Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Vale Road outcome

So it seems the Cabinet have spoken  and what a load of rubbish they seem to have come out with. Unable to attend for the normal reason (Hey let's hold the meeting just after work in the neighbouring town - rush hour is just so fun to drive in) I'm relying on the ever dutiful Tav at the WFA for the highlights; as I say there - yet another reason these events should be recording and uploaded to the internet.

Councillor Marcs Hart (Conservative, Sutton Park) Vice Chairman proposed the Order and Cllr. John-Paul Campion (Conservative, Sutton Park) Chairman seconded it. Of the Cabinet members it seems only Cllr. Tracey Onslow (Conservative, Sutton Park) had anything else to add. As Cat from Red Dwarf might say "Hang five, guys -- I'm getting something. He's from Sutton Park, he's from Sutton Park, and she's from Sutton Park. There's some kind of link here, but I can't quite put my finger on it." At this point I'd also just like to point out to readers that the Cabinet comprises only six members.

What we seem to have received from the Terrible Trio is the same argument I've already countered in various places, namely - It's all about fairness. Why should other car-parks subsidise the free ones, why should Mitton residents get free car-parking? As I've said it's a good argument but only if a) all the car-parks existed within similar locations and b) it really was fair with all car-parks being charged the same rate per time period.

They don't, and they aren't. It's a cheap argument aimed at people who look only at the surface of things. Look at various events that get held around the district why do adults get charged one price but children another or even get in for free? Why as a childless adult should I subsidise their entry - it's just not fair! [whine, moan].

It seems that doesn't matter though. I don't think if the public stands were parked with angry residents from all the car-parks affected, or if a petition had been handed in with 19,000 signatures and not just the 647... oops sorry that was Cllr Hart's figure - 687 signatures that had been gathered in the short time this was brought to public's attention. I don't think it would make a bit of difference. This has been decided and who are we to go against the edicts issued by our most bountiful and worshipful masters?


Tav said...

Oh, one thing I omitted on the 'agenda. This would have really got you shouting and balling till you are red in the face. Marcus 'have no' Hart said, 'Of course residents are going to complain, they are parking for free.' Can you believe that? He must think that's it then, all the objections, petitions, letters, protests are null and void, because its free parking! 'Shit and Corruption' is a phrase my father would say. There is a bloody good reason Stourport needs free parking, it starts with 'T' and ends in 'co'!

FlipC said...

Unnng! I mean I myself pointed out that was how it could be perceived and that as such a bias could be said to exist it needed to countered using different arguments; but to just write off complaints in one sweeping statement.

That would be like receiving reports of police officers targeting specific racial/religious groups and stating "Well they would say that they're all mostly criminals" That'd be a career ender.

Unknown said...

The sweeping statemtn being

"No objection which would legally prevent adoption of the order"

Shall I say I am little perplexed