It’s all quiet on the library front

The York Explore library in Museum Street

The York Explore library in Museum Street

First published in Letters by

IN RESPONSE to Rose Berl (Letters, February 7), I have to say it’s weird to walk out of the library these days.

I step out of the revamped building and it’s peaceful. No longer having to face the onslaught of noise, I can hold on to my precious moments a little longer and cross the road without having to squeeze between cars bumper-to-bumper.

The closure of Lendal Bridge has given us a little bit of York back where anyone can enjoy a few moments to walk easy again. This isn’t a crime.

Perhaps when we aren’t completely focused on where cars have to go and where pedestrians have to go, we gain a little more space to think about whether we actually want to draw up these battle lines. Whether we really want to live like this?

Now from the library, if I wanted to enjoy a little sojourn to the shops, I’m feeling different already. More relaxed, wanting to spend more time in such a pleasant location. York deserves this. I like your letter Rose.

I think the council has made an inspirational decision. Thank you both.

Louise Diver, Alma Terrace, York.
 

• I WAS astonished to read in Saturday’s edition of The Press a report that suggested that some buses were taking longer to make their journeys following the restrictions on cars crossing Lendal Bridge.

On my frequent visits to York, I often travel over the bridge on the number 1 bus and there is no doubt that following the restrictions on other traffic, all buses are able to proceed much more swiftly.

The efficiency of public transport has been improved and pollution is reduced.

Ken Wilson, Woodbridge Road, Ipswich.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:09pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Teabag1 says...

I take it these letters have been sent/created as bait by cyclists.
I take it these letters have been sent/created as bait by cyclists. Teabag1
  • Score: 108

1:13pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

I had a very similar time showing a cousin round town on Saturday - except we were on a bit of a pub crawl. However we ended up walking down Lendal and around the city walls. It’s a totally free experience open to everyone. And it kept us out of the pubs for a while.
I had a very similar time showing a cousin round town on Saturday - except we were on a bit of a pub crawl. However we ended up walking down Lendal and around the city walls. It’s a totally free experience open to everyone. And it kept us out of the pubs for a while. PeteKilbane
  • Score: 9

1:48pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

Louise Diver, perhaps you should have mentioned that you are one of the officers of the 20's Plenty campaign?

It allows readers a bit of context in which to assess your judgements.

Obviously by closing the bridge, traffic on the roads leading to the bridge is also reduced (it would be extremely strange if that didn't happen). I have heard people complain that this results in buses (it is a major bus route, that was after all one of the reasons that the 'trial' was brought in)), taxis, other permitted vehicles, and the many non-permitted vehicles still using the bridge moving at greater speed, but luckily you don't seem to have been affected.

However, because of all the vehicles that are still permitted and the busy bus route, is it not a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the closure 'has given us a little bit of York back'. It is still a road with a lot of traffic, not the pedestrianised, peaceful, silent heaven you imply.
Louise Diver, perhaps you should have mentioned that you are one of the officers of the 20's Plenty campaign? It allows readers a bit of context in which to assess your judgements. Obviously by closing the bridge, traffic on the roads leading to the bridge is also reduced (it would be extremely strange if that didn't happen). I have heard people complain that this results in buses (it is a major bus route, that was after all one of the reasons that the 'trial' was brought in)), taxis, other permitted vehicles, and the many non-permitted vehicles still using the bridge moving at greater speed, but luckily you don't seem to have been affected. However, because of all the vehicles that are still permitted and the busy bus route, is it not a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the closure 'has given us a little bit of York back'. It is still a road with a lot of traffic, not the pedestrianised, peaceful, silent heaven you imply. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -5

2:21pm Mon 24 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Louise Diver - 20s Plenty campaigner. An organisation which, thorough their lead campaigner, has just said that York residents should not be consulted on wasting money erecting pointless street cluttering 20mph signs round the rest of the city. Would Louise care to say if we should have a vote on the bridge closure?

Good to see that someone found the journey over Lendal Bridge was swift by bus. What did he expect? Whilst he was swiftly negotiating Lendal Bridge by bus many were sitting in a queue on the bypass which seems to be where the half the population are now that they are forced to drive miles round. Or would they have been in the queue caused by the 4 cars at a time sequence at Monks Cross which creates absolute chaos on the Jockey Lane roundabout?. No it is not you in your car that is causing the problem yet again it is the council constraining traffic flow. No doubt this area is made all the busier by the fact people can no longer be bothered to go into town.
Louise Diver - 20s Plenty campaigner. An organisation which, thorough their lead campaigner, has just said that York residents should not be consulted on wasting money erecting pointless street cluttering 20mph signs round the rest of the city. Would Louise care to say if we should have a vote on the bridge closure? Good to see that someone found the journey over Lendal Bridge was swift by bus. What did he expect? Whilst he was swiftly negotiating Lendal Bridge by bus many were sitting in a queue on the bypass which seems to be where the half the population are now that they are forced to drive miles round. Or would they have been in the queue caused by the 4 cars at a time sequence at Monks Cross which creates absolute chaos on the Jockey Lane roundabout?. No it is not you in your car that is causing the problem yet again it is the council constraining traffic flow. No doubt this area is made all the busier by the fact people can no longer be bothered to go into town. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -9

3:07pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Zetkin says...

I'm still not convinced by the hyperbole on either side of this debate, but my personal experience is that the buses I catch are running closer to timetable than they used to, and that walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be. It's neither Nirvana nor Armageddon.

As for the implicit accusation that the letter-writers are trolling, I seem to recall a couple of anti-closure letter bearing all the hallmarks of being put-up jobs, or is it only non-cyclists, non-pedestrians, non-delivery drivers, non-shop owners, non-taxi users, and non-bus users who are allowed to express an opinion?
I'm still not convinced by the hyperbole on either side of this debate, but my personal experience is that the buses I catch are running closer to timetable than they used to, and that walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be. It's neither Nirvana nor Armageddon. As for the implicit accusation that the letter-writers are trolling, I seem to recall a couple of anti-closure letter bearing all the hallmarks of being put-up jobs, or is it only non-cyclists, non-pedestrians, non-delivery drivers, non-shop owners, non-taxi users, and non-bus users who are allowed to express an opinion? Zetkin
  • Score: 35

3:58pm Mon 24 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

Yes1 Yes!, Yes, to this letter. Why should the 200,00 population of York have their lives dictated by some who are addicted to their cars? The same goes for any would-be visitors.
Yes1 Yes!, Yes, to this letter. Why should the 200,00 population of York have their lives dictated by some who are addicted to their cars? The same goes for any would-be visitors. mjgyork
  • Score: 17

4:56pm Mon 24 Feb 14

York Urban says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
Louise Diver, perhaps you should have mentioned that you are one of the officers of the 20's Plenty campaign?

It allows readers a bit of context in which to assess your judgements.

Obviously by closing the bridge, traffic on the roads leading to the bridge is also reduced (it would be extremely strange if that didn't happen). I have heard people complain that this results in buses (it is a major bus route, that was after all one of the reasons that the 'trial' was brought in)), taxis, other permitted vehicles, and the many non-permitted vehicles still using the bridge moving at greater speed, but luckily you don't seem to have been affected.

However, because of all the vehicles that are still permitted and the busy bus route, is it not a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the closure 'has given us a little bit of York back'. It is still a road with a lot of traffic, not the pedestrianised, peaceful, silent heaven you imply.
Oh shock horror - a correspondent likes the restrictions and supports lower speed limits in general. Well so do I. Well said Louise Diver. My experience of that area is the same as yours - a vast improvement, and contrary to the absurd comments about "speeding buses and taxis". Looks as if Bo Jolly might be calling for a 20mph zone in that area?
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: Louise Diver, perhaps you should have mentioned that you are one of the officers of the 20's Plenty campaign? It allows readers a bit of context in which to assess your judgements. Obviously by closing the bridge, traffic on the roads leading to the bridge is also reduced (it would be extremely strange if that didn't happen). I have heard people complain that this results in buses (it is a major bus route, that was after all one of the reasons that the 'trial' was brought in)), taxis, other permitted vehicles, and the many non-permitted vehicles still using the bridge moving at greater speed, but luckily you don't seem to have been affected. However, because of all the vehicles that are still permitted and the busy bus route, is it not a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the closure 'has given us a little bit of York back'. It is still a road with a lot of traffic, not the pedestrianised, peaceful, silent heaven you imply.[/p][/quote]Oh shock horror - a correspondent likes the restrictions and supports lower speed limits in general. Well so do I. Well said Louise Diver. My experience of that area is the same as yours - a vast improvement, and contrary to the absurd comments about "speeding buses and taxis". Looks as if Bo Jolly might be calling for a 20mph zone in that area? York Urban
  • Score: 19

5:07pm Mon 24 Feb 14

greenmonkey says...

York Urban said "Oh shock horror - a correspondent likes the restrictions and supports lower speed limits in general. Well so do I. Well said Louise Diver. My experience of that area is the same as yours - a vast improvement, and contrary to the absurd comments about "speeding buses and taxis". Looks as if Bo Jolly might be calling for a 20mph zone in that area?"

On a recent visit to Manchester I took a photo of a 20mph sign with the words 'City Centre' underneath it. Wonder if the 'sky has fallen' in there, following such restrictions being introduced? We are often told that York has to 'compete', wonder how many other European cities manage with their 30km limits and pedestrian and cycle priority routes?
York Urban said "Oh shock horror - a correspondent likes the restrictions and supports lower speed limits in general. Well so do I. Well said Louise Diver. My experience of that area is the same as yours - a vast improvement, and contrary to the absurd comments about "speeding buses and taxis". Looks as if Bo Jolly might be calling for a 20mph zone in that area?" On a recent visit to Manchester I took a photo of a 20mph sign with the words 'City Centre' underneath it. Wonder if the 'sky has fallen' in there, following such restrictions being introduced? We are often told that York has to 'compete', wonder how many other European cities manage with their 30km limits and pedestrian and cycle priority routes? greenmonkey
  • Score: 15

5:38pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

I am quite tempted to go on a bit of a pub crawl myself and then saunter down the centre of Lendal Bridge, sounds great - is it a Neknominate challenge?
I am quite tempted to go on a bit of a pub crawl myself and then saunter down the centre of Lendal Bridge, sounds great - is it a Neknominate challenge? Mulgrave
  • Score: 23

6:01pm Mon 24 Feb 14

York Urban says...

Mulgrave wrote:
I am quite tempted to go on a bit of a pub crawl myself and then saunter down the centre of Lendal Bridge, sounds great - is it a Neknominate challenge?
And your point is?
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I am quite tempted to go on a bit of a pub crawl myself and then saunter down the centre of Lendal Bridge, sounds great - is it a Neknominate challenge?[/p][/quote]And your point is? York Urban
  • Score: -12

6:20pm Mon 24 Feb 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Letter 3 in the current series, still not convincing the 82% who do not approve of the restriction.

Same old little group putting on a show in the last weeks of a six month trial.
Letter 3 in the current series, still not convincing the 82% who do not approve of the restriction. Same old little group putting on a show in the last weeks of a six month trial. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -17

6:52pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

I actually watched the first round of score manipulation at work!

In the space of *eight minutes* (18:17-18:25 Monday evening), my own comment posted at 13:38 went from +9 to -17! Eight minutes! In the same period Strangebuttrue's comment went from +7 to -19, Zetkin's from -2 to +27, MJGYork's from -7 to +20, YorkUrban's from -5 to +23 and GreenMonkey's from -5 to+17. The hacker left the first two comments alone, presumably because they couldn't work out whether they were pro or anti.

After 8 minutes at 18:25, all the changes stopped (although there is often another round at 11ish) and the scores were stable until I posted this at 18:50.

This is how you spin a false consensus and make people opposed to the closure think that they are going against the social norm. But the problem is, it's all an illusion....
I actually watched the first round of score manipulation at work! In the space of *eight minutes* (18:17-18:25 Monday evening), my own comment posted at 13:38 went from +9 to -17! Eight minutes! In the same period Strangebuttrue's comment went from +7 to -19, Zetkin's from -2 to +27, MJGYork's from -7 to +20, YorkUrban's from -5 to +23 and GreenMonkey's from -5 to+17. The hacker left the first two comments alone, presumably because they couldn't work out whether they were pro or anti. After 8 minutes at 18:25, all the changes stopped (although there is often another round at 11ish) and the scores were stable until I posted this at 18:50. This is how you spin a false consensus and make people opposed to the closure think that they are going against the social norm. But the problem is, it's all an illusion.... Bo Jolly
  • Score: 420

7:06pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Zetkin wrote:
I'm still not convinced by the hyperbole on either side of this debate, but my personal experience is that the buses I catch are running closer to timetable than they used to, and that walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be. It's neither Nirvana nor Armageddon.

As for the implicit accusation that the letter-writers are trolling, I seem to recall a couple of anti-closure letter bearing all the hallmarks of being put-up jobs, or is it only non-cyclists, non-pedestrians, non-delivery drivers, non-shop owners, non-taxi users, and non-bus users who are allowed to express an opinion?
"walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be"
I am the lowest form of life ie a pedestrian and I find absolutely no difference walking across Lendal bridge than I used to - I don't find that cars are intrusive or the lack of them is a benefit. What is your point?
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'm still not convinced by the hyperbole on either side of this debate, but my personal experience is that the buses I catch are running closer to timetable than they used to, and that walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be. It's neither Nirvana nor Armageddon. As for the implicit accusation that the letter-writers are trolling, I seem to recall a couple of anti-closure letter bearing all the hallmarks of being put-up jobs, or is it only non-cyclists, non-pedestrians, non-delivery drivers, non-shop owners, non-taxi users, and non-bus users who are allowed to express an opinion?[/p][/quote]"walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be" I am the lowest form of life ie a pedestrian and I find absolutely no difference walking across Lendal bridge than I used to - I don't find that cars are intrusive or the lack of them is a benefit. What is your point? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -16

7:12pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
I had a very similar time showing a cousin round town on Saturday - except we were on a bit of a pub crawl. However we ended up walking down Lendal and around the city walls. It’s a totally free experience open to everyone. And it kept us out of the pubs for a while.
What?
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: I had a very similar time showing a cousin round town on Saturday - except we were on a bit of a pub crawl. However we ended up walking down Lendal and around the city walls. It’s a totally free experience open to everyone. And it kept us out of the pubs for a while.[/p][/quote]What? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Mon 24 Feb 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
I actually watched the first round of score manipulation at work!

In the space of *eight minutes* (18:17-18:25 Monday evening), my own comment posted at 13:38 went from +9 to -17! Eight minutes! In the same period Strangebuttrue's comment went from +7 to -19, Zetkin's from -2 to +27, MJGYork's from -7 to +20, YorkUrban's from -5 to +23 and GreenMonkey's from -5 to+17. The hacker left the first two comments alone, presumably because they couldn't work out whether they were pro or anti.

After 8 minutes at 18:25, all the changes stopped (although there is often another round at 11ish) and the scores were stable until I posted this at 18:50.

This is how you spin a false consensus and make people opposed to the closure think that they are going against the social norm. But the problem is, it's all an illusion....
Happens a lot with this subject, and others that are related directly to council projects.

Simple fact is if you have little evidential support for your claims and your a minuscule minority then you have to resort to desperate measures.

Supporters of the Lendal restriction are indeed a rare breed, who else would want to commit the remainder of the city to increased traffic, pollution and inefficient transport for 100 meters of restricted traffic (not traffic free) road.

The few supporters have nothing in terms of supportive argument, they have gained nothing in terms of benefits (still traffic using the bridge) and they are few in number. If the trial was a success and did produce real benefits and was all of the good things it could ever be, there would be no need to frig the scores, but it is nothing more than an abject failure with a few desperado's doing what desperado's do.

I will mark this post -ve to give you a start, you see it means nothing, the message is the written version above, not the frigged score.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: I actually watched the first round of score manipulation at work! In the space of *eight minutes* (18:17-18:25 Monday evening), my own comment posted at 13:38 went from +9 to -17! Eight minutes! In the same period Strangebuttrue's comment went from +7 to -19, Zetkin's from -2 to +27, MJGYork's from -7 to +20, YorkUrban's from -5 to +23 and GreenMonkey's from -5 to+17. The hacker left the first two comments alone, presumably because they couldn't work out whether they were pro or anti. After 8 minutes at 18:25, all the changes stopped (although there is often another round at 11ish) and the scores were stable until I posted this at 18:50. This is how you spin a false consensus and make people opposed to the closure think that they are going against the social norm. But the problem is, it's all an illusion....[/p][/quote]Happens a lot with this subject, and others that are related directly to council projects. Simple fact is if you have little evidential support for your claims and your a minuscule minority then you have to resort to desperate measures. Supporters of the Lendal restriction are indeed a rare breed, who else would want to commit the remainder of the city to increased traffic, pollution and inefficient transport for 100 meters of restricted traffic (not traffic free) road. The few supporters have nothing in terms of supportive argument, they have gained nothing in terms of benefits (still traffic using the bridge) and they are few in number. If the trial was a success and did produce real benefits and was all of the good things it could ever be, there would be no need to frig the scores, but it is nothing more than an abject failure with a few desperado's doing what desperado's do. I will mark this post -ve to give you a start, you see it means nothing, the message is the written version above, not the frigged score. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 49

7:21pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
Louise Diver, perhaps you should have mentioned that you are one of the officers of the 20's Plenty campaign?

It allows readers a bit of context in which to assess your judgements.

Obviously by closing the bridge, traffic on the roads leading to the bridge is also reduced (it would be extremely strange if that didn't happen). I have heard people complain that this results in buses (it is a major bus route, that was after all one of the reasons that the 'trial' was brought in)), taxis, other permitted vehicles, and the many non-permitted vehicles still using the bridge moving at greater speed, but luckily you don't seem to have been affected.

However, because of all the vehicles that are still permitted and the busy bus route, is it not a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the closure 'has given us a little bit of York back'. It is still a road with a lot of traffic, not the pedestrianised, peaceful, silent heaven you imply.
Yes, here we go again, print the made up comments, mark down all those that are against the bridge restrictions.
Perhaps Louise Diver was hoping that no one would know about her association with the 'lets not ask residents if they want 20mph restrictions' Ms Semlyn.

Well done BO Jolly
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: Louise Diver, perhaps you should have mentioned that you are one of the officers of the 20's Plenty campaign? It allows readers a bit of context in which to assess your judgements. Obviously by closing the bridge, traffic on the roads leading to the bridge is also reduced (it would be extremely strange if that didn't happen). I have heard people complain that this results in buses (it is a major bus route, that was after all one of the reasons that the 'trial' was brought in)), taxis, other permitted vehicles, and the many non-permitted vehicles still using the bridge moving at greater speed, but luckily you don't seem to have been affected. However, because of all the vehicles that are still permitted and the busy bus route, is it not a little bit of an exaggeration to say that the closure 'has given us a little bit of York back'. It is still a road with a lot of traffic, not the pedestrianised, peaceful, silent heaven you imply.[/p][/quote]Yes, here we go again, print the made up comments, mark down all those that are against the bridge restrictions. Perhaps Louise Diver was hoping that no one would know about her association with the 'lets not ask residents if they want 20mph restrictions' Ms Semlyn. Well done BO Jolly Igiveinthen
  • Score: 103

7:50pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Letter 3 in the current series, still not convincing the 82% who do not approve of the restriction.

Same old little group putting on a show in the last weeks of a six month trial.
In the interests of balance and remembering I'm fully against the closure, we've had put up jobs from antis as well.

I'm starting to wonder if the majority of letters to the Press are using it as their biatch to further agendas.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Letter 3 in the current series, still not convincing the 82% who do not approve of the restriction. Same old little group putting on a show in the last weeks of a six month trial.[/p][/quote]In the interests of balance and remembering I'm fully against the closure, we've had put up jobs from antis as well. I'm starting to wonder if the majority of letters to the Press are using it as their biatch to further agendas. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -2

8:12pm Mon 24 Feb 14

ZachCohen says...

I'm sure the number 2 which was travelling back to Rawcliffe park and ride didn't used to wait 30 minutes to get from the junction pub to water end traffic lights.
I'm sure the number 2 which was travelling back to Rawcliffe park and ride didn't used to wait 30 minutes to get from the junction pub to water end traffic lights. ZachCohen
  • Score: 3

8:45pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

So 'Bo Jolly,' 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Igiveinthen' you believe that people who comment in the Press should be transparent about about who they are. In that case you will need to tell us who you are. Otherwise we can assume that you have a hidden agenda. Time to practice what you preach. Who are yer?
So 'Bo Jolly,' 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Igiveinthen' you believe that people who comment in the Press should be transparent about about who they are. In that case you will need to tell us who you are. Otherwise we can assume that you have a hidden agenda. Time to practice what you preach. Who are yer? PeteKilbane
  • Score: 28

8:54pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
I had a very similar time showing a cousin round town on Saturday - except we were on a bit of a pub crawl. However we ended up walking down Lendal and around the city walls. It’s a totally free experience open to everyone. And it kept us out of the pubs for a while.
Quite how the bridge restrictions have made walking around the city walls a totally free experience is beyond me, as I have never encountered traffic on the city walls, but you did say you were on a pub crawl, so that must be the answer.
PeteKilbane wrote: I had a very similar time showing a cousin round town on Saturday - except we were on a bit of a pub crawl. However we ended up walking down Lendal and around the city walls. It’s a totally free experience open to everyone. And it kept us out of the pubs for a while. Quite how the bridge restrictions have made walking around the city walls a totally free experience is beyond me, as I have never encountered traffic on the city walls, but you did say you were on a pub crawl, so that must be the answer. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -22

9:00pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

Igiveinthen and your proper name is?
Igiveinthen and your proper name is? PeteKilbane
  • Score: 26

9:08pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
Igiveinthen and your proper name is?
It's about as real as yours my friend!
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: Igiveinthen and your proper name is?[/p][/quote]It's about as real as yours my friend! Igiveinthen
  • Score: -26

9:11pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

'Igiveinthen' oh I'm real alright. Now this is starting to look a little hypocritical on your part. Why can't you just tell us who you are?
'Igiveinthen' oh I'm real alright. Now this is starting to look a little hypocritical on your part. Why can't you just tell us who you are? PeteKilbane
  • Score: 25

9:22pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Seadog says...

Selfish, I know, but the timing of the only bus I use regularly (29: York/Easingwold via Linton-on-Ouse) has been VASTLY improved since the closure! (Ironically, this is one of the services due for the chop ... or at least severe reduction!)
Selfish, I know, but the timing of the only bus I use regularly (29: York/Easingwold via Linton-on-Ouse) has been VASTLY improved since the closure! (Ironically, this is one of the services due for the chop ... or at least severe reduction!) Seadog
  • Score: 89

9:30pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
'Igiveinthen' oh I'm real alright. Now this is starting to look a little hypocritical on your part. Why can't you just tell us who you are?
Hypocritical - behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
If anything, I am sceptical - not easily convinced and have doubts and reservations as to your comments re your trip around the city walls.
You see I don't have to flower my comments with unrelated actions, I am against the bridge restrictions as it has caused more congestion and disruption in greater measures than your so called totally free walk, but you won't understand that will you, as your not probably affected by the restrictions.
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: 'Igiveinthen' oh I'm real alright. Now this is starting to look a little hypocritical on your part. Why can't you just tell us who you are?[/p][/quote]Hypocritical - behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case. If anything, I am sceptical - not easily convinced and have doubts and reservations as to your comments re your trip around the city walls. You see I don't have to flower my comments with unrelated actions, I am against the bridge restrictions as it has caused more congestion and disruption in greater measures than your so called totally free walk, but you won't understand that will you, as your not probably affected by the restrictions. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -58

9:36pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

'Igiveinthen' you saw fit to praise criticism of someone accused of lacking transparency, even though that person had published their name and the street where they live. Practice what you preach. What's your name?
'Igiveinthen' you saw fit to praise criticism of someone accused of lacking transparency, even though that person had published their name and the street where they live. Practice what you preach. What's your name? PeteKilbane
  • Score: 15

10:23pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
'Igiveinthen' you saw fit to praise criticism of someone accused of lacking transparency, even though that person had published their name and the street where they live. Practice what you preach. What's your name?
Peter me old mate, this now seems to have stepped over the line and into a personal tit for tat, however, I along with the rest of the commenters on this site reserve the right to maintain our anonymity, so unfortunately I can't reveal my true identity, I mean do you want to know the true identity of all the others who have criticised the letter writer?, no I didn't think so, it's just that I have piqued you with my comments and now you won't let go, we'll unfortunately that's life as they say.
Oh as a post script, I maintain that I am against the bridge restriction, but not because I need or want to drive over it, it's because as I said it has caused more disruption to others and other parts of the city, something which you and Merrett & Co appear to ignore. Look forward to your reply
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: 'Igiveinthen' you saw fit to praise criticism of someone accused of lacking transparency, even though that person had published their name and the street where they live. Practice what you preach. What's your name?[/p][/quote]Peter me old mate, this now seems to have stepped over the line and into a personal tit for tat, however, I along with the rest of the commenters on this site reserve the right to maintain our anonymity, so unfortunately I can't reveal my true identity, I mean do you want to know the true identity of all the others who have criticised the letter writer?, no I didn't think so, it's just that I have piqued you with my comments and now you won't let go, we'll unfortunately that's life as they say. Oh as a post script, I maintain that I am against the bridge restriction, but not because I need or want to drive over it, it's because as I said it has caused more disruption to others and other parts of the city, something which you and Merrett & Co appear to ignore. Look forward to your reply Igiveinthen
  • Score: -24

11:06pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

'Igiveinthen' only you, 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly' criticised someone for lack of transparency. So I have asked all three of you to divulge your names, in accordance with your principles. So far all three have refused. Hypocracy? I think so. You cannot accuse someone of concealing their true identity then refuse to say who you are. To maintain that position invalidates your views.
'Igiveinthen' only you, 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly' criticised someone for lack of transparency. So I have asked all three of you to divulge your names, in accordance with your principles. So far all three have refused. Hypocracy? I think so. You cannot accuse someone of concealing their true identity then refuse to say who you are. To maintain that position invalidates your views. PeteKilbane
  • Score: 18

11:08pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Bo Jolly - you are right about the score fairy visiting around 11ish, on my last comment to my old mate Peter I was +1 now I'm -25!!
Bo Jolly - you are right about the score fairy visiting around 11ish, on my last comment to my old mate Peter I was +1 now I'm -25!! Igiveinthen
  • Score: -14

11:14pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Olga P says...

Teabag1 wrote:
I take it these letters have been sent/created as bait by cyclists.
hey there Tea bag - are you trying to come out as a cyclist? Listen no-one's going to think any less of you if you are - we're all behind you making this courageous announcement today. Yeh - Go teabag!
[quote][p][bold]Teabag1[/bold] wrote: I take it these letters have been sent/created as bait by cyclists.[/p][/quote]hey there Tea bag - are you trying to come out as a cyclist? Listen no-one's going to think any less of you if you are - we're all behind you making this courageous announcement today. Yeh - Go teabag! Olga P
  • Score: -7

12:01am Tue 25 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
'Igiveinthen' only you, 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly' criticised someone for lack of transparency. So I have asked all three of you to divulge your names, in accordance with your principles. So far all three have refused. Hypocracy? I think so. You cannot accuse someone of concealing their true identity then refuse to say who you are. To maintain that position invalidates your views.
PeteKilbane

I don't recall criticising anyone for lack of transparency. Having been revealed, and righty so, as a 20s plenty campaigner I pointed out that this group do not believe York residents should have a say in matters which affect their lives and asked if she would be in favour of a vote on the bridge closure.

If I were a campaigner getting the council to spend your money on wasteful projects then I would let it be known who I was when writing in and what I support if I believed that what I as doing was the right thing. Why would you not use your well supported group name as it may help bring on board the 70% of residents who the group she represents claim to support them.

As for me I have no hidden agenda I just won't be bullied out of my car and don't believe anyone should be subject to being bullied no matter what their lawful choice of transit is.

I am also against the councils anti car policy as it has, as they say, so far created massive increases in pollution in York to no effect. It also costs business in time lost sitting in pointless council created queues. Residents vehicles suffer increased wear and tear and massively increased fuel use due to the stop start nature of driving in York which is solely down to the council constraining traffic flows.

I recall last year the traffic lights in Acomb at the end of Carr Lane were off for about 4 days. This had the same effect on traffic in Acomb as closing Lendal Bridge - there were no vehicles about. It looked half the time like a ghost town because instead of being held at the lights polluting the very area where people were shopping all of the vehicles had passed through safely and were where they wanted to be - probably with their engines turned off. This of course is not just shown at these lights but all others that fail in the city and that is why I feel the need to comment here when it is a plain as the nose on your face that York's traffic problems are caused by the anti car brigade. Included in that brigade are of course the main leaders the council themselves.

By the way how many know that during the day they are closing part of Boroughbridge Road for eight weeks for road works associated with the new P&R. All part of the P&R conditioning process (bullying) though is it not? After eight weeks of council created congestion I would think, with a bit of propaganda put out by the council, most will start to pray for the opening of the P&R.
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: 'Igiveinthen' only you, 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly' criticised someone for lack of transparency. So I have asked all three of you to divulge your names, in accordance with your principles. So far all three have refused. Hypocracy? I think so. You cannot accuse someone of concealing their true identity then refuse to say who you are. To maintain that position invalidates your views.[/p][/quote]PeteKilbane I don't recall criticising anyone for lack of transparency. Having been revealed, and righty so, as a 20s plenty campaigner I pointed out that this group do not believe York residents should have a say in matters which affect their lives and asked if she would be in favour of a vote on the bridge closure. If I were a campaigner getting the council to spend your money on wasteful projects then I would let it be known who I was when writing in and what I support if I believed that what I as doing was the right thing. Why would you not use your well supported group name as it may help bring on board the 70% of residents who the group she represents claim to support them. As for me I have no hidden agenda I just won't be bullied out of my car and don't believe anyone should be subject to being bullied no matter what their lawful choice of transit is. I am also against the councils anti car policy as it has, as they say, so far created massive increases in pollution in York to no effect. It also costs business in time lost sitting in pointless council created queues. Residents vehicles suffer increased wear and tear and massively increased fuel use due to the stop start nature of driving in York which is solely down to the council constraining traffic flows. I recall last year the traffic lights in Acomb at the end of Carr Lane were off for about 4 days. This had the same effect on traffic in Acomb as closing Lendal Bridge - there were no vehicles about. It looked half the time like a ghost town because instead of being held at the lights polluting the very area where people were shopping all of the vehicles had passed through safely and were where they wanted to be - probably with their engines turned off. This of course is not just shown at these lights but all others that fail in the city and that is why I feel the need to comment here when it is a plain as the nose on your face that York's traffic problems are caused by the anti car brigade. Included in that brigade are of course the main leaders the council themselves. By the way how many know that during the day they are closing part of Boroughbridge Road for eight weeks for road works associated with the new P&R. All part of the P&R conditioning process (bullying) though is it not? After eight weeks of council created congestion I would think, with a bit of propaganda put out by the council, most will start to pray for the opening of the P&R. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 3

12:20am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Teabag1 wrote:
I take it these letters have been sent/created as bait by cyclists.
Do you mean in the same way as the last 6 letters comparing York to Chester were all sent in by one person using several aliases??
[quote][p][bold]Teabag1[/bold] wrote: I take it these letters have been sent/created as bait by cyclists.[/p][/quote]Do you mean in the same way as the last 6 letters comparing York to Chester were all sent in by one person using several aliases?? Magicman!
  • Score: -3

12:25am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Zetkin wrote:
I'm still not convinced by the hyperbole on either side of this debate, but my personal experience is that the buses I catch are running closer to timetable than they used to, and that walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be. It's neither Nirvana nor Armageddon.

As for the implicit accusation that the letter-writers are trolling, I seem to recall a couple of anti-closure letter bearing all the hallmarks of being put-up jobs, or is it only non-cyclists, non-pedestrians, non-delivery drivers, non-shop owners, non-taxi users, and non-bus users who are allowed to express an opinion?
Nail hit squarely on the head.
The road is open to vehicles that take a higher priority in the grand scheme of things.

... I'm sure somewhere either in the comments above or a bit later on strangebuttrue will come on and have their usual rant about the bridge being open to buses which create a lot of pollution blah blah blah - but in 2-3 months time there are likely to be Hybrid buses going over that bridge instead of diesel ones (pretty much all of the 2001 batch of double deckers with First are now in Manchester, 5 of which are in the process of being replaced by 2008 dated Hybrids) - and Transdev has a grant to convert a diesel bus into an electric one, and from what I've heard it's likely going be one of the open toppers that gets the treatment.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: I'm still not convinced by the hyperbole on either side of this debate, but my personal experience is that the buses I catch are running closer to timetable than they used to, and that walking across Lendal Bridge is pleasanter than it used to be. It's neither Nirvana nor Armageddon. As for the implicit accusation that the letter-writers are trolling, I seem to recall a couple of anti-closure letter bearing all the hallmarks of being put-up jobs, or is it only non-cyclists, non-pedestrians, non-delivery drivers, non-shop owners, non-taxi users, and non-bus users who are allowed to express an opinion?[/p][/quote]Nail hit squarely on the head. The road is open to vehicles that take a higher priority in the grand scheme of things. ... I'm sure somewhere either in the comments above or a bit later on strangebuttrue will come on and have their usual rant about the bridge being open to buses which create a lot of pollution blah blah blah - but in 2-3 months time there are likely to be Hybrid buses going over that bridge instead of diesel ones (pretty much all of the 2001 batch of double deckers with First are now in Manchester, 5 of which are in the process of being replaced by 2008 dated Hybrids) - and Transdev has a grant to convert a diesel bus into an electric one, and from what I've heard it's likely going be one of the open toppers that gets the treatment. Magicman!
  • Score: -1

1:26am Tue 25 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge.

I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it.

I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.
PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge. I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it. I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 6

8:52am Tue 25 Feb 14

Mulgrave says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge.

I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it.

I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.
The tradition of anonymity in public comment predates the internet by a long way, in fact it has revived it. If you look at letters to The Times in the Victorian era many were under assumed names and such things as "An outraged taxpayer"
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge. I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it. I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.[/p][/quote]The tradition of anonymity in public comment predates the internet by a long way, in fact it has revived it. If you look at letters to The Times in the Victorian era many were under assumed names and such things as "An outraged taxpayer" Mulgrave
  • Score: 3

9:09am Tue 25 Feb 14

PeteKilbane says...

So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.
So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility. PeteKilbane
  • Score: 1

10:30am Tue 25 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.
I will measure my credibility by the positive scores before the score manipulation takes place and after by the negative scores put in by our manipulator. You seem to have a good score since the manipulator has been at work?
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.[/p][/quote]I will measure my credibility by the positive scores before the score manipulation takes place and after by the negative scores put in by our manipulator. You seem to have a good score since the manipulator has been at work? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

11:17am Tue 25 Feb 14

Pinza-C55 says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
PeteKilbane wrote:
So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.
I will measure my credibility by the positive scores before the score manipulation takes place and after by the negative scores put in by our manipulator. You seem to have a good score since the manipulator has been at work?
It's worth pointing out that getting a thumbs up doesn't mean you are right, it simply means that other people agree with you.
Personally I think the voting feature serves no purpose on this site and should be removed. I am savvy enough with computers to be fairly sure the Press can locate the person who is manipulating the votes but doesn't choose to stop them.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.[/p][/quote]I will measure my credibility by the positive scores before the score manipulation takes place and after by the negative scores put in by our manipulator. You seem to have a good score since the manipulator has been at work?[/p][/quote]It's worth pointing out that getting a thumbs up doesn't mean you are right, it simply means that other people agree with you. Personally I think the voting feature serves no purpose on this site and should be removed. I am savvy enough with computers to be fairly sure the Press can locate the person who is manipulating the votes but doesn't choose to stop them. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

11:26am Tue 25 Feb 14

AGuyFromStrensall says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.
Seriously, are you simple or is reading what is put in front of you that hard to do?
You're not magically Jeremy Paxman just because you ask the same question repeatedly no matter how sensible the response is...
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.[/p][/quote]Seriously, are you simple or is reading what is put in front of you that hard to do? You're not magically Jeremy Paxman just because you ask the same question repeatedly no matter how sensible the response is... AGuyFromStrensall
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

PeteKilbane wrote:
So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.
Pete, the issue is not 'identity' but affiliation.

The name at the bottom does not matter a d*mn, but it obviously changes the letter's impact if you know it comes from an officer of the 20s Plenty campaign, whose boss is a leading councillor and anti-car campaigner.

You understand this, so stop blurring the issue.
[quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.[/p][/quote]Pete, the issue is not 'identity' but affiliation. The name at the bottom does not matter a d*mn, but it obviously changes the letter's impact if you know it comes from an officer of the 20s Plenty campaign, whose boss is a leading councillor and anti-car campaigner. You understand this, so stop blurring the issue. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 1

9:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

York Urban says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
PeteKilbane wrote:
So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.
Pete, the issue is not 'identity' but affiliation.

The name at the bottom does not matter a d*mn, but it obviously changes the letter's impact if you know it comes from an officer of the 20s Plenty campaign, whose boss is a leading councillor and anti-car campaigner.

You understand this, so stop blurring the issue.
Now how exactly would it change the impact - other than feeding your conspiracy theories? So she support the bridge restrictions and 20mph limits - what's the big deal? Indeed judging by some of the moans here about "speeding buses and taxis" perhaps they need to go together!
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PeteKilbane[/bold] wrote: So 'Igiveinthen', 'strangebuttrue?' and 'Bo Jolly all three of you believe commentators here should be transparent about their identity. Therefore I have asked all three of you to be transparent about your own identity. All three have declined. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and treat your views accordingly. There is a simple way to restore your credibility.[/p][/quote]Pete, the issue is not 'identity' but affiliation. The name at the bottom does not matter a d*mn, but it obviously changes the letter's impact if you know it comes from an officer of the 20s Plenty campaign, whose boss is a leading councillor and anti-car campaigner. You understand this, so stop blurring the issue.[/p][/quote]Now how exactly would it change the impact - other than feeding your conspiracy theories? So she support the bridge restrictions and 20mph limits - what's the big deal? Indeed judging by some of the moans here about "speeding buses and taxis" perhaps they need to go together! York Urban
  • Score: -1

9:56pm Wed 26 Feb 14

York Urban says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge.

I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it.

I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.
Wow! Never thought I'd hear the likes of Ned Ludd being invoked to bolster the arguments of the car lobby!
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge. I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it. I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.[/p][/quote]Wow! Never thought I'd hear the likes of Ned Ludd being invoked to bolster the arguments of the car lobby! York Urban
  • Score: -1

10:21pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

York Urban wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote:
PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge.

I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it.

I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.
Wow! Never thought I'd hear the likes of Ned Ludd being invoked to bolster the arguments of the car lobby!
Perhaps you need to get out more! Then you might realise its not a 'car lobby', just lots of people who need York's transport policy work for them not against them.
[quote][p][bold]York Urban[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: PeteKilbane, There is nothing wrong with Louise Diver not mentioning her affiliation with 20s plenty - it's her right - nor does it devalue her opinion, which you will note I engaged with and argued against. I was just pointing out that the knowledge may well change people's understanding of her opinion and for that reason *perhaps* (my word) she should have mentioned it. Whether you are an 'officer' in an anti-car lobby group whose leader is a leading Labour councillor (or a councillor, or a senior council officer or anyone else closely affiliated with the council) is probably relevant in such a heated debate like Lendal Bridge. I strongly believe in the right of anonymity (if you choose to exercise it) on the internet and as a tradition it dates back to the earliest days of the 'net. I think in some ways it echoes much older traditions where those without power or influence often hid their names from authority (Ned Ludd, Captain Swing, the Rebecca Rioters) for fear of reprisal. Then, just as now, some abused it, and then, just as now, the authorities and those who supported them were ever so frustrated by it. I'm not affiliated to any relevant organisation, although I am a labour voter (more in hope than expectation). But I instinctively dislike being manipulated by those in power. Whether it be the Tories somehow managing to demonise through their tame newspapers the unemployed and disabled (in the midst of the deepest recession since the 30s for gawd's sake!) or this little local issue of Lendal Bridge where those in power and their supporters are willing to cheat (witness the nightly comment voting manipulation on every single Lendal Bridge story since December, designed to create the impression of general consensus where there is none), deceive (the 'trial' that isn't a trial, that the council have already admitted won't end at the end of the 'trial' period and is already being treated as a done deal in their future plans), and cherry pick statistics (see any council press release repeated in this paper) to get their own way.[/p][/quote]Wow! Never thought I'd hear the likes of Ned Ludd being invoked to bolster the arguments of the car lobby![/p][/quote]Perhaps you need to get out more! Then you might realise its not a 'car lobby', just lots of people who need York's transport policy work for them not against them. Bo Jolly
  • Score: 2

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