former East Dulwich councillor - how can I help?

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.

[fredricketts]

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and

the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

It is important to recognise that the majority of households in Southwark do not have access to a car and the needs of this majority must also be considered in the allocation of street space

Do these politicians live in cuckoo land? What survey has been done to come to this conclusion?

Manipulating the figures again to suite themselves, it?s a great democracy we live in, JUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD,

These politicians need a Toilet roll permantley around their necks, for the amount of cr*p that comes out of their mouths.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think it proves my point. You can either factor in those that didn't respond to the consultation or you can ignore them. But to pretend that basing a decision on something so low in turnout is some kind of overwhelming support is nonsense.

We have the same nonsense in elections too where a landlside of seats can equate to only a third of the votes cast. We have a strange understanding of democratic mandate in this country!

Whereas I believe politicians and authorities should be forced to work harder to win the kind of support that justifies the extent of their power and the decisions they make.

Back on the topic of the CPZ consultation though....what this debate shows, from all the questions and confusion on the form of the consultation, and the various interpretations and spin on the results, is that none of it can really be said to prove anything but a resounding no from many and a distinct lack of interest from many more.

Milk we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to think that those that did not participate should be taken into account (and efforts be made to find out why they did not take part on those roads that have voted yes) whereas you believe they don't count. Either way, before any street is considered for a CPZ in isolation, it would be wise to have a second, more clear cut consultation for those streets and those neighbouring streets that would be affected, with work done to up the response rate before any final decision is made imo.

[milk76]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Milk we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer

> to think that those that did not participate

> should be taken into account (and efforts be made

> to find out why they did not take part on those

> roads that have voted yes) whereas you believe

> they don't count. Either way, before any street is

> considered for a CPZ in isolation, it would be

> wise to have a second, more clear cut consultation

> for those streets and those neighbouring streets

> that would be affected, with work done to up the

> response rate before any final decision is made

> imo.

My disagreement is not that you chose to try to factor in those that did not wish to vote. It is that you chose to represent those non responders as being not in favour of the proposal. If yours is the preferred/less confusing/fairer/more accurate methodology then surely the statement "Of the total number of residents on Derwent Road only 15% are against a CPZ." Is one that you would endorse as the result of the consultation.

I, as a believer in the clearest and straightest interpritation of statistics being presented to the public choose not to present the data in such a woefully biased manner and more, think that stating 62% of Derwent residents on a 40% turnout were in favour of a CPZ was the truest representation of the facts. Equally 57% in favour in the option 5 region and 54% in favour in the option 4 region. I am happy to debate any other methodology of publication of the breakdown of results in these final proposed zones. I am resolute that you simply have some cheek accusing me of publishing confusing figures, in light of yours, and thus call you out as such. It's a public forum and the maths is not hard for others to read.

You just strike me as having a cheek accusing me of spinning data

[Chener Books]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> Let me try and explain how an election works

> simply for you. An electorate is defined and then

> they are polled. The votes cast are counted and

> listed as integers and as a percentage.

It was not an election.

But, yes, a consultation area was defined and the "votes" are in.

milk76 does not like the result and now wishes to change the "electorate".

John K

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm exasperated by milk's inability to accept that a yes vote has been definitively expressed by no more than 26% of residents when milk has claimed on both threads that most people are in favour on derwent lol. The only thing milk has said that makes sense to me is that there is no way of knowing how the absent 60% would have swung. I accept that which is why majority support is neither proven or disproven, so to claim it is, is denying the evidence of the facts.

[fazer71]

I'm exasperated by DJKillaQueen's inability to accept that a no vote has been definitively expressed by no more than 15% of residents.

+ Gooooaaaaalllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gsirett]

fazer71 Wrote:

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

> I'm exasperated by DJKillaQueen's inability to

> accept that a no vote has been definitively

> expressed by no more than 15% of residents.

>

>

> + Gooooaaaaalllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it's about twice the number who were in favour......democracy

[fazer71]

How is 15% Twice 26% ??? it's nearer 1/2...

:) ;)

I give up //////

[James Barber]

I wonder what people think of Scottish independeance?

Should only the people of Scotland (Derwent Grove) get to vote or should the whole UK (grisett and co) decide on Scottish independence.

Do people think that more than 50% of the whole population should vote for independence of just a majority?

Eitherway, it would be really appreciated if the CPZ thread could stay there.

[gsirett]

James, to use your analogy : you have asked Scotland to vote ( the rest of us live in England)

Scotland said "no", so now you want to use the results from Glasgow only to justify independence

Good point about the thread

[pipsky2008]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi pipsky2008,

> Depends what informaiton you want.

> It may already be in the public domain and I could

> sign post it for you or acquire it quickly if I

> request it.

> Failing either of those use the Freedome of

> Information route.

> Feel free to email me and I'll give try giving you

> a more specific steer.

Hello Mr Barber. I had emailed you about a week ago now. I haven't heard back. It was regarding the FOI request. Thankyou

>

> Hi buddug,

> Grove Vale pondiong. Sadly, another non housing

> contractor. I've asked when the mini lakes will be

> resolved and presume this would be undertaken as

> snagging issues.

> Housing. Talking to Southwark accountants if they

> could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as

> technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality

> they're a liability and give poor service to boot.

>

> As a result of your query I investigated the

> leaseholder conundrum at length with council

> officers vs freehold and also delivered and kncked

> on all leaseholders na tenant doors in East

> Dulwich ward with my colleagues.

[James Barber]

Hi pipsky2000,

Apologies. Just found your email from the 12th.

I've privately emailed you how I would suggest progressing the issues you've raised. I wouldn't necessarily use FoI as it wont necessarily fix the anti social problems.

[pipsky2008]

Thankyou, your mail received today and reply sent. If you could assist at all, I would be very grateful. Regards

[pipsky2008]

Mr Barber. Thankyou very much for your prompt and helpful assistance.

[annabel42]

Dear Mr Barber

I live on a private estate off Forest Hill Road which althoughSe23 is in Southwark.

Between Christmas and New Year our recycling bin was locked meaning there was recycling all over the ground attracting foxes and mice from the woodland behind. The only response to my email as directed by Southwark Council was that they visited in response to my email and there was no problem - obviously not as they unlocked the bin. No explanation as to why it was locked.

Our refuse bins were not emptied last Friday nor have they as yet been today. Iknow we have to wait until 6pm but I am reporting for LAST Friday. If they are not emptied by 6 30 I can then phone the Council and they will send round AFTER the weekend. With refuse overflowing attracting foxes mice etc this is simply not good enough especially as there are seventeen properties many with young children sharing 2 refuse bins and one recyckling bin. And now they ar about food waste - over my dead body! To cap it all, the binmen leave a terrible mess which we have to clearx u

[annabel42]

Up. PLEASE can you help? Incidentally I am a director and also the Administrator as we are self managed.

[annabel42]

Mr Barber

As directed I duly phoned the Counc after 6 pm. Of course their offices were closed despite the person I spoke to assuring me there would be someone to speak to at that hour. We cannot have a dialogue with the contractors if you are lucky they speak once and then they leave message and that is that .There is no way of speaking to them again. The message is invariably negative of the everything is ok why areyou bothering us type.. We need someone to come round and discuss our health and safety concerns not dismiss them in this cavalier fashion. Would it be possible for you to help please?

[HAL9000]

@the_naysayers

Get up right now, go to your window, open it, stick your head out and yell:

'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!

There, don't you feel sooo much better now?

[Zak]

Dear James,

Apologies for returing to the question of the Grove Vale CPZ, but I attended the meeting of the Dulwich Community Council on Tuesday and I thought that that you and your Lib. Dem. colleagues adopted a stance that flew in the face of the view expressed by the majority of people who had been polled across the area in question. The Consultation had been for the Grove Vale Area and clearly was not being conducted on a street by street basis - in the same way that we vote for councillors on the basis of a ward and not street by street!

Your attempt to distort the results of a properly conducted council consultation was shameful and betrayed a very strange approach to the concept of "democratic" - the flag under which you fly. I fear that you have done a great disservice to the local Lib Dem cause.

[fazer71]

Zak

It?s all been discussed at great length on the CPZ thread.

James is entitled to his view and it?s fairly obvious that he decided to take the argument of those who were for the CPZ rather than those against.

Why because he either personally or politically agrees with having a CPZ or he promised residents early on to fight for them to get a CPZ.

It?s not about the supposed general view that a majority of local don?t want a CPZ.

You only have to look a the low response rate to see that in fact the result of the consultation did not show anything like a ?majority? view in I for one believe the consultation results meaningless. ?and that?s not because I?m for the CPZ it?s common sense?.

James stood by his views and his promises and made his voted count (rather than abstain on a difficult issue) to me that tells the measure of the man.

This is how things work in a democracy.

If you don?t get it then go and live in Saudi? and see the difference.

Edit to add

(21 % who respnded to the consultation is NOT the majority!)

[Zak]

Frazer 71

The council apparently embarked on the CPZ consultation because of the level of "correspondence" they had recieved "in recent years " about parking problems - they obviously thought it was a big issue for the area as a whole.

Out of 1159 households polled, only 84 supported the idea of a CPZ - that's around 7%. This doesn't suggest that there were hordes of people out there, feeling strongly about the issue.

Any reasonable person will understand that the results of a poll, properly conducted by the local authority, cannot be overridden by the alledged results of some ad hoc door step canvassing.

I think you're the one who doesn't get it......I'm fully aware of what amounts to "undemocratic" ....... and by the way, let's hear James Barber stand up for himself and justify his undemocratic behaviour - or are you James Barber?

[fazer71]

zak

Me JB haha

Thanks for more proof that the majority of the population are not very bright.

Exactly how many were against the CPZ?

Biased numbers to suit your views and those biased numbers are based on a miniscule response rate.

Just 2 out of ten people gave a response and out of those yes just 0.7 out of 10 were in favour.

You are wrong the decision could still be to implement the CPZ, though as has been mentioned it?s unlikely given the apparent opposition to the CPZ.

Assuming you?re an adult re-read my post or get some help from

Here Help for zak

[fazer71]

zak can you see my maths mistake?