Looks like Kerry McCarthy is having something of an Alan Partridge moment over on her blog …
A few offhand comments on Dutch coffee houses, cannabis and the smoking ban seem to have attracted the attention of those sane and rational folk at FOREST. So far today she’s had 61 comments and still counting.
Aaaah the joy of the internet!
Meanwhile the vegan MP is also reporting she’s turned down an invite to the National Pig Association’s parliamentary launch of “a report highlighting public sector procurement patterns of pork and bacon”. It’ll be interesting to see how they take the news …
Household fuel bills to rise 40%; food up 5-15% depending on who you believe; mortgage interest payments rising by the month; 10% tax rate gone; petrol prices way up. The list goes on …
Meanwhile at Bristol City Council - a Labour administration, remember, whose boss Gordon Brown promised “to listen” - Chief Executive’s pay is up 20%!!! chief officers’ pay is up 10%!!! And the Leader’s pay is up 100%!!!
So how is this all being paid for? Through increased taxation on us of course. Specifically we’re soon going to have to pay for our rubbish to be collected (Blogger Passim) and to park (or not) outside of our own houses.And in the not too distant future look out for that grandaddy of local government revenue raising scams - the CONgestion charge.
But don’t worry because, we’re assured, all these things will only be introduced after meaningful CONsultation with us. Indeed, someone who used to live in London has kindly written to yesterday’s Cancerto tell us how this CONsultation will work:
Having received the recent council literature about the proposal to introduce residents’ parking in Bristol, I would like to ask that when people fill out their consultation forms to consider this: in London, years ago, we had a similar survey and most people I spoke to were against it, but were concerned about the knock-on effect of streets nearby which did adopt the scheme.
As a result, people said no to the scheme, but yes to the scheme if neighbouring streets did it. That means it only took one street to vote in favour for the whole of London to eventually adopt the scheme. My street was in an area away from any local amenities and parking was tight but manageable, a bit like Bristol today. Residents’ parking was brought in and the result was that friends visiting from outside the area were less likely to stop by, delivery vans were frustrated by the need to pay, which often led to a game of “cat and mouse” with the wardens, and yes, there were parking spaces, but it became complete misery for everyone involved.
In addition although we all paid to park in our zone, the zones were so small that you had to pay again if you wanted to drive to the shops, less than seven streets away.
As with all things, this becomes a tax on the poor, as every house can only receive one permit at a cost of £40, so if you are renting a property and sharing with two or more, the second permit would cost £80 and the third a whopping £500. Is this fair?
It is interesting to see how parking problems arise.
In the last few years there have been a large number of properties that have been granted planning to convert into flats, which is of course fine, as there is a housing shortage, but why should the rest of us pay for a problem created by developers and the planning office?
Conversely, can I suggest that as petrol prices rise and with the advent of the new cycle scheme, that before we rush headlong into enormous costs for all, we wait and see whether we really need to go down this route.
The only real winner is the council, which earns a fortune from charges, parking meters and fines, and definitely not you and me.
The meeting of Bristol City Council’s Audit Committee on Friday to sign off the authority’s accounts for the year 2007-08 will soon be the trigger for a very handy piece of legislation indeed for you dear reader, citizen and voter.
The legislation in question is sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 as amended. And here’s roughly what it says:
Your right to inspect the accounts:
The ACA 1998 – section 15(1)
At each audit under this Act, other than an audit of of a health service body, any persons interested may:
(a) inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them, and
(b) make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents.
And what this means dear reader, citizen and voter is that for a period of twenty days the city council must release every receipt, invoice and scrap of paper relating to any aspect of their accounts on request.
And, what’s more, dear reader, citizen and voter there are NO LEGAL EXEMPTIONS to this. That means no hiding behind ‘commercial confidentiality’, personal privacy or legal privilege for the city council. Everything must be released!
And what that means dear reader, citizen and voter is that you are entitled to find out in glorious technicolour detail what those profligate jackasses at the Council House have spent our money on.
That’s anything from wages, salaries, expenses, redundancy payments and sickness pay to how much they’ve really handed to First Bus and Sita Services. You can find out the real value of fees paid to their endless merry-go-round of consultants. You can see their receipts for hospitality, catering, hotels, transport and gifts. Or you could enquire how much that glossy leaflet full of lies cost to put through you door.
And of course you can also find out their real income from fees such as parking, library fines, recycling charges, council tax collection charges, care charges or any of the other charges that they now seem to be introducing on a weekly basis.
“Bristol City Council still plans to introduce “pay-as-you-throw” rubbish collections - and residents could end up having to buy bags for their waste,” thunders today’s Evening Cancer.
In recognition of this, The Bristol Blogger - in a little recycling initiative of our own - will spend the time between now and next February reprinting all its own stories all over again and call it news.
A large workmen’s hut was erected on 30th May 2008 in Grove Wood. We understand from Bristol City Council that the erection of buildings in Grove Wood contravenes this Conservation Area and that the landowner is fully aware of this restriction.
We are concerned that this could be the prelude to further infringements of this protected area - the loss of more trees and the destruction of wildlife habitat. We have posted up a notice on site to inform anyone that may be about to undertake any work that their actions will be recorded and we will provide witness statements to achieve a prosecution.
We are urging all local people to keep a close eye on Grove Wood and ensure that any activities are recorded. Anything you see could be usefully posted to the blog to build up a record of activities.
Indymedia, “Defend Snuff Mills” - read more:
The area of Snuff Mills starting from the Mill up to the first bridge is currently under attack from aggressive ‘woodland management’. http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/newswir
Further evidence, as if it’s really needed, that the statement, “I studied English at Cambridge” actually means “I’m a thick toff who’s been taught by idiots”.
In order to get on down wit da kids daddio and demonstrate their up-to-the-minute cultural studies cred, the ‘elite’ literary academics of Cambridge set this year’s ‘elite’ English scholars a practical criticism exercise for their exams using the lyrics of Amy Winehouse’s Love is a Losing Game.
Here’s some of the lyrics the elite scholars were given:
Self professed and profound
Tilter tips were down
Know you’re a gambling man
Love is a loosing hand
No doubt some of the ‘elite’ scholars spotted the fact that their ‘elite’ academics can’t spell ‘losing’ and are right now scratching their heads and wondering who the fuck’s been teaching them for the last three years.
But I wonder how many realised there’s no such word as tilter? The line should of course read “‘Til the chips were down”.
In case you missed it - which is highly likely as the only place it’s advertised is buried in a PDF document in an obscure corner of the city council’s website - there’s currently an “ongoing” public consultation for the West of England Partnership’s TiF (Transportation Innovation Fund) bid.
This is the council’s idea of letting you have your say on their BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) proposals, including the Bristol and Bath Railway Path plans (Blogger Passim), and on congestion charging.
If you have an opinion call 0800 0193235 between 9.00am and 5.30pm Monday - Friday.
Wonder why they’re not promoting this to the public at all themselves? No doubt there’s a simple explanation …
Another big shout out to our friend Farooq Siddique, Evening Cancer columnist and self-styled voice of the Muslim community. In Today’s column Farooq dished up this treat:
For every act or planned act of terrorism, it is the Muslim community that will suffer the consequences.
Really? Do we now have to believe that the consequences of, say, the 7 July 2005 London bombings were suffered primarily by Muslims rather than the 52 left dead, the 700-odd injured plus their families, friends and colleagues, all from a multiplicity of backgrounds?
Is this embarrassing self-pitying drivel supposed to improve community relations? And does Siddique intentionally set out to offend or is he simply an insensitive buffoon? You decide.
The piece, by ‘Tetchy Steve’, is a response to a talk at the festival pompously billed as The Second Museum of Bristol Lecture: the Historian and the City , delivered by government Heritage bureaucrat Adrian Tinniswood.
Here’s what Tetchy has to say in full:
The trouble with this talk was that the speaker seemed not to recognise any meaningful distinction between history and heritage. Obsessing about the democracy of ‘memory’ and asserting that the role of the historian is to celebrate the rich diversity of the past is just the sort of meaningless and cosy twaddle that gives history a bad name. The cacophony of past voices Tinniswood urges us to celebrate does not, of itself, constitute a history of anything, although it may have some claim on the term ‘heritage’.
Voices are the raw materials from which histories are constructed, but they come to us mediated by issues of power and agency. Sources are one thing; making history is another. Historians recognise and tackle issues of power and agency and try to interpret events as consequences. They are not simply tools of urban social cohesion, keepers of the keys to progressive shared identity, or facilitators of even-handed generalisations. The historian does not go to work each morning to make us all feel good about ourselves by suggesting that all voices are equally weighted and equally valid.
Tinniswood spent some time showing us pictures of Bristol’s architecture and urging us to consider it not only ‘wonderful’ and something with which to collectively identify, but somehow untainted by past associations with grandiose self-congratulation. To consolidate this ‘Idea’, he introduced a few cheap hits against the architecture of fascist and stalinst authoritarianism. Yes, that’s right; Bristol’s architecture is smaller. Yet to suggest that Charles Dyer’s pompous neo-Grecian Victoria Rooms are somehow unconnected to the promotion of an elite-led civic vision and that they should be read without any reference to the uneven power relations encoded in their design is just plain daft. Or rather, it’s unhistorical.
Rather than introduce a single challenging notion about the relationship between the Historian and the City, Tinniswood’s objective appeared to be the construction of a bland intellectual forum in which legions of happy Bristolians, undivided by class, ethnicity or gender, might cohesiviely celebrate their heritage and identity in a blissful cacophony of unmediated joy. Dare we hope that this is not also the objective of the new Museum planners who sponsored his talk?
