Not a good idea as it would have over-run on cost, been delivered late or not at all and worst of all, the planning would have failed to deliver a statue that did what was hoped for.

You would have thought the local Kintbury/Hungerford policing might be a bit more up front considering that the Police and Crimes commissioner lives in the middle of the patch. Perhaps the council might have invited him along, after all, the Conservative PCC, Anthony Stansfeld, is also the West Berks Councillor for Kintbury.

That's already approved and grants obtained. The road meanders through the now flattened Sterling Estate from and including the "road to nowhere" by the Mole outlet (the Sainsbury inner roundabout).

Just across the road is an even more lucrative site for redevelopment, the almost redundant Newbury Police Station and the court buildings.

If you are the opposition with not much chance of winning then make all sorts of promises which as a government you could not possibly keep. It doesn't matter because on the day, you can continue to say we would have done all these things to make life lovely for the infirm, the young and the low income tax payers. You will if you are just credible, increase your majority and be able to make the electorate believe in you for the next round of voting, sooner or later.
As the party who will probably win, you can't make promises you can't keep unless they are little ones that won't damage your credibility when you do a U turn. However, it doesn't mean that you should run a crap campaign.

Personally, even as a Tory voter I got so P1ssed off hearing TM at her low turnout bashes, continually bleating on about a hard brexit, whatever that is and her me me me attitude.

JC really cranked it up at the end.

Assume you obtained the extended warranty from Tesco's so why not take it back to them

He would know of course.

Well I thought the former was optimistic but as far as increasing the precept, that will have to bite later if not sooner. There could be a lot of cash having to be repaid.

I'm quite pleased I don't reside in the Greenham parish, it was a nice idea, but it was obvious from the beginning that it would end in tears. The leadership was faulty, the idea that a café would cover the running costs was faulty, the way the money was used was faulty and outside influences, **** bent on disrupting the project (BBOWT) along with planning screw-ups (WBC) were perhaps the last straw. We mustn't also forget that somewhere along the line a survey and engineering cost analysis might have been carried out or was this overlooked. Something that is standard when buying any property.

If I was the responsible councillor, I might want to fade into the background but it seems that the personal, Trump like belief in his popularity, knows no bounds. What I find disturbing is that being voted off the tower committee, he is now able to poke his nose in and also get a vote on any further decisions by the working party. This because he is now leader of the parish council. Have these parish councillors got their heads up their respective backsides when only one councillor it seems, has the sense to get out before more problems erupt.

Just as a matter of interest, if nobody voted for any parish councillors when the next election takes place, would that mean that the parish council would have to be disbanded. That way, the debt racked up by the council would go where I wonder. Perhaps that would be the path the residents could take if it relieves them of what will be hiked up Greenham precept. A carefully worded letter to every resident asking them not to vote.

One other lack of expertise offered to us by NTC appears to be over the new water splash recently installed in the park. Great idea but the bad news is that nobody in the council has asked the question "How much will it cost to operate?". The water bill seems to have come as a surprise. Whoops.

Well, the Conservative boy made it again. A political victory no doubt. PCC and West Berks Councillor. Great he has time for both jobs, nice to have a small backstop. One never knows.

I don't understand why the police are the scapegoats of this whole sorry story. They were pawns and stupidly lied about what happened but, my understanding, reading some of the reports, was that this was not the only time this happened but previously, without a deadly result. Should not the football club who owned the stadium also be in the dock for not taking steps to prevent such a disaster when they knew that it might and it did happen again. Today, risk assessments are carried out as part of life in all areas but one would have thought that even without a formal assessment, someone might have thought that there was a problem with the design of the stadium and taken appropriate steps. The football clubs were financially well situated in those days so poverty was not an excuse.

My Hungarian friend doesn't speak English so as there are probably more Hungarians than Welsh speakers.......,

Just had a look at the NWN for this Thursday past to note that the Head of Highways and Transport for West Berks District Council, has paced a large advert or notification dated 28th April 2016.

This has 3 schedules.

Schedule 1 shows all the pedestrianised areas in Newbury and is for a prohibition of motor vehicles 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Schedule 2 is for various bus lanes (length of road, permitted vehicles and direction (if appropriate). No1. on that list is Park Way and Park Way bridge. [the space is as per the printed order, not mine] -from a point 30 metres north of its junction with Wharf Street to a point 167 metres further north. Buses, Taxis and cycles only.

Schedule 3 is for one way traffic. Newbury Bartholomew Street in a northerly direction from its junction with Market Street to its junction with Mansion House Street. Mansion House street, Market place, Wharf Street, Kings Road, Park Street and Pelican Lane. Order revokes all previous orders.

The notice also is a validation order for which they have no orders and have been in place for a number of years, Park Street, Pelican Lane and Kings Road.

It also states that the description and length of road for the Park Way [their spacing] has been for clarity and the reference to direction of travel removed.

The Orders effective 22nd April 2016.

Objections to the proposals and the grounds for objection no later than 19th May 2016.

[Note the date conflict.]

You've really upped the ante from the Town Council and allotments..

I hope that you don't do 60mph along there by the way even if you do have a modified chariot. Most of the road including through Long Lane and Curridge, is 30mph and the remainder is 50mph.

No, that's also a road I drive every day. (the B4009). I am aware of twats coming too fast in the opposite direction but it doesn't bother me. Neither does the bit of A339 we are talking about. I am just a little more aware that's all.



You of course as a rebellious Roman gladiator, will be fearless.

Why should he, do you publish yours even though you have nothing to hide ?. Or do you.

A subtle difference between the width of the Hungerford road and the now very narrow A339. I didn't say I was twitchy, that was your interpretation. I drive the A339 bit daily and, like the guy who ended up with a lamppost through his windscreen and out the back of the car through no fault of his own, wonder about oncoming traffic, a cones width away, over which I have no control.

The centre lanes have been well narrowed and HGV's are not allowed in them which makes for some interesting maneuvers when they get back into the correct lane to go up to the M4 at the Robin Hood.
The real reason for the speed restriction as far as I can see is that there is a great potential for a 'head on' now that the crash barriers have been removed. Even so, two vehicles doing 30mph when they meet will be significant. Two meeting at 40mph or more would be disastrous. I always feel a bit apprehensive trundling down the middle just in case a driver gets pushed or drifts into the oncoming.

You are right of course but my reason for the question which seems to be unanswerable is that every planning application and every councillor bangs on about "affordable housing" but never come up with an answer. It's a phrase that they believe will make their lower paid voters believe that they are looking after their interests. I would like to know for example, how "affordable" the apartments are in the Parkway complex and what criteria their selected managing agency uses to select the prospective tenants. Will it be local people on which housing list I wonder. That's if they ever get let of course.

Can anybody describe for me exactly what an affordable home is both in availability, like how do I get one and price, like how much would it cost.

I think we have to thank our country squire PCC for the crack down. A lot of resource for not a lot of return I suspect. Still, makes it a bit better for the crims in town with everybody rushing round the local fields and using gallons of fuel in the air. (Price per Hare ratio )

I also had an endowment mortgage which actually lost money and would have extended my mortgage by about five years. I went down the mis sold route and suddenly they coughed up and I got a great wad back which with the house sale, I was laughing all the way to the bank.

There is a massive incentive in this country of ours to do anything we can to thwart the evil tax man. On the whole, most of the current round of noise we are hearing is to do with tax avoidance which is legal and if the rules of HM Revenue & Customs allow it then so be it. To my mind the taxman is totally out of control if their rules allow us to lose millions because the corporate financial guys are cleverer than the tax inspectors. They are out maneuvered at every turn and the consequence of this is that they concentrate on the small guys who are trying to make ends meet with little chance of transferring their funds offshore.
The fines imposed for minor errors or late payments are draconian and the rule book is so massive that the average small businessman with a couple of employees doesn't stand a chance.
An example for instance is that employers have to make an online submission, not a payment, just a submission of their PAYE details within 3 days of the payday. Missing this will be punished with an immediate fine of £300 which suddenly arrives in the post some several weeks after the event. No warning and no opportunity to appeal. A telephone call to HMRC will only get some snotty b!tch who is unsympathetic and offers no recourse other than pay up. You try and find, as an average employer without specialist knowledge of the rules, where this is laid down.
Don't even mention the bearded lady and her mate who turn up to waste two or three of your days poking about with a so called Vat inspection. Guilty until proven innocent and they can always go back to their warm office with a smug smile of satisfaction because you missed a couple of sales you made online.