Posts
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
End of an Era
Sadly once again a blog has had to be closed. And one that had far better information than I could ever provide. However this makes it more important than ever that we all continue to be aware of just what is going on in Blackpool's (and Fylde's) politics. The cabinet system appears to be leading to a secret little club whereby commercial sensitivity is being used to hide the full details of what is happening to taxpayer cash from those that provide the funds. This cannot be tolerated in the public interest. Politicians and council employees must be accountable to the electorate that votes for them and pays their wages.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
This is why there are now "traffic calming" islands along the promenade
An accident where a car crashed near the White Church at Fairhaven (the Spanish style apartment block by Kensington "Seville Court" that fits in so well with everything about it that's victorian english) and residents called for traffic calming to prevent it happening again.
So councillors got together and had islands put in the road near the Fairhaven Lake attraction - not really all that near to the crash site but with the happy side-effect that it proved easier for day-trippers to cross the road if they parked on the other side so that more people from East Lancs can come for a free day out walking around the lake and on the beach.
Now there's finally one being built near the crash site - but given the reason for the crash, are these roadworks appropriate and will they really stop it happening again if it was ever going to?
Excellent court report below as per usual from the Lytham St. Annes Express - a guaranteed good read every week at only 58p.
Driver jailed after 100mph car chase
A COUPLE out walking in St Annes were lucky not to be killed when a banned driver just missed them as he careered into a wall at the end of a car chase.
A court heard Mohamed Gani, 30, had earlier reached speeds of up to a 100mph, went through red lights and twice evaded a police road block before losing control of his car close to Fairhaven Lake.
He was jailed for nearly two-and-a-half years by a judge who described the case as "dreadful".
Gani pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving, disqualified driving and not having insurance.
He was sentenced to 29 months behind bars and banned from driving for five years.
Preston Crown Court heard he was already on a suspended jail term for identical crimes at the time of the offences in May last year.
Hilary Banks, prosecuting, told how Gani attracted a police officer's attention May 24, as two cars were driving at high speed along Clifton Drive North, St Annes. The defendant, who was driving his friend's Ford Mondeo car, did not stop when requested and later on, reached about 100mph as he passed King Edward VII and Queen Mary School, which is a 30mph area.
The officer twice tried to block Gani's path with his vehicle, but the defendant drove around.
As he approached a bend near Fairhaven Lake, travelling too fast, he braked heavily and the car mounted the pavement, narrowly missing a couple out walking.
The car hit a three-foot high boundary wall of residential properties and rolled on to its roof.
Gani, from Beeston, Leeds, and two passengers were injured.
The owner remembered nothing about the accident until he woke up in hospital with serious abdominal injuries.
Gani told police it had seemed he was the most sober of the three and he had made a mistake in driving.
He admitted to officers: "I could have died myself and I had two people with me."
Richard Hunt, defending, told the court Gani was "desperately sorry".
He said: "He presents as a changed man. He now realises how foolish he has been. He wants to sort his life out."
Passing sentence, Judge Heather Lloyd told Gani: "It seems to me you simply have a complete disregard for the order of the court and the law and for the safety of others and indeed yourself.
"It is fortunate the two pedestrians on the pavement were not killed or seriously hurt.
"It is amazing there was no fatality to you, your passengers or other road users."
So councillors got together and had islands put in the road near the Fairhaven Lake attraction - not really all that near to the crash site but with the happy side-effect that it proved easier for day-trippers to cross the road if they parked on the other side so that more people from East Lancs can come for a free day out walking around the lake and on the beach.
Now there's finally one being built near the crash site - but given the reason for the crash, are these roadworks appropriate and will they really stop it happening again if it was ever going to?
Excellent court report below as per usual from the Lytham St. Annes Express - a guaranteed good read every week at only 58p.
Driver jailed after 100mph car chase
A COUPLE out walking in St Annes were lucky not to be killed when a banned driver just missed them as he careered into a wall at the end of a car chase.
A court heard Mohamed Gani, 30, had earlier reached speeds of up to a 100mph, went through red lights and twice evaded a police road block before losing control of his car close to Fairhaven Lake.
He was jailed for nearly two-and-a-half years by a judge who described the case as "dreadful".
Gani pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving, disqualified driving and not having insurance.
He was sentenced to 29 months behind bars and banned from driving for five years.
Preston Crown Court heard he was already on a suspended jail term for identical crimes at the time of the offences in May last year.
Hilary Banks, prosecuting, told how Gani attracted a police officer's attention May 24, as two cars were driving at high speed along Clifton Drive North, St Annes. The defendant, who was driving his friend's Ford Mondeo car, did not stop when requested and later on, reached about 100mph as he passed King Edward VII and Queen Mary School, which is a 30mph area.
The officer twice tried to block Gani's path with his vehicle, but the defendant drove around.
As he approached a bend near Fairhaven Lake, travelling too fast, he braked heavily and the car mounted the pavement, narrowly missing a couple out walking.
The car hit a three-foot high boundary wall of residential properties and rolled on to its roof.
Gani, from Beeston, Leeds, and two passengers were injured.
The owner remembered nothing about the accident until he woke up in hospital with serious abdominal injuries.
Gani told police it had seemed he was the most sober of the three and he had made a mistake in driving.
He admitted to officers: "I could have died myself and I had two people with me."
Richard Hunt, defending, told the court Gani was "desperately sorry".
He said: "He presents as a changed man. He now realises how foolish he has been. He wants to sort his life out."
Passing sentence, Judge Heather Lloyd told Gani: "It seems to me you simply have a complete disregard for the order of the court and the law and for the safety of others and indeed yourself.
"It is fortunate the two pedestrians on the pavement were not killed or seriously hurt.
"It is amazing there was no fatality to you, your passengers or other road users."
Another day, another mauling
Not a politics post! Today it is reported that another 2 year old has had her face mauled by a family dog and the usual lunatics are up in arms about people having dogs at all.
Now I've had dogs for over 40 years and can't remember living without them and there are some fundamental principles of dog ownership that are being ignored:
If you have a child they will tend to suddenly pull at a dog. My sister used to pull our dogs ears tirelessly - luckily for her the dogs we had were small and patience and sat there looking thoroughly fed up with her but didn't take any action of their own.
Children also don't react quickly enough to warning signs and tend to make "jabbing" rather than fluid movements which makes most dogs think they are under attack. So if you have a small child don't leave it alone with a dog. And certainly don't buy one of the biggest dogs around with a very powerful jaw.
Many people with dogs and children think the dog can be ignored for days and weeks with the only attention they get being fed disgusting slop out of a tin or dry food. Do they expect a good social bond to be formed by the dog with humans?
Dogs get over-excited when bitches are on heat. This is an enormous promise to the dog that humping is likely to be an option. Anything it sees as getting in its way is likely to make it bad tempered. Don't mix dogs and bitches in heat. Keep one or the other and pay stud fees. And certainly don't walk bitches in heat in public places.
If you have a council house you should not be allowed to keep large dogs. The council has allocated that house on the needs of the humans in the family - it is highly unlikely that there is enough space for one large dog, let alone 3. - especially when the size of dog you are talking about is around 10 stone.
If your dog bites someone and the vet won't put it down as he says the dog can be retrained you have two options:
1) Keep the dog, retrain it and keep the kids well away at all times
2) Rehome the dog immediately.
You do not have an option to keep the dog and not retrain it and let the kids mix with it. That should get your kids taken into care immediately.
You should never be allowed to keep dogs again if after an attack you 'chased the dog out into the garden and was punching and kicking it and that's where he stabbed it with a knife'. A good father separates dog from child, makes sure dog can't get near anyone and goes back to look after child. If you can brutally beat up a dog and stab it with a knife you are a savage who is not fit to look after children or animals. It is not the dog's fault it attacked - it is the owner that let it happen knowing full well that there was a problem developing. And the fact that the dog became vicious looks very much like it was a result of being badly treated by this man in the first place. Dogs generally attack humans because they are frightened or trained to specifically do so.
Now I've had dogs for over 40 years and can't remember living without them and there are some fundamental principles of dog ownership that are being ignored:
If you have a child they will tend to suddenly pull at a dog. My sister used to pull our dogs ears tirelessly - luckily for her the dogs we had were small and patience and sat there looking thoroughly fed up with her but didn't take any action of their own.
Children also don't react quickly enough to warning signs and tend to make "jabbing" rather than fluid movements which makes most dogs think they are under attack. So if you have a small child don't leave it alone with a dog. And certainly don't buy one of the biggest dogs around with a very powerful jaw.
Many people with dogs and children think the dog can be ignored for days and weeks with the only attention they get being fed disgusting slop out of a tin or dry food. Do they expect a good social bond to be formed by the dog with humans?
Dogs get over-excited when bitches are on heat. This is an enormous promise to the dog that humping is likely to be an option. Anything it sees as getting in its way is likely to make it bad tempered. Don't mix dogs and bitches in heat. Keep one or the other and pay stud fees. And certainly don't walk bitches in heat in public places.
If you have a council house you should not be allowed to keep large dogs. The council has allocated that house on the needs of the humans in the family - it is highly unlikely that there is enough space for one large dog, let alone 3. - especially when the size of dog you are talking about is around 10 stone.
If your dog bites someone and the vet won't put it down as he says the dog can be retrained you have two options:
1) Keep the dog, retrain it and keep the kids well away at all times
2) Rehome the dog immediately.
You do not have an option to keep the dog and not retrain it and let the kids mix with it. That should get your kids taken into care immediately.
You should never be allowed to keep dogs again if after an attack you 'chased the dog out into the garden and was punching and kicking it and that's where he stabbed it with a knife'. A good father separates dog from child, makes sure dog can't get near anyone and goes back to look after child. If you can brutally beat up a dog and stab it with a knife you are a savage who is not fit to look after children or animals. It is not the dog's fault it attacked - it is the owner that let it happen knowing full well that there was a problem developing. And the fact that the dog became vicious looks very much like it was a result of being badly treated by this man in the first place. Dogs generally attack humans because they are frightened or trained to specifically do so.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Leonard Dews Raided Again - Home Security
The police and government have constantly decided that the following rules apply to all of society:
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING STOLEN IT'S YOUR FAULT, YOU DIDN'T LOOK AFTER IT CAREFULLY ENOUGH
This has of course extended into other areas of crime but the principle is always the same.
So we get situations like Leonard Dews - the jewellery business of Michael Hyman.
For the forth time that I'm aware of (the second at his Lytham store) he's had an armed raid. And always during the day because presumably he looks after his goods very well at night when he doesn't have to let his customers see them to sell them. So is all this extra security a good thing? The goods are still being stolen but now staff are being petrified as well.
The Blackpool store thefts (where guns and ice picks were used) in September and October 2006 were perpetrated by an Estonian gang - one of whom was caught and sentenced to 10 years. But the Lytham gang thefts have never yet been caught to my knowledge from the October 2007 raid.
Presumably the Leonard Dews thefts are more frequent than other jewellers in the area because of their expensive and exclusive stock of diamond and gold jewellery as well as exceedingly expensive watches.
So is it Leonard Dews' own fault for stocking exceedingly nice things or are the police going to actually take this seriously? Only time will tell if they actually catch anyone for this. They certainly have cctv.
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING STOLEN IT'S YOUR FAULT, YOU DIDN'T LOOK AFTER IT CAREFULLY ENOUGH
This has of course extended into other areas of crime but the principle is always the same.
So we get situations like Leonard Dews - the jewellery business of Michael Hyman.
For the forth time that I'm aware of (the second at his Lytham store) he's had an armed raid. And always during the day because presumably he looks after his goods very well at night when he doesn't have to let his customers see them to sell them. So is all this extra security a good thing? The goods are still being stolen but now staff are being petrified as well.
The Blackpool store thefts (where guns and ice picks were used) in September and October 2006 were perpetrated by an Estonian gang - one of whom was caught and sentenced to 10 years. But the Lytham gang thefts have never yet been caught to my knowledge from the October 2007 raid.
Presumably the Leonard Dews thefts are more frequent than other jewellers in the area because of their expensive and exclusive stock of diamond and gold jewellery as well as exceedingly expensive watches.
So is it Leonard Dews' own fault for stocking exceedingly nice things or are the police going to actually take this seriously? Only time will tell if they actually catch anyone for this. They certainly have cctv.
Migrant workers - the BBC programme last night
To prove we couldn't manage without migrants the BBC took four sectors and gave English dolers two days to prove they couldn't do the job as well as migrants already in place in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.
We have the restaurant sector where only one of the dolers turned up to try and no doubt discouraged that he was the only one to turn up on day two for the actual work gave up because he didn't have a clue what dish was what in his local curry house. If this were a proper job, wouldn't learning the dishes be part of the training anyway and extra support given in identifying things for the first few shifts? Also it must have been very discouraging now being the only novice with an experience crew working around him - and if the camera team had encouraged him more I thought he did have some potential.
The second was in a potato packing factory for Tesco. Only two men turned up so it was only a partial English team as three were needed to pack. They did a pretty good job, definitely had a proper work ethic but after day two they did apply for jobs but none were available.
The third were carpenters / plasterers who proved they could do the job just as well and cheaply and were allowed to continue for two weeks to complete the job they were on.
The last was picking asparagus on a farm. Now there's only a six week picking season and the price is determined by the supermarkets so margins were tight and inexperience was a big disadvantage. One was just plain lazy and should have had his benefits taken off him. The other two picked only around half of the experienced migrants but their work rate was increasing as the two day period progressed.
However these farm workers were victims of minimum wage. In this period of two days they had to have their wages topped up to minimum wage though they hadn't picked enough to justify that on what the farmer could get back. So the minimum wage stopped them being able to carry on for long enough to actually get up to that rate and accept lower than minimum wage during the training period. I've long been against setting a minimum wage nationally. Many people advocate it as essential to stop bosses taking advantage of workers by paying them less than living costs require. But in the day and age of tax credits, surely it would be better to top up workers wages to minimum wage rates with taxpayers money than pay them the whole lot on the dole whilst they sit on their backsides becoming permanently unemployable with migrants taking all these jobs.
Another interesting thing to see was just how lazy the younger dolers seemed to be than the older ones in general. They seemed to be of the opinion that the world owed them a living wage whether they worked or not and they didn't even have to turn up when they'd accepted a job. And most of the younger ones smoked - taking every opportunity to nip out for a fag break.
It begs the question as to whether we should be paying people to sit on their backsides all day - particularly the young. What I noticed most was how lazy SOME were (some were clearly not) and didn't care. I'd advocate making everyone work for their benefits, restricting migrant labour, and freeing the labour market up to pay people what they are worth. Too many think employers owe them the minimum wage rather than them having to earn it - and some people working hard are making up for these wastes of space and not getting financially compensated as a result of these drains on businesses.
We have the restaurant sector where only one of the dolers turned up to try and no doubt discouraged that he was the only one to turn up on day two for the actual work gave up because he didn't have a clue what dish was what in his local curry house. If this were a proper job, wouldn't learning the dishes be part of the training anyway and extra support given in identifying things for the first few shifts? Also it must have been very discouraging now being the only novice with an experience crew working around him - and if the camera team had encouraged him more I thought he did have some potential.
The second was in a potato packing factory for Tesco. Only two men turned up so it was only a partial English team as three were needed to pack. They did a pretty good job, definitely had a proper work ethic but after day two they did apply for jobs but none were available.
The third were carpenters / plasterers who proved they could do the job just as well and cheaply and were allowed to continue for two weeks to complete the job they were on.
The last was picking asparagus on a farm. Now there's only a six week picking season and the price is determined by the supermarkets so margins were tight and inexperience was a big disadvantage. One was just plain lazy and should have had his benefits taken off him. The other two picked only around half of the experienced migrants but their work rate was increasing as the two day period progressed.
However these farm workers were victims of minimum wage. In this period of two days they had to have their wages topped up to minimum wage though they hadn't picked enough to justify that on what the farmer could get back. So the minimum wage stopped them being able to carry on for long enough to actually get up to that rate and accept lower than minimum wage during the training period. I've long been against setting a minimum wage nationally. Many people advocate it as essential to stop bosses taking advantage of workers by paying them less than living costs require. But in the day and age of tax credits, surely it would be better to top up workers wages to minimum wage rates with taxpayers money than pay them the whole lot on the dole whilst they sit on their backsides becoming permanently unemployable with migrants taking all these jobs.
Another interesting thing to see was just how lazy the younger dolers seemed to be than the older ones in general. They seemed to be of the opinion that the world owed them a living wage whether they worked or not and they didn't even have to turn up when they'd accepted a job. And most of the younger ones smoked - taking every opportunity to nip out for a fag break.
It begs the question as to whether we should be paying people to sit on their backsides all day - particularly the young. What I noticed most was how lazy SOME were (some were clearly not) and didn't care. I'd advocate making everyone work for their benefits, restricting migrant labour, and freeing the labour market up to pay people what they are worth. Too many think employers owe them the minimum wage rather than them having to earn it - and some people working hard are making up for these wastes of space and not getting financially compensated as a result of these drains on businesses.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Boo-hiss. Was there ever a more hateful figure than a self-obsessed estate agent?
Again the Queensway inquiry. Speaking for the creation of 1,150 houses on wet peat bog adjoining a flood plane, our most favourite estate agent, Mr John Ardern, pleaded for the application to go ahead. He had a wife and two children who depended on that estate agency and combined with the construction workers needing work this development must go ahead.
Well I'll be honest too. Mr Ardern's estate agency gazumped me - but I hold no grudges as I shortly found a better house on better land. Not sure the seller would feel the same as the gazumper changed their mind and she then struggled to sell but that's her problem for using such a man to sell her house. So I don't rate his skills as an estate agent if his purpose is just to sell houses. The fact that the 5 flats of "Orchard Gardens" near King Edward have been being sold by him for the past 6 years approximately as "newly built" just shows me that perhaps another estate agent might be a good idea.
But this is the toe-rag who was again pleading for the Disney-fied Lytham Quays mark one where an entire marina and various European sub villages were to be included. Kensington themselves ended up withdrawing the application but not before British Aerospace objected to such high density development so close to their landing path and runway, especially as they test aircraft in development and they realised such a scheme didn't have a hope in hell of being passed.
But what really galled me was that he argued that Lytham following the Lytham Hall Park Estate Development and Cypress Point had prospered in its town centre whilst St Annes had gone to seed with lots of charity shops. This simply isn't true. There are far more empty units in the heart of Lytham than St Annes.
Lytham doesn't have charity shops according to Mr Adern- Barnados (with the ugliest, most incongruent lime green canopy in the conservation zone), Oxfam, Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation (4) are apparently a figment of our imaginations. The St Annes shops of Help the Aged, Sue Ryder Care, British Heart Foundation, YMCA and Leukemia Research (5) aren't figments though - these are signs of decay in a town with more than double the population of Lytham.
So why lie? This man is an estate agent. He knows full well that this is untrue but he'll say it anyway because he always gets to sell Kensington's houses. Of course he doesn't always manage to sell them at all. The sale-rate at Cypress Point was so sluggish that "for sale" signs are forbidden to be displayed there. And now at Lytham Quays a lot of people are being housed that previously owned houses at Cypress Point. These are Kensington devotees who would never have dreamed of moving from these lovely homes at Cypress Point had the new opportunities not come along. Of course not. The houses at Cypress Point are NOT subsiding. The rumours are untrue. There are certainly no deals to upgrade for unhappy home owners with gagging orders as part of the process. Cypress Point is great. It will never flood or cause flooding to neighbouring areas like the cemetery. It will never subside. And apparently they are exceedingly reasonably priced should anyone want one.
Well I'll be honest too. Mr Ardern's estate agency gazumped me - but I hold no grudges as I shortly found a better house on better land. Not sure the seller would feel the same as the gazumper changed their mind and she then struggled to sell but that's her problem for using such a man to sell her house. So I don't rate his skills as an estate agent if his purpose is just to sell houses. The fact that the 5 flats of "Orchard Gardens" near King Edward have been being sold by him for the past 6 years approximately as "newly built" just shows me that perhaps another estate agent might be a good idea.
But this is the toe-rag who was again pleading for the Disney-fied Lytham Quays mark one where an entire marina and various European sub villages were to be included. Kensington themselves ended up withdrawing the application but not before British Aerospace objected to such high density development so close to their landing path and runway, especially as they test aircraft in development and they realised such a scheme didn't have a hope in hell of being passed.
But what really galled me was that he argued that Lytham following the Lytham Hall Park Estate Development and Cypress Point had prospered in its town centre whilst St Annes had gone to seed with lots of charity shops. This simply isn't true. There are far more empty units in the heart of Lytham than St Annes.
Lytham doesn't have charity shops according to Mr Adern- Barnados (with the ugliest, most incongruent lime green canopy in the conservation zone), Oxfam, Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation (4) are apparently a figment of our imaginations. The St Annes shops of Help the Aged, Sue Ryder Care, British Heart Foundation, YMCA and Leukemia Research (5) aren't figments though - these are signs of decay in a town with more than double the population of Lytham.
So why lie? This man is an estate agent. He knows full well that this is untrue but he'll say it anyway because he always gets to sell Kensington's houses. Of course he doesn't always manage to sell them at all. The sale-rate at Cypress Point was so sluggish that "for sale" signs are forbidden to be displayed there. And now at Lytham Quays a lot of people are being housed that previously owned houses at Cypress Point. These are Kensington devotees who would never have dreamed of moving from these lovely homes at Cypress Point had the new opportunities not come along. Of course not. The houses at Cypress Point are NOT subsiding. The rumours are untrue. There are certainly no deals to upgrade for unhappy home owners with gagging orders as part of the process. Cypress Point is great. It will never flood or cause flooding to neighbouring areas like the cemetery. It will never subside. And apparently they are exceedingly reasonably priced should anyone want one.
The most promised road in the land?
I went to the Queensway inquiry meeting yesterday and interesting stuff it was (once the barristers had finally agreed which of the many drawings and plans were the final versions etc and a whole morning was wasted).
The barrister for Kensington opened with his 10 minute speech. He'll never get any work for after-dinner speaking - Peter Ustinov he aint - but he did manage to stretch his ill-prepared opening comments to a full 40 minutes in a bid to bore some opposition supporters away and have a chance to re-iterate the promise for £16 million for a new road off the M55 to St Annes (the Moss link road).
This is the road that was promised with Cypress Point (by, oh yes Kensington) - they are still waiting as the road wasn't part of the planning application and involved other peoples' land anyway (some of it being Owen Oysten who is highly unlikely to sell this terribly boggy land cheaply now it is worth so much).
This is also the subject of a debacle in the Whitehills industrial estate expansion - Kensington were asked to consider providing part funding for a road as part of that application - and once again appealed so that an Inspector from Bristol who hopefully doesn't realise just quite how many times Kensington go back on their word.
So why repeat an offer for funding for a road that can't be guaranteed to ever be built? And why mumble so that people had to ask him to speak up several times on the issue of ecological factors involved in building on a wet peat bog?
In my opinion he already knows he's on a sticky wicket and repeating the "Kensington dream" will put some thoughts into the Inspector's mind - but I'm not convinced the Inspector will be so easily fooled. We'll have to wait and see before we all start sinking and filling up with water. (see next post)
The barrister for Kensington opened with his 10 minute speech. He'll never get any work for after-dinner speaking - Peter Ustinov he aint - but he did manage to stretch his ill-prepared opening comments to a full 40 minutes in a bid to bore some opposition supporters away and have a chance to re-iterate the promise for £16 million for a new road off the M55 to St Annes (the Moss link road).
This is the road that was promised with Cypress Point (by, oh yes Kensington) - they are still waiting as the road wasn't part of the planning application and involved other peoples' land anyway (some of it being Owen Oysten who is highly unlikely to sell this terribly boggy land cheaply now it is worth so much).
This is also the subject of a debacle in the Whitehills industrial estate expansion - Kensington were asked to consider providing part funding for a road as part of that application - and once again appealed so that an Inspector from Bristol who hopefully doesn't realise just quite how many times Kensington go back on their word.
So why repeat an offer for funding for a road that can't be guaranteed to ever be built? And why mumble so that people had to ask him to speak up several times on the issue of ecological factors involved in building on a wet peat bog?
In my opinion he already knows he's on a sticky wicket and repeating the "Kensington dream" will put some thoughts into the Inspector's mind - but I'm not convinced the Inspector will be so easily fooled. We'll have to wait and see before we all start sinking and filling up with water. (see next post)
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Bloomin' Road Census?
Yesterday evening travelling back on the A583(?) (think that's the right number - dual carriageway you can get on from the dock roads in Preston that goes past Salwick, Dobies, Kirkham, Westby and ends up at Whitehills) and there was extreme traffic congestion. The lane to Blackpool was cordoned off so everyone had to get in the Lytham one and what for? "Census" - no VR technology just 3 policemen in florescent jackets with their backs to the traffic whilst everyone fumed.
Do you have to answer any questions if you're pulled over or do you have the right to remain silent? I'm pretty sure if we say what we think the police will arrest us.
Do you have to answer any questions if you're pulled over or do you have the right to remain silent? I'm pretty sure if we say what we think the police will arrest us.
What's happening at the Gazette?
On a story re Kensington want to build another 190 homes in Lytham Quays I'd commented pro Alison Jack (not that I like her but she was unfairly criticised and Kensington overly promoted) and of course all comments not agreeing with Kensington were reported.
So I reported the other two with the explanation that as the other comments had been removed the comments were biased towards one side of the argument - then they started appearing back with no option to report the comments (the first one to reappear was one of mine and I thought I'd better report that if the others didn't come back as only being fair).
Have they really sorted the comment reporting thing out? I certainly hope so - no-one should be given a stronger voice by these deleting tactics.
So I reported the other two with the explanation that as the other comments had been removed the comments were biased towards one side of the argument - then they started appearing back with no option to report the comments (the first one to reappear was one of mine and I thought I'd better report that if the others didn't come back as only being fair).
Have they really sorted the comment reporting thing out? I certainly hope so - no-one should be given a stronger voice by these deleting tactics.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Want to buy something? Do we approve of that?
On Friday the Daily Mail reported that a 21 year old in Evesham, Worcestershire was not allowed to buy teaspoons in Tesco because she didn't have any proof of age on her. Her boyfriend did, (aged 23) but under Tesco rules he couldn't buy them either because he could just be buying them for her, and they didn't know for sure how old she was.
Today a pregnant woman was stopped from buying cheese (Canadian cheddar) at Sainsbury's in Bedfordshire. Apparently the shopworker mistakenly thought it was unsafe for pregnant women because it was unpateurised although Sainsbury's have acknowledged there is no danger (even to pregnant women) from this particular dairy product.
Since when did the law change so that we are no longer allowed to buy anything unless the supermarket staff approve? When did we vote to be told what to do by 16 year olds on a till who have an IQ of less than 10?
On Friday as well, a local disabled pensioner (from Thornton Cleveleys) who fled communist East Germany was reported as having been convicted of assault in court for prodding a local 17 year old and telling him off. The 17 year old (according to the pensioner) threw gravel at her window, used foul language to her, (referring to her as "some fucking German woman"), held her by her wrists so hard he bruised them and who was carted off into the back of a police van? Of course the pensioner. They have since defended their decision because they didn't see what the youth did themselves, but they did see her and she apparently should just put up with them doing this to her and the police doing F all about it. "She should have admitted her guilt then we could have cautioned her" said some CPS official so out of touch with reality they did actually believe what they said. Did they ever consider that they should have done something about the abuse she was suffering instead first? Apparently not.
I really despair of how this country has become. Where our lives are dictated to by people with a complete lack of common sense or intelligence. And that seems to include not only supermarket checkout staff, but the police, CPS and our politicians.
Today a pregnant woman was stopped from buying cheese (Canadian cheddar) at Sainsbury's in Bedfordshire. Apparently the shopworker mistakenly thought it was unsafe for pregnant women because it was unpateurised although Sainsbury's have acknowledged there is no danger (even to pregnant women) from this particular dairy product.
Since when did the law change so that we are no longer allowed to buy anything unless the supermarket staff approve? When did we vote to be told what to do by 16 year olds on a till who have an IQ of less than 10?
On Friday as well, a local disabled pensioner (from Thornton Cleveleys) who fled communist East Germany was reported as having been convicted of assault in court for prodding a local 17 year old and telling him off. The 17 year old (according to the pensioner) threw gravel at her window, used foul language to her, (referring to her as "some fucking German woman"), held her by her wrists so hard he bruised them and who was carted off into the back of a police van? Of course the pensioner. They have since defended their decision because they didn't see what the youth did themselves, but they did see her and she apparently should just put up with them doing this to her and the police doing F all about it. "She should have admitted her guilt then we could have cautioned her" said some CPS official so out of touch with reality they did actually believe what they said. Did they ever consider that they should have done something about the abuse she was suffering instead first? Apparently not.
I really despair of how this country has become. Where our lives are dictated to by people with a complete lack of common sense or intelligence. And that seems to include not only supermarket checkout staff, but the police, CPS and our politicians.
Friday, 2 October 2009
Phantom Deleters!
On the Gazette site today I reported a comment! This is a very rare occurence from me but the comment went very roughly as this (and related to the South Shore train station potential closure)
"Say what you like about Gordon Marsden but he's a man of the people looking after us"
and nothing else.
Sorry but that's just political - no comment about the train station being necessary or why, no comment about anything else at all.
What did the idiot do? (and maybe this confirms Gordon Marsden voters might not be so very bright)
Deleted comment number 2 - which was less enthusiastic about Marsden without going too far and did discuss the proposed closure.
I have put up now that it was me who reported it for the idiot, but as someone's deleting all my comments at the moment anyway it's hardly likely to change anything is it!
"Say what you like about Gordon Marsden but he's a man of the people looking after us"
and nothing else.
Sorry but that's just political - no comment about the train station being necessary or why, no comment about anything else at all.
What did the idiot do? (and maybe this confirms Gordon Marsden voters might not be so very bright)
Deleted comment number 2 - which was less enthusiastic about Marsden without going too far and did discuss the proposed closure.
I have put up now that it was me who reported it for the idiot, but as someone's deleting all my comments at the moment anyway it's hardly likely to change anything is it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)