Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > All posts by a member
|
Posted on: Oct 1 2017, 06:49 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (Blake @ Sep 25 2017, 09:53 PM) I saw this and was rather disappointed: http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/22...of-newbury.html What we were all praying for really was a sculpture of our very own Julian Swift-Hook; a man surely deserving of an edifying work of art? 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. |
|
Forum: Newbury News
· Post Preview: #117210
· Replies: 7
· Views: 12,988
|
|
Posted on: Jun 11 2017, 12:44 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
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. |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #116083
· Replies: 222
· Views: 180,024
|
|
Posted on: Feb 25 2017, 11:11 AM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
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. |
|
Forum: Newbury News
· Post Preview: #114107
· Replies: 81
· Views: 101,155
|
|
Posted on: May 1 2016, 04:23 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 1 2016, 04:11 PM) Yes, of course, now and again we had bent coppers; discovery was reasonably quick though. Just as we had a few disreputable MP's and public servants. That's why it really was a scandal when such news broke. 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. |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #109550
· Replies: 37
· Views: 44,261
|
|
Posted on: Apr 30 2016, 01:03 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
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.]
|
|
Forum: Newbury News
· Post Preview: #109536
· Replies: 29
· Views: 39,635
|
|
Posted on: Apr 20 2016, 09:32 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (spartacus @ Apr 20 2016, 08:41 PM) Ok, forget the A4 to Hungerford as it's wide. What about the B4009 to Hermitage. Bends, 60mph and rather narrow in places? B4494 through Snelsmore and beyond? Had more than it's fair share of deaths. Are you as apprehensive about driving that route as you are using a road with a temporary 30mph limit? Just asking. It seems curious that's all 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. |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #109388
· Replies: 28
· Views: 35,060
|
New Replies No New Replies Hot Topic (New) Hot Topic (No New) |
Poll (New) Poll (No New) Locked Topic Moved Topic |
|
|
|