, the council?s materials are > full of examples and facts and figures that are > deliberately misleading. It tries to present > itself as balanced but is anything but. And we > have had members of this forum presenting the > stats in the consultation documentation as > validation of the good CPZs do. > > It seems to me that the majority of residents both > in the affected area and beyond are against the > CPZs but they also feel that the council will > manipulate and distort the results to their > advantage and will railroad the plans. Nothing > about the consultation process, or the way it is > being implemented, is reassuring them that this is > anything but a done deal and that the council is > doggedly pursuing an agenda of revenue generation > ahead of needs of the local community. > > The one fact that does stand up to scrutiny is > that parking in East Dulwich became a big issue > when the council extended the double yellows a > year or so ago within only the CPZ area which we > were sold on the basis of ?safety? but most saw as > a ploy to create parking pressure to help justify > a CPZ. > > If the council pursues this campaign it will do > irreparable harm to the Lordship Lane and East > Dulwich community that you represent and the > outpouring of resentment towards it on this forum > and beyond should serve as a red flag to the > council. Well said. I'll vote for anyone who opposes this in local elections

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > first mate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The introduction of 'commuter stalkers' as > another > > reason to proselytise for CPZ just seemed odd. > > > > Hemingway Wrote: > > > > I'm pointing out that in some areas, multiple > women told us how disturbed they were to discover > that random commuters were intentionally seeking > out their car to parallel park next too, often in > the early dark hours and wait for them to drive > away. I'm sure you can see how this may make > people uncomfortable, and how a CPZ promptly stops > it and agree that this is a definite advantage of > a CPZ. 'Multiple women told us' - who is this 'us'? Are you a Southwark Council employee or a councillor?

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hemingway Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Oh that sounds likley - stick 'commuter > stalking' > > as a reason for CPZ in the consultation > document. > > jimLad for someone who doesn't live in the > area, > > and if i recall doesn't have a car, you seem to > be > > a very vocal presecence on this thread.... > > Sorry, could you point me to the rules on the > website that bar non 'local' people from > commenting please? > > I am offering factual practical advice on our > experience to help inform peoples decision making. > I am very open about the fact that I actively > campaigned for a CPZ, and I am very clear on the > benefits we have accrued from it. I am offering a > different perspective based on the experience of > what actually has happened when it was > implemented. I appreciate not everyone supports > CPZs, but surely good debate is about offering > both perspectives, not an echo chamber? > > I wasn't aware this was a crime. I also joined EDF > many years ago as a good source of local advice, > and have posted on a variety of topics. Heaven > forbid me for trying to participate in a > discussion forum with views you don't agree > with... I didn't say you couldn't post, anyone can, just pointing out that you don't live in the proposed area, live in an area where CPZ was imposed but there wasn't a strong and vibrant high street that will be effected , and you don't have a car. Feels like you do have an agenda though.......

Oh that sounds likley - stick 'commuter stalking' as a reason for CPZ in the consultation document. jimLad for someone who doesn't live in the area, and if i recall doesn't have a car, you seem to be a very vocal presecence on this thread....

'meanwhile in the real world people are starving', or something similar

roywj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jimlad48 gives a good insight. > > If you are unsure about the effects of a CPZ being > implemented in East Dulwich have a look at the > positive effect it has had locally in areas such > as Herne Hill, Sunray Avenue, roads on the Denmark > Hill Estate and last week Village Way. Even have a > look on google maps and you will see a huge > difference. > > People are also missing the fact that there are a > lot of cars parked up that do not move for months > at a time. I've noticed that many have been moved > from Village Way onto East Dulwich Grove taking up > valuable parking spaces. These are in addition to > a number that have been parked on the road listed > for sale but never seen to be sold. I understand > there was a similar issue on East Dulwich Road. A > CPZ will end these issues. None of those areas have a strong, big independent retail high street which will be damaged by CPZ

jimlad - I dont doubt your experience but as you said earlier 'your life was miserable before the CPZ' for most of us, on the east side of Lordship Lane, that is just not the case - so there's no real benefit just increased inconvenience (visitors/tradesmen etc), an increase in cost and a real threat to the independent retailers on Lordship Lane that many of us love. I've no doubt CPZ can help those near a station/hospital where daytime commuter parking is an issue - and it may well be near East dulwich station but that's just not the case where I live, which is 100 yds from the strip!

All the shops/bars I like on Lordship Lane have posters up against the CPZ - the ones that noticeably don't are the chains. That, by itself, tells you a story about who this will effect. Thanks James Mc for belatedly responding but better late than never so is appreciated

Well. I hope James Barber is standing again becuase I'll be voting for people who engage with their local constituents whatever party they belong to, and he used to be present and engage, including with criticism. Momentum Marxists obviously far too busy fighting the class war to speak to the voters that they represent

well, his last activity was today so he's definitely logged on and I suspect looked at this thread....let's see how much of a democratic socialists he is. Our local councillors, not just James, really need to not just ignore their constituents.

I've emailed them, heard nothing.

Can local councillors and candidates tell us where they stand on this issue for the record? this is a chance to engage us in local politics after all.

A fairly subjective and slightly typical and delusional remainer assessment. From the start of this post can I say I voted Remain and would do if we get another referendum, but the false narratives, contempt for people of a different viewpoints and delusional group think that many remainers have, (manifested in much of this thread) really makes me fairly sceptical. And, I don't support another referendum nor think it would change the result. For starters, David Cameron didn't just call the referendum to sort out internal tensions in the tory party. The EU parliament, the body we are so distressed about leaving (although under 40% of us bothered voting in the last Euro elections) the UKIP is our biggest party in the EU Parliament, that's a democratic reality not internal tory politics - in an alternative world, without Brexit, I'm pretty sure we'd have seen a similar result in the May euro elections approaching- Elections that are likely to return a far more Eurosceptic result from Germany and France by the way. Secondly UKIP got 12.5% of the vote in 2015, well above the Liberal Democrats and nothing to do with Tory Party internal politics. Finally, the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that promised a referendum in 2015 and got a surprise majority, I don't believe the two are unrelated and not to have offered a referendum would have been a democratic betrayal. All of these were well before all the supposed manipulation of the plebs by Cambridge Analytics/illegal funding etc etc etc all red herrings. I wish we hadn't have had a referendum and were still in but many remainers are in absolute denial about the reasons we are where we are as your post illustrates far too well Jenny. May's withdrawal deal is not great but it's broadly the best we are going to get and we should accept it to avoid the potential catastophe of no-deal and then hope we get some adults in to negotiate better on the actual trade deal with the EU.

and Macron is a deeply unpopular French President faced with proper social unrest at home, although this does tend to go with the territory of 'French President'

"in as least as" - personally, and for the absolute clarity you and RendelH seem to seek, I think France has more problems right now than we do. Away from Social Media and the polarised positions of the 'Brexitremist' and 'FBPE(?) Remoaners' (in paranthesis to be clear I'm referring to what they call each other, not my views before yopu strta jumping around) I really see very little evidence that we are 'tearing ourselves apart' may well change but right now? nah