Forum Replies Created
Back to my original point.
I would wager that the ‘pressure groups’ would not raise an eyebrow if the proposal was for another location in the Borough. As I say, ‘not in my back yard’ but then again, there would probably be yet another group from that location.
I am certainly not against legitimate protest where a situation warrants it e.g. The Poll Tax demos or CND marches years ago, but I am definitely against parochial mentality that seems to pervade every issue in and around the Borough.
One complainant even has the temerity to suggest that the proposed hen barn is wrong for a predominantly rural area. Am I really missing the point here? I thought that matters pertaining to agriculture in whatever form was predominantly a rural activity. Oh no!, not when it is my rural location.
NJones, you would be totally wrong. But as I said, where I live within the Borough is an irrelevancy. The principle remains the same.
To answer some of the questions posted above:
When I say that the minority, I am talking not parochially but on a Borough wide basis, where indeed the pressure group are a minority- the vast majority are apathetic to proposals. As far as running a pro campaign, surely that is unnecessary if the elected members do what is considered right and proper for the populace as a whole.
Secondly, it is irrelevant as to which area I live as the Council is mandated to act on behalf of all, ergo, one must take the rough with the smooth in decisions made.
Regarding green belt land development, the particular case I cited referred to a member of a minority grouping who had inhabited the site for many years to my knowledge, and I might add, with the tacit approval of the Authorities. Therefore, if it is contrary to regulations to live on or develop green belt, then that should be a common thread running throughout the planning process. A clear case of ‘not as I do, but as I say’ methinks.
Is there not enough brown belt land that could have been utilised first? Perhaps I should start a pressure group to ensure this happens in the future. After all, little noises make Wrexham’s leaders run, metaphorically speaking, with their tails between their legs, similar to a chastised puppy. Or maybe, they’ll prove me wrong.
The advent of e- cigarettes has brought a change to the many ‘traditional’ smokers’ habits and the use of them is perfectly legal in premises, as they are not tobacco based and emit no smoke, just a vapour. Yet many licenced premises prohibit their use. Indeed, all that they contain is nicotine which has about the same affect as caffeine on the user (as stated by the BMA).
I feel confident that if licencees used a little more discretion, custom would increase irrespective of the cost of an on sale alcoholic beverage.
Traditionally, people (generally) who frequent public houses on a regular basis are smokers, like it or not.May 28, 2013 at 7:00 pm in reply to: £4,989 is the Council annual spend of the working person? #61236
Oh, and by the way, Wayne etc., sentences are traditionally started with a capital letter!
Just a little observation! Easy isn’t it?May 28, 2013 at 6:57 pm in reply to: £4,989 is the Council annual spend of the working person? #61235
In response to Welsh Dresser.
Yes, I agree that anyone has the right to contribute to a thread and indeed free speech is still a right and very much alive.
Notwithstanding, contributions should be relevant to the topics under consideration and not directed towards a simple grammatical error in the post. Not everyone has the same grasp of the rules of grammar, but that does in no way detract from the point being made.
I consider that the facetious nature of our friends post was a sorry attempt to belittle the submission.
Rather than attempting to chastise me, it may have been more becoming of you to address your comments to the person who clearly was ‘nit picking’ and furthermore, not contributing one iota of meaningful dialogue to the point raised in the initial post.May 28, 2013 at 2:50 pm in reply to: £4,989 is the Council annual spend of the working person? #61234
Re the comment made by the Wayneinspain regarding the original post.
One incorrectly used question mark once again brings out the infantile nit picking from this ‘contributor’.
If he has nothing positive to contribute to a debate, it would serve all reasonable and sensible persons well, for him to desist from his inane and facile nonsense that he spews forth.
I for one am sick of his pedantic, puerile comments.
If any other reader agrees, please make it known by contributing to this thread and he MAY get the message. However, that is extremely unlikely.
As an aside, the definition of an ‘expert’ can be construed as:-
Ex – a has been.
Pert – a drip under pressure.
If the cap fits, wear it!
Is the Wrexham game being televised? If so, does anyone know on which channel it is being broadcast?
In anticipation of some advice, thanks.
Demolish the bloody place and make it into a car park. It is neither use nor ornament. Grade 2 listed building – pathetic!!!
Slightly off topic I know, but I do object strongly to Council run car parks allowing free unlimited parking to blue badge holders whilst everyone else is required to pay. Surely if one is able to walk from a car park to the shops, they have the ability to put their hand into their pocket. Free road tax, ability to park anywhere with immunity, isn’t that enough? Too many blue badges around now-young people who are not disabled or even eligible for them are abusing the system. A crackdown on them would be more appropriate tha targeting other motorists for minor infringements.
As a last thought, if I park on a double yellow for example, I am causing a hazard yet if you have a blue badge, you are not.
Just keep your eyes open when you walk around town and I am absolutely certain my comments will be borne out.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .