Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jonno Jun 13 2014, 10:18 AM

From the Newbury Weekly News - "Over the next three months, six travel advisors will visit 5,000 homes in south Newbury and Greenham to record residents’ current travel habits and suggest alternative ways of travel.
The project – ‘change the way you move’ – is costing £90,000 – with £52,000 coming from West Berkshire Council"

Given the budget cuts on children, the disabled and the elderly in these times of austerity, do people really think this is the best use of our money?

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 13 2014, 10:44 AM

Err, nope.

Posted by: motormad Jun 13 2014, 11:20 AM

Absolutely not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2014, 11:39 AM

I'd be interested to see how successful the initiative would be in the middle of winter! The sad fact is half of Newbury is on a steep hill and public transport is not what some would like to be. Not only that, people like owning and driving cars.

I wish they had an on-line form, I'd be happy to explain my routine!

Posted by: blackdog Jun 13 2014, 12:14 PM

There does seem to be one useful element of this plan - which is lost in the middle of the article. They are going to collect information about residents travel habits - which should be really useful in the planning of future infrastucture changes.

But is it worth £52K of WBC cash? I'm not convinced.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2014, 12:27 PM

I like the reply when asked about Sandleford:

A fob-off reply if there ever was one. The fact the survey is being undertaken undermines her statement.

Posted by: gel Jun 13 2014, 12:57 PM

Cllr Cole has a poor history re listening to voters/ fooling voters eg introducing fortnightly bin collections with a shoddy survey with tiny % of electorate being included.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 13 2014, 01:41 PM

Yes, in other words, we've got Sandleford coming up, so would you stop using your car please!

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 13 2014, 03:29 PM

Looks like WBC is overstaffed and overfunded then - more cuts anyone!

Posted by: Lolly Jun 13 2014, 06:36 PM

Even without the budget cuts it would not imo be money well spent. How much would an online survey cost in comparison?

It also seems very intrusive - a bit like the chuggers who cold call.

As an aside I wonder how the Councillors who voted this idea through got to the Council meeting. Perhaps they should conduct a survey amongst themselves.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 13 2014, 07:05 PM

An online survey would be cheap - but most residents would not fill it in, rendering it pointless. A postal survey might get better coverage but probably no more than 50%


To be fair the only way to get good coverage for a survey is to cold call (by phone or door knocker).



I very much doubt that any councillors voted this idea through - WBC doesn't work that way. Most councillors have pretty much nothing to do since they abolished all the committees that used to scrutinise ideas like this. Nowadays a council employee comes up with an idea, convinces his/her boss(es) and they then take it to the Executive Member responsible for their department (the only councillor involved in most cases) - if the Exec Member approves it then it goes ahead.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2014, 07:16 PM

I wonder how many legitimate sales people will start using that patter as part of their intro. script...'ding dong'. Hello madam, I expect you've seen in the local paper (holds copy of NWN out) that a survey is going on, have you a few minutes at the moment......

Oh well, let's just put it down to mid summer madness!

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 13 2014, 07:45 PM

So employee notices he and his chums are short of holiday money. Comes up with idea. It's OK chaps £90k in the overtime pot- job done!

Who says democracy is dead - only the paying public!

Posted by: Lolly Jun 13 2014, 07:49 PM

I stand corrected! If that is how 'democracy' works in West Berkshire it explains a lot. Are we to assume that Hilary Cole is the Exec Member responsible then? Perhaps she could survey her own transport choices? And remember that many West Berkshire residents don't work in central Newbury or locally ( within walking or cycling distance).

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 13 2014, 08:49 PM

I think that the hidden agenda which identifies what people's habits are is a bit disconcerting. As far as catching a bus or cycling, I doubt that is something I would want to do, it's so much easier to grab the keys and go when I want to go. There are no bus stops within miles of where I work (apart from the Vodafone busses of course which are up and down like a w....s drawers) so that's a non event for me.

Money badly spent employing part timers. Nice work if you can get it.

Posted by: Ron Jun 13 2014, 09:25 PM

Quote: To be fair the only way to get good coverage for a survey is to cold call (by phone or door knocker).

I thought cold calling was illegal?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 13 2014, 09:31 PM

I tried one of those Jet Black busses a couple of weeks back, incredible! Quite comfortable, but the journey! The roads down which it is required to travel are amost impossible. It ain't comfortable bumping about on road humps in a double decker. Neither are the lurches and twists as it inches it's way round housing estates. Then there is the new Hospital, even though the entrance to Turnpike Road had recently been redone, the bus still can't easily turn. Guess where the geniuses who design the roads and bus routes work? Little wonder no one uses buses, don't need a survey, just take a ride.

One good thing, I now have great respect for the drivers!

Strikes me that the survey money would be better spent on a staff education in communications!

Posted by: blackdog Jun 13 2014, 09:38 PM

Hilary Cole is an Exec Member and she's the one talking it up - so I'd guess she's the one who signed it off.

Reading also went over to the Executive style of governance when WBC did (councils were empowered to decide to adopt this new style or stick with the old committee based management system about 10 years ago). Last year they decided it was undemocratic and reverted to the committee system. Sadly WBC has shown no sign of doing the same.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 14 2014, 12:04 AM

If they are so keen to ensure people walk or cycle they should do away with free parking for council employees in the public car parks.

But that doesn't fit with the non- democratic approach that WBC adopts.

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 14 2014, 08:59 AM

It just beggars belief that they want to spend £90 grand on a survey to tell them what everyone who doesn't work for WBC knows?
There are too many cars on the p**ss poor roads that they have done nothing about over the years and are still at a loss as to what to do about it! That there is very little public transport choice for the times and areas that people want to travel from and to!

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 14 2014, 10:18 AM

Ahh yes, the old "do as I say, not as I do" style of local government.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2014, 10:37 AM

I find the idea of some council lacky knocking on my door demanding to know my travel arrangements pretty creepy.

Jehovah's Witnesses, salespeople, and political canvassers are one thing because mostly people understand that they can say "no thank you" without needing to give them any consideration, but when someone from an official body appears on your doorstep there's that innate deference that obliges some people to do what they ask, even if they'd rather not, and I find that intrusive.

It's also a very good point that unscrupulous sales people and conmen will try and invoke some official status to engage that deferential response, and if the council really is sending it's desk-wallahs out to question us about our private lives then it makes it all the easier for other unwelcome parties to do likewise.

As for it being a waster of £90k, it certainly looks wasteful, but what are you going to do about it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 14 2014, 11:23 AM

The promotion of people not using cars is a good thing, but this initiative is completely stupid. How many are they hoping to 'convert'. And how many of them will soon resort to type when it pisses with rain.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2014, 12:27 PM

This is Alexa Vega who plays Hillary Cole in http://www.blastr.com/2013-10-31/grown-spy-kid-joins-tomorrow-people-sexy-new-super-agent

Hillary Cole says "don't use your cars!"

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 14 2014, 01:39 PM

Does Ms Cole walk to work I wonder?

Posted by: HJD Jun 14 2014, 01:53 PM

Think I saw her walking up the Newtown Rd. to the Chinese Takeaway the other night .

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 14 2014, 03:06 PM

Probably going to the chippy, Pious and Chips all round

Posted by: Sherlock Jun 14 2014, 03:07 PM

I blame Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Does he walk to work? Can he stand up without assistance? I think we should be told.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 14 2014, 03:15 PM

Like me his body is a temple, and like mine it appears to be dedicated to chips n beer.

Posted by: JeffG Jun 14 2014, 04:23 PM

What is The CW, which apparently is the channel this airs on?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2014, 04:45 PM

http://www.cwtv.com/

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 14 2014, 04:48 PM

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 14 2014, 06:37 PM

Wrong. The money is going to a Consultancy. The work will be done by short-term staff, analysed by the Consultancy and a Report submitted..... The fee is payment for the project.

Some say consultant reports tell managers what they should know already, and absolve them from responsibility for decisions subsequently made.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 14 2014, 07:01 PM

I think the theory is OK, I just don't see what they hope to achieve, unless there is something more insidious about to be placed on southern Newbury residents.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 14 2014, 08:44 PM

They will probably offer some of the work to Council staff on overtime!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2014, 12:57 AM

How can it be 'overtime'? WBC are not doing the work (as best I can see)

Posted by: gel Jun 15 2014, 06:50 AM

The said "Cole"


Hilary Cole has lived at Downend, Chieveley for over 25 years, and has served on the
Parish Council for 13 years. Committed to village life, Hilary is a past Chairman of
Chieveley Recreation Centre, and oversaw the major refurbishment of the Village Hall
in 2004. Hilary is also a Friend of Chieveley Church, a Governor of Mary Hare School
and a long-time member of Chieveley Gardening Club. As a keen dog walker,
Hilary is determined to ensure that the many public rights of way around Chieveley
remain open and well-maintained. In 2007, Hilary was elected as District Councillor
for Chieveley and since then has devoted her time and energy representing the best
interests of the residents of Chieveley, Curridge and Oare

Posted by: Strafin Jun 15 2014, 10:01 AM

To be fair, she seems to be quite active in her service.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jun 15 2014, 12:13 PM

Certainly good at backing the staff. (Even though, arguably, it cost some people money).

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/council-chief-backs-watchdogs-over-cameo-auctioneers

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2014, 12:19 PM

I think Blackdog's earlier comment got it right. These ideas just come from the staff and are just rubber stamped by the portfolio holder; or whatever the Councillor with the brain cell is called these days. I reality, the staff don't come up with the ideas either, that's the province of the consulting house, IT software, or equipment salesman. Most of these firms even write the justification paper. WBC is easy pickings!

Posted by: Lolly Jun 15 2014, 12:24 PM

Yes, she does seem to represent the interests of her ward, but as a member of the West Berkshire Council Executive she should be acting impartially within her Executive role. In the context of the OP it appears that residents to the South of Newbury are to be targeted as the main contributors to air pollution/traffic congestion at the Burger King Roundabout. That doesn't make sense to me. Surely they would be better surveying the drivers of cars misfortunate enough to be held up by said congestion to find out where they are driving to/from & why they have chosen that route. Perfectly possible that Chievely residents would use the route to get to the Retail Park/Tesco.

Not suggesting that they stop cars ( thus adding to delays & congestion) as I seem to remember they did on the A4 at Speen some time ago, but maybe they could utilise the parking boards to publicise an online survey or put some notices on the offending roundabout to the same effect.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 15 2014, 01:23 PM

The consultants frequently allow the council staff to do the work and earn a little extra!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 15 2014, 01:26 PM

Strikes me as very odd that we have Councillors who claim to be in touch with their constituents but we need to employ consultants to find out what they think!

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 15 2014, 01:47 PM

I have noticed that WBC usually follows some other local authorities footsteps, only trouble is it is usually after what the others have found does not work or is out of date!
Still baffled as to a £90000 spend just to inform us that too many people are not prepared to walk and that there is no decent public transport to where and when they want to get to?

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 15 2014, 02:36 PM

I always believed that a consultation, which must be something that consultants are aiming for, should be targeted at providing a solution to a problem. If that is the case, the problem has to be the measured pollution level at the Burger King roundabout. Because the level is outside the guidelines then they, WBC, must be seen to be doing something to resolve the problem.

It sort of goes like this within the walls of the council bastion.

So, here we are then, what's our best cop out boys.?. I know, we don't have to do anything if we can dress up this £90 grand expenditure so that we can say it's the first stage of a process which will get everybody on a bike. Question from the table, "Will this work then?".

No, but it will give us another couple of years of inactivity which means we can get on with the development at the top of the hill turning a greenfield site into housing. Question from the table, "But won't that make the traffic problem worse and the pollution level higher ?"

That is a vexatious question, get out. Like I was saying, we will have a couple of years and then when we get hauled over the coals again, we can go for another stop gap grant.

Any more stupid questions,

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2014, 03:22 PM

They do? You know that for certain?

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 15 2014, 04:32 PM

Do you know for certain they don't?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2014, 05:04 PM

You made the claim.......
You to sustain

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 15 2014, 05:21 PM

I have said that they frequently use council staff - apart from which it is a waste of £90k wherever the money goes!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2014, 06:06 PM

And I asked if that is a truth known to you, or a throw-away line.
I don't disagree re the waste of money - as I said earlier too often consultants only tell what the clint should already know.....

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 15 2014, 07:06 PM

Or to share some spare cash they have to use up with others of a similar political persuasion? It saves having to spend it on something they don't wish to?

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 15 2014, 07:16 PM

I wonder what is wrong with the usual WBC Consultation procedure..........shout out round the office that the Supreme Leader wants to know how to stop pollution on the Burger King Roundabout........it will save £90k. Only trouble is it may come to banning traffic from the A339 though?

Perhaps it would help to make it a bicycle friendly roundabout like St John's? But oh I forgot Cyclists think it is too complicated and dangerous to use!

Posted by: Lolly Jun 15 2014, 07:19 PM

Rhetorical question?

Theoretically we/you could ask the question at a Council or Executive meeting.
We/you could make a complaint using the Council's complaints process
We/you could complain to our Councillor
Or we/you could ask the Council's/auditors to investigate

Alternatively we could rely on the NWN to follow up on the story. Maybe they could conduct their own survey like they used to do?

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 15 2014, 08:49 PM

"Yeah, but, its to do wiv global warmin innit". Be like discussing theology with the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 15 2014, 10:42 PM

The Spanish Inquisition? I don't think we expected them......

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 16 2014, 05:35 AM

This really is the point. There are a number of legitimate ways to engage our local government as Lolly says, but all of them are broken. It needs new people to get involved in our local politscs who want to make it open and accountable and who aren't going to compromise with the self-serving establisment who like the way it is. But that's a big challenge because the few of us who are making an effort are working alone and ineffectual, and because the establishment really doesn't want anyone upsetting their apple cart.

Posted by: Lolly Jun 16 2014, 08:04 PM

Private Eye? I think they'd appreciate your picture of the other Hilary Cole!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 1 2014, 08:15 AM

Posted by: On the edge Jul 1 2014, 10:38 AM

Look on the website, all a lot clearer. Simply a marketing activity for a 'people's car', they just need to find out who qualifies. Where do you work? Any disabilities? Member of the party? OK you qualify to go on the list for an E-Trabant.....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2014, 07:15 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/questions-raised-over-travel-project:

A quick read of that would give you the impression that the scheme is working - the 44% conversion rate is better that the 33% expected. OK, so that 33% seems rather arbitrary, but all the same if the conversion rate is bettering the target then fine, success.

But on closer reading it's apparent that this is a bit of grubby council obfuscation: what the statement is actually saying is that 44% is a bigger percentage than 33%, and so it is - 44 is bigger than 33. But 33% is the target overall conversion rate, and with 316 requesting the pack out of 1050 visited the actual overall conversion rate is 30%, and that's below target.

I just find this kind of casual dishonesty really annoying. It's semantic slight of hand, so the statement is true, but it tells a lie.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 6 2014, 07:23 PM

You are not supposed to notice!!! I remember a campaign a while ago where success was claimed on the number of flyers handed out. A quick look in the nearby bins put a different slant on that, I reckon.

Plus... 'Requested', or accepted? A good number of acceptances would not transfer to 'interest', rather a ploy to get rid of the caller without being rude - the British Way.....

Posted by: user23 Jul 6 2014, 07:47 PM

"405 had declined a travel pack and 316 had requested one."

405 + 316 = 721, so they've asked 721 people so far.

316 is 44% of 721, so there's been 44% uptake so far of people they've asked.

The statement “The success rate of our TA’s when they speak to someone at the door is 44 per cent. This is above the expected figure of 33 per cent overall” seems to be accurate.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 6 2014, 07:52 PM

To receive a free pack. To change there travel plans much lower - if any at all.

You'll have to try harder Phil if you want to protect your buddies as usual.

Even the councillors are questioning it now.

But it's only tax payers money isn't it User - so doesn't matter!

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 6 2014, 08:24 PM

I find the use of the term "requested", one of Simon's 'Obfuscations'. If someone rang my doorbell, and they started to bleat on about my travel arrangements, they may offer a stupid leaflet which I might take and if I did, I would stick it straight into the recycling bin. The only way they can count that as a take up is to check the recycling bins.

They, WBC, have been told to sort out the above standard air pollution levels and this is their get out of jail card. "We've been trying to get our ratepayers on their bikes."

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 6 2014, 08:25 PM

The joy of Statistics. Both interpretations can claim to be correct. In my book, if I call on 1050 houses and pass my 'message' to 316 (premises, not occupants) that is the ratio I would use. Deciding on 'success' cannot be until some outcomes have become apparent, soon after, after 3 months, 6 months and a year etc.
Normally when people make a voluntary change a significant number revert after a while....

Posted by: user23 Jul 6 2014, 08:34 PM

Isn't it a personalised travel plan, rather then a stupid leaflet?

Posted by: user23 Jul 6 2014, 08:40 PM

You can only measure the responses of people you ask, which in this case is 721.

Clearly they're talking about the uptake of the travel plans, not whether this actually had an effect which isn't something one could know yet.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 6 2014, 08:45 PM

At the moment it £284.81 per travel plan then albeit that will fall.

Not really good value.

Of course the numpties at WBC haven't realised much of the traffic at the BK roundabout isn't from Newbury. But if you employ idiots what do you expect!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2014, 09:13 PM

You can measure it how you like, but the measure WBC appear to have set itself is 33% of households visited, and they're reporting 30%, so they're not making their target.



Without the "overall" I'd have no problem accepting that the target was 33% of visits when they speak to someone at the door, but "overall" tells me that the target is 33% of visits period, spoken to or not.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2014, 09:27 PM

That's true of course, but I think it would be valid for the council to set itself a target for packs requested per visit. I have no idea what would be reasonable, but if the council set the target at 33% then fair enough. My point is that they've missed that target, and with some creative presentation they've made it sound like they hit the target.

What fraction of those accepted plans converts to changed behaviours is anyone's guess, and I'd hope the council have a target on that too so that they can budget the exercise and see whether it's worthwhile, but that's probably just my naivety.

Posted by: user23 Jul 6 2014, 09:27 PM

No, the measurement is quite clearly "when they speak to someone at the door". You can't measure someone as a no (or a yes) if you haven't asked them the question.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2014, 09:31 PM

Yes, sure, the reported 44% is quite clearly 44% of those who answered the door, but the point at issue is that the target would appear to have been expressed as 33% of overall doors visited, and at 30% the TA's are missing that target.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 6 2014, 09:36 PM

I disagree..... There is a known number of households to be surveyed. Unless there are to be repeat visits until a contact is made then the 1050 number is the start point. Of the 1050 attempts there have been 721 contacts, with 316 'successful' to some extent. As for the future measures for any change sticking, I simply trust that is included in the project plan......

How is multi-occupancy/multi car ownership being accommodated?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2014, 09:41 PM

The NewburyToday article also says that local Tory Bairstow doesn't think that people will change their travel arrangements and use public transport because it isn't as convenient as using their own private car. Clearly a graduate of the university of No Siht Sherlock, but it's a shame his fellow Tories didn't avail themselves of his sage counsel before they shelled out £90k of public money on an utterly pointless exercise.

Bairstow says the council need to be seen to be doing something, but actually they need to be seen to be doing something useful.

Posted by: user23 Jul 6 2014, 09:45 PM

No, the measurement in that news piece is clearly "when they speak to someone at the door" but in your measurement of "33% of overall doors visited" how many times do they visit that door?

I think you're being silly for attention though, so I'll not feed the troll any more.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 6 2014, 09:49 PM

I wonder what an attempted visit is. I have this image of a pair of Travel Advisors walking up the garden path in suit and tie, and stopping short of the door in a swoon when they notice the pimped Golf on the drive.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 6 2014, 10:02 PM

Does speaking to Someone at the door include
"hello I'm from WBC"
"Go forth and multiply and stop wasting tax payers money!"

Or does that get conveniently down as no reply?

Any way WBC have got their Chief Troll on the case!

Posted by: blackdog Jul 7 2014, 07:43 AM

The measurement of 44% is clearly of those spoken to, not of doors visited. On the statistical front User is right.

But it's still, IMO, a total waste of money.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 7 2014, 07:58 AM

That's right.
Build a by-pass on the wrong (cheapest) side and don't include the A339 traffic passing through Newbury.
Confirms what many tried to say at the time, the route was a mistake and "had nothing to do with cleaning up Newbury!"

Posted by: The Hatter Jul 7 2014, 08:20 AM

I would agree, but did he need to make the response so offensive? I don't trust or respect people like that no matter how right they may be.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 7 2014, 09:49 AM

Offensive?

User may be called many things - and is - but offensive?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2014, 11:03 AM

I'd say this is offensive:

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2014, 11:10 AM

Simon does have a point; the statement says: “The success rate of our TA’s when they speak to someone at the door is 44 per cent. This is above the expected figure of 33 per cent overall,”

What needs clarification is what 'overall' means. Overall means either 1,050, or 721 (the implication is that it is 721). If it is 721, then the word 'overall' is superfluous and causes confusion. Perhaps it is a journalistic error.

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 7 2014, 04:27 PM

What do you understand from the word "uptake" and what do WBC understand by it ?.

My understanding would be that there was a confirmation that they would give up the car and jump on a bus or buy a bike. That would be uptake. How many of the punters agreed to that.

The large proportion of people are quite nice when you ring their doorbell but most would be saying to themselves, as they do when a Jehovah's witness calls, "Hurry up, my favourite TV program is on and I want you to go."

If the canvasser sees a notice on the door saying that they do not want sales callers, do they go away or just press on regardless as the request doesn't apply to them.

Total waste of taxpayers hard earned money. IMO.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 7 2014, 05:17 PM

Quite.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 7 2014, 05:31 PM

The Council may well have reasoned that 44% of those who answered their doors was a good uptake and that they were justified in comparing it favourably to the target 33% of doors knocked on the basis that there would be no difference in the response rate of the 721 who answered their door and the 329 who didn't, but as has been said, that's not likely to be true because of those 329 who didn't answer their door there'll be a significant number who just didn't want to answer their door to a canvasser and will be even less bothered when the TA's return again. Of course it would only take 31 of those 329 who didn't answer their door to request a pack on a subsequent visit for the overall uptake to beat the target of 33% so there's a good chance the target will eventually be met, but it remains that the wording of the press release dishonestly suggests that the current 44% uptake (of those cats who expressed a preference) is already better than the 33% overall target, because it isn't.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 7 2014, 06:39 PM

There's a but of wriggle room with 'overall' - but I would assume that the doors weren't answered will be knocked again and won't be included in the statistics until someone answers or the researchers give up after multiple visits.

It would be premature to include them until they have made several attempts over a period of weeks.

Posted by: user23 Jul 7 2014, 06:49 PM

Eh? Which bit of which response did you find offensive?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 7 2014, 06:54 PM

If the supposed offence was directed at me I certainly didn't take any.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2014, 07:33 PM

There may or may not be, but contrary to Simon, I believe it is more likely a slip-up, than council deceit. Anyway, I think it could have been worded better. I would take overall to mean all attempted visits. It seems a rather meaningless figure to say that you hope to get 33% acceptance of people who agree to the doorstep questionnaire if few people agree to it in the first place.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2014, 07:37 PM

I'd imagine it was this:


This isn't the most violent thing ever posted on this forum, but it is unnecessarily rude, never the less.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 7 2014, 08:15 PM

Of course they don't give a breakdown of those who have accepted packs. If they are mainly pensioners whose main travel is to the shops it probably won't have a great impact.

A greater reduction to the pollution at the BK roundabout (which is said to be the aim of the scheme) might be achieved bt turning off the Sainsbury's roundabout traffic lights. But that wouldn't cost £90,000

Posted by: user23 Jul 7 2014, 08:30 PM

Blimey. I didn't realise the word "silly" was so offensive.

Sorry Simon, if you're upset about it, that wasn't my intent.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 7 2014, 08:51 PM

On its own it probably isn't. I would imagine Simon is well versed in your forum behaviour by now.


I wonder what your intent was when you posted:

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 8 2014, 08:23 AM

Can't do that. Has a pedestrian crossing on it.
Also I believe during normal hours it would cause large tailbacks in both Bear Lane and Kings Road (East).
Thus pollution may be decreased at the BK roundabout but would be increased in these two areas.
In addition to this, the lights, I believe, do reduce accidents because many drivers do not either understand or ignore the protocol on roundabouts in order to save a few seconds.
So, because the lights are there to improve traffic flow, protect pedestrians and reduce accidents their removal is not really realistic (except perhaps during the night).

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 8 2014, 11:19 AM

I am not convinced that it would cause more problems. I have frequently stopped at the lights whilst no traffic goes around from Bear Lane, and similarly seen the northbound clog up if more than about four cars wish to turn into Mill Lane/Kings Road and similar but not so frequently southbound.
Perhaps better fazing would help. The pedestrians are catered for with an underpass.

The Kings Road issue may be further improved if the link road goes ahead - the Bear Lane issue is due to short sited councillors only allowing buses over an inadequately built bridge.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 8 2014, 11:54 AM

There is no doubt that a roundabout can handle more traffic if lights aren't stopping the flow all the time, the problem is that the north/south traffic will dominate - not a huge problem for Bear Lane but it could really mess up King's Road.


Fazing? The pedestrian underpass has been supplemented by the pelican crossings for a reason - I guess because Sainsburys has been built in the corner the underpass doesn't serve. And it doesn't help that the underpass floods pretty often.


King's Road will only get busier - the link road will add traffic to the A339 junction not reduce it.

But Bear Lane is far less of a problem since the bridge was closed (before which Wharf Road was a nightmare).

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 8 2014, 02:08 PM

Should have been phasing!

The link road will reduce traffic from Sainsbury's/Scatts that does a circuit at the Roundabout and goes back down Mill Lane it may take some traffic that goes down Greenham Road (is that the correct name) dependent on how busy Boundary Road becomes.

I don't see why it would have any major increase in traffic at the A339 junction.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 8 2014, 03:29 PM

Any road that eases the traffic flow will attract more traffic - in the case of the proposed link road there is also the small matter of over 1,000 new homes on the racecourse. But the point about the traffic aiming for Mill Lane is a good one - providing they make the link road two-way.

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 8 2014, 03:39 PM

The Kings Road relief through the old Sterling Cables site starting at the Scats road to nowhere, has a considerable importance as far as the WBC highways are concerned. The planners have already turned down two applications for Sterling Estate, the last one because the road wasn't fully catered for. The latest application, which is pending, fits everything that the highways wanted. They are due to complete their application for a grant fairly soon so it should go ahead if it is granted. A planning application refusal might put the project back years though.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 8 2014, 09:28 PM

Every cloud and all that...whilst I might personally think the whole thing is going to be ineffective, that the Council are able to splash out such a significant sum on such an obscure issue clearly demonstrates austerity in local government is over. That's good news surely?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 8 2014, 09:33 PM

...or simply an example of a typical public sector box ticking exercise.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 8 2014, 09:40 PM

It's not an obscure issue to WBC - the Burger King roundabout is a major headache for them. Essentially they can't do a thing about it - so they grasp at straws, like this dream of persuading a significant proportion of South Newbury/Greenham residents to walk or cycle rather than drive into town. Even if the exercise is twice as successful as they dare dream it will have no significant effect on the air pollution at the roundabout.

Adding another 5,000 houses around Newbury won't help much either!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 9 2014, 06:28 AM

....but not one people are demonstrating outside Market Street offices about, or starting petitions, or filling the letters page at NWN about. As you rightly say, the real issue is something they can do nothing about. its a bit like when Lambeth declared themselves a nuclear free zone; utterly pointless. However, that just cost a few signs. So, again, I'd say local government have ended austerity and we are back to waste - fill yer boots lads!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 9 2014, 08:26 AM

Again, because the by-pass does not take the A339 traffic maybe a solution would be to force traffic using this road to onto it?
How I'm not sure but would probably mean forcing traffic to / from Basingstoke to use the Tothill junction.
Alternatively build an Eastern by-pass (as should have been done in the first place!) which would also eliminate the level crossing!!
Otherwise Newbury will remain forever a through route and BK Roundabout will be forever polluted!

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 9 2014, 12:02 PM

Especially as a train with a Nuclear Flask on its way to Dungeness passed through the borough! (or was that Lewisham?)

Posted by: blackdog Jul 9 2014, 01:23 PM

I would also be interested to know how they ensure that no nuclear generated electricity reaches the Borough

Posted by: gel Jul 9 2014, 01:34 PM

or as I seem to recall, reinstate an earlier idea to have an elevated section from North of Fire Station to Tesco r/about?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 9 2014, 03:08 PM

Ironically, it would have been rather easier to get the then rail authorities to re route the flasks than it will be for WBC to reduce pollution. Still, £90 grand into the economy, can't be bad; specially coming from the party that abhors waste!

Posted by: Mr Brown Jul 9 2014, 07:02 PM

I haven't got a car myself, living as I do in the Town centre, I don't need one. It's a lifestyle choice though and frankly, even some of my neighbours think its weird, but it works for me. I can see why it wouldn't be so easy for people living in the suburbs as the bus services in Newbury aren't very good. Also, its hilly in some places, so a bike isn't always practical. Someone mentioned that Vodafone have a 'green' travel scheme which pays people not to use cars but apparently even that doesn't work too well. All this is pretty obvious, so it does seem very strange that the District Council think they will make a big change just by having a chat on the door step. Someone is giving them some pretty bad advice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 9 2014, 09:40 PM

I worked on Hambridge Lane some years back and I would have liked to have cycled to work, but cycling to Hambridge Lane from Wash Common is, IMHO, relatively dangerous, and without showers at work I'd have been sitting at a desk sweaty all day.

More interestingly I could have done virtually all of my work from home but wasn't offered the option, and I think that's something WBC could invest some money in promoting to business rather than addressing their concerns to commuters.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 10 2014, 06:30 AM

Ties in with your new post!

I'd certainly agree, perhaps even a session at the Local Technical College would help. 'New Ways of Working' - properly explaining the benefits to both business and employee of working from home / elsewhere, how to do and manage it properly and how to remote conference properly etc. That might dispel some of the more obvious responses which usually kill off such initiatives Perhaps a degree of sponsorship from our own comms giant?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 10 2014, 08:30 PM

Anyway, not only has JSH had a pop at us, Ms Pam Bale has repudiated criticism of this project too, but you'll have to borrow or buy your own NWN to see what she says in the letters page, you tight wads!

Posted by: Turin Machine Jul 10 2014, 08:45 PM

Well she would, wouldn't she.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 30 2014, 07:14 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/council-introduces-safer-journey-cards

Words fail me!

As this is clearly the first attempt, has anyone suggestions for other 'flash card comments'
such as 'what do you mean this is only for Vodafone people?' or 'can you check that, I only want to pay for the ride, not the bus'.

If we are really serious about getting us to use public transport, can we please employ people who know how to do that properly. What is emerging is patronising and amateur.

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 30 2014, 05:02 PM

I do wonder about the residents of the area where the project was centered, Wash Common I believe, if the most popular request from those people interrogated was for a set of cards so that they can communicate with the bus driver. Is WBC for real. If the people are up to filling in the choice box, I suspect they would be perfectly capable of communicating their wishes.

Quite right to use the word patronising here and is this just a poor attempt at spin.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 30 2014, 05:13 PM

They all have incontinence...Look at the cards and how often does "The Toilet" fit.?
Wash Common for you?
ce

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 30 2014, 05:58 PM

I think it shows that someone at the council has initiative?

I bet none of us could of come up with this idea to P*ss ratepayers money away could we?

Posted by: spartacus Jul 30 2014, 06:30 PM

I take it your comment is made as an able bodied person with no physical or mental impairment? I got on a bus behind someone with a severe stutter.... By the time the poor bloke had pushed the words out of his mouth so that the driver knew how much to charge I could have walked to where I wanted to go...

A card would at least h...h..hhh.. haaaa..hh..hh.. h.haaaaavv.vvv.vv.vvvvvvvvvvv..v.huvhel...ellll llll. ...helped..!

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 30 2014, 06:41 PM

Why can they not just write the message on a piece of paper? Ahhh because it would be the same result but wouldn't spend any of the taxpayers money!

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 30 2014, 06:44 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 30 2014, 07:59 PM

If anyone's being patronising it's you two. The scheme isn't for the general 'us'. It's for 'them'....the 'they' as MontyPython puts it aren't all capable of putting a written sentence together. Where I live there are a couple of adults with Downs Syndrome who regularly catch the bus. As the article says, the scheme is for "people with disabilities and mobility difficulties". I see this minor leaflet (one of hundreds that are already out there) as being part of helping them get further along the road towards total independent living. From my experience bus drivers aren't exactly the most tolerant or understanding of people and if the simple process of a recognised travel card item can help the driver keep to his schedule and get the passenger on board with minimum fuss then why are you seeing this as a negative.

You guys are FAR too in control of your faculties for it to be a scheme that's intended for you (too far up your own ar$es too)

Posted by: On the edge Jul 30 2014, 09:09 PM

Umm, now let's just think about that shall we? So, according to you, and not without foundation, the Bus Driver isn't able to cope with people with disabilities. What makes Bys Drivers any different from Taxi Drivers, Train Conductors or indeed any other retail assistant? Isn't this covered by the Disability Act, no one should need 'special treatment' to be able to function properly. By your own argument, the root cause of the problem is in attentive drivers; so a better and less discriminatory, more customer centric approach would be to properly train and properly monitor the drivers. Looks as if your very limited understanding of this has influenced your view here.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 30 2014, 10:45 PM

Except that's not what I said is it...... They have targets and strict timetables to adhere to and (some) can be intolerant of ANY passengers who dither and do anything to disrupt that timetable - which may result in them having to explain themselves to their manager. Disability Descrimination Act doesn' t come into it.


As I said.... too far up your own ar$e

Posted by: On the edge Jul 31 2014, 05:39 AM

That is absolute rubbish. We all have targets and objectives to meet and when we deal with customers we have to put up with their different ways. That is no excuse for being rude or intolerant. If the bus timetable cannot cope with this, then the customer service problem with bus company staff is even worse - bad management. You actually hint that poor supervision is part of the problem. There is no point in the rest of us trying to make life better for people with disabilities when we come up with such neolithic and entrenched attitudes. So, again, I think it quite wrong and verging on discriminatory, that people with disabilities should need to make special arrangements to cover shortfalls in transport industry customer service standards. And finally, I'll leave the personal invective to you; not a bus driver by chance? You have the same manner!

Posted by: Strafin Jul 31 2014, 06:07 AM

Totally agree OTE, the idea that anyone over the age of 6 would need to have the council write a little sign for them is patronising and insulting. Do they need to get an adult to write them a new sign every time they decide to go to a different stop? How specific need they be, turnpike road had about three or four stops on it for example. I don't think having something written down is a terrible idea, just the idea that the council feel they need to be the ones to do it.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 31 2014, 06:15 AM

Ah well..... different strokes for different folks.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 31 2014, 09:22 AM

If it works, then fairplay I say. Having a WBC signature will give it credence that would be missing from a personal note. It is true about some bus drivers' attitude, but that will often be the consequence of dealing with the idiots in the general public all day long and to a greater extent to the pressures of running a service on a shoestring.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 31 2014, 04:56 PM

As usual you are keen to protect those that waste the public's money. If they are unable to write it on a piece of paper I am sure the have a carer who can.

But of course you are keen to slag off the public who criticise a waste of funds.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 31 2014, 05:17 PM

Although I made fun of the idea I think it could make transport easier for those who rely on bus services.
Was the idea backed more positively by those concerned with vulnerable people? Age Concern,Arthritis UK?

Getting on a Paris bus trying to end up north can be a nightmare when the "driverrr" has to take a break for a baguette.

A lot of people moved to villages in the countryside,not just south of Newbury.
The widowed spouse who did not drive is isolated.
I found it a trial to get to Norwich by bus some years ago. I was young then, I am much older now.
ce

Posted by: On the edge Jul 31 2014, 05:53 PM

That's probably right, but the answer isn't flash cards. Things like customer service training for all staff; goes without saying. Appropriate vehicle handling skills training so the thing doesn't lurch about like a bread van. On board announcements as the rule rather than the exception. Oyster type cards to pay fares. Bus stops equipped with even simple 'where's my bus' indicators. An 'app' showing where buses are....... None of which need cost much and would do no more than bring the service up to an even acceptable modern standard. All segments of society would then find no trouble using the service.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 31 2014, 10:58 PM

This is possibly the stupidest post I have ever read on this forum. Maybe even the whole internet.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 31 2014, 11:02 PM

Really? Your comment runs it neck and neck I'd say. Perhaps if it is so stupid, you would oblige me with an explanation for your outburst. Unless you're too pissed to do so at the moment that is.

Posted by: user23 Aug 1 2014, 07:55 AM

I wouldn't worry too much.

We've seen someone suggest that an expensive app to run on smartphones should be created rather than printing a few flash cards, for those who might have learning difficulties.

Don't take anything you see on here too seriously.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 1 2014, 09:06 AM

As well as being patronising you're still missing the point, numbnuts. This is a gesture towards a form of independence and not relying on carers entirely


yeah..... like this initiative must roll into the thousands of pounds mark........

Posted by: MontyPython Aug 1 2014, 09:12 AM

Well done Phil, you have taken your usual WBC approach and ignored what was really said.

The app was clearly there to encourage more use of Public Transport by everyone, something I thought WBC were keen on. You have clearly accepted that printing flashcards rather than a cheaper alternative of writing them by the end user or their carer is OK.

No doubt you also think this farcical £90k waste of tax payers money is OK too. They pushed a card through my door (without knocking) to say they had called at 4.30 one weekday afternoon when most people who they would be targetting are at work.

As you say User don't take anything to seriously WBC don't!

Posted by: MontyPython Aug 1 2014, 09:16 AM

Nice Post Spartacus, No one said it was a fortune, but of course you still wish to show your disdain for the general public.

Posted by: spartacus Aug 1 2014, 09:30 AM

eeugh..... the great unwashed you mean



That reminds me...I must disinfect my keyboard after coming on this site....

Posted by: On the edge Aug 1 2014, 10:51 AM

I'd also suggest you have also missed the point...but by a country mile! However, you are right when you say this is a gesture, yes, spot on, gesture politics. If this really was a gesture towards independence, then it would have been mooted ages ago and for all other customer transactions and by the organisations that know and support people with special needs in society. But no, it's being used to justify a waste of public funds, sadly at the very time when services to such people are and have been cut. So, at best, this is patronising; not only to people who really need help, but to also to us, the people who pay.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 1 2014, 11:11 AM

Your complete lack of understanding and disdain for others leads me to believe that there is little point in offering an explanation. I'm not sure if you would listen to or understand it.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 1 2014, 11:12 AM

And because I think your comment is wrong, I must be drunk? That's another example of your arrogance.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2014, 12:27 PM

Hyperbole like you posted at the time you did is often an example of someone who's had a few; however, just hurling abuse without an explanation is not only arrogant, it is bloody rude too. You have done this before and when asked you didn't give any explanation then either.

You posted:


I think I can find examples that are far more deserving of that title than my post; one obnoxious example is not too far away from here.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 1 2014, 03:49 PM

Your post implies that anyone who has an impairment is incapable of looking after themselves. And that to get away from a carer they need a little note from WBC as their own wouldn't be good enough. I think that is obnoxious and uniformed. I still do, and I didn't get personal until you did. As for history, I don't recall refusing to explain myself, but so what if I did? I think if we have a look at history you have caused more upset than me, but as it is a public forum we are both free to write pretty much what we like. But we have to accept that others might not like it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2014, 05:02 PM

Really, perhaps you could show me where that is then?

I did say that a message with WBC's endorsement would carry more weight than a self penned note. This has nothing to do with judging the capability of the user AT ALL. This is about treating the user with more respect than they otherwise might.

I then went on to explain how I felt about the apparent bad attitude of some bus drivers and what might lie behind it. Nothing to do with people with difficulties there either.


As this is based on a lie I have nothing to add at this point in time.


You called my post idiotic, that sounds like you getting personal first, unless you can show me where on this thread I insulted you before then?


I didn't say you refused to reply, that is another lie, but I don't care if you agree or not, just explain yourself would do, but comments like the most idiotic post ever read on the Internet is complete hyperbole, notwithstanding ill-informed.

The problem seems you read what you thought you saw, not what was written, I therefore question your comprehension skills. I get like that sometimes if I've had a drink.


If you read the article it would seem it is quite a popular idea amongst the users too:

"The council says that the cards have been designed to help improve the experience of residents when taking the bus, and to help them grow their confidence and independence when travelling alone.

West Berkshire’s executive member for Transport Policy, Hilary Cole, said: “The Safer Journey Cards have been made available to residents taking part in the Personalised Travel Planning project in the south of Newbury, and have proven to be one of the most requested items.

“They are a simple way to make people’s lives and journeys easier.

“ We are encouraging anyone who might benefit from this facility or community groups to request cards.”

The use of the cards are supported by various bus operators within the district. The council plans to hold an event in Newbury later this year to promote both the Safer Journey Card and bus travel."

Posted by: On the edge Aug 1 2014, 07:05 PM

Ummm, given how the Council and it's publicity machine like to play with numbers as we've noticed in so many other threads I'd live to see the numbers. How many 'ideas' have been implemented and how many are really being used would be a nice start. Sorry WBC, nothing you now say can be taken at face value.

Then, I would also like to know what WBC and the Bus Company propose to do about the apparent root cause of this problem; unfriendly drivers?

Indeed, if this is such a success, do they intend to build on it and quickly roll the scheme out to cover doctors receptionists, shop assistants, library staff etc.

I think we know the answer! Yes, the solution is cheap, in more ways than one.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2014, 09:12 PM

Unfriendly drivers is an assumption. The principle of the policy is to try to encourage people with difficulties to be more mobile, I believe. I see the cards as an inexpensive idea that might eventually become normal and where you might see others actually 'manufacturing' their own message cards. It might also just disappear of course!

However, why must it be an either or situation, I'd like to see initiatives like those you described earlier too: bus locating systems and the like.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 1 2014, 10:15 PM

If the drivers are treating all customers with respect; which if course is the essence of the various disability legislation, there should be absolutely no need for the cards. I can't see one phrase that shouldn't really be normal behaviour - even the wait until I sit down before pulling off. For able bodied users this is just as difficult and awkward.

As a general technique, for people with difficulties, suggesting they might use alternative methods of communication is good, of course. That is (or at least was) done as a matter of course.

I have no trouble with the fact that someone is reacting to comments made by disadvantaged users, but before rushing to what they perceive to be a solution, a little more thought and analysis would have been helpful. First question, why are they saying that?

Posted by: spartacus Aug 1 2014, 11:16 PM

You're taking my earlier comment as gospel when in fact it was no more than a generalisation about SOME bus drivers.... From my experience some people who work at the checkout in the local shop are also miserable feckers and some people who post on web forums are total tossers....but that doesn't mean YOU are...(exhausted or OTE or whichever one of you has taken such offence. )

The comment could be equally relevant when referring to the bus passengers waiting in the queue to board behind the person with the disability. Being held up for 45 seconds while someone with a speech impediment (my example) or other disability struggles to get the words out or change out can seem like it's a massive amount of time - when it's only the same small 45 seconds.... but enough time for at least three loud 'huffs' from the impatient.

The driver can in truth be a shining example of tolerance but all it needs is a huff from behind or a glare from the passenger already sat in his seat and being 'delayed' and I would imagine someone who has difficulties in those situations may feel even more self-conscious and will perhaps be reluctant to go through it again.


Perhaps...just perhaps .... a few of those people who are entitled to free taxis (provided at public expense) may decide to jump on a bus instead if they feel that a simple card can help them (something you may take for granted - if you even use a bus!)

Perhaps then, a few cheap printed cards could save a considerable amount being spent on providing transport for the disabled. Perhaps then it becomes an initiative that instead of spending huge amounts ( ) of public money actually turns out to be a method of saving from a different area?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 2 2014, 07:59 AM

You are quite right of course, bad customer service does not come from all staff. Let's just say in some fields of endeavour the percentage of poorly behaving staff is higher than others, which then becomes institutionalised. For instance, Doctors Receptionists as a generic group don't get a good press. Similarly, the reaction of other customers in the queue behind can be aggravating and can cause a loss of confidence, of course.

The 'flash card' scheme addresses a specific industry; whereas the problem is actually generic. Yes, it's a minimal cost and I'm sure has the support of disability help groups. If this is an issue I trust the scheme does not simply stop where it is. Similarly, the bus companies should also be taking heed and doing something to eliminate the need for some of the phrases used.

What this all means is that this scheme should not be used to grandstand the Transport Project the Council has undertaken. It's not acceptable to use what is frankly a quick cheap fix which will play to emotion to justify this scheme.

To me, that actually says, nothing of real value is emerging and we might as well have put £90 grand down the grid.

I wonder what those people protesting at cuts to critical disability services outside the Market Place office a while back would have done with the money?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2014, 04:04 PM

I've just seen that WBCs needy OAP meals on wheels provision is stopping because the £90 grand a year it needs has been cut!

Now what would you rather have? Meals on wheels with a quick check on vulnerable OAPs .... or a bunch of yoo hoos banging on doors trying to get people to stop using their cars but use their bike instead! As they say, you couldn't make it up!

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 29 2014, 05:28 PM

The elderly and vulnerable are always the ones that will suffer, after all, if WBC are going to save the Planet someone has to pay.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 29 2014, 05:55 PM

Perhaps the town council could help. Getting rid of the mayor could net £90k without any hardship at all, and it wouldn't be difficult to find £250k with allotment self-management, dropping the charter market, and a move from the Gothic mansion that they all rattle around in, and still no one would notice any loss of service. Still, feeding old biddies hot meals isn't that important, and I guess they can always eat cake.

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 29 2014, 08:25 PM

The Apetito meals for the old folk was not free. Each meal was invoiced at the end of the week directly to the pensioner. As far as I know and I may be wrong here, there was no general subsidy from the council.
I understand that it is a commercial decision taken by the Apetito company although for some reason, they are still supplying Hampshire users from their Newbury depot. Does this suggest that Basingstoke and Dene are supplementing the companies income and that WBC are not.
They, Apetito, recommend using a Wiltshire company that supplies frozen meals. That suggests that the customer is capable of using a microwave but a good few of them certainly are not or they would probably be cooking their own meals anyway.
It is a loss of a lifesaver for a lot of the old biddies as Simon calls them, but these are people who have paid their dues all their lives have perhaps become frail and have lost a lot of their abilities. Their relatives are trying to give them their independence living at home but I suspect the cost to WBC will be heavy as these persons will probably now end up in care homes..

But, good on Fairclose for filling the void but as it will be all volunteer work, I wonder how long that will last.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 29 2014, 08:50 PM

I was being ironic - I hope that was clear, and I agree entirely with your point.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 29 2014, 09:10 PM

Thankfully, lots of very good volunteers around Newbury.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 29 2014, 09:17 PM

Yes, West Berks have stopped the subsidy (as you call it) Basingstoke haven't. I suspect that any organisation, public, private or not for profit would not be able to carry on delivering the service when it's original income stream is so massively reduced. Have a chat with your boss and see if she could.

The amount involved is £90,000 a year, and what ever financial game is being played, is arguably providing a component of the safety nets envisioned by the welfare proposals made in the middle of WW2. I know the son of one of the founders, she worked with the team working up the legislation. Meals on Wheels always served a double purpose, nutrition and the all important check. It gave our senior citizens a chance of independence.

WBC will doubtless try to distance themselves from the shabby decision to cut this service, wringing hands and claiming that it was down to the provider. Just as it does with the services cut from helping other needy people.

Simon Kirby was bring ironic and rightly highlighting other good examples of wholly unnecessary and totally unjustified expenditure. Let me add another, I wonder how they will feel parading this expensive finery on Rememberance Sunday, knowing that this service has been cut just in time for 'those left behind'.

Sorry, yet another example of a service that would be far safer and better delivered nationally without local government meddling.

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 29 2014, 09:28 PM

I wasn't being critical of the old Biddies label, just thought that if Simon could use it so could I and I thought it a little amusing as well.
However Simon, if one has aspirations to be a politician, that would not be, in today's parlance, politically correct.

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 29 2014, 09:36 PM

I'm not blaming Apetito for the loss of service. They are not a charitable organisation and have to fund their operation to pay drivers and to finance vehicles in addition to providing hot meals.

I will however as you suggest, have a chat with my boss and see if there is anything she can do.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2014, 06:23 PM

Actually, this whole saga makes me very angry. This is gesture politics of the worst kind. We sneak in a drastic cut to OAP meal provision because of austerity, yet trumpet and laud much unnecessary spending on meals for fit kids! Look at what's happened at some local schools, where perfectly adequate kitchens have been massively re-equipped at an enormous cost. I've yet to see a school kitchen that couldn't cope with three times it's nominal role.

The actual benefit in doing this is doubtful to say the least and done of the arguments I've heard about encouraging manners / eating communally etc. etc. are simply spurious. Yet again, it seems the politicians don't think anyone is capable of bringing up their children properly. Little wonder then that some don't.

So, who gives a tinkers cuss that a few vulnerable OAPs loose out? Certainly not the coalition partners. Oh well, that's done me, several of you said it wasn't worth joining and trying to change within. Well, I have to say you were quite right

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2014, 06:56 PM

That being said, many people these days have table manners of apes. I'm for school dinners, as is evident, people cannot feed children properly.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 2 2014, 09:53 PM

I don't think that's true. Yes, there are some feckless parents but they can be educated surely? My children have good manners, a good diet and are abide to eat in public. Just like the children of nearly everyone else I know. Yes, there are disruptive kids, setting very poor examples at any school; but that's generally down to poor discipline and muddle headed social service attitudes. What a dreadful society we become when the state had to dictate what our children eat and how! I personally don't trust our local council at all, let alone with the welfare of my children. A sick measure for a sick society.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 2 2014, 10:37 PM

You being able to bring up healthy well behaved kids doesn't negate the point that there is an increasing amount of people who are not feeding their kids a nutritious meal that requires a knife and fork to eat. Also, school dinners can help play a part in the same way school uniforms are meant to.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2014, 06:34 AM

Free school uniforms next then eh?

I think I'm beginning to understand; political policy today is simply a game show. Reduce implementation to base sound bites so even the great unwashed can understand. Some you win, some you loose.

University tuition fees - loose
Meals on wheels - loose
Free school dinners - win

Joined up, cohesive strategies, nah....roll up, roll up,....

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2014, 09:41 AM

WTFAYTA?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2014, 10:11 AM

English as she is now spoke, yes clearly education is an issue

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 3 2014, 11:01 AM

I understood the words and grammar, but not the point you were making!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2014, 12:11 PM

Sorry, response was prompted because I didn't understand WTFAYTA.

The point I'm trying to make is simply that in my view,

- it's immoral to cut the meals on wheels service because of coalition imposed budget cuts; whilst introducing a 'communal feeding service' for a segment of the population that haven't even been demanding it.

- Having the state take over a prime parental responsibility is wrong and Orwellian. In effect, the state now dictating how we feed our children.

- That the Leader if the Liberal Democrats pushed this proposal through as hard as he did, where there are many other more important issues confronting the coalition demonstrates it's simply gesture politics. For instance, could have used his powers of persuasion to push the Student Grants policy he promised and reneged on earlier.

All the main parties operate in this way and suggests our democracy had simply become a lottery of policies, none of which make any sense when considered as a whole.

Finally, if the State do take over feeding kids at lunchtimes, where next?

Posted by: user23 Sep 3 2014, 12:28 PM

Utterly bizarre:

• School dinners aren't a new concept, why are you trying to make out offering children food at a school some radical new form of social engineering?
• As far as I know, there's no obligation for children to eat school dinners.
• Is anywhere with a staff canteen also wrong and Orwellian?

Posted by: MontyPython Sep 3 2014, 12:51 PM

Free school meals for all is a new concept or at least hasn't been around for 50 years.

Do you not find it bizzare that someone who has no one to care for them and has contributed to society for years should have their help to hot meals taken away, yet someone who has a parent to look after them is given one free by the state?

Posted by: JeffG Sep 3 2014, 01:16 PM

Grammar? Where?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2014, 02:13 PM

What don't you understand about the words 'free' and 'compulsory'. That's the new bit of the concept, well new to us here at the moment. One positive thing though, as you imply, this might make older visitors from the old eastern block feel at home. I'm sure the children will be 'encouraged' and not 'forced' to physically eat the delightful menu our cash strapped local council will provide.

Might be worth you actually reading 1984.

You never cease to amaze; my regards to Big Brother!

Posted by: user23 Sep 3 2014, 02:48 PM

Perhaps you should read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28981684

You seem to have invented a problem that doesn't exist so you've got something to moan about.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 3 2014, 02:57 PM

Aaah, you mean instead of solving a problem that doesn't exist?

Presumably you also agree that those responsible for the welfare of old people are simply moaning because their meals service has been slashed?

Did you send them a nice glossy leaflet too?

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 25 2014, 09:19 AM

Reviving the money well spent theme.
(if I didn't someone else would!)
Anyone reckon they could provide tea and biscuits for a year of meetings at less than £11,000 a year?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/council-spares-no-expense-for-snacks-at-meetings

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2014, 09:57 AM

It's about £8,000.00 per year which works out about £27.00 per event, which doesn't seem outrageous to me.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2014, 01:01 PM

Very true, but then again, with vending machines in close proximity, do the attendees really need to be fed and watered like this?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2014, 01:50 PM

Mind you, we could always be so miserly that no-one could be bothered to do anything. It's hard to get people to go as it is, it seems.

Posted by: user23 Oct 25 2014, 03:54 PM

Vending machines in close proximity?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 25 2014, 03:56 PM

Yes, that's very true, and really just polite!

Must admit, some of these counting stats. can be quite amusing. I bet they'd be able to tell us how many sheets of bog paper get used each year!

Posted by: MontyPython Oct 25 2014, 04:53 PM

That's if he gives a sh!t

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 27 2014, 08:52 AM

Packet of digestives from Tesco and some tea bags??
Hospitality at meetings at the company I worked for were banned shorty after privatisation!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 27 2014, 10:16 AM

...and in the Board Room?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 10:55 AM

...and someone to go and get it, a water boiler, cutlery, someone to serve it at often unsocial hours and clean up afterwards. Put another way, I wouldn't do it for £27.00.


That may be the case, but it is hard enough to get people to go to these meetings as it is, just making them more unattractive seems counter productive.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 27 2014, 01:16 PM

11 Grand just to get people to attend meetings? Hmmm.
I am sure if they really wanted to be there they could go without??

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2014, 01:38 PM

It isn't £11,000.00; it's more like £8,000.00 and I didn't say we should spend £11,000.00 to get them to attend meetings. That is your twist on my point.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2014, 10:12 AM

Not really.
You said it was hard to get them to attend for some reason so I assume from that you are inferring that the refreshments tempt them there by making it "more attractive".
I am saying that if tea and biscuits is needed to temp them to attend then something is wrong??

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2014, 10:43 AM

I am saying we are in danger of being too miserly for our democracy's own good. I am not saying we need to supply tea and biscuits to tempt them to go, that is your spin. I inferred that an average of £27.00 per meeting is spent and if true I don't see that as a gross extravagance. Whether or not they should have it for free in the first place is a more valid argument, but that wasn't your original complaint I responded to.

Your original post was to suggest they were paying too much and I contested that is not the case; I wouldn't do it for ~£27.00 a go. You also miscalculated the cost per year too (according to the report that is).