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

    • I think it's connected with the totem pole renovation celebrations They have passed now, but the notice has been there since then (at least that's when I first saw it - I passed it on the 484 and also took a photo!)
    • Labour was damned, no matter what it did, when it came to the budget. It loves go on about the black hole, but if Labour had had its way, we'd have been in lockdown for longer and the black hole would be even bigger.  Am I only the one who thinks it's time the NHS became revenue-generating? Not private, but charging small fees for GP appts, x-rays etc? People who don't turn up for GP and out-patient appointments should definitely be charged a cancellation fee. When I lived in Norway I got incredible medical treatment, including follow up appointments, drugs, x-rays, all for £200. I was more than happy to pay it and could afford to. For fairness, make it somehow means-tested.  I am sure there's a model in there somewhere that would be fair to everyone. It's time we stopped fetishising something that no longer works for patient or doctor.  As for major growth, it's a thing of the past, no matter where in the world you live, unless it's China. Or unless you want a Truss-style, totally de-regulated economy and love capitalism with a large C. 
    • If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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