Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, march46 said:

It’s strange how some drivers think they should be entitled to store their private property in the public realm for free.

The residential  roads in this area were laid out in the mid 1800s, before cars or bicycles were invented.  What do you think they were intended for if not for vehicles?  Public roads are for public use.  It just so happens that we have moved on from the type of vehicles we had in the 1800s to the ones we have now.  Repeating this nonsense about "the public realm" or whatever as if people who own cars were less entitled to use use the public roads after more than a century of precedent is pointless.AColdmanCohorsedrawncartinEastDulwichin1920s.thumb.jpg.3c664ca9c8dc57b3e301735bf953192a.jpg

  • Like 3
13 hours ago, Andrea Mac said:

Yes - you will pay extra to park everywhere in Southwark except for your paid for parking permit zone that will be maybe 2 streets 

That has certainly been the case for the original (actual parking pressure caused) CPZs. And it would be the most effective revenue earning choice here (which is what this is all about) - but in reality, where there isn't any actual parking pressure having a much wider zone would make perfect sense - so, I suppose, don't expect that.  Ideally the council would issue many more permits than in any one (limited) space zone thus guaranteeing more fines! Offering a much higher per diem revenue profile.

But actually I don't believe the council has declare any formal decision here.

Of course, they will be aiming for as close to 24/7 coverage for the CPZs as they can - but will the extend the time period for existing CPZs to whatever the maximum will be in the bits of Southwark that aren't under parking pressure - as they are so sold on equity? I wonder how well that might do down?

On 29/07/2023 at 23:57, Charles Martel said:

The residential  roads in this area were laid out in the mid 1800s, before cars or bicycles were invented.  What do you think they were intended for if not for vehicles?  Public roads are for public use.  It just so happens that we have moved on from the type of vehicles we had in the 1800s to the ones we have now.  Repeating this nonsense about "the public realm" or whatever as if people who own cars were less entitled to use use the public roads after more than a century of precedent is pointless.AColdmanCohorsedrawncartinEastDulwichin1920s.thumb.jpg.3c664ca9c8dc57b3e301735bf953192a.jpg

Yes, in the mid 1800s every household had 1, 2 or even 3 horse and carts parked outside their house

Sports utility carts with 2 horses were quite popular in this area as well

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
2 hours ago, redpost said:

Yes, in the mid 1800s every household had 1, 2 or even 3 horse and carts parked outside their house

Sports utility carts with 2 horses were quite popular in this area as well

Not in the Village as they all had off street stabling and enjoyed priority access to the track network.  

Plenty of debate around LTNs in the media today, whatever one thinks of 'Fishy's' motivation for deciding to look at it, no bad thing to try to get better scrutiny. It may have more of an impact on Southwark's goal of a borough-wide CPZ too.

Only way to try to get a proper debate via a properly democratic process is to sign up https://opposethecpz.org/2023/07/27/southwark-wide-petition/

They wouldn't have got the money if they hadn't produced a case.  Money was dolled out by TfL who I'm sure would have lawyers sign the case off.  Do you know how national and local government do business?  

One only hears about the occasional case where government gets things wrong and is overturned by the courts. Usually because the policy was rabid such as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Let's have some other political discussions, far more interesting.  So I've said a Brown government returning in 2010 would have already been charging the most polluting cars 

A Corbyn government?  Think this would have been more disastrous for the environment than Sunak's current intentions.  I reckon he would have not have coped with Covid but perhaps would have had a better back room team 

Ps this thread is about CPZs not LTNs or what if politics

Edited by malumbu

Every politician, at every level, is a snollygoster then!

Malumbu, we can definitely agree on one thing, Corbyn would have been an absolutely disaster, on most fronts, for this country! Backbenchers are there for a reason and his rise to lead Labour was a great example of the power behind the scenes needs not to be more important than the person weilding the power!

To be fair only seconded by Ed being chosen over David! If only, if only, if only...hindsight is a powerful thing...

Meanwhile on Twitter one of the councillors who berated TFL for telling the truth about disruption and displacement caused by the LTNs tries to tell people what's "really happening" in Dulwich....its all going a bit Comical Ali....

 

https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1685909438735998976?t=N1HQCR_Wb4pPrs4GiHzw0g&s=19

  • Like 1
1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Meanwhile on Twitter one of the councillors who berated TFL for telling the truth about disruption and displacement caused by the LTNs tries to tell people what's "really happening" in Dulwich....its all going a bit Comical Ali....

 

https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1685909438735998976?t=N1HQCR_Wb4pPrs4GiHzw0g&s=19

Even more offensive is Leeming's comment about the extra traffic on the South Circular.  Some of us live here and have as much right to feel that the LTNs aren't working, especially when I'm a carer for my elderly mother who has breathing difficulties since it was implemented.  (And no, she doesn't smoke!)

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Meanwhile on Twitter one of the councillors who berated TFL for telling the truth about disruption and displacement caused by the LTNs tries to tell people what's "really happening" in Dulwich....its all going a bit Comical Ali....

 

https://twitter.com/RM_Leeming/status/1685909438735998976?t=N1HQCR_Wb4pPrs4GiHzw0g&s=19

Bless him, he's obviously swallowed the blue pill and woken up after a lovely dream that people willingly give up their cars because he believes it  

I believe in LTNs I do I do I do 😅

Well I believe in measures to reduce  the numbers of vehicles on the road.  I'll let others decide how best but the status quo can't be an option.  This thread and similar ones have been slagging off LTNs, ULEZ expansion and the extension of CPZs for months if not years without providing viable alternatives.

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Well I believe in measures to reduce  the numbers of vehicles on the road.  I'll let others decide how best but the status quo can't be an option.  This thread and similar ones have been slagging off LTNs, ULEZ expansion and the extension of CPZs for months if not years without providing viable alternatives.

Do you want to live in a democracy or a dictatorship?  Unfortunately it seems that the only way you can get what you want is if the rest of us have no choice in the matter.  There was a proposal for a CPZ across a wide area in East Dulwich in 2019.  Most residents rejected the proposal and that was respected.  As recently as November 2022 writing in the SE22 magazine councillor McAsh reiterated this democratic principle.

"As you may remember, the zone was conceived in response to demand from local residents and its boundaries were drawn to offer controlled parking to the highest possible number of people who wanted it, whilst imposing it on the smallest possible number of those who did not."

Now, mere months later, it seems he has changed his mind. Now everyone gets a CPZ with no say in the matter, whether they want one or not.  The abandoning of the previously established democratic process is clearly due to the fact that allowing people a say would give the wrong result.  Now McAsh simply has to dictate how much ordinary families will have to pay him for parking their family cars outside their family homes. 

 

McAsh_CPZ_1024.thumb.jpg.7ddf9ab912d39b3e9e3829148495e7e1.jpg

So the Tories are calling for an MP to resign after claiming expenses for a parking fine while at work. The process has been overhauled to make it easier to follow - which is fair.

Good to see the Tories now have such high standards of integrity. If they applied the same stringency to their own party, it would be a very small number remaining.

How our politicians like to deflect and shine bad light on anyone, to show themselves in a better light, comparatively.

We know the Tories have no respect for the people but they also think we are stupid to not see that.

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

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block.
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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