It is very sad to see how this forum has declined in recent months. I used to love the informed debating that was taking place, it used to be THE place to come to find out about all of the hottest topics and local gossip. Whatever happened to Factfile and Threepwood?
There is another local forum, but that seems to be dominated by people seeking one upmanship. What can we do to revive this one?
I guess the problem is having good subjects to discuss and to avoid the mud slinging. The best bits have always, for me anyway, been the history and old photograph sections. The good thing is the almost nil amount of censorship by admin (Naughty words excepted of course.)
It is very sad to see how this forum has declined in recent months. I used to love the informed debating that was taking place, it used to be THE place to come to find out about all of the hottest topics and local gossip. Whatever happened to Factfile and Threepwood?
F**kin' Torys (and Lib Dems), but tw*ts in Newbury still vote for them!
That's why Westminster politics should not be allowed in local government. Each councillor should be elected on his own merits and it should be illegal for them to bond into partnerships once elected. We might then get decisions that are for the good of the community rather than for their party allegiance. I'm fed up with the 'them and us' squabbling which has well and truly raised its head over the Sandleford discussions in the local paper, if you can call Alan Law's letter on Thursday a discussion accusing Dr Tony Vickers of bringing the council into disrepute when all he is really is a NIMBY.
That's why Westminster politics should not be allowed in local government..
I completely agree with this. And you're right, the Sandelford Park debate is an excellent example of party allegiances trumping the interests of electors.
Incidentally, for the first time ever I complained to WBC about something a few weeks ago. I copied the email to both of my local district councillors. I received a pro-forma response from the council saying 'we'll get back to you in X days' (they haven't). And not even an acknowledgement from either of the councillors.
As Richard Garvie keeps asking, why do we spend £600K a year on these layabouts? Why? Who would complain if we halved their numbers and spent the £300K on something useful - like the day centres, youth services etc etc that the Tory/Useless Libdem coalition have cut. Anyone?
I wonder how many complaining about national political parties actually stood for election themselves?
Very few. No that I think your point is relevant. I don't need to play for Liverpool to know that they haven't got their monies worth from Andy Carroll.
Very few. No that I think your point is relevant. I don't need to play for Liverpool to know that they haven't got their monies worth from Andy Carroll.
This analogy doesn't work as almost anyone can stand as a Parish or District Councillor, not everyone can play for Liverpool.
Point is that many people are happy to moan but when it comes to try to prove they could do a better job there's only one forum user that consistently does so and puts his money where his mouth is.
Point is that many people are happy to moan but when it comes to try to prove they could do a better job there's only one forum user that consistently does so and puts his money where his mouth is.
I know what your point is as you have made the same one many times before, and I think it was erroneous back then as it is now. Unless you are a member of a main party, you would be wasting your time. In the main, people vote for parties, not personalities or 'manifestos'.
I think anyone can play for Liverpool if they are good enough. This is the same as being Parish or District Councillor.
What you seem to be saying is you don't think anyone posting on this board is good enough to be a Parish or District Councillor and that's the reason (BrianB aside) why they don't stand for election.
Quite a damning yet honest indictment our your fellow posters.
I know what your point is as you have made the same one many times before, and I think it was erroneous back then as it is now. Unless you are a member of a main party, you would be wasting your time. In the main, people vote for parties, not personalities or 'manifestos'.
Of course it's not erroneous.
If you're good enough you can be a Parish or District Councillor, so you say.
What you seem to be saying is you don't think anyone posting on this board is good enough to be a Parish or District Councillor and that's the reason (BrianB aside) why they don't stand for election.
I am not saying that at all; those are your words and putting words in to one's mouth doesn't improve your argument.
Of course it's not erroneous. If you're good enough you can be a Parish or District Councillor, so you say.
No, the point you erroneously make is that because someone might not be prepared to stand, means they have no right to complain about others. It is a point you frequently make and it is no more right now that it was before. It is a specious argument for the reasons we have gone over many times before.
Local politics is very cliquey and a closed party political shop.
It's exactly what you're saying, even if you don't realise it. I'm reading between the lines, not putting words into your mouth.
You contrast the Premier League Councillors with the fan(atical) moaners and imply that the latter aren't good enough to be the former.
Personally I don't think it's ability preventing the latter from standing for election.
That is not is at all. My point for the more than second time, is that not being something doesn't remove ones right to criticise it. I don't have to be a good footballer to know when a footballer is a successful one or not. I don't have to be a good writer to know whether Dan Brown is a good writer or not, ad nauseum.
That is not is at all. My point for the more than second time, is that not being something doesn't remove ones right to criticise it. I don't have to be a good footballer to know when a footballer is a successful one or not. I don't have to be a good writer to know whether Dan Brown is a good writer or not, ad nauseum.
I don't buy your argument that those who criticise lack ability and that's why they don't participate in local politics.
For me, the biggest problem in local politics is the "them and us" attitude that you demonstrate here.
I have obviously wasted my time with you on the last couple of posts, unless you are deliberately ignoring me of course.
What you've said is someone without ability, be it to write, to play football or to be a politician in many cases has a right to criticise those who do have ability, your examples were Andy Carol, Dan Brown and our local Councillors. I agree with this.
What I don't agree with is your assumption that those who post here but don't participate in local politics have no ability.
What you've said is someone without ability, be it to write, to play football or to be a politician in many cases has a right to criticise those who do have ability, your examples were Andy Carol, Dan Brown and our local Councillors. I agree with this.
What I don't agree with is your assumption that those who post here have no ability.
Where did I say or imply this? However, this point is redundant, as I have explained more fully my position on the matter.
Your analogy implies it, even if you don't realise it does.
I'm sorry; I don't except that at all. I might have implied that one might have to be good enough to be a councillor, but your interpretation that I think forum members are not good enough is your invention.
I guess the problem is having good subjects to discuss and to avoid the mud slinging. The best bits have always, for me anyway, been the history and old photograph sections. The good thing is the almost nil amount of censorship by admin (Naughty words excepted of course.)
I think a lot of browsers will be in agreement with you on the 'history' and 'old photograph' comment.
What you've said is someone without ability, be it to write, to play football or to be a politician in many cases has a right to criticise those who do have ability, your examples were Andy Carol, Dan Brown and our local Councillors. I agree with this.
What I don't agree with is your assumption that those who post here but don't participate in local politics have no ability.
I don't think that there was an assumption that people on this forum are not good enough to be a local councillor. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to be led along by the salaried staff of the council. But and here is the but, you can't be a local councillor if you are not allied to one of the two political parties that prevale in West Berks. That's what makes a whole nonsense of local governance. People go along to the polls and they vote for whatever councillor is declaring himself/herself to be Conservative or whatever. The value of the person up for election takes second place to this outdated premise that what we want in West Berks are Conservatives or Liberal and because of this, no one else gets a look in. Will the Conservative member who rarely attends meetings and seems to not be too bothered about the portfolio he holds be elected next time. Yes he will because he is a member of the party which is in favour in his area and the selection committee will put him forward and he will be the only person from that party to stand. A mere mention of Labour or Green or independent sends shockwaves through the huntin' shootin' blue rinse brigade.
I don't think that there was an assumption that people on this forum are not good enough to be a local councillor. It doesn't take a lot of brain power to be led along by the salaried staff of the council. But and here is the but, you can't be a local councillor if you are not allied to one of the two political parties that prevale in West Berks. That's what makes a whole nonsense of local governance. People go along to the polls and they vote for whatever councillor is declaring himself/herself to be Conservative or whatever. The value of the person up for election takes second place to this outdated premise that what we want in West Berks are Conservatives or Liberal and because of this, no one else gets a look in. Will the Conservative member who rarely attends meetings and seems to not be too bothered about the portfolio he holds be elected next time. Yes he will because he is a member of the party which is in favour in his area and the selection committee will put him forward and he will be the only person from that party to stand. A mere mention of Labour or Green or independent sends shockwaves through the huntin' shootin' blue rinse brigade.
I'm not sure calling for the banning of political parties because the election results are not to one's liking is that democratic you know.
I'm not sure calling for the banning of political parties because the election results are not to one's liking is that democratic you know.
I wouldn't have said it was any less democratic than the party political system itself. I do find it depressing that when I go along and cast my vote that I already know the result.
I wouldn't have said it was any less democratic than the party political system itself. I do find it depressing that when I go along and cast my vote that I already know the result.
You misunderstand. I meant that if even the councillors know that every decision is predetermined, it is hardly surprising that there is a sense of impotence and apathy in the electorate.
You misunderstand. I meant that if even the councillors know that every decision is predetermined, it is hardly surprising that there is a sense of impotence and apathy in the electorate.
I hope you are not implying that I am a councillor! I vote in most elections (parliamentary, district and parish) because I feel I should, not because I feel that it will have any effect.
I'm not sure calling for the banning of political parties because the election results are not to one's liking is that democratic you know.
It is not particularly the fact that I don't like the result, it's because the result is so damn predictable. We get a group or groups of people running the councils of this country who 98% of the time are not elected because the elected person will do the right job for us but because he/she hides under the Harry Potter invisibility cloak of Westminster party politics. Those for...All the Conservatives Those against......All the liberals. That's the ones that go to the meeting of course. As far as West Berks go, the opposition has no say in what goes on although they can write to the local paper of course.
I find it interesting that councillors are not supposed to have opinions about planning applications before they go along and vote for or against them; and have to declare any interest in a topic under discussion. But never state "I am a member of the Conservative/Liberal clique on this council and will be voting as my clique has predetermined, regardless of any arguments presented in this meeting".
I hope you are not implying that I am a councillor! I vote in most elections (parliamentary, district and parish) because I feel I should, not because I feel that it will have any effect.
I thought that was what you meant when you said you turn up to vote already knowing the outcome. Next time you vote in a general electio, please post on here the outcome so that I can bet my shirt on it. There are still big shocks at election time.
I hope you are not implying that I am a councillor! I vote in most elections (parliamentary, district and parish) because I feel I should, not because I feel that it will have any effect.
Why don't you stand for election if you feel voting for someone else will have no effect?
I thought that was what you meant when you said you turn up to vote already knowing the outcome. Next time you vote in a general electio, please post on here the outcome so that I can bet my shirt on it. There are still big shocks at election time.
An early prediction - whatever I vote my MP after the next general election will be Richard Benyon. Of course I might be wrong - he might die before the election, or decide not to stand for some reason. Or I might move to another constituency.
In other constituencies there may well be more point to voting - but not in Newbury.
Why don't you stand for election if you feel voting for someone else will have no effect?
Because I am sure I would not be elected unless I agreed to stand for either the Tories or Lib Dems - and I couldn't swallow being told what to vote all the time.
Because I am sure I would not be elected unless I agreed to stand for either the Tories or Lib Dems - and I couldn't swallow being told what to vote all the time.
Plus you have to be selected by the few of the party of course. This ensures only the party faithful get selected and from the right background of course. Cant have the wrong sort you know?
Of course User is very aware of this but tries to make it seem as if it is possible for anyone to be able to stand a chance of getting elected. But the system is set up to ensure only certain candidates can actually win.
Because I am sure I would not be elected unless I agreed to stand for either the Tories or Lib Dems - and I couldn't swallow being told what to vote all the time.
Perhaps people should have more faith in themselves.
Perhaps people should have more faith in themselves.
I think it has been proven that people do have faith in themselves but failed to get elected because they were not part of the club. As Blackdog says,there would be no point in standing in West Berks.
Plus you have to be selected by the few of the party of course. This ensures only the party faithful get selected and from the right background of course. Cant have the wrong sort you know?
Both parties are pretty desperate to find candidates - withness the Tory inability to field a fourth candidate in the NTC St John's ward, if they had they would be running NTC as well as WBC. I have spoken to others who were prepared to stand in wards where they had little or no chance of winning - in order that their party could be seen to be fielding a full set of candidates for WBC. They really didn't want to win.
I think it has been proven that people do have faith in themselves but failed to get elected because they were not part of the club. As Blackdog says,there would be no point in standing in West Berks.
"Failed to get elected because they were not part of the club" sounds like an excuse to me.
It also implies the voters of Newbury are unable to think for themselves.
"Failed to get elected because they were not part of the club" sounds like an excuse to me and implies the voters of Newbury are unable to think for themselves.
Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks would not vote Tory or Lib Dem?
"Failed to get elected because they were not part of the club" sounds like an excuse to me. It also implies the voters of Newbury are unable to think for themselves.What a defeatist attitude.
I think it's quite clear that I didn't use the word "ashamed" in that quote so I'm not really sure what your point is.This is your only post in this thread, you haven't engaged with anyone and are obviously trying to wind me up.
That's pretty much the definition of trolling.
Its interesting how this post has changed since I replied. You had to try and think of a diversion again.
Back to Atlas Man on Jan 2.2012. I think a lot of browsers will be in agreement with you on the 'history' and 'old photograph' comment
I agree.The rest of the thread said nothing. I enjoy trying to work out how things have changed.By looking at the old photographs. And reading some of the historical comments. My time in Newbury(Woolton Hill) dates from 1958 to 1971.
I remember Victoria Park ... sailing a 3ft long America's cup type yacht with a friend and his Grandfather who had built it.
And Sir John Elliot -Cohen in his hand pedalled caned basket chair chariot racing around the village. I used to have to wear my school clothes during half-term,and we had to doff caps to ladies.....I don't think I had any other clothes!
Sadly I have no snaps to share. I do though have photographs of the Estate Agent documents relating to the sale of Tile Barn House. That was in 1955. They are quite interesting as there is a map showing the dispersal of the estate. Large plots, many now divided. The galling thing is that the bit we lived in after conversion was quite spacious. Downstairs 2 very large drawing rooms, a vaulted hall/Dining area. Bedroom, nice bathroom. But it was just the bloomin' billiard room!
I do browse but most of it is lost on me, politically.
You seem to have quoted something I posted 8 months ago on another forum that doesn't contain the word "ashamed" in order to try to prove I've used the word "ashamed" in a particular context.
I can only conclude that you realise I was correct in what I said and you're playing the fool to try to divert the conversation.
You seem to have quoted something I posted 8 months ago on another forum that doesn't contain the word "ashamed" in order to try to prove I've used the word "ashamed" in a particular context.
I can only conclude that you realise I was correct in what I said and you're playing the fool to try to divert the conversation.
You said people who moan about lack of choice should hang their heads in shame if they didn't stand. That means the same as you should be ashamed of yourself if you don't stand for election.
You said people who moan about lack of choice should hang their heads in shame if they didn't stand. That means the same as you should be ashamed of yourself if you don't stand for election.
My statement was that I didn't think I'd ever used the word "ashamed" in that context. This is true.
Now stop trolling and let's get back to the original topic.
My statement was that I'd not used the word "ashamed" in a particular context. This is true.
Now stop trolling and let's get back to the original topic.
And Bartholomew's original post was not claiming that you had used the word itself, but speculated that you might. Like me, Bartholomew recognised a well trodden argument that you are making.
If you genuinely wanted to get back on topic, you would not use provocative language like 'Now stop trolling ... '. As for the original topic, I think the current debate that you are engaging in has already moved from that.
As for the current discussion, I think we have wrung that argument dry anyway. No-one seems to agree with you, nor have accepted your argument.
And Bartholomew's original post was not claiming that you had used the word itself, but speculated that you might. Like me, Bartholomew recognised a well trodden argument that you are making.
If you genuinely wanted to get back on topic, you would not use provocative language like 'Now stop trolling ... '. As for the original topic, I think the current debate that you are engaging in has already moved from that.
As for the current discussion, I think we have wrung that argument dry anyway. No-one seems to agree with you, nor have accepted your argument.
Please stop this pedantic bickering and let's get back to the discussion.
I'm sure there's enough resource posted on here to build a History of Newbury website or map, there didn't seem any interest in this though when I proposed the latter, what do you think?
Please stop this pedantic bickering and let's get back to the discussion.
I'm sure there's enough resource posted on here to build a History of Newbury website or map, there didn't seem any interest in this though when I proposed the latter, what do you think?
Are you offering? I think that it would work well.
I'm sure there's enough resource posted on here to build a History of Newbury website or map, there didn't seem any interest in this though when I proposed the latter, what do you think?
Would you put the link up, or re-post; I don't recall the proposal?
I'm sure there's enough resource posted on here to build a History of Newbury website or map, there didn't seem any interest in this though when I proposed the latter, what do you think?
The bad news is that in order to do that and I speak from experience as I have produced a website with the history of the Newbury Diesel Company, is that the resources that are held in Newbury are locked out and have been for a year now and probably will remain so until mid 2012. This is because the WBC have closed the museum until they can persuade some generous benefactor to stump up some money. The Museum has, over the years, been allowed to fall into a terminal state due to the ineptitude of the council management, a lack of planning and a lack of ongoing investment. (Apart from consultants). The two dimensional collection is locked into files which the staff were not allowed to enter because of the fire risk. I got absolutely nowhere with my request for assistance so my question has always been, "Why was the documentation, which is so valuable to the town's history, been allowed to languish in an area where it could be destroyed by fire.?" The bland WBC statement ... The Museum is not currently able to respond to enquiries about the collections or local history while we prepare for refurbishment as all our efforts are on re-locating the collections and planning the redevelopment.
The other area where this use of documentation is impossible to use even in a non profit situation is the unbelievable cost of getting and using any of the documents and photgraphs held in the files when they do become available, even though almost without exception, they have been supplied by the public of Newbury free of charge. Later on, there was some effort by the museum to allow the public to comment on the plans, we covered that on this forum. A model was produced for the one and only design on a take it or leave it basis, the public displays were only held during working hours so anybody who had a job couldn't see or comment. I haven't seen anything published which either ammends the design or gives public approval. Quote,"l the responses are being collated and will be presented to the design team during October. Final proposals and designs will then be prepared by BFAW and HKD by the end of December." We should see a result soon.......
Oh, by the way User, you started this change of direction in the thread.
There are plenty of photos and written accounts of times past in the Newbury of Yesteryear section of this forum.
Presumably if there were any copyright issues they'd have been removed.
Yes, but they are already here on this forum for anyone to see and there are loads of photographic publications already available. I have a wealth of postcards but I have only used the very early ones, (mostly) which are now out of copyright. Most of those are from the turn of the century. BrianB has also published photographs and aerial views the latter I find most fascinating. One of the discussions I had with the museum management was that they hoped to publish in the future, all the old Newbury pictures they hold. So, when you are in your dotage, this may come to pass.
Yes, but they are already here on this forum for anyone to see and there are loads of photographic publications already available. I have a wealth of postcards but I have only used the very early ones, (mostly) which are now out of copyright. Most of those are from the turn of the century. BrianB has also published photographs and aerial views the latter I find most fascinating. One of the discussions I had with the museum management was that they hoped to publish in the future, all the old Newbury pictures they hold. So, when you are in your dotage, this may come to pass.
They may be on this site but they're not geo-tagged, displayed in a timeline or indexed in any meaningful way.
That's not a criticism as this is an old style forum and not meant for that sort of thing.
Fair enough if your opinion is Newbury doesn't need something like this.
It is very sad to see how this forum has declined in recent months. I used to love the informed debating that was taking place, it used to be THE place to come to find out about all of the hottest topics and local gossip. Whatever happened to Factfile and Threepwood?
There is another local forum, but that seems to be dominated by people seeking one upmanship. What can we do to revive this one?
After reading the last 5 pages is it fairly obvious you have answered your own question !!
Logged
Male
