All boxed off

11:00am Saturday 26th January 2013 in Letters By Reader's letter

WHAT can one say about our accommodating council when the snow falls?

For three winters I have requested the return of the grit box originally in Raven Grove and have been refused each time.

Imagine my surprise when I noticed a box in Beckfield Place, yards away from Raven Grove. To reach Raven Grove, you go down Beckfield Place, down the hill and turning right at the same time.

Now here is the problem. If you are driving, how do you get up this road when it is icy? This is where the box should be.

Residents of Raven Grove have to leave their cars at the top of Beckfield Place and walk to a bin.

Would you put a salt box a distance away at the top of a hill when your car is at the bottom? The council do, with no regard for those who have to walk at any age.

BM Horsley Raven Grove, Acomb, York.

Comments(18)

ColdAsChristmas says...
1:04pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Unfortunately, the majority of our Councillors are deniers when it comes to residents enduring sustained periods of freezing weather.
I have tried for a long time to find out why this bunch of carbon phobics wasted a fortune on a wind turbine that never worked and ended up as scrap. (You paid for it)
The removal of salt bins another case in point.
I was however able to find out about a long document committing York to an Eco hell.
It is a long document with a lot of names on there but apart from the pay list, I wonder how much this nonsense cost us?
This document goes back to the time of the hysterical Stern report, now largely regarded as exaggerated rubbish but the basis for the Ed Miliband 2008 Climate act that is ruining us as a nation:

http://www.google.co
.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&frm=1&sourc
e=web&cd=2&cad=rja&s
qi=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&u
rl=http%3A%2F%2Fdemo
cracy.york.gov.uk%2F
mgConvert2PDF.aspx%3
FID%3D18079&ei=K9MDU
bWDD6aK0AWtsIH4Cw&us
g=AFQjCNHUI1lYNcnRtv
MWbNqvJNhTku2WWQ&bvm
=bv.41524429,d.d2k

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
2:11pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Mornington Crescent

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
4:21pm Sat 26 Jan 13

I could use a two word reply, the second word might be off but it wouldn't be offering much to the debate.
Or is it that 'the time for debate is over?' Like your boss Algore says?
And Don't forget, it was the Brown government who commissioned the Stern report. I wonder what that heap of tripe cost the tax payer?

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
5:26pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Is this directed at me CAC or is it one of your random machine gun missives?.
Remember, as I take endless pleasure telling you (repetition?) everyone who comments on your comments doesn't necessarily disagree with you. I was merely commenting on your ability to turn any subject no matter how tenuous the link into an excuse for you mount your hobby horse.

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
6:00pm Sat 26 Jan 13

last of the mandms wrote:
Is this directed at me CAC or is it one of your random machine gun missives?. Remember, as I take endless pleasure telling you (repetition?) everyone who comments on your comments doesn't necessarily disagree with you. I was merely commenting on your ability to turn any subject no matter how tenuous the link into an excuse for you mount your hobby horse.
He and Pimpernel are neck and neck at the moment.

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
8:58pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Just a minute, no pun intended, but what part of what I said in comment 1 don't you agree with and perhaps we can debate that?
I take it you have looked at the link showing how CofYC spent your money on trying to become a low carbon Council. (A low intelligence Council too) Perhaps you might want to discuss that?
This business is far from being a 'hobby horse,' it is deadly serious. People are freezing to death, partly because of our energy policy.
A few days ago, the Daily Express estimated that extreme weather this winter has killed about 4,000 people.
I know you won't read that in the Guardian but to deny there is a problem or to ridicule concern tells me that you don't fully understand the gravity of what is going on.

Report this post »

Scarlet Pimpernel says...
9:53pm Sat 26 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year wrote:
last of the mandms wrote: Is this directed at me CAC or is it one of your random machine gun missives?. Remember, as I take endless pleasure telling you (repetition?) everyone who comments on your comments doesn't necessarily disagree with you. I was merely commenting on your ability to turn any subject no matter how tenuous the link into an excuse for you mount your hobby horse.
He and Pimpernel are neck and neck at the moment.
The pot calls the kettle.... yet again!!!

At least me and CAC debate issues, instead of trolling.

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
10:07pm Sat 26 Jan 13

People may be freezing to death but unless that has something to do with a lack of salt bins in Acomb it has no relevence to the original letter. If you would like to produce a link that proves that point I will be perfectly happy to cross words with you. While on the subject of debate, a little tip for you CAC, listen to, or in this case read carefully what your opponent says and act on that; despite the fact I constantly remind you that I may not disagree with some of your views you persist on starting every conversation we have by assuming you already know my standpoint.

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
1:27pm Sun 27 Jan 13

I don't know your standpoint, you never discuss it. You don't discuss much in fact, perhaps it is your way of debate avoidance. Reminds me of Algore.
In the link I provided there was no mention of providing salt bins, it was all about how CofYC were going to reduce CO2 and avert warming. (At great cost)
If we actually had warming we would not be talking about the need for salt bins. My point.
As the Pimpernel says; stop trolling and start discussing.

Report this post »

Buzz Light-year says...
1:44pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
last of the mandms wrote: Is this directed at me CAC or is it one of your random machine gun missives?. Remember, as I take endless pleasure telling you (repetition?) everyone who comments on your comments doesn't necessarily disagree with you. I was merely commenting on your ability to turn any subject no matter how tenuous the link into an excuse for you mount your hobby horse.
He and Pimpernel are neck and neck at the moment.
The pot calls the kettle.... yet again!!! At least me and CAC debate issues, instead of trolling.
Pimpernel

It was pointed out that CAC hijacks threads to drone on repetitively about his pet cause whether it's related to the story or not, mostly not.
I agreed and noted that you do the same.

Something I don't do.
So "pot kettle" doesn't apply.

Not trolling, I don't care whether you respond or not, just an observation.

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
3:25pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Oh dear so lets get this right CAC our expert on climate change (or lack of it) is so well informed that he seriously puts forward a hypothesis that says "if climate change was a reality we would not need salt bins THIS YEAR." For the record here are my views on your hobby horse "I don't know what the reality is regarding climate change as I am not well educated enough to understand all the available data (note ALL AVAILABLE) It is feasable that you are right and the majority of experts are wrong. However carbon fuel is a finite resourse and we are prudent to start now and reduce our reliance on it. Wind farms etc. may or may not be the way forward and if that proves to be the case they will have to redesigned or replaced by something better. At worse they are a failing experiment at best they are perfect answer, at the moment the jury is out. The difference between me and you is I am prepared to keep an open mind and you are not. Any time you feel the urge to debate put some original thoughts on to the comments which have relevance to the point raised and I will give it a go.

Report this post »

Malcolm says...
3:49pm Sun 27 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
last of the mandms wrote: Is this directed at me CAC or is it one of your random machine gun missives?. Remember, as I take endless pleasure telling you (repetition?) everyone who comments on your comments doesn't necessarily disagree with you. I was merely commenting on your ability to turn any subject no matter how tenuous the link into an excuse for you mount your hobby horse.
He and Pimpernel are neck and neck at the moment.
The pot calls the kettle.... yet again!!!

At least me and CAC debate issues, instead of trolling.
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:The pot calls the kettle.... yet again!!! At least me and CAC debate issues, instead of trolling.

Yes. Off-topic issues.

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
7:47pm Sun 27 Jan 13

last of wrote: 'However carbon fuel is a finite resourse and we are prudent to start now and reduce our reliance on it. Wind farms etc. may or may not be the way forward and if that proves to be the case they will have to redesigned or replaced by something better. At worse they are a failing experiment at best they are perfect answer, at the moment the jury is out. The difference between me and you is I am prepared to keep an open mind and you are not.'

In response: Yes indeed, at some point renewable energy will be essential to replace dwindling stocks of fossil fuels.
However, we are not there yet and have decades of shale gas to consider first. The problem is that the hysteria from carbon phobics, anti capitalists etc means that there is a panic rush into abandoning the tried, trusted and reliable fossil fuels.
We know that the existing wind turbines are both expensive and inefficient and yet we buy them in order to meet self imposed targets.
We could invest in 80% efficient hydro power but our political masters choose wind.
I'm certain you can work out this failed experiment for yourself.
You will find out soon anyway when five perfectly serviceable coal power stations are closed in March, simply to meet those CO2 targets.
And remember, if we had warming we would not be discussing salt bins.

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
8:27pm Sun 27 Jan 13

So Carbon based fuels will run out we agree on that one then. I dont believe I suggested we should abandon the use of carbon fuels so no need to comment on that one then. I would suggest that by using etc. after Wind farms I was not suggesting that they were the only available alternative so i would accept hydro power as a considered part of the solution. Regarding the closure of coal fired power stations again i refer you to my original point on the use of fossil fuels. Your ridiculous point If we had warming etc. not worth an answer. As I keep pointing out to you CAC don't alienate possible allies because they don't agree with your every word.

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
6:13pm Mon 28 Jan 13

So, last of, you are a possible Allie?
For clarification just state 2 of the biggest issues you disagree with me on?

Finally, a few years ago it was estimated that we had enough coal at the then rate of usage to last 400 years. Therefore, closing down 5 power stations in a matter of weeks makes no sense when they are perfectly serviceable and economically viable. (Putting CO2 targets aside)

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
7:08am Tue 29 Jan 13

1) Don't panic that iceberg is miles away.
2) Just keep playing "Nearer my God to Thee" the waters only just got to the engine room.
3) I dont care the ship's sunk with all hands I died a 100 years ago. (just to clarify it is 2500 ad by now).

That do?

Report this post »

ColdAsChristmas says...
1:31pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Kind of.
The question is: does man 's industrial and general living have a significant effect on climate.

The truth is that nobody can be certain but evidence points to natural variation causing cyclical changes.

Therefore, should we not focus on trying to adapt to what nature throws at us, rather than trying to change nature?

Report this post »

last of the mandms says...
6:49pm Tue 29 Jan 13

The question is not "does mans etc." The question is "If carbon fuels are a finite resource should we be looking for alternatives". I would suggest the answer to the first question is "Not sure but better to assume it may do" the answer to the second is "yes" And ever the penant SOME evidence points to natural variation etc. And SOME evidence points to industry etc. as I said the difference between the two of us is I'm prepared to keep an open mind but would suggest in this case proactive is preferable to reactive.

Report this post »

click2find

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