Forum Replies Created

  • Author
  • in reply to: Brymbo incident with young people #138765


    What does it mean that they are “bored”? Surely lots of kids get bored but don’t resort to anti-social behaviour. Do these particular kids need to be spoonfed activities?

    in reply to: Fixed Penalty Notices issued by a Private Company #138762


    The issue here is Borras81 is giving erroneous advice.

    That isn’t the issue this thread started with.
    I always find it bizarre that people complain about fines for such things as litter, parking and speeding, when the solution to not getting these fines is actually very simple.

    in reply to: Late staff wages #138761


    I bet there will be some that have direct debits and standing orders that will be missed due to this lateness. The council should pay compensation to them.

    They have already stated they will pay any charges incurred because of the late payment! It’s in the article if you read it properly.

    How straightforward and quick it is for employees to get the council to reimburse them remains to be seen; I wouldn’t feel confident in their proficiency. Even if the council are punctual, the employees affected will still have the inconvenience of having to contact their creditors to explain why bills haven’t been paid on time, ask whether there is a penalty charge, etc.
    If employees are reimbursed by the council for late payment charges and inconvenience (which I think employees should be, actually), that would be funds in excess of wages, and it would be taxpayers’ paying for whatever the council’s mistake is on this. I do think the employees and the taxpayers deserve to know what the reason is for this.

    in reply to: Fixed Penalty Notices issued by a Private Company #138544


    I’m clearly failing to understand the issue here. Don’t drop litter or leave dog sh*t, and you won’t be fined. It seems quite straightforward to me, not an unreasonable rule, and not difficult to comply with.

    in reply to: Drunken/druggie Idiots #138340


    Where do you want these people to live? In a cardboard box? Or is it just a case of “not in your back yard”?

    And why assume that all HMO residents are “drunken / druggie idiots” – they could equally be occupied by students or young professionals.

    I don’t want them in “my back yard” and I don’t see why they should be anyone else’s back yard. I have lived next to druggie neighbours and it was hell – I was signed off sick from work and myself and others had to move home to get away from it. It is their supporters who are generally the “NIMBY”s because they are the ones who want housing to be provided for these people, though not housing next door to themselves.

    The article I referred to mentioned anti-social behaviour, e.g. Councillor I David Bithell was quoted as saying “What’s going to happen is you’ll have antisocial behaviour, businesses will move from there and you’ll end up with more HMOs in the area”. The probability of this being an HMO to accommodate young professionals is low and if that were the case (or even if it were intended for students) I imagine the applicant would have emphasised that point.

    Planning Officer David Williams was quoted as saying “If there are issues there or which are those causing concern to the adjoining occupiers then that’s something that’s either dealt with through the licensing or the police.”. Yet we can see in Rhosddu how ineffectively authorities deal with such issues.

    I don’t care if people are drug addicts – it is the dreadful behaviour that inevitably accompanies them wherever they go that I take issue with. If they behaved with consideration towards others then I wouldn’t care where they lived.

    Where do you want these people to live, Nen? On September 26th, on “The Groves” thread, you referred to drunks/druggies as “deadbeats”; specifically, you said: “Does anyone else find it strange that the Council were quick to provide a portable toilet for these deadbeats but can’t do the same for the elderly visitors to town?”.

    in reply to: Drunken/druggie Idiots #138331


    They have been congregating in the garden of rest in Rhosddu again today.

    I believe this is how things are going to continue in Wrexham. If the authorities comment, the comment generally includes the ‘fact’ that these druggies are ‘vulnerable’, have ‘complex issues’, takes time to remedy, etc. It’s as if authorities believe that if they tell us things are improving, we will just take their word for it. There never seems to be any consideration given to other members of the public.

    I was walking through town tonight – it was only around 6:30 but as I left the bus station I actually felt threatened enough to take a different route and be very selective about which ATM I used to withdraw cash.

    I notice the proposed conversion of a property in Regent Street into an HMO has been refused: <http://www.wrexham.com/news/hmo-plans-for-town-centre-office-refused-with-claims-tenants-are-being-treated-as-second-class-citizens-138175.html&gt;. If only the council would take the same approach with moving people like this into residential areas. Is anti-social behaviour really only a serious issue for commercial properties in conservation areas? Why is it OK for people like this to moved in next to us?

    in reply to: Wrexham Council #138047


    The people representing the homeless population seem to have gone very quiet recently. Is this because they have moved back into their accommodation or left town for pastures new?

    I’m inclined to think it may be because others on this forum were not gullible enough to fall for their portrayal of drug addicts in Wrexham.

    in reply to: £1.7 million cat adoption centre #137962


    I do wonder what is deemed a suitable home though. I know a couple, living in a quiet, respectable suburb of Wrexham who were turned down many years ago for taking a cat because they had children. They fortunately managed to have one from elsewhere which lived to a ripe old age in the centre of a loving family. What is the criteria for homing a cat I wonder.

    I don’t know what the criteria are for rehoming a cat – perhaps it depends on the particular cat and on the impression made by the prospective adoptee. I’m sure they make mistakes sometimes in deciding who can and can’t have a pet, but I do think they are at all times striving for the best interests of the cat.
    I’ve adopted pets in the past, though personally not from Cats Protection. I had to go through home checks. One shelter told me straight off that I was too far away and the journey from shelter to my home would be too stressful for the animal – yet I went on to adopt from another shelter that was even further away from me. Because of the distance they could not come round to do a home check beforehand, so they asked for photos of my home and sent me a list of questions.
    I sometimes drop off donations to Cats Protection on Madeira Hill, and they always encourage me to go and see the cats. They are very well looked after – their enclosures are clean and well-kept. It certainly gives me confidence that the cats in their care are very well cared for and cared about. It’s heart breaking to know that these cats don’t have homes.

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 4 weeks ago by  bubble.
    in reply to: The Groves #137907


    Does anyone else find it strange that the Council were quick to provide a portable toilet for these deadbeats but can’t do the same for the elderly visitors to town?

    In a word, no. Not me, anyway. What do you mean by providing toilets for elderly visitors to town? There are toilets in the bus station and in Eagles Meadow. The latter are really very nice (it’s 2 or 3 yrs since I used them, so I suppose they might have deteriorated), but the bus station ones are horrendous – it’s wise to have a good look around in there first, to make sure you’re not about to be stabbed by a discarded needle. I prefer the old bus station toilets by far, even with their shiny toilet roll.

    I’m a bit confused, Nen. What is your stance on the ‘homeless’? Sometimes you seem to praise the treatment of the ‘homeless’ in Wrexham, that it’s good the council are providing some services, and other times not (e.g. you called them deadbeats).

    in reply to: £1.7 million cat adoption centre #137905


    I have no problem with building a new shelter. I just feel that £1.7 million is rather excessive. Is the purpose of the shelter to collect stray cats or for re-homing them?

    Their aim is to rehome cats to suitable homes. But if they are not rehomed they will remain in the shelter because Cats Protection does not euthanize healthy cats.
    Honestly, I don’t know whether £1.7m is excessive for this project or whether it’s a typical amount for a project of this size. I trust them that this is a necessary cost – I can’t imagine why they would ‘waste’ money on a building if it used funds that would otherwise be used to help cats – I trust they believe this project will enable them to help even more cats. I imagine they are looking at the long term – it may be a large initial outlay but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Cats Protection (and cats) won’t reap benefits from this shelter in years to come.
    Cats Protection provide an all-encompassing service, as in they are a responsible organisation. There will be measures to ensure that cats can’t easily ‘escape’, and it is highly unlikely this building or its inhabitants will be a nuisance to its neighbours. They don’t just take cats in for the night then turf them out during the daytime (sorry, I couldn’t resist!).

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by  bubble.
Content is user generated and is not moderated before posting. All content is viewed and used by you at your own risk and Wrexham.com does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information displayed. The views expressed on these Forums and social media are those of the individual contributors.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .