Litotes Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The trouble with these discussion forums is that they attract the cynical ranters who do nothing but moan, moan, moan. Unfortunately, the scheme has been implemented because of the few residents who complained. The number of complainants prior to the scheme was a minority of residents and yet they appear to have given the council an excuse to implement a nice little money making scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litotes Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 No, as I pointed out, I believe the only way to solve the inner city parking problem is to force people out of there cars and provide better public transport. And, yes, the better public transport is slow in coming (literally). I totally agree, but you need the viable alternative in place before you force people out of their cars. P.S. Roll on the 26th... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletvictus Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Quote: Originally Posted by Buble Fan The trouble with these discussion forums is that they attract the cynical ranters who do nothing but moan, moan, moan. Unfortunately, the scheme has been implemented because of the few residents who complained. Ah, but don't you see, litotes, that those people who moaned at the council to push their problems onto other people weren't "ranters who moan, moan, moan", presumably because "Buble Fan" likes the particular moaning they were doing and agrees with the scheme that has been foisted on us all as a result. these discussion forums..........attract the cynical ranters who do nothing but moan, moan, moan I suppose all those people who got upset about the government's plans to bring in a "poll tax" a few years ago were "cynical ranters who moan, moan, moan", too, were they, "Buble Fan"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buble Fan Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I suppose all those people who got upset about the government's plans to bring in a "poll tax" a few years ago were "cynical ranters who moan, moan, moan", too, were they, "Buble Fan"? Actually I think you'll find that there was a majority of the public who were opposed to Poll Tax and eventually the weight of public opinion against it led to its abolition. Compare this with the numerical balance of people within Sharrow - i.e. 6000+ households, but only a handful of moaners on this thread. Indeed there were only a few hundred objections to the Council in total - and many of them were only asking for minor changes, or didn't like certain aspects of the scheme. If you look at the numbers of people who were totally against the scheme, they are very much in the minority. Yes there have been a large number of postings on this thread, but they're all from a few individuals who can't stop moaning. PPZ pointed out earlier that the Council had consulted in detail AND made changes as a result of comments made by the local residents. So the accusation that the Council is not listening is wide of the mark. Obviously the different aspects of the scheme will not match everyone's requirements, but as I have said before - people need to give it a chance. Full enforcement starts on Monday, so the next few weeks will give people a better idea how it will work in practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletvictus Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Compare this with the numerical balance of people within Sharrow - i.e. 6000+ households, but only a handful of moaners on this thread. Indeed there were only a few hundred objections to the Council in total - and many of them were only asking for minor changes, or didn't like certain aspects of the scheme. If you look at the numbers of people who were totally against the scheme, they are very much in the minority. Funny that. Here's the outcome of the council's so-called "consultation" process (bearing in mind that a large proportion on my road said they hadn't been consulted and would have opposed the idea if they had been): The Council has received 27 letters of support, which generally welcome the steps being taken to address major parking problems in Sharrow Vale. There have been 431 objections and 9 petitions... Doesn't look like a win for the advocates of the scheme to me. There were 27 moaners begging the council to solve their problems by dumping them on other people, and 431 people objecting to the scheme. And of course, the council didn't see fit to consult all the people affected by the scheme - including the legitimate users of the public roads demonised as "commuter parkers", but only those within the area it thought would support the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buble Fan Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Doesn't look like a win for the advocates of the scheme to me. There were 27 moaners begging the council to solve their problems by dumping them on other people, and 431 people objecting to the scheme. And of course, the council didn't see fit to consult all the people affected by the scheme - including the legitimate users of the public roads demonised as "commuter parkers", but only those within the area it thought would support the idea. But as usual you ignore the 6000+ households who constitute the silent majority, who because they had no objection to the scheme, didn't feel the need to reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mc55 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 But as usual you ignore the 6000+ households who constitute the silent majority, who because they had no objection to the scheme, didn't feel the need to reply. sorry, but I really can't agree that apathy = agreement. There are numerous reasons why people did not respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barny_100 Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 But as usual you ignore the 6000+ households who constitute the silent majority, who because they had no objection to the scheme, didn't feel the need to reply. Interesting take there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletvictus Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 But as usual you ignore the 6000+ households who constitute the silent majority, who because they had no objection to the scheme, didn't feel the need to reply. As usual, as mc55 pointed out before me, you mendaciously count all the non-responders as being in favour. Whereas I have objective evidence, in the case of my own road, that a minimum of around 30% of households here didn't respond to the council's "consultation" (because they weren't aware of it - contrary to the assertions of the council and the scheme's backers) and yet are strongly opposed to the scheme. A further small group of residents here also oppose the scheme but said they didn't bother to respond because they didn't think the council would take any notice anyway - presumably a learned response to past instances of council "consultation". (And don't claim the 30% means 70% were in favour, either. I have responses from 28 out of 51 houses here - 26 opposed to the scheme and two who claimed not to support the scheme particularly but declined to oppose it. The remaining 23 houses are presumably split between opposers, supporters and apathetics.) You appear to believe either that people who disagree with you are necessarily "moaners", or that people who disagree with the majority (in your opinion) are "moaners" by definition, and therefore should be ignored. Whichever is the case, you are incorrect. Even if a majority of a group is in favour of a particular course of action, that doesn't necessarily mean it's justified. History is full of examples where the few individual objectors were later considered to have been right all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Why should you suppose that the non-respondents were not in favour? Not complaining may well be tacit approval.. it is where I live. I live in the Broomhill PPZ and I didn't feel the need to respond because the PPZ met my needs and the problems that we experienced in our immediate area. The Sharrow Vale scheme may be different of course, but at least I speak from 12 months experience... I love it, wrinkles and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.