ONE of Southampton's biggest residents groups has joined the battle against controversial plans to charge for parking outside your own home.
They are also urging others to get behind the Daily Echo Parking Mad campaign demanding a council U-turn over the proposals.
Council plans to charge residents to park outside their homes were revealed last week and have sparked anger across the city.
To make it even worse parking bosses say that despite forking out for a permit residents will still not be guaranteed a space.
Yesterday the Echo revealed how a majority of the city council Cabinet that approved the plan will actually avoid the new charge as their homes already have off-street parking.
Now, the East Bassett Residents' Association has had enough and has joined the campaign to call for the plans to be scrapped.
Association chairman Jean Wawman said it would discriminate against residents who live in certain areas of the city.
The 200-member association includes many people living within residential parking zones near to Southampton University's Highfield campus.
Retired civil servant Mrs Wawman said that residents should not have to pay the price of the university expanding its student numbers dramatically over the last ten years.
Parking Policy - Provision & Management 
For more, see today's Daily Echo.
7:12am Wednesday 26th March 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Sue, HIghfield on 8:19am Wed 26 Mar 08
Well stated Mrs Warman. The university should ban all students from using cars and provide parking for staff well away from residents. Residents are des up with the gung ho attitude of the university. Brighton and Hove has two universities but they do not encroach on the residents' lives in a negative manner as the universities in Southampton do. How much does the university cost residents in policing?
Well stated Mrs Warman. The university should ban all students from using cars and provide parking for staff well away from residents. Residents are des up with the gung ho attitude of the university. Brighton and Hove has two universities but they do not encroach on the residents' lives in a negative manner as the universities in Southampton do. How much does the university cost residents in policing?
Posted by: Highfield Resident (&former student), Highfield on 9:17am Wed 26 Mar 08
What a ludicrous statement... 'Ban students from using cars'!?!?! WHY?! I thought we lived in a democracy, therefore if they wish to use cars, then so they should. I am fed up with the whinging and sniping from Highfield and Bassett residents about the University. It's been there for long enough and one would hope that common sense would have highlighted the fact that a fantastic University will need to expand. Students bring a lot of money into the city and also give the city more prestige. Southampton has a wow factor that we should be proud of-The University.
What a ludicrous statement... 'Ban students from using cars'!?!?! WHY?! I thought we lived in a democracy, therefore if they wish to use cars, then so they should. I am fed up with the whinging and sniping from Highfield and Bassett residents about the University. It's been there for long enough and one would hope that common sense would have highlighted the fact that a fantastic University will need to expand. Students bring a lot of money into the city and also give the city more prestige. Southampton has a wow factor that we should be proud of-The University.
Posted by: Cynic, Southampton on 9:34am Wed 26 Mar 08
Why should these moaning whingers expect exclusive parking in the road outside their houses and not have to pay for it . THEY DO NOT OWN THE ROAD, it is there for everybody.
Why should these moaning whingers expect exclusive parking in the road outside their houses and not have to pay for it . THEY DO NOT OWN THE ROAD, it is there for everybody.
Posted by: bemused onlooker, Southampton on 10:14am Wed 26 Mar 08
There is no road immediately in front of my house. Rather than inflict my family's car parking needs on others, I use my front garden.
Not everyone, but an awful lot of people could do the same. Unfortunately they are simply too miserly or just don't care; but they do love to moan.
There is no road immediately in front of my house. Rather than inflict my family's car parking needs on others, I use my front garden.
Not everyone, but an awful lot of people could do the same. Unfortunately they are simply too miserly or just don't care; but they do love to moan.
Posted by: Eastleigh resident on 10:29am Wed 26 Mar 08
Not sure if you are aware but the situtation is the same in Eastleigh where I live. I have to pay for a permit every year and as most people get home before me, I struggle to find a space! So, if we can cope I'm sure Soton residents will too! I know It's a pain the a**e but such is life - nothing is fair in this world to be honest; depressing as that sounds - it's the truth!! Life sucks!
Not sure if you are aware but the situtation is the same in Eastleigh where I live. I have to pay for a permit every year and as most people get home before me, I struggle to find a space! So, if we can cope I'm sure Soton residents will too! I know It's a pain the a**e but such is life - nothing is fair in this world to be honest; depressing as that sounds - it's the truth!! Life sucks!
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 11:05am Wed 26 Mar 08
MUSH TIP OF THE DAY
If you have problems with carparking outside of your home- then MOVE!!
Likewise - if you buy a place near to a school, pub, club etc then dont start whinging about the downside etc
MUSH TIP OF THE DAY
If you have problems with carparking outside of your home- then MOVE!!
Likewise - if you buy a place near to a school, pub, club etc then dont start whinging about the downside etc
Posted by: Denzil on 11:27am Wed 26 Mar 08
Owned.
Posted by: Burley model on 12:00pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Also I am fed up with the whinging and sniping from Highfield and Bassett residents about the University,....Highf
ield and Basset get it bulldozed and make space for cars, move all moaners to care homes problem solved.
Also I am fed up with the whinging and sniping from Highfield and Bassett residents about the University,....Highf
ield and Basset get it bulldozed and make space for cars, move all moaners to care homes problem solved.
Posted by: confused, Highfield on 12:01pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Walking up Brookvale Road this morning - it was absolutely ridiculous. Cars had difficulties getting round the roundabout. John Lewis Van had difficulties travelling down the road due to selfish motorists - because they cannot park correctly. At the top of Oakmount Avenure, again drivers obviously totally unaware of where it is legal to park their car - just stuck out in to the road, making lives very difficult for pedestrians. I actually wonder how many have legally passed their tests due to the number of near misses in this area. Motorists have brought this upon themselves by their selfish attitude. How anyone can say this dependence on cars is envrionmentally friendly is beyond me. The university should set an example and encourage everyone to walk, jog, cycle on the road or use the bus.
Walking up Brookvale Road this morning - it was absolutely ridiculous. Cars had difficulties getting round the roundabout. John Lewis Van had difficulties travelling down the road due to selfish motorists - because they cannot park correctly. At the top of Oakmount Avenure, again drivers obviously totally unaware of where it is legal to park their car - just stuck out in to the road, making lives very difficult for pedestrians. I actually wonder how many have legally passed their tests due to the number of near misses in this area. Motorists have brought this upon themselves by their selfish attitude. How anyone can say this dependence on cars is envrionmentally friendly is beyond me. The university should set an example and encourage everyone to walk, jog, cycle on the road or use the bus.
Posted by: local on 12:39pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[bold]Banning[/bold] and [bold]taxing[/bold] ; these are the only solutions government seem to have nowadays.
Banning and
taxing ; these are the only solutions government seem to have nowadays.
Posted by: Denzil, Romsey on 1:11pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I think its a great idea to charge people. Its about time the council stood up for their rights... There are far too many cars on the side roads for no reason and perhaps they will use a driveway or at least have one put up the cheapskates.
I think its a great idea to charge people. Its about time the council stood up for their rights... There are far too many cars on the side roads for no reason and perhaps they will use a driveway or at least have one put up the cheapskates.
Posted by: Matt Finish, Southampton on 1:18pm Wed 26 Mar 08
The Echo are on a loser here. By trying to whip up opposition they are creating the situation, If they succeed, then the Echo must assume responsibility for the parking costs, NOT THE RATEPAYER.
The Echo are on a loser here. By trying to whip up opposition they are creating the situation, If they succeed, then the Echo must assume responsibility for the parking costs, NOT THE RATEPAYER.
Posted by: Live local, Southampton on 2:01pm Wed 26 Mar 08
It seems to me that we are completely missing the point when considering the council plan to charge residents to park outside their own homes. To increase the number of permits will require additional staff. This will also require more parking attendants. The increased revenue from the residents parking is unlikely to meet the additional cost of administration. It may be better to remove all residents parking areas across the city, and therefore reduced the administrative burden and reduce the number of parking wardens required.
This may of course cause some extra parking problems around certain areas (Southampton Hospital, Southampton University, near the city centre) but the reduction in costs to the city, means this may be the price we have to pay.
It seems to me that we are completely missing the point when considering the council plan to charge residents to park outside their own homes. To increase the number of permits will require additional staff. This will also require more parking attendants. The increased revenue from the residents parking is unlikely to meet the additional cost of administration. It may be better to remove all residents parking areas across the city, and therefore reduced the administrative burden and reduce the number of parking wardens required.
This may of course cause some extra parking problems around certain areas (Southampton Hospital, Southampton University, near the city centre) but the reduction in costs to the city, means this may be the price we have to pay.
Posted by: Rob, Southampton on 2:25pm Wed 26 Mar 08
If permits stop idiots with a choice whether they drive or not then that is a plus, but what are the chances of this genuinely being the case?
I personally have no choice but to park on a side street as I live where there is not enough parking for the residents, and require the car for work etc. But would happily pay for the priviledge of parking in another street as I dont live there.
Paying to park outside your own home is taking things too far. I dont agree with blaming the university or asking people to move, permits should be issued to actual residents for free so the numbers of additional vehicles would drop.
If permits stop idiots with a choice whether they drive or not then that is a plus, but what are the chances of this genuinely being the case?
I personally have no choice but to park on a side street as I live where there is not enough parking for the residents, and require the car for work etc. But would happily pay for the priviledge of parking in another street as I dont live there.
Paying to park outside your own home is taking things too far. I dont agree with blaming the university or asking people to move, permits should be issued to actual residents for free so the numbers of additional vehicles would drop.
Posted by: Osama Bin Laden, A Cave far far away on 3:22pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I never knew Grant Mitchall lived in the area
I never knew Grant Mitchall lived in the area
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 6:09pm Wed 26 Mar 08
As the Echo knows, there is no plan by the current Lab-Lib administration to introduce this charge although it is suspected that the previous Conservative administration was going to - they refused to answer questions about it at the time. The Echo has been told this but has refused to print it preferring to run this spurious "campaign".
Ian Murray is simply miffed that his favourite Conservatives were ousted and keeps publishing this story which has NO BASIS IN FACT. I repeat, there is no plan to introduce this charge.
As the Echo knows, there is no plan by the current Lab-Lib administration to introduce this charge although it is suspected that the previous Conservative administration was going to - they refused to answer questions about it at the time. The Echo has been told this but has refused to print it preferring to run this spurious "campaign".
Ian Murray is simply miffed that his favourite Conservatives were ousted and keeps publishing this story which has NO BASIS IN FACT. I repeat, there is no plan to introduce this charge.
Posted by: Sarah on 6:46pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Most of the inner city houses are old back to back terraces with no front garden, driveway etc etc. In my street no one has any choice but to park on the road. Maybe the council wants to drive all the inner city residents out and replace the beautiful old houses with even more flats? In an age where we are being encouraged to live in brownfield and inner city areas (rather than building on yet more greenfield land such as chandlers ford and hedge end) should we not be taking measures to encourage rather than discourage inner city living?
Most of the inner city houses are old back to back terraces with no front garden, driveway etc etc. In my street no one has any choice but to park on the road. Maybe the council wants to drive all the inner city residents out and replace the beautiful old houses with even more flats? In an age where we are being encouraged to live in brownfield and inner city areas (rather than building on yet more greenfield land such as chandlers ford and hedge end) should we not be taking measures to encourage rather than discourage inner city living?
Posted by: Rufus T Firefly on 6:52pm Wed 26 Mar 08
The Echo continues it's tenacious campaign against this gross travesty of justice. (Nothing else going on then?)
Where would we be without them? We should all be grateful we have a local paper that stands up for us all on issues that REALLY matter.
Next week: BRING BACK SPANGLES!!!!
The Echo continues it's tenacious campaign against this gross travesty of justice. (Nothing else going on then?)
Where would we be without them? We should all be grateful we have a local paper that stands up for us all on issues that REALLY matter.
Next week: BRING BACK SPANGLES!!!!
Posted by: Gordon Guffbucket, Southampton on 7:43pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Next week:
"The Echo investigate the large rise in having a dropped kerb installed."
Next week:
"The Echo investigate the large rise in having a dropped kerb installed."
Posted by: Jay, Southampton on 8:37pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Why let the facts ruin a good story,there where a number of reccomendations in the report. As I understand it, the report was accepted but [bold]no[/bold] decision was taken about which bits where going to be implemented. Lets hope the sheep that are following your lead here take the trouble to find out the truth before making a completely uninformed decision to sign a meaningless petition!!
Why let the facts ruin a good story,there where a number of reccomendations in the report. As I understand it, the report was accepted but
no decision was taken about which bits where going to be implemented. Lets hope the sheep that are following your lead here take the trouble to find out the truth before making a completely uninformed decision to sign a meaningless petition!!
Posted by: Fred Robinson, Southampton on 9:57pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I applaud the Echo, for it's stance about these proposed parking charges,and agree with C Chivers,that we have a chance in May to elect a council that hopefully will listen to the people of Southampton, and will come up with less hair brained schemes.
I applaud the Echo, for it's stance about these proposed parking charges,and agree with C Chivers,that we have a chance in May to elect a council that hopefully will listen to the people of Southampton, and will come up with less hair brained schemes.
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 10:16pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Fred Robinson[/bold] wrote:
I applaud the Echo, for it's stance about these proposed parking charges,and agree with C Chivers,that we have a chance in May to elect a council that hopefully will listen to the people of Southampton, and will come up with less hair brained schemes.[/quote] Fair enough. But before you cast your vote on this basis, I suggest that you do a little research into who is proposing what, who refused to answer questions about it when they were in control and what the current administration has said in a statement which the Echo has but has not published. I am sure then that you will conclude that, if anybody was going to implement such a scheme, it wouldn't be the Lab-Lib administration currently in charge. But Tory Councillor Gavin Dick might squirm a bit.
Fred Robinson wrote:
I applaud the Echo, for it's stance about these proposed parking charges,and agree with C Chivers,that we have a chance in May to elect a council that hopefully will listen to the people of Southampton, and will come up with less hair brained schemes.
Fair enough. But before you cast your vote on this basis, I suggest that you do a little research into who is proposing what, who refused to answer questions about it when they were in control and what the current administration has said in a statement which the Echo has but has not published. I am sure then that you will conclude that, if anybody was going to implement such a scheme, it wouldn't be the Lab-Lib administration currently in charge. But Tory Councillor Gavin Dick might squirm a bit.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 11:45pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Out of curiosity, at what point would the Council be entitled to submit a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission regarding the Echo consistently and willfully lying about their position? Any experts on media law here?
Out of curiosity, at what point would the Council be entitled to submit a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission regarding the Echo consistently and willfully lying about their position? Any experts on media law here?
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 12:01am Thu 27 Mar 08
Aha, I just did some googling on the PCC's website. It looks to me like the Echo is in violation of the PCC Code of Practice, in particular section 1- 'Accuracy' and section 2- 'opportunity to reply.' It says:
1 Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
2 Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
Aha, I just did some googling on the PCC's website. It looks to me like the Echo is in violation of the PCC Code of Practice, in particular section 1- 'Accuracy' and section 2- 'opportunity to reply.' It says:
1 Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
2 Opportunity to reply
A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
Posted by: maxine rowe, bassett on 12:23am Thu 27 Mar 08
i live in bassett and have so for 27 years, i live close to the uni , i havent got a prob with students driving, i have a problem with the lack of parking for them, i have a drive which i allways use, but quit often get blocked in or blocked out, i care for my nan who i live with who is disabled,but we cant have a disabled space as i have a drive, not that she can get in or out the car when it is in the drive as its not big enough, quit often i have to park right down the rd, get her in her wheel chair to get to my car!! i think there should be more limited parking areas and when they build flats ect they should cater for there cars, i dont think we should have to pay to park out side our own houses as we pay rd tax and council tax, which is what i thought this money is for oh and meant to sort out the pot holes!! and as for those who dont like people from bassett moaning, get a grip, some people are not so fortunate!!!
i live in bassett and have so for 27 years, i live close to the uni , i havent got a prob with students driving, i have a problem with the lack of parking for them, i have a drive which i allways use, but quit often get blocked in or blocked out, i care for my nan who i live with who is disabled,but we cant have a disabled space as i have a drive, not that she can get in or out the car when it is in the drive as its not big enough, quit often i have to park right down the rd, get her in her wheel chair to get to my car!! i think there should be more limited parking areas and when they build flats ect they should cater for there cars, i dont think we should have to pay to park out side our own houses as we pay rd tax and council tax, which is what i thought this money is for oh and meant to sort out the pot holes!! and as for those who dont like people from bassett moaning, get a grip, some people are not so fortunate!!!
Posted by: Steve on 11:19am Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
Aha, I just did some googling on the PCC's website. It looks to me like the Echo is in violation of the PCC Code of Practice, in particular section 1- 'Accuracy' and section 2- 'opportunity to reply.' It says: 1 Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. 2 Opportunity to reply A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.[/quote] The council have had comments in loads of the stories.
The articles are about legislation THIS cabinet voted through.
So what's false and inaccurate?
Obviousl;y lots of councillors are trying to cover their backs here in the upcoming elections.
U-turn doesn't begin to cover it.
Red Rooster wrote:
Aha, I just did some googling on the PCC's website. It looks to me like the Echo is in violation of the PCC Code of Practice, in particular section 1- 'Accuracy' and section 2- 'opportunity to reply.' It says: 1 Accuracy i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published. 2 Opportunity to reply A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must be given when reasonably called for.
The council have had comments in loads of the stories.
The articles are about legislation THIS cabinet voted through.
So what's false and inaccurate?
Obviousl;y lots of councillors are trying to cover their backs here in the upcoming elections.
U-turn doesn't begin to cover it.
Posted by: Steve on 11:21am Thu 27 Mar 08
Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.
Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 12:47pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote:
Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.[/quote] Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils?
And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.
Steve wrote:
Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.
Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils?
And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.
Posted by: Gordon Watson on 2:17pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.[/quote] Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils? And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.[/quote] They've printed the reports on today's story.
The same reports that were approved by the council's cabinet as policy.
Rather than trying to pick people up on semantics, you should pay attention to what is actually going on, rather than trying to claim the council has done nothing wrong.
It's backtracked due to fear or heavy losses at the election. It's obvious.
Red Rooster wrote:
Steve wrote: Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.
Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils? And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.
They've printed the reports on today's story.
The same reports that were approved by the council's cabinet as policy.
Rather than trying to pick people up on semantics, you should pay attention to what is actually going on, rather than trying to claim the council has done nothing wrong.
It's backtracked due to fear or heavy losses at the election. It's obvious.
Posted by: Red Rooster, Bitterne on 6:15pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gordon Watson[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.[/quote] Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils? And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.[/quote] They've printed the reports on today's story.
The same reports that were approved by the council's cabinet as policy.
Rather than trying to pick people up on semantics, you should pay attention to what is actually going on, rather than trying to claim the council has done nothing wrong.
It's backtracked due to fear or heavy losses at the election. It's obvious. [/quote] The guy claimed to be an expert on media law and doesn't know what the word 'legislation' means. I think that's relevant.
And the stuff published by the Echo today doesn't confirm a word of what they've been campaigning about. It's only 'obvious' to people who believe what the Echo writes at face value, i.e. fools.
Gordon Watson wrote:
Red Rooster wrote:
Steve wrote: Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.
Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils? And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.
They've printed the reports on today's story.
The same reports that were approved by the council's cabinet as policy.
Rather than trying to pick people up on semantics, you should pay attention to what is actually going on, rather than trying to claim the council has done nothing wrong.
It's backtracked due to fear or heavy losses at the election. It's obvious.
The guy claimed to be an expert on media law and doesn't know what the word 'legislation' means. I think that's relevant.
And the stuff published by the Echo today doesn't confirm a word of what they've been campaigning about. It's only 'obvious' to people who believe what the Echo writes at face value, i.e. fools.
Posted by: Red, but not a Rooster on 11:47pm Thu 27 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Gordon Watson[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Red Rooster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Steve[/bold] wrote: Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.[/quote] Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils? And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.[/quote] They've printed the reports on today's story.
The same reports that were approved by the council's cabinet as policy.
Rather than trying to pick people up on semantics, you should pay attention to what is actually going on, rather than trying to claim the council has done nothing wrong.
It's backtracked due to fear or heavy losses at the election. It's obvious. [/quote] The guy claimed to be an expert on media law and doesn't know what the word 'legislation' means. I think that's relevant.
And the stuff published by the Echo today doesn't confirm a word of what they've been campaigning about. It's only 'obvious' to people who believe what the Echo writes at face value, i.e. fools.[/quote] Kettle, black, pot.
If ever there was someone trying to save political face, it's this guy.
Red Rooster wrote:
Gordon Watson wrote:
Red Rooster wrote:
Steve wrote: Oh, and Red Rooster, I'm a lecturer on Media Law at a local Further Education institute, and the Echo hae done nothing wrong here.
Well good for you- in which case shouldn't you know that legislation is passed by Parliament, not Councils? And the false and innacurate comes from the fact that they are running a campaign against something they claim is council policy, when, in fact, it isn't. And they've been extremely reluctant to print full council statements saying this is the case.
They've printed the reports on today's story.
The same reports that were approved by the council's cabinet as policy.
Rather than trying to pick people up on semantics, you should pay attention to what is actually going on, rather than trying to claim the council has done nothing wrong.
It's backtracked due to fear or heavy losses at the election. It's obvious.
The guy claimed to be an expert on media law and doesn't know what the word 'legislation' means. I think that's relevant.
And the stuff published by the Echo today doesn't confirm a word of what they've been campaigning about. It's only 'obvious' to people who believe what the Echo writes at face value, i.e. fools.
Kettle, black, pot.
If ever there was someone trying to save political face, it's this guy.
Posted by: Unamused, Southampton on 10:31am Fri 4 Apr 08
Whoever thought it was funny to pretend to be 'S Chivers' is not very clever
Whoever thought it was funny to pretend to be 'S Chivers' is not very clever
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
