Lendal Bridge closure 'fiasco' attacked by motorists' lobbying group

The Lendal Bridge trial closure has come under further attack

The Lendal Bridge trial closure has come under further attack

First published in News
Last updated

A MOTORISTS' lobbying group has attacked York's handling of the trial closure of Lendal Bridge - and drawn parallels with the problems experienced by other local authorities.

The National Motorists Action Group claimed City of York Council's enforcement of traffic restrictions, preventing cars using the bridge during the day, had been a 'fiasco'.

General Secretary Alex Henney said in a letter to chief executive Kersten England that it fully recognised the great difficulties facing the authority in attempting to improve the traffic situation within the constraints of an inadequate road infrastructure.

"However it is impossible to understand how such an ill-devised signing of the un-workable restriction was ever allowed to come into being with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply," he said.

"It is shocking and inexcusable that the council failed to cease enforcement after a few weeks when it was confirmed that very many motorists were either unable to understand or had become unable to comply with the restrictions."

The general secretary also criticised the decision to refund fines as a goodwill gesture only to those who applied, claiming there was no lawful course of action other than to write to everyone to tell them they could claim a refund.

He said that in June 2012, Hertfordshire County Council had set about refunding more than £800,000 of penalty charges in relation to an unlawfully-implemented and extensively misunderstood bus lane restriction at Hemel Hempsted, which had been not unlike the Lendal Bridge situation.

A York council spokeswoman said it was 'still finalising the process at the moment,' and until this happened, it could only reiterate a previous statement at this stage, saying that refunds would be made, provided requests were made through the council application process.

That process was currently in development and it was anticipated this would be launched in the near future.

Tory group leader Chris Steward said he was pleased the NMAG supported his calls for all Lendal Bridge fines to be refunded, adding: "The involvement of a national body like NMAG just shows how much York’s reputation is being damaged by the actions of the Labour cabinet and their dodging and weaving on the issue."

A Labour spokesperson said the time had come to 'draw a line under the issue, move on, and try and agree a way to manage the traffic problems York faces,' adding: "We hope the Conservatives decide to engage with this process and say what their ideas are rather than trying to score political points.”

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:07pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Caecilius says...

" ....with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply...."

What? Anyway, two points, Mr Henney. Firstly, you say that the road infrastructure is "inadequate". How would your special interest group propose to make it adequate? Adequate for what - the volume of traffic that's currently choking it, or for the increasing volume that will be pouring onto it in the future, unless something changes radically? If the latter, where do you stop? What your lobby group is shouting for can only be achieved at the expense of other people, both financially and in terms of quality of life. What makes you think that motorists' wishes should always be paramount? Secondly, spend some time in York and you might notice that many motorists appear to be "unable to understand" or, more likely, blatantly refuse to comply with all manner of restrictions, however clearly they're advertised. Some of them even come on here and boast about it. If we abandoned every traffic regulation that a minority of motorists decide to flout because it doesn't suit them, there would be anarchy and people would be risking their life every time they need to cross a road.
" ....with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply...." What? Anyway, two points, Mr Henney. Firstly, you say that the road infrastructure is "inadequate". How would your special interest group propose to make it adequate? Adequate for what - the volume of traffic that's currently choking it, or for the increasing volume that will be pouring onto it in the future, unless something changes radically? If the latter, where do you stop? What your lobby group is shouting for can only be achieved at the expense of other people, both financially and in terms of quality of life. What makes you think that motorists' wishes should always be paramount? Secondly, spend some time in York and you might notice that many motorists appear to be "unable to understand" or, more likely, blatantly refuse to comply with all manner of restrictions, however clearly they're advertised. Some of them even come on here and boast about it. If we abandoned every traffic regulation that a minority of motorists decide to flout because it doesn't suit them, there would be anarchy and people would be risking their life every time they need to cross a road. Caecilius
  • Score: -22

12:15pm Fri 25 Jul 14

vax2002 says...

Has anybody considered bringing a private prosecution for "misconduct in public office "

It is a common law offence punishable by life imprisonment.

A clearer more robust example of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office I have never seen.
To state publicly they intend to keep money taken from people illegally is text book example of the offence.

I am sure everyone breaking the law wishes they could hide behind the excuse that they made a mistake.

They are acting and boasting of their arrogance they are above the law.

If they refuse to refund the money they obtained illegally someone should lay summons at the courts of misconduct in public office.

I can not see anything else other than this bringing them to their senses, the only way to make them respect and obey the law is to set an example.
Has anybody considered bringing a private prosecution for "misconduct in public office " It is a common law offence punishable by life imprisonment. A clearer more robust example of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office I have never seen. To state publicly they intend to keep money taken from people illegally is text book example of the offence. I am sure everyone breaking the law wishes they could hide behind the excuse that they made a mistake. They are acting and boasting of their arrogance they are above the law. If they refuse to refund the money they obtained illegally someone should lay summons at the courts of misconduct in public office. I can not see anything else other than this bringing them to their senses, the only way to make them respect and obey the law is to set an example. vax2002
  • Score: 36

12:18pm Fri 25 Jul 14

The Grim Reaper says...

The Lendal Bridge debacle was foisted upon York by councillors who believe that just because they are "elected representatives" they are more knowledgeable than the average man in the street. News flash councillors - you are not. Despite being "advised" by numerous agencies, and the ordinary man in the street, you went ahead with this ill thought out plan, and in the end it has cost the council money, councillors their already battered reputations, but most of all, it has cost people time and money.
Councillors, come down from your ivory towers, and be welcomed into the real world. Take notice of your electorate, because trust me, at the next election, you will be brought to book.
The Lendal Bridge debacle was foisted upon York by councillors who believe that just because they are "elected representatives" they are more knowledgeable than the average man in the street. News flash councillors - you are not. Despite being "advised" by numerous agencies, and the ordinary man in the street, you went ahead with this ill thought out plan, and in the end it has cost the council money, councillors their already battered reputations, but most of all, it has cost people time and money. Councillors, come down from your ivory towers, and be welcomed into the real world. Take notice of your electorate, because trust me, at the next election, you will be brought to book. The Grim Reaper
  • Score: 39

12:24pm Fri 25 Jul 14

nowthen says...

A Labour spokesperson said the time had come to 'draw a line under the issue, move on, and try and agree a way to manage the traffic problems York faces,' adding: "We hope the Conservatives decide to engage with this process and say what their ideas are rather than trying to score political points.” ...... The best way would be for Alexander and Merrett to resign , if the fines were lawful why are the council refunding what is essentially York council tax payer's money , if the fines weren't lawful then retaining money from anyone fined would be illegal. This current administration lurches from one fiasco to another with the leader behaving more like Philip Queeg than a public servant who is supposed to be representing York residents. If Labour want to know what the Conservatives would do why don't they stand down and let them take over , I doubt they could do worse.
A Labour spokesperson said the time had come to 'draw a line under the issue, move on, and try and agree a way to manage the traffic problems York faces,' adding: "We hope the Conservatives decide to engage with this process and say what their ideas are rather than trying to score political points.” ...... The best way would be for Alexander and Merrett to resign , if the fines were lawful why are the council refunding what is essentially York council tax payer's money , if the fines weren't lawful then retaining money from anyone fined would be illegal. This current administration lurches from one fiasco to another with the leader behaving more like Philip Queeg than a public servant who is supposed to be representing York residents. If Labour want to know what the Conservatives would do why don't they stand down and let them take over , I doubt they could do worse. nowthen
  • Score: 25

12:46pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

The council have not given me sensible answers to an e-mail last week, which was based on Lendal Br refunds etc. They said to me all funding was by City of York council. THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID IN LEAKED E-MAILS WHICH HIT THE PRESS (EDITION OF 27.2.2014. )
They also said "restricted access" signs produced and erected by the AA did not have to meet the traffic signs regulations and general directions of 2002 or the traffic signs manual; which I have questioned since before the trial began!

Thirdly they bizarrely defended signage which was only correct in mid Feb, 2014.

The visitor's are entitled to full refunds and possible "loss of opportunity" monetary supplement; and the refunds are more genuine than most locals.

They are intimating the media will give wide coverage of impending refund policy; and that York web-site would be adequate.

Colchester bus lane, similar to LB, resulted in Essex council refunding £1.3m. A council director authorized that and Essex council agreed. Automatic refunds meant a line was drawn under the scheme quickly.
Widely advertised at the time in the Colchester Gazette.

Congestion talks should be ongoing with road users and other political bodies; as promised by Dave Merritt etc months ago. Just when will they get this moving?
The council have not given me sensible answers to an e-mail last week, which was based on Lendal Br refunds etc. They said to me all funding was by City of York council. THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID IN LEAKED E-MAILS WHICH HIT THE PRESS (EDITION OF 27.2.2014. ) They also said "restricted access" signs produced and erected by the AA did not have to meet the traffic signs regulations and general directions of 2002 or the traffic signs manual; which I have questioned since before the trial began! Thirdly they bizarrely defended signage which was only correct in mid Feb, 2014. The visitor's are entitled to full refunds and possible "loss of opportunity" monetary supplement; and the refunds are more genuine than most locals. They are intimating the media will give wide coverage of impending refund policy; and that York web-site would be adequate. Colchester bus lane, similar to LB, resulted in Essex council refunding £1.3m. A council director authorized that and Essex council agreed. Automatic refunds meant a line was drawn under the scheme quickly. Widely advertised at the time in the Colchester Gazette. Congestion talks should be ongoing with road users and other political bodies; as promised by Dave Merritt etc months ago. Just when will they get this moving? Cheeky face
  • Score: 11

1:00pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -19

1:26pm Fri 25 Jul 14

meme says...

sorry Buzzzz but that's not the point
it was a gigantic **** up by certain Councillors who said they would resign if it was declared illegal.They didn't resign or even apologise. they have said they will pay back monies if requested to do so.....Not good enough; but worse they have wasted probably over a million pounds of our money on a basically good idea delivered by a bunch of incompetents who think they know best.
Its time they took responsibility for their actions and caught the can fairly and squarely and I for one will not let go until someone at least apologises.
I am even thinking about running as an independent against Mr Merritt as although I know nothing about politics I think I am honest and will stick by my word and take responsibility when its mine to take. I cannot do a worse job than him
sorry Buzzzz but that's not the point it was a gigantic **** up by certain Councillors who said they would resign if it was declared illegal.They didn't resign or even apologise. they have said they will pay back monies if requested to do so.....Not good enough; but worse they have wasted probably over a million pounds of our money on a basically good idea delivered by a bunch of incompetents who think they know best. Its time they took responsibility for their actions [as they would have done had it been a great success] and caught the can fairly and squarely and I for one will not let go until someone at least apologises. I am even thinking about running as an independent against Mr Merritt as although I know nothing about politics I think I am honest and will stick by my word and take responsibility when its mine to take. I cannot do a worse job than him meme
  • Score: 21

1:43pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

That's great meme, but irrelevant here. This motorists group is just carping on pointlessly about the fiasco. The article doesn't say they are demanding rolling heads or anything. They probably did it cos it fits their remit and helps them justify their existence.

Looking for someone to lynch isn't this story.
That's great meme, but irrelevant here. This motorists group is just carping on pointlessly about the fiasco. The article doesn't say they are demanding rolling heads or anything. They probably did it cos it fits their remit and helps them justify their existence. Looking for someone to lynch isn't this story. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -6

2:03pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Haywire says...

National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads!
National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads! Haywire
  • Score: -10

3:19pm Fri 25 Jul 14

RingoStarr says...

Haywire wrote:
National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads!
Rather that than PiddliingPoor heads.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads![/p][/quote]Rather that than PiddliingPoor heads. RingoStarr
  • Score: 15

3:48pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Alf Garnett says...

Closing Lendal Bridge was the best thing to happen in ages. It made the city centre much more pleasant and it wound up the 20th Century car lobby.
Closing Lendal Bridge was the best thing to happen in ages. It made the city centre much more pleasant and it wound up the 20th Century car lobby. Alf Garnett
  • Score: -22

4:57pm Fri 25 Jul 14

wildthing666 says...

Maybe we should all go to the council offices and demand repayment of the fine and refuse to leave until we are paid.
Pick a day and time then all turn up and demand repayment in cash plus any out of pocket expenses incurred like travelling ang parking

I sent an email to buslaneenforcement@y
ork.gov.uk demanding they refund the illegal fine paid by me, for my son, and I sent another 1 last night giving them 14 days or face legal action.
Maybe we should all go to the council offices and demand repayment of the fine and refuse to leave until we are paid. Pick a day and time then all turn up and demand repayment in cash plus any out of pocket expenses incurred like travelling ang parking I sent an email to buslaneenforcement@y ork.gov.uk demanding they refund the illegal fine paid by me, for my son, and I sent another 1 last night giving them 14 days or face legal action. wildthing666
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Fri 25 Jul 14

non pedalling pete says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come non pedalling pete
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

The scab can be sorted easily. Give back fines NOW. Get rid of those who failed in arranging a scheme that the DfT told them in 2012 could not be a bus lane, and apologise! Then you can draw a line under it.

But the cross part group looking at the problems is still not up and running!

NMAG web site has some useful information.
The scab can be sorted easily. Give back fines NOW. Get rid of those who failed in arranging a scheme that the DfT told them in 2012 could not be a bus lane, and apologise! Then you can draw a line under it. But the cross part group looking at the problems is still not up and running! NMAG web site has some useful information. Cheeky face
  • Score: 1

6:21pm Fri 25 Jul 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.
The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up. thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

thinkingoutsidethebo
x
wrote:
The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.
Understood. Businesses pay rates at many times more than the highest council tax band; and in York' main shopping area the rates are massive.

(Useful to read the news on web-site NMAG re free parking on Saturdays!)
[quote][p][bold]thinkingoutsidethebo x[/bold] wrote: The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Understood. Businesses pay rates at many times more than the highest council tax band; and in York' main shopping area the rates are massive. (Useful to read the news on web-site NMAG re free parking on Saturdays!) Cheeky face
  • Score: -8

7:01pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Haywire says...

thinkingoutsidethebo
x
wrote:
The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.
Please explain! A bit of factual evidence wouldn't go amiss either - especially the 25 years bit.
[quote][p][bold]thinkingoutsidethebo x[/bold] wrote: The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Please explain! A bit of factual evidence wouldn't go amiss either - especially the 25 years bit. Haywire
  • Score: -4

7:13pm Fri 25 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
It keeps us all busy on the key boards buz, it keeps it the public eye buz, hope it goes on until election time next year buz, remember the old saying buz -- 'never in the field of politics have so few done so much harm to so many'.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]It keeps us all busy on the key boards buz, it keeps it the public eye buz, hope it goes on until election time next year buz, remember the old saying buz -- 'never in the field of politics have so few done so much harm to so many'. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -7

7:18pm Fri 25 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Haywire wrote:
National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads!
What's the equivalent for cyclists then?, 'tenderbums'
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads![/p][/quote]What's the equivalent for cyclists then?, 'tenderbums' notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -3

7:46pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Haywire wrote:
National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads!
What's the equivalent for cyclists then?, 'tenderbums'
NMAG looks after the interests of motorists who, in the main, pay heavily for car ownership. Cyclists buy or acquire a bike, and pay little else; so far.

The closure was poor at best; and the council know this!

Such arrogance by the council in the short term only delays a 2nd scheme re congestion/pollution
.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: National Motorists Action Group Lobbying Group equals Petrolheads![/p][/quote]What's the equivalent for cyclists then?, 'tenderbums'[/p][/quote]NMAG looks after the interests of motorists who, in the main, pay heavily for car ownership. Cyclists buy or acquire a bike, and pay little else; so far. The closure was poor at best; and the council know this! Such arrogance by the council in the short term only delays a 2nd scheme re congestion/pollution . Cheeky face
  • Score: 2

7:51pm Fri 25 Jul 14

york_chap says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Closing Lendal Bridge was the best thing to happen in ages. It made the city centre much more pleasant and it wound up the 20th Century car lobby.
Well, I'd far rather be one of the '20th Century car lobby' than the 19th Century bicycle and walking brigade.

Closing the bridge might have made a couple of streets in the immediate vicinity more 'pleasant' but it blighted far more streets across the city, particularly some on which people actually live in considerable numbers.
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: Closing Lendal Bridge was the best thing to happen in ages. It made the city centre much more pleasant and it wound up the 20th Century car lobby.[/p][/quote]Well, I'd far rather be one of the '20th Century car lobby' than the 19th Century bicycle and walking brigade. Closing the bridge might have made a couple of streets in the immediate vicinity more 'pleasant' but it blighted far more streets across the city, particularly some on which people actually live in considerable numbers. york_chap
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

BRING BACK THE CITY OF YORK CORPORATION
BRING BACK THE CITY OF YORK CORPORATION Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -14

8:07pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
[quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
It keeps us all busy on the key boards buz, it keeps it the public eye buz, hope it goes on until election time next year buz, remember the old saying buz -- 'never in the field of politics have so few done so much harm to so many'.
That is not an old saying. It's not even an hour old.

Still, there's nothing better than "keeping busy on the old keyboards in the public eye" rather than actually doing anything useful and positive for the community and friends and family.

Hope you get your wish when whoever you want is voted in! Good luck with that, can't wait to see the promised Utopia
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]It keeps us all busy on the key boards buz, it keeps it the public eye buz, hope it goes on until election time next year buz, remember the old saying buz -- 'never in the field of politics have so few done so much harm to so many'.[/p][/quote]That is not an old saying. It's not even an hour old. Still, there's nothing better than "keeping busy on the old keyboards in the public eye" rather than actually doing anything useful and positive for the community and friends and family. Hope you get your wish when whoever you want is voted in! Good luck with that, can't wait to see the promised Utopia Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 9

8:48pm Fri 25 Jul 14

MorkofYork says...

All those people fined because the signs weren't good enough. They knew the signs weren't good enough but decided to lie and carry on taking money off people. There will be no lines drawn under this, this is not simply a failed project but a poor show of character that should and will follow them to the end.
All those people fined because the signs weren't good enough. They knew the signs weren't good enough but decided to lie and carry on taking money off people. There will be no lines drawn under this, this is not simply a failed project but a poor show of character that should and will follow them to the end. MorkofYork
  • Score: -1

10:09pm Fri 25 Jul 14

rafa1961 says...

i would be interested to know what these car people would do regards the chronic congestion around the city?
i would be interested to know what these car people would do regards the chronic congestion around the city? rafa1961
  • Score: -3

10:13pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Silver says...

Bad management really, whenever a good manager brings an idea out into the public they should bring it before their staff and ask them to find flaws, you address the flaws and work out the kinks and fix it before you release it so it's a workable idea. This was not one of those, Lets face it you'd have supporters and doubters within that meeting and it'd have been tested. Instead we got CYC going against itself and refusing to hold itself to it's own demands.
Bad management really, whenever a good manager brings an idea out into the public they should bring it before their staff and ask them to find flaws, you address the flaws and work out the kinks and fix it before you release it so it's a workable idea. This was not one of those, Lets face it you'd have supporters and doubters within that meeting and it'd have been tested. Instead we got CYC going against itself and refusing to hold itself to it's own demands. Silver
  • Score: -10

10:26pm Fri 25 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

rafa1961 wrote:
i would be interested to know what these car people would do regards the chronic congestion around the city?
Would that be the same congestion that affects every city in the land?, why do people think it's just a YORK problem, we have peak flows of traffic just like anywhere else due to people going to and leaving work, I used ride through it on my bike when I was an apprentice, then on my motorbike and now sometimes in my car, no different!
[quote][p][bold]rafa1961[/bold] wrote: i would be interested to know what these car people would do regards the chronic congestion around the city?[/p][/quote]Would that be the same congestion that affects every city in the land?, why do people think it's just a YORK problem, we have peak flows of traffic just like anywhere else due to people going to and leaving work, I used ride through it on my bike when I was an apprentice, then on my motorbike and now sometimes in my car, no different! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -9

11:25pm Fri 25 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -8

11:30pm Fri 25 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

rafa1961 wrote:
i would be interested to know what these car people would do regards the chronic congestion around the city?
Whilst I rarely drive a car around York (I drive my van instead), I guess I could be called one of your "car people".

I would happily give my ideas to this so called cross party congestion committee, if ever Cllr Leverne gets round to it and invites comments from "car people"!
[quote][p][bold]rafa1961[/bold] wrote: i would be interested to know what these car people would do regards the chronic congestion around the city?[/p][/quote]Whilst I rarely drive a car around York (I drive my van instead), I guess I could be called one of your "car people". I would happily give my ideas to this so called cross party congestion committee, if ever Cllr Leverne gets round to it and invites comments from "car people"! AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -9

12:32am Sat 26 Jul 14

tizme says...

vi) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“Will the leader use this opportunity to finally apologise to York’s residents for the shambles of the Lendal Bridge trial?”

Councillor Steward may think I am naive in the art and science of politics and this question clearly shows such qualities.

What is important is we now build the consensus over the issue of congestion, cross-party, on what action is required in this city to cope with the problem of congestion. Opposition parties may wish to beat their chests over the issue, but it is an issue that is not going to go away without some action. We have received no suggestions on how to tackle congestion from the opposition over the course of this council.
The above is not a reply to the original question. just political jibber jabber. I wonder if Mr Alexander would be able to answer the question in basic terms?
vi) To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward: “Will the leader use this opportunity to finally apologise to York’s residents for the shambles of the Lendal Bridge trial?” Councillor Steward may think I am naive in the art and science of politics and this question clearly shows such qualities. What is important is we now build the consensus over the issue of congestion, cross-party, on what action is required in this city to cope with the problem of congestion. Opposition parties may wish to beat their chests over the issue, but it is an issue that is not going to go away without some action. We have received no suggestions on how to tackle congestion from the opposition over the course of this council. The above is not a reply to the original question. just political jibber jabber. I wonder if Mr Alexander would be able to answer the question in basic terms? tizme
  • Score: -9

2:42am Sat 26 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

OH now here's a surprise... a motoring lobby group is criticising the Lendal Bridge closure.

On the front page of The Press tomorrow, we find out that deer poop in wooded areas.
OH now here's a surprise... a motoring lobby group is criticising the Lendal Bridge closure. On the front page of The Press tomorrow, we find out that deer poop in wooded areas. Magicman!
  • Score: 6

2:44am Sat 26 Jul 14

Magicman! says...

Caecilius wrote:
" ....with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply...."

What? Anyway, two points, Mr Henney. Firstly, you say that the road infrastructure is "inadequate". How would your special interest group propose to make it adequate? Adequate for what - the volume of traffic that's currently choking it, or for the increasing volume that will be pouring onto it in the future, unless something changes radically? If the latter, where do you stop? What your lobby group is shouting for can only be achieved at the expense of other people, both financially and in terms of quality of life. What makes you think that motorists' wishes should always be paramount? Secondly, spend some time in York and you might notice that many motorists appear to be "unable to understand" or, more likely, blatantly refuse to comply with all manner of restrictions, however clearly they're advertised. Some of them even come on here and boast about it. If we abandoned every traffic regulation that a minority of motorists decide to flout because it doesn't suit them, there would be anarchy and people would be risking their life every time they need to cross a road.
Very well put... sadly it is those who are the bad drivers, and those who want to drive everywhere as the **** takes them, that have marked the comment down.... those who are part of the problem, not the solution.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: " ....with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply...." What? Anyway, two points, Mr Henney. Firstly, you say that the road infrastructure is "inadequate". How would your special interest group propose to make it adequate? Adequate for what - the volume of traffic that's currently choking it, or for the increasing volume that will be pouring onto it in the future, unless something changes radically? If the latter, where do you stop? What your lobby group is shouting for can only be achieved at the expense of other people, both financially and in terms of quality of life. What makes you think that motorists' wishes should always be paramount? Secondly, spend some time in York and you might notice that many motorists appear to be "unable to understand" or, more likely, blatantly refuse to comply with all manner of restrictions, however clearly they're advertised. Some of them even come on here and boast about it. If we abandoned every traffic regulation that a minority of motorists decide to flout because it doesn't suit them, there would be anarchy and people would be risking their life every time they need to cross a road.[/p][/quote]Very well put... sadly it is those who are the bad drivers, and those who want to drive everywhere as the **** takes them, that have marked the comment down.... those who are part of the problem, not the solution. Magicman!
  • Score: 6

6:33am Sat 26 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Magicman! wrote:
Caecilius wrote:
" ....with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply...."

What? Anyway, two points, Mr Henney. Firstly, you say that the road infrastructure is "inadequate". How would your special interest group propose to make it adequate? Adequate for what - the volume of traffic that's currently choking it, or for the increasing volume that will be pouring onto it in the future, unless something changes radically? If the latter, where do you stop? What your lobby group is shouting for can only be achieved at the expense of other people, both financially and in terms of quality of life. What makes you think that motorists' wishes should always be paramount? Secondly, spend some time in York and you might notice that many motorists appear to be "unable to understand" or, more likely, blatantly refuse to comply with all manner of restrictions, however clearly they're advertised. Some of them even come on here and boast about it. If we abandoned every traffic regulation that a minority of motorists decide to flout because it doesn't suit them, there would be anarchy and people would be risking their life every time they need to cross a road.
Very well put... sadly it is those who are the bad drivers, and those who want to drive everywhere as the **** takes them, that have marked the comment down.... those who are part of the problem, not the solution.
Usual rhetoric from you then magic man, I used to think you were a reasonable, but I feel that you are really no different than pp, I asked him a question - what is essential car use - to which he never replied, I ask the same question of you, maybe you can give me an answer.
As you are no doubt aware I was and still am against any bridge closures, I do not drive through the city, no need to, I use the A64 to get to the other side of the city, more restrictions leads to more congestion even someone as savvy as you knows that!
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: " ....with the easily-foreseeable failure of many motorists being able to comply...." What? Anyway, two points, Mr Henney. Firstly, you say that the road infrastructure is "inadequate". How would your special interest group propose to make it adequate? Adequate for what - the volume of traffic that's currently choking it, or for the increasing volume that will be pouring onto it in the future, unless something changes radically? If the latter, where do you stop? What your lobby group is shouting for can only be achieved at the expense of other people, both financially and in terms of quality of life. What makes you think that motorists' wishes should always be paramount? Secondly, spend some time in York and you might notice that many motorists appear to be "unable to understand" or, more likely, blatantly refuse to comply with all manner of restrictions, however clearly they're advertised. Some of them even come on here and boast about it. If we abandoned every traffic regulation that a minority of motorists decide to flout because it doesn't suit them, there would be anarchy and people would be risking their life every time they need to cross a road.[/p][/quote]Very well put... sadly it is those who are the bad drivers, and those who want to drive everywhere as the **** takes them, that have marked the comment down.... those who are part of the problem, not the solution.[/p][/quote]Usual rhetoric from you then magic man, I used to think you were a reasonable, but I feel that you are really no different than pp, I asked him a question - what is essential car use - to which he never replied, I ask the same question of you, maybe you can give me an answer. As you are no doubt aware I was and still am against any bridge closures, I do not drive through the city, no need to, I use the A64 to get to the other side of the city, more restrictions leads to more congestion even someone as savvy as you knows that! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -5

8:25am Sat 26 Jul 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

Haywire wrote:
thinkingoutsidethebo

x
wrote:
The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.
Please explain! A bit of factual evidence wouldn't go amiss either - especially the 25 years bit.
Perhaps I run the risk of engaging with some ageist tw*t ..............but the 25 years bit means I have lived where I live for more than 25 years (and it is a major route not a side street or a regular road) and have seen the traffic flow drop considerably. York had more cycles and cars in the 70s , 80s and early 90s. I was scared the first time I saw the BREL workers leave en masse on their cycles............To
ur de Force not Tour de France.
A bit of factual evidence?...........
. well sorry I threw my anorak days notebooks with 'TRAFFIC NUMBERS' on when I ran out of space for the books when I went on to' 'How many tractors travel through York' and speculated as to what do cyclists do when the cycle lane says END.
I may revive the notebooks. I now am attracted to the thought of counting empty green buses.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinkingoutsidethebo x[/bold] wrote: The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Please explain! A bit of factual evidence wouldn't go amiss either - especially the 25 years bit.[/p][/quote]Perhaps I run the risk of engaging with some ageist tw*t ..............but the 25 years bit means I have lived where I live for more than 25 years (and it is a major route not a side street or a regular road) and have seen the traffic flow drop considerably. York had more cycles and cars in the 70s , 80s and early 90s. I was scared the first time I saw the BREL workers leave en masse on their cycles............To ur de Force not Tour de France. A bit of factual evidence?........... . well sorry I threw my anorak days notebooks with 'TRAFFIC NUMBERS' on when I ran out of space for the books when I went on to' 'How many tractors travel through York' and speculated as to what do cyclists do when the cycle lane says END. I may revive the notebooks. I now am attracted to the thought of counting empty green buses. thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: -2

8:33am Sat 26 Jul 14

thinkingoutsidethebox says...

Cheeky face wrote:
thinkingoutsidethebo

x
wrote:
The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.
Understood. Businesses pay rates at many times more than the highest council tax band; and in York' main shopping area the rates are massive.

(Useful to read the news on web-site NMAG re free parking on Saturdays!)
thank you - going to have a read of that.
How businesses survive with what they pay amazes me - so no surprise that many give up. I seem to remember reading quite some time ago that Stonegate business rate was almost on a par with London's Oxford Street.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinkingoutsidethebo x[/bold] wrote: The remarks by the lobby group don't go far enough...........a great deal of damage has been done to York. It has become a no go area for some as visits left a bad taste in their mouths. Businesses have been hit and for the huge amounts they pay in council tax - they have every right to be bitter and ask for some rebate off the following years bill. Traffic in York may be viewed by some to be bad - but the traffic count was far greater 25 years ago. Each time traffic lights stop functioning the traffic flow improves. How could a young person with very limited job experience and only knowing York via a university education and someone who can't drive be given the authority to make vital decisions.....you couldn't make it up.[/p][/quote]Understood. Businesses pay rates at many times more than the highest council tax band; and in York' main shopping area the rates are massive. (Useful to read the news on web-site NMAG re free parking on Saturdays!)[/p][/quote]thank you - going to have a read of that. How businesses survive with what they pay amazes me - so no surprise that many give up. I seem to remember reading quite some time ago that Stonegate business rate was almost on a par with London's Oxford Street. thinkingoutsidethebox
  • Score: -11

3:33pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 10

5:17pm Sat 26 Jul 14

Jack Ham says...

Yet more evidence to show the sheet incompetence of the Labour cabinet and senior CYC staff who are advising them.

If any of them had a shred of morality they would apologise and resign.

I won't hold my breath.
Yet more evidence to show the sheet incompetence of the Labour cabinet and senior CYC staff who are advising them. If any of them had a shred of morality they would apologise and resign. I won't hold my breath. Jack Ham
  • Score: -8

7:35pm Sat 26 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -8

10:57am Sun 27 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages.

Where did I say I wanted anything to go away?

Here's my point again, for maybe the third time:
There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to![/p][/quote]The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages. Where did I say I wanted anything to go away? Here's my point again, for maybe the third time: There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 8

2:53pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Noods333 says...

no buzz there isnt a promise to repay fines theres an offer only if you apply its now 3 weeks on and no where near further into refunds

buzz



off
no buzz there isnt a promise to repay fines theres an offer only if you apply its now 3 weeks on and no where near further into refunds buzz off Noods333
  • Score: -13

3:25pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Got a life says...

There have been may comments about picking the scab, perhaps the scab will disappear when the wound that is Alexander and Merret get voted out!
There have been may comments about picking the scab, perhaps the scab will disappear when the wound that is Alexander and Merret get voted out! Got a life
  • Score: -13

4:52pm Sun 27 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages.

Where did I say I wanted anything to go away?

Here's my point again, for maybe the third time:
There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.
Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to![/p][/quote]The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages. Where did I say I wanted anything to go away? Here's my point again, for maybe the third time: There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.[/p][/quote]Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance? notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -12

6:07pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Noods333 wrote:
no buzz there isnt a promise to repay fines theres an offer only if you apply its now 3 weeks on and no where near further into refunds

buzz



off
No need for that.
Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Noods333[/bold] wrote: no buzz there isnt a promise to repay fines theres an offer only if you apply its now 3 weeks on and no where near further into refunds buzz off[/p][/quote]No need for that. Grow up. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 12

6:09pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages.

Where did I say I wanted anything to go away?

Here's my point again, for maybe the third time:
There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.
Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?
Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to![/p][/quote]The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages. Where did I say I wanted anything to go away? Here's my point again, for maybe the third time: There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.[/p][/quote]Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?[/p][/quote]Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 10

7:02pm Sun 27 Jul 14

notpedallingpaul says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages.

Where did I say I wanted anything to go away?

Here's my point again, for maybe the third time:
There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.
Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?
Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.
Well buz me old mate now your on side, there's absolutely no chance that this fiasco will be forgotten, well done.
#polychotomy
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to![/p][/quote]The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages. Where did I say I wanted anything to go away? Here's my point again, for maybe the third time: There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.[/p][/quote]Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?[/p][/quote]Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.[/p][/quote]Well buz me old mate now your on side, there's absolutely no chance that this fiasco will be forgotten, well done. #polychotomy notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -8

11:52pm Sun 27 Jul 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages.

Where did I say I wanted anything to go away?

Here's my point again, for maybe the third time:
There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.
Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?
Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.
Well buz me old mate now your on side, there's absolutely no chance that this fiasco will be forgotten, well done.
#polychotomy
Not your old mate and deffo not on side with you in anything as far as I can tell.

I didn't say I wanted it forgotten... and I didn't say I wanted it remembered.
*You did*
That's your dichotomy right there.

#pillockotomy
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to![/p][/quote]The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages. Where did I say I wanted anything to go away? Here's my point again, for maybe the third time: There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.[/p][/quote]Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?[/p][/quote]Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.[/p][/quote]Well buz me old mate now your on side, there's absolutely no chance that this fiasco will be forgotten, well done. #polychotomy[/p][/quote]Not your old mate and deffo not on side with you in anything as far as I can tell. I didn't say I wanted it forgotten... and I didn't say I wanted it remembered. *You did* That's your dichotomy right there. #pillockotomy Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 11

1:34am Mon 28 Jul 14

RingoStarr says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
notpedallingpaul wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
non pedalling pete wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again.
It was wrong and didn't work.
There is a promise to repay fines.

It's over.
What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?
This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come
Yes I agree, it will.
It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar.

That's the problem.
When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?
No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much.

They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned.

Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.
No.
The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme.
There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc.
There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man.

So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?
Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to!
The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages.

Where did I say I wanted anything to go away?

Here's my point again, for maybe the third time:
There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.
Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?
Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.
Well buz me old mate now your on side, there's absolutely no chance that this fiasco will be forgotten, well done.
#polychotomy
Not your old mate and deffo not on side with you in anything as far as I can tell.

I didn't say I wanted it forgotten... and I didn't say I wanted it remembered.
*You did*
That's your dichotomy right there.

#pillockotomy
YAWN!
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]non pedalling pete[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: The bridge was closed for a bit, now it's open again. It was wrong and didn't work. There is a promise to repay fines. It's over. What's to be gained by repeatedly picking the scab?[/p][/quote]This scab WILL be picked over and over again for many years to come[/p][/quote]Yes I agree, it will. It will achieve just as much as taking a whip to the corpse of Shergar. That's the problem. When people stop wasting energy going over the past and start looking at the future, we might improve or something?[/p][/quote]No, the problem is that we still have the incompetent councillors in place. They have made so many mistakes over this issue and told so many porkies and tried to hide so much. They haven't apologised to York residents for wasting around a million pounds of taxpayers hard earned cash and again, they haven't resigned. Roll on next year when York can get rid of Jimmy no mates and this discredited Labour administration.[/p][/quote]No. The article is about a motoring lobby group pointlessly criticising a now defunct scheme. There are other articles about the calls for resignations etc. There is no need for this article. Motorist lobby dislikes road scheme? In other news - Dog Bites Man. So put down the flaming torch and have a little think about it, eh?[/p][/quote]Ooh, being a bit dramatic there buz!, the motorist lobby has every right to comment you know, it's not going to go away just because you want it to![/p][/quote]The standard dichotomy and failure to understand that is so common on these pages. Where did I say I wanted anything to go away? Here's my point again, for maybe the third time: There is no point to this article. Big surprise! Motorists group didn't like a traffic scheme. A scheme that is now over and widely declared a failure.[/p][/quote]Well at least I'm not the only one who doesn't want this forgotten, by the way did dichotomy influence polychotomy by any chance?[/p][/quote]Again, did I say I wanted it forgotten? No.[/p][/quote]Well buz me old mate now your on side, there's absolutely no chance that this fiasco will be forgotten, well done. #polychotomy[/p][/quote]Not your old mate and deffo not on side with you in anything as far as I can tell. I didn't say I wanted it forgotten... and I didn't say I wanted it remembered. *You did* That's your dichotomy right there. #pillockotomy[/p][/quote]YAWN! RingoStarr
  • Score: -9

6:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

I have heard that only 2% applied for refunds when a refund policy was put on a local council web-site down south; a similar scheme to the Lendal Bridge trial (also involving prohibition of certain motor vehicles at certain period each day.) How fair is it to do a refund in this fashion; one which gives the more likely to know of a restriction than the tourists, an asdvantage. That is the feeling from lobbying groups(NMAG) IAM and most sensible people.

GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME WAS A MOTTO AT BRITISH TELECOM WHEN I LAST WORKED FOR A LIVING!!
I have heard that only 2% applied for refunds when a refund policy was put on a local council web-site down south; a similar scheme to the Lendal Bridge trial (also involving prohibition of certain motor vehicles at certain period each day.) How fair is it to do a refund in this fashion; one which gives the more likely to know of a restriction than the tourists, an asdvantage. That is the feeling from lobbying groups(NMAG) IAM and most sensible people. GET IT RIGHT FIRST TIME WAS A MOTTO AT BRITISH TELECOM WHEN I LAST WORKED FOR A LIVING!! Cheeky face
  • Score: -13

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree