Brighton seafront could close if repair funds are not found

Brighton seafront could close if repair funds are not found

Brighton seafront could close if repair funds are not found

First published in News by , local government reporter

Brighton's seafront could be forced to close to visitors in the future if more investment isn’t found to bring it up to scratch.

The city council faces a bill of almost £80 million to repair the seafront in Brighton, including |£65 million for the Arches, £10 million for the retaining walls and £5 million for railings, a scrutiny panel was told.

It also emerged that the council could be faced with a multimillion pound black hole after Mark Ireland, head of strategic finance and procurement at the city council, said the £78 million general grant the council currently received from the Government could fall to about £2 million by 2020.

During the city council’s panel on seafront infrastructure on Tuesday, councillors were told of the financial struggles facing the £300 million worth of seafront infrastructure.

Councils are urged to put aside 1% of the asset values to cover repair and maintenance costs equal to £3 million in Brighton and Hove’s case.

And in a stark warning, senior engineer at the council Leon Bellis warned that the current infrastructure needed serious investment if Brighton’s tourist hotspot had any hope of a future.

He said: “We have a fundamental infrastructure that is failing and we’re playing catch-up in areas.

“We have a programme to address the situation but it needs a commitment and funding.

“The £3 million would only allow us to catch up to where we should be and allow us to programme in future works. We’ll do what we can to maintain the situation with the resources we have.

“We could be in a situation where the seafront slowly closes down, which no-one wants.”

Previous estimates for the structural work to repair the entire length of the seafront have suggested the council will need between £70 million and £100 million.

“That’s a huge loss of funding and if we sit back and do nothing, that’s going to result in a massive reduction in services,” he said.

Michael Levy of Castor and Pollux art gallery, which is located in the King’s Road Arches, said: “The seafront has become very shabby and untidy. It hasn’t been painted for years and there’s no optimism down there.”

He added that poor bin collections had often made the area look like an industrial site, putting tourists off going to the beach and past the shops.

Last week it was suggested that the council could introduce a “tourist tax” for visitors, which has been introduced in other large European cities.

The next meeting will be at Alfresco in King’s Road on April 8 from 3pm to 4.30pm.

It’s your voice What do you think? Email letters@theargus.co.uk, visit www.theargus.co.uk/letters or |write to us with your thoughts

Comments (106)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:24am Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -61

5:53am Thu 27 Mar 14

platelet says...

Yet all of our holiday visitors will eventually be able to look down on this mess from the top of the isore.
Yet all of our holiday visitors will eventually be able to look down on this mess from the top of the isore. platelet
  • Score: 114

5:56am Thu 27 Mar 14

rogerthefish says...

You couldn't make it up, since the introduction of the health and safety barricades in January we've had some of the worst weather on record (do we recall the battering wind and rain storms at the end of January) oddly,, not one piece of masonry or anything has fallen behind said "safety" barricades, it looks to me at £60 million or roughly £300,000 (brand new rolls royce) AN ARCH someones looking for a big job to keep themselves employed or a indeed new car.

Brighton and Hove City Council do not seem to have a maintenance program on the seafront, just a let it fall into neglect and then plead poverty
all you need is a few coats of paint, you may recall the bandstand that they let fall into disrepair in 2008 that was repaired at a cost of £850,000 and one year out....well it needs another coat of paint NOW! and put on to a four yearly maintenance program like the rest of the seafront should.
You couldn't make it up, since the introduction of the health and safety barricades in January we've had some of the worst weather on record (do we recall the battering wind and rain storms at the end of January) oddly,, not one piece of masonry or anything has fallen behind said "safety" barricades, it looks to me at £60 million or roughly £300,000 (brand new rolls royce) AN ARCH someones looking for a big job to keep themselves employed or a indeed new car. Brighton and Hove City Council do not seem to have a maintenance program on the seafront, just a let it fall into neglect and then plead poverty all you need is a few coats of paint, you may recall the bandstand that they let fall into disrepair in 2008 that was repaired at a cost of £850,000 and one year out....well it needs another coat of paint NOW! and put on to a four yearly maintenance program like the rest of the seafront should. rogerthefish
  • Score: 115

6:15am Thu 27 Mar 14

rogerthefish says...

So while i'm at it-the councils £36m Isore baby, has anyone thought of spending a grand and hiring a coach and taking all the feckless Ivory tower Councillors down to see the £4 million Sealife tower version on Weymouth seafront which is run by Merlin Entertainments (Owners of Chessington, Madame Tussards, London Eye, Lego land, Blackpool tower ETC.) and NOT doing very well before we waste more. I suggest the Argus does it.
So while i'm at it-the councils £36m Isore baby, has anyone thought of spending a grand and hiring a coach and taking all the feckless Ivory tower Councillors down to see the £4 million Sealife tower version on Weymouth seafront which is run by Merlin Entertainments (Owners of Chessington, Madame Tussards, London Eye, Lego land, Blackpool tower ETC.) and NOT doing very well before we waste more. I suggest the Argus does it. rogerthefish
  • Score: 98

7:22am Thu 27 Mar 14

Plantpot says...

There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name.

A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait..... Plantpot
  • Score: 74

7:35am Thu 27 Mar 14

Kate234 says...

Plantpot wrote:
There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea
" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name.

A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....[/p][/quote]That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics. Kate234
  • Score: 77

8:18am Thu 27 Mar 14

tykemison says...

What an absolute farce! We have the most visited coastal resort in the whole of the south of England and this has been allowed to happen, whilst some buffoon's have idiotically decided to stick some contraption up at great cost (the mind boggles).I said ages ago, all these wealthy multinational hotel chains should somehow be"persuaded"to contribute to the upkeep of our beautiful city, after all, thats why the Hotels and restaurants are busy, is it not? No wonderful beach areas no tourists, everyone loses.
What an absolute farce! We have the most visited coastal resort in the whole of the south of England and this has been allowed to happen, whilst some buffoon's have idiotically decided to stick some contraption up at great cost (the mind boggles).I said ages ago, all these wealthy multinational hotel chains should somehow be"persuaded"to contribute to the upkeep of our beautiful city, after all, thats why the Hotels and restaurants are busy, is it not? No wonderful beach areas no tourists, everyone loses. tykemison
  • Score: 67

8:33am Thu 27 Mar 14

sailer says...

We do already tax our visitors every time they park their cars!
We do already tax our visitors every time they park their cars! sailer
  • Score: 65

8:34am Thu 27 Mar 14

worthingite says...

Why have the doughnuts at the council not planned for this, its not like this does not come round every five years, would not happen on the payroll run would it?

What on earth do they get paid for!
Why have the doughnuts at the council not planned for this, its not like this does not come round every five years, would not happen on the payroll run would it? What on earth do they get paid for! worthingite
  • Score: 67

8:40am Thu 27 Mar 14

Greensout says...

And so the business case for the iSore starts to crumble - no point building a shiny vanity project to look down on a rusting deathtrap ! Chicken & Egg, invest in a maintenance programne (surely we already have on) and tourists will continue to come and spend their money - why not introduce a window tax for seafront residences, back to the future ;-0
And so the business case for the iSore starts to crumble - no point building a shiny vanity project to look down on a rusting deathtrap ! Chicken & Egg, invest in a maintenance programne (surely we already have on) and tourists will continue to come and spend their money - why not introduce a window tax for seafront residences, back to the future ;-0 Greensout
  • Score: 54

8:46am Thu 27 Mar 14

BURIRAM says...

Kate234 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea

" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name.

A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.
Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....[/p][/quote]That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors BURIRAM
  • Score: 7

8:53am Thu 27 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

In January the Argus reported that fixing the Arches would cost £100m. It's now gone down to £65m. Leave it a bit longer and it might go down even more!

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/10915047.
__100m_repairs_neede
d_to_stop_Brighton_a
nd_Hove_seafront_arc
hes_from_collapsing/
In January the Argus reported that fixing the Arches would cost £100m. It's now gone down to £65m. Leave it a bit longer and it might go down even more! http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/10915047. __100m_repairs_neede d_to_stop_Brighton_a nd_Hove_seafront_arc hes_from_collapsing/ Quiterie
  • Score: 34

8:54am Thu 27 Mar 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall. Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 29

9:01am Thu 27 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

BURIRAM wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea


" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name.

A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.
Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors
Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash.

We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.
[quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....[/p][/quote]That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors[/p][/quote]Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash. We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed. HJarrs
  • Score: -35

9:22am Thu 27 Mar 14

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
BURIRAM wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea



" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name.

A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.
Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors
Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash.

We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.
@HJarrs - what rubbish!

If the council stopped wasting money on ideological vanity projects such as gender-neutral toilets and updating forms to allow confused people to put Mx down instead of Mr or Ms then, perhaps, they might find money to stop the city crumbling into the sea through lack of maintenance.

Once again this inept green-'led' council that you act for as (un)official spin-doctor for just can't get it's priorities right and look after the important things, such as maintenance, first.

How much did they spend protecting residents from "bedroom tax" to only later support the concept of moving residents to buildings of more suitable size?

How much money is thrown in the direction of the bus companies to allow pensioners to go on regular day trips to Eastbourne and Worthing?

And what about the £20m of uncollected council tax?

Yet again this council pleads poverty and wants more income for government, tourists, businesses and residents whilst being irresponsible in looking after the money it already has.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....[/p][/quote]That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors[/p][/quote]Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash. We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - what rubbish! If the council stopped wasting money on ideological vanity projects such as gender-neutral toilets and updating forms to allow confused people to put Mx down instead of Mr or Ms then, perhaps, they might find money to stop the city crumbling into the sea through lack of maintenance. Once again this inept green-'led' council that you act for as (un)official spin-doctor for just can't get it's priorities right and look after the important things, such as maintenance, first. How much did they spend protecting residents from "bedroom tax" to only later support the concept of moving residents to buildings of more suitable size? How much money is thrown in the direction of the bus companies to allow pensioners to go on regular day trips to Eastbourne and Worthing? And what about the £20m of uncollected council tax? Yet again this council pleads poverty and wants more income for government, tourists, businesses and residents whilst being irresponsible in looking after the money it already has. pachallis
  • Score: 58

9:52am Thu 27 Mar 14

Brighton Living says...

Nice one Green's nothing like a good case of neglect to make sure Brighton is total no known for what it was.
Nice one Green's nothing like a good case of neglect to make sure Brighton is total no known for what it was. Brighton Living
  • Score: 31

9:53am Thu 27 Mar 14

Morpheus says...

Our council and government generally are good examples of how not to do something. They both neglect existing infrastructure but want to build new infrastructure that will decay like the existing. The council wants the i360 and the government HS2. We are governed by clowns.
Our council and government generally are good examples of how not to do something. They both neglect existing infrastructure but want to build new infrastructure that will decay like the existing. The council wants the i360 and the government HS2. We are governed by clowns. Morpheus
  • Score: 47

10:06am Thu 27 Mar 14

John60 says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst. John60
  • Score: 33

10:18am Thu 27 Mar 14

olebut says...

Brighton already has a tourist tax it is called exorbitant parking fees. It is easy for the council to moan about lack of funds to do the sea front up but that is what brings in the tourists and helps make business in Brighton successful . Spend money on the seafront now or watch Brighton decline even further .
Brighton already has a tourist tax it is called exorbitant parking fees. It is easy for the council to moan about lack of funds to do the sea front up but that is what brings in the tourists and helps make business in Brighton successful . Spend money on the seafront now or watch Brighton decline even further . olebut
  • Score: 41

10:29am Thu 27 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

platelet wrote:
Yet all of our holiday visitors will eventually be able to look down on this mess from the top of the isore.
Yup. And even less money will be available for the seafront if it fails to attract many thousands of people willing to pay £14+ to get in the lift to the view up the pole. The £36.2m BHCC seeks to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board to get it built has to be repaid by BHCC. And so does the LEP £4 million loan too - should the profits they count on not materialise. Best not to build it.

There are a few petitions around and you may wih to sign the one addressed to the PWLB asking them not to lend the money to BHCC to then lend on. Spread the word there are petitions.

Googl "i360 petition" to get them up, or if the link to this one does not work for you:

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/pu
blic-works-loan-boar
d-uk-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront
[quote][p][bold]platelet[/bold] wrote: Yet all of our holiday visitors will eventually be able to look down on this mess from the top of the isore.[/p][/quote]Yup. And even less money will be available for the seafront if it fails to attract many thousands of people willing to pay £14+ to get in the lift to the view up the pole. The £36.2m BHCC seeks to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board to get it built has to be repaid by BHCC. And so does the LEP £4 million loan too - should the profits they count on not materialise. Best not to build it. There are a few petitions around and you may wih to sign the one addressed to the PWLB asking them not to lend the money to BHCC to then lend on. Spread the word there are petitions. Googl "i360 petition" to get them up, or if the link to this one does not work for you: http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/pu blic-works-loan-boar d-uk-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 15

10:33am Thu 27 Mar 14

Joshiman says...

80 MILLION? Really????????????
Ripped off again.
Less traffic lights/less useless led street lights/less pedestrianisation/le
ss cycle/bus lanes/less ridiculous traffic junctions causing gridlock,traffic jams
80 million.indeed .Oh of course Consultants fees will probably be 75 million out of the 80 million.There are companies out there who would paint and repair the seafront for a fraction of the cost.
80 MILLION? Really???????????? Ripped off again. Less traffic lights/less useless led street lights/less pedestrianisation/le ss cycle/bus lanes/less ridiculous traffic junctions causing gridlock,traffic jams 80 million.indeed .Oh of course Consultants fees will probably be 75 million out of the 80 million.There are companies out there who would paint and repair the seafront for a fraction of the cost. Joshiman
  • Score: 23

10:42am Thu 27 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

platelet wrote:
Yet all of our holiday visitors will eventually be able to look down on this mess from the top of the isore.
....not if the Public Works Loan Board refuses to top up the loan to build it. Please sign this petition to try to stop that:

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/pu
blic-works-loan-boar
d-uk-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront

There are a few petitions out there now. They all need support and word of mouth advertising. Google "i360 petition" to get to all of them or to the one linked here if using the link here gives difficulty.

And I note that as well as borrowing to lend to get the i360 built, BHCC is guarantor for the £4. from the Local Enterprise Partnership that is also to be loaned.

If the i360 is built and does not give BHCC the profit it expects, there will be even less money to spend on the seafront as it will have to be used to service its loan to Brighton i360 Ltd instead.
[quote][p][bold]platelet[/bold] wrote: Yet all of our holiday visitors will eventually be able to look down on this mess from the top of the isore.[/p][/quote]....not if the Public Works Loan Board refuses to top up the loan to build it. Please sign this petition to try to stop that: http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/pu blic-works-loan-boar d-uk-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront There are a few petitions out there now. They all need support and word of mouth advertising. Google "i360 petition" to get to all of them or to the one linked here if using the link here gives difficulty. And I note that as well as borrowing to lend to get the i360 built, BHCC is guarantor for the £4. from the Local Enterprise Partnership that is also to be loaned. If the i360 is built and does not give BHCC the profit it expects, there will be even less money to spend on the seafront as it will have to be used to service its loan to Brighton i360 Ltd instead. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 14

10:45am Thu 27 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Sorry. I didn't think the first comment had posted, so I did it a 2nd time.
Sorry. I didn't think the first comment had posted, so I did it a 2nd time. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 3

10:52am Thu 27 Mar 14

Daisyb2uk says...

Cash strapped? So that's why the traffic wardens are kept busy ticketing cars. And what happens to all the revenue bought in by these tickets?
Cash strapped? So that's why the traffic wardens are kept busy ticketing cars. And what happens to all the revenue bought in by these tickets? Daisyb2uk
  • Score: 19

10:59am Thu 27 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

A tourism tax?all I can say is my brother visited me last summer was going to go on the pier then have a meal but when he seen the parking charges he went to Eastbourne instead.As for these figures of hundreds of millions is just scare mongering,the repairs should be done over a number of years and basically these costs are classed as the general upkeep.The council might as well say the future of grass cutting is under threat as we need to find £50M to cut it for the next 50 yrs.I must admit when walking my dog early in thhe mornings brighton seafront is lacking general maintenance,problems only arise when things are not maintained.The west pier shows that.
A tourism tax?all I can say is my brother visited me last summer was going to go on the pier then have a meal but when he seen the parking charges he went to Eastbourne instead.As for these figures of hundreds of millions is just scare mongering,the repairs should be done over a number of years and basically these costs are classed as the general upkeep.The council might as well say the future of grass cutting is under threat as we need to find £50M to cut it for the next 50 yrs.I must admit when walking my dog early in thhe mornings brighton seafront is lacking general maintenance,problems only arise when things are not maintained.The west pier shows that. clubrob6
  • Score: 24

11:12am Thu 27 Mar 14

ripmaxman says...

Instead of wasting £36 million on the ridiculous i360 the money would be better spent on the seafront.

If as they say the seafront might have to be closed then no one would come here and visit the i360 and we the tax payers would be saddled with the debt.

Repairing the seafront would have a longer lasting legacy for Brighton then the i360!
Instead of wasting £36 million on the ridiculous i360 the money would be better spent on the seafront. If as they say the seafront might have to be closed then no one would come here and visit the i360 and we the tax payers would be saddled with the debt. Repairing the seafront would have a longer lasting legacy for Brighton then the i360! ripmaxman
  • Score: 30

11:13am Thu 27 Mar 14

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

As usual any project that is funded by public money ends up being at hugely inflated cost to the tax payer.

The council tendering process and the bureaucracy associated with it means that the selecting contractors has already cost a small fortune before any work has even taken place.

The privileged contractors already on the councils preferred supplier list will already be rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of how many zero's they can put on the end of their estimate (which will then be increased).

As others have said, the sea-front should have been better maintained but now it has got to this stage we need to look at how the cost of completing this project can be minimised by cutting through the red-tape and usual public sector inefficiencies.
As usual any project that is funded by public money ends up being at hugely inflated cost to the tax payer. The council tendering process and the bureaucracy associated with it means that the selecting contractors has already cost a small fortune before any work has even taken place. The privileged contractors already on the councils preferred supplier list will already be rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of how many zero's they can put on the end of their estimate (which will then be increased). As others have said, the sea-front should have been better maintained but now it has got to this stage we need to look at how the cost of completing this project can be minimised by cutting through the red-tape and usual public sector inefficiencies. uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: 26

11:19am Thu 27 Mar 14

GreensToTheGallows says...

If this article is to be believed - the mind truly boggles.

£60m to repair the seafront? The council are ripped off on a daily basis for virtually every 'maintenance' or 'improvement program' or road scheme they implement.

The council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds refurbishing and fitting lights in council blocks at hugely inflated prices (not that refurbing council properties is a problem with me) - every contractor knows a contract with the council is a license to print money and rip off the tax payer.

The Greens are totally inept - every single one of them. If any of you morons are reading this then please do us all favour and get out. No one wants your ridiculous 20mph schemes that not one person obeys or cares about, nor forced parking permits when the majority of residents (in some areas) voted against the schemes.

You are all total morons and I hope you all get your comeuppance for squandering masses of public money on a daily basis and wrecking this city with stupid, ill planned green ideological hairbrained projects.

This sentiment is echoed by many on this website and through Brighton - no one wants the idiotic Green party in power, even the thieving Labour or Tories would be better by a long stretch and that's saying something. Save the planet and stop breathing for the sake of us all.
If this article is to be believed - the mind truly boggles. £60m to repair the seafront? The council are ripped off on a daily basis for virtually every 'maintenance' or 'improvement program' or road scheme they implement. The council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds refurbishing and fitting lights in council blocks at hugely inflated prices (not that refurbing council properties is a problem with me) - every contractor knows a contract with the council is a license to print money and rip off the tax payer. The Greens are totally inept - every single one of them. If any of you morons are reading this then please do us all favour and get out. No one wants your ridiculous 20mph schemes that not one person obeys or cares about, nor forced parking permits when the majority of residents (in some areas) voted against the schemes. You are all total morons and I hope you all get your comeuppance for squandering masses of public money on a daily basis and wrecking this city with stupid, ill planned green ideological hairbrained projects. This sentiment is echoed by many on this website and through Brighton - no one wants the idiotic Green party in power, even the thieving Labour or Tories would be better by a long stretch and that's saying something. Save the planet and stop breathing for the sake of us all. GreensToTheGallows
  • Score: 33

11:36am Thu 27 Mar 14

gheese77 says...

Daisyb2uk wrote:
Cash strapped? So that's why the traffic wardens are kept busy ticketing cars. And what happens to all the revenue bought in by these tickets?
Government rules state that it must be spent on transport related projects only! Its a shame that the council cant spend the money raised on other things
[quote][p][bold]Daisyb2uk[/bold] wrote: Cash strapped? So that's why the traffic wardens are kept busy ticketing cars. And what happens to all the revenue bought in by these tickets?[/p][/quote]Government rules state that it must be spent on transport related projects only! Its a shame that the council cant spend the money raised on other things gheese77
  • Score: -7

11:46am Thu 27 Mar 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
BURIRAM wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea




" - and it has got much worse since it coined that name.

A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.
Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors
Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash.

We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.
@HJarrs - what rubbish!

If the council stopped wasting money on ideological vanity projects such as gender-neutral toilets and updating forms to allow confused people to put Mx down instead of Mr or Ms then, perhaps, they might find money to stop the city crumbling into the sea through lack of maintenance.

Once again this inept green-'led' council that you act for as (un)official spin-doctor for just can't get it's priorities right and look after the important things, such as maintenance, first.

How much did they spend protecting residents from "bedroom tax" to only later support the concept of moving residents to buildings of more suitable size?

How much money is thrown in the direction of the bus companies to allow pensioners to go on regular day trips to Eastbourne and Worthing?

And what about the £20m of uncollected council tax?

Yet again this council pleads poverty and wants more income for government, tourists, businesses and residents whilst being irresponsible in looking after the money it already has.
I've always said bus passes should be means tested and not given to those who are more than well off enough to be well able to afford to pay for their bus fares. A lot of pensioners are on enormous pensions - they should not get free bus passes. My parents got £2000 per month in pension and they got free bus passes - that is ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....[/p][/quote]That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors[/p][/quote]Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash. We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - what rubbish! If the council stopped wasting money on ideological vanity projects such as gender-neutral toilets and updating forms to allow confused people to put Mx down instead of Mr or Ms then, perhaps, they might find money to stop the city crumbling into the sea through lack of maintenance. Once again this inept green-'led' council that you act for as (un)official spin-doctor for just can't get it's priorities right and look after the important things, such as maintenance, first. How much did they spend protecting residents from "bedroom tax" to only later support the concept of moving residents to buildings of more suitable size? How much money is thrown in the direction of the bus companies to allow pensioners to go on regular day trips to Eastbourne and Worthing? And what about the £20m of uncollected council tax? Yet again this council pleads poverty and wants more income for government, tourists, businesses and residents whilst being irresponsible in looking after the money it already has.[/p][/quote]I've always said bus passes should be means tested and not given to those who are more than well off enough to be well able to afford to pay for their bus fares. A lot of pensioners are on enormous pensions - they should not get free bus passes. My parents got £2000 per month in pension and they got free bus passes - that is ridiculous. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 12

11:49am Thu 27 Mar 14

brightonaire says...

£65 million to repair a few bits of rusting metal... what are they replacing it with... 18 carat gold... this stinks of corruption... is the work being carried out by a similar nest-feathering company that;s been installing trafiic lights every 50M in Brighton for the last 10 years.
£65 million to repair a few bits of rusting metal... what are they replacing it with... 18 carat gold... this stinks of corruption... is the work being carried out by a similar nest-feathering company that;s been installing trafiic lights every 50M in Brighton for the last 10 years. brightonaire
  • Score: 25

12:17pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Pebbles says...

Odd that certain areas such as Brunswick/Palmeira have to be painted every five years ..and are due to be re-done in 2015 and yet the seafront.. the responsibility of the council has been neglected...

"The architectural impact and integrity of these buildings is maintained by the uniformpaint system. The 1976 Hove Borough Council Act was issued to protect thisuniformity; under this, it is required that the properties are repainted every five yearswith a paint of type and colour specified by the Council."
Odd that certain areas such as Brunswick/Palmeira have to be painted every five years ..and are due to be re-done in 2015 and yet the seafront.. the responsibility of the council has been neglected... "The architectural impact and integrity of these buildings is maintained by the uniformpaint system. The 1976 Hove Borough Council Act was issued to protect thisuniformity; under this, it is required that the properties are repainted every five yearswith a paint of type and colour specified by the Council." Pebbles
  • Score: 21

12:18pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Goldenwight says...

“We have a programme to address the situation but it needs a commitment and funding.

“The £3 million would only allow us to catch up to where we should be and allow us to programme in future works. We’ll do what we can to maintain the situation with the resources we have"

So, in fact BHCC DON'T need £100m in capital expenditure immediately to prevent the seafront being blocked off. What they need is a much smaller annual amount- under £3m a year- in Revenue expenditure to be spent annually. And this is well within the council's reserves even if they hadn't already set aside the money (which incidentally wouldn't surprise me.)

Only that isn't really much of a story, is it? "Local Council spends moderate amount of money" just doens't grab the attention.
“We have a programme to address the situation but it needs a commitment and funding. “The £3 million would only allow us to catch up to where we should be and allow us to programme in future works. We’ll do what we can to maintain the situation with the resources we have" So, in fact BHCC DON'T need £100m in capital expenditure immediately to prevent the seafront being blocked off. What they need is a much smaller annual amount- under £3m a year- in Revenue expenditure to be spent annually. And this is well within the council's reserves even if they hadn't already set aside the money (which incidentally wouldn't surprise me.) Only that isn't really much of a story, is it? "Local Council spends moderate amount of money" just doens't grab the attention. Goldenwight
  • Score: 11

12:38pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Nosfaratu says...

Brighton & Hove are well on the way to becoming a larger version of Hastings. This poor town suffered 40 years of neglect and is only just coming out of the Ghetto status that it alluded to.

B&H Councilors have been sending the city in this direction for many years. Unfortunately the intellectual elite that the Universities think they are, are feeding the chaos with their Left Wing ideology and Green principles.

Strange is it not that the most prosperous cities in the world, embrace Progress, Technology, Transport and Science, B&H on the other hand is run by a lunatic bunch of 'Luddites'.

Please evict this coven of weirdo's in the next election. For all our sakes.
Brighton & Hove are well on the way to becoming a larger version of Hastings. This poor town suffered 40 years of neglect and is only just coming out of the Ghetto status that it alluded to. B&H Councilors have been sending the city in this direction for many years. Unfortunately the intellectual elite that the Universities think they are, are feeding the chaos with their Left Wing ideology and Green principles. Strange is it not that the most prosperous cities in the world, embrace Progress, Technology, Transport and Science, B&H on the other hand is run by a lunatic bunch of 'Luddites'. Please evict this coven of weirdo's in the next election. For all our sakes. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 23

12:43pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Nosfaratu says...

GreensToTheGallows wrote:
If this article is to be believed - the mind truly boggles.

£60m to repair the seafront? The council are ripped off on a daily basis for virtually every 'maintenance' or 'improvement program' or road scheme they implement.

The council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds refurbishing and fitting lights in council blocks at hugely inflated prices (not that refurbing council properties is a problem with me) - every contractor knows a contract with the council is a license to print money and rip off the tax payer.

The Greens are totally inept - every single one of them. If any of you morons are reading this then please do us all favour and get out. No one wants your ridiculous 20mph schemes that not one person obeys or cares about, nor forced parking permits when the majority of residents (in some areas) voted against the schemes.

You are all total morons and I hope you all get your comeuppance for squandering masses of public money on a daily basis and wrecking this city with stupid, ill planned green ideological hairbrained projects.

This sentiment is echoed by many on this website and through Brighton - no one wants the idiotic Green party in power, even the thieving Labour or Tories would be better by a long stretch and that's saying something. Save the planet and stop breathing for the sake of us all.
Come-up-pence ! In a less politically stable country this could mean any number of methods of dispatch.
[quote][p][bold]GreensToTheGallows[/bold] wrote: If this article is to be believed - the mind truly boggles. £60m to repair the seafront? The council are ripped off on a daily basis for virtually every 'maintenance' or 'improvement program' or road scheme they implement. The council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds refurbishing and fitting lights in council blocks at hugely inflated prices (not that refurbing council properties is a problem with me) - every contractor knows a contract with the council is a license to print money and rip off the tax payer. The Greens are totally inept - every single one of them. If any of you morons are reading this then please do us all favour and get out. No one wants your ridiculous 20mph schemes that not one person obeys or cares about, nor forced parking permits when the majority of residents (in some areas) voted against the schemes. You are all total morons and I hope you all get your comeuppance for squandering masses of public money on a daily basis and wrecking this city with stupid, ill planned green ideological hairbrained projects. This sentiment is echoed by many on this website and through Brighton - no one wants the idiotic Green party in power, even the thieving Labour or Tories would be better by a long stretch and that's saying something. Save the planet and stop breathing for the sake of us all.[/p][/quote]Come-up-pence ! In a less politically stable country this could mean any number of methods of dispatch. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 8

12:50pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

gheese77 wrote:
Daisyb2uk wrote:
Cash strapped? So that's why the traffic wardens are kept busy ticketing cars. And what happens to all the revenue bought in by these tickets?
Government rules state that it must be spent on transport related projects only! Its a shame that the council cant spend the money raised on other things
How much non-parking money is spent on transport related projects? Perhaps some of THAT could go towards the seafront.

OR!

How much of the parking revenue could be going to the seafront and does not? You count cycling in transport issues for starters and walking? Does that count? I think so. As the seafront is a prime pedestrian destination it should be HOOVERING in some of that transport money going to things like that machine in Lewes Rd to count how many cyclists passed it.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Daisyb2uk[/bold] wrote: Cash strapped? So that's why the traffic wardens are kept busy ticketing cars. And what happens to all the revenue bought in by these tickets?[/p][/quote]Government rules state that it must be spent on transport related projects only! Its a shame that the council cant spend the money raised on other things[/p][/quote]How much non-parking money is spent on transport related projects? Perhaps some of THAT could go towards the seafront. OR! How much of the parking revenue could be going to the seafront and does not? You count cycling in transport issues for starters and walking? Does that count? I think so. As the seafront is a prime pedestrian destination it should be HOOVERING in some of that transport money going to things like that machine in Lewes Rd to count how many cyclists passed it. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 18

12:55pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Brighton Living wrote:
Nice one Green's nothing like a good case of neglect to make sure Brighton is total no known for what it was.
It hasn't just been happening for the last couple of years you numpty!!!
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Living[/bold] wrote: Nice one Green's nothing like a good case of neglect to make sure Brighton is total no known for what it was.[/p][/quote]It hasn't just been happening for the last couple of years you numpty!!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -12

1:00pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

John60 wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.
Of course the Lab/ Lib/ Con governments have done SO SO well - thats why we've had the worst recession for decades and that's why we've just been told government funding will be cut by tens of millions of pounds over the next few years!! But the Greens have REALLY done worse than that - LOL!!
[quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.[/p][/quote]Of course the Lab/ Lib/ Con governments have done SO SO well - thats why we've had the worst recession for decades and that's why we've just been told government funding will be cut by tens of millions of pounds over the next few years!! But the Greens have REALLY done worse than that - LOL!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -13

1:32pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Quiterie says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
John60 wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.
Of course the Lab/ Lib/ Con governments have done SO SO well - thats why we've had the worst recession for decades and that's why we've just been told government funding will be cut by tens of millions of pounds over the next few years!! But the Greens have REALLY done worse than that - LOL!!
.... and the Greens answer to the worst recession for decades? Borrow even more money?!?!!? Despite the fact that it costs £50 billion a year just to pay the interest on our existing debt, the Greens want to add to this debt by borrowing even more! ...... you couldn't make it up.

Labour, Tories & the Lib Dems haven't covered themselves in glory, but there's a reason that all the major parties agree that cuts are necessary. It's because any other course would be mind-numbingly stupid.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.[/p][/quote]Of course the Lab/ Lib/ Con governments have done SO SO well - thats why we've had the worst recession for decades and that's why we've just been told government funding will be cut by tens of millions of pounds over the next few years!! But the Greens have REALLY done worse than that - LOL!![/p][/quote].... and the Greens answer to the worst recession for decades? Borrow even more money?!?!!? Despite the fact that it costs £50 billion a year just to pay the interest on our existing debt, the Greens want to add to this debt by borrowing even more! ...... you couldn't make it up. Labour, Tories & the Lib Dems haven't covered themselves in glory, but there's a reason that all the major parties agree that cuts are necessary. It's because any other course would be mind-numbingly stupid. Quiterie
  • Score: 13

2:04pm Thu 27 Mar 14

can'tfindausername says...

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise.
Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise. Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for. can'tfindausername
  • Score: 13

2:15pm Thu 27 Mar 14

uniteagainstparkingcharges says...

Quiterie wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
John60 wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.
Of course the Lab/ Lib/ Con governments have done SO SO well - thats why we've had the worst recession for decades and that's why we've just been told government funding will be cut by tens of millions of pounds over the next few years!! But the Greens have REALLY done worse than that - LOL!!
.... and the Greens answer to the worst recession for decades? Borrow even more money?!?!!? Despite the fact that it costs £50 billion a year just to pay the interest on our existing debt, the Greens want to add to this debt by borrowing even more! ...... you couldn't make it up.

Labour, Tories & the Lib Dems haven't covered themselves in glory, but there's a reason that all the major parties agree that cuts are necessary. It's because any other course would be mind-numbingly stupid.
National Debt is meaningless and the idea that it is possible to pay off this debt is laughable.

The Tories cuts are wholly ideological and in the interests of preserving the wealth of the elite-ruling classes. Even in this time of "austerity" we are borrowing increasingly more and not bringing down our debt. This is not as stupid as it sounds as interest rates are very low and as long as we meet the interest repayments to service the debt then we can borrow endlessly.

The banks will continue to print money in the form quantitative easing and, unless there is a total global financial collapse, this will continue to happen. All the while, under the illusion of austerity, cuts are made to public services and the public assets, which we as tax payers own, are sold off to private corporations.

If you want to see how farcical the prospect of paying back national debt is look at this site which neatly visualises US national debt http://demonocracy.i
nfo/infographics/usa
/us_debt/us_debt.htm
l

( The US situation is even worse than ours as they are struggling to even meet the interest payments but are still allowed to continue to borrow as the prospect of the US defaulting would probably lead to global financial system to collapse- something all other nations want to avoid as it would be unparalleled catastrophe).
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John60[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]What, and the Greens have been brilliant? Out of the two, they have been by far the worst.[/p][/quote]Of course the Lab/ Lib/ Con governments have done SO SO well - thats why we've had the worst recession for decades and that's why we've just been told government funding will be cut by tens of millions of pounds over the next few years!! But the Greens have REALLY done worse than that - LOL!![/p][/quote].... and the Greens answer to the worst recession for decades? Borrow even more money?!?!!? Despite the fact that it costs £50 billion a year just to pay the interest on our existing debt, the Greens want to add to this debt by borrowing even more! ...... you couldn't make it up. Labour, Tories & the Lib Dems haven't covered themselves in glory, but there's a reason that all the major parties agree that cuts are necessary. It's because any other course would be mind-numbingly stupid.[/p][/quote]National Debt is meaningless and the idea that it is possible to pay off this debt is laughable. The Tories cuts are wholly ideological and in the interests of preserving the wealth of the elite-ruling classes. Even in this time of "austerity" we are borrowing increasingly more and not bringing down our debt. This is not as stupid as it sounds as interest rates are very low and as long as we meet the interest repayments to service the debt then we can borrow endlessly. The banks will continue to print money in the form quantitative easing and, unless there is a total global financial collapse, this will continue to happen. All the while, under the illusion of austerity, cuts are made to public services and the public assets, which we as tax payers own, are sold off to private corporations. If you want to see how farcical the prospect of paying back national debt is look at this site which neatly visualises US national debt http://demonocracy.i nfo/infographics/usa /us_debt/us_debt.htm l ( The US situation is even worse than ours as they are struggling to even meet the interest payments but are still allowed to continue to borrow as the prospect of the US defaulting would probably lead to global financial system to collapse- something all other nations want to avoid as it would be unparalleled catastrophe). uniteagainstparkingcharges
  • Score: -4

3:06pm Thu 27 Mar 14

NickBrt says...

Council won't care one bit since their favourite occasional dwellers don't use that area. If they did they would get it fixed immediately.
Council won't care one bit since their favourite occasional dwellers don't use that area. If they did they would get it fixed immediately. NickBrt
  • Score: 17

3:10pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Gee Jay says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
BURIRAM wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
Plantpot wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....
That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.
Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors
Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash. We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.
@HJarrs - what rubbish! If the council stopped wasting money on ideological vanity projects such as gender-neutral toilets and updating forms to allow confused people to put Mx down instead of Mr or Ms then, perhaps, they might find money to stop the city crumbling into the sea through lack of maintenance. Once again this inept green-'led' council that you act for as (un)official spin-doctor for just can't get it's priorities right and look after the important things, such as maintenance, first. How much did they spend protecting residents from "bedroom tax" to only later support the concept of moving residents to buildings of more suitable size? How much money is thrown in the direction of the bus companies to allow pensioners to go on regular day trips to Eastbourne and Worthing? And what about the £20m of uncollected council tax? Yet again this council pleads poverty and wants more income for government, tourists, businesses and residents whilst being irresponsible in looking after the money it already has.
You hit the nail on the head, money has been wasted on vanity projects and political schemes.
The whole seafront and promenade are where visitors flock to, and spend money there and then in the city's bars and restaurants.
You won't find a houseowner who is right in the head spending money on garden gnomes and hand carved wind chimes, instead of keeping their house watertight and maintained. This is basic business common sense.
Brighton and Hove seafront is our most important asset, and needs to be fully maintained and improved year on year, including the chewing gum being cleaned off the pavements each spring.
City Council......you need to start thinking outside the box and fnd some innovative ways of getting the money to fix the problem in the short and long term.
Perhaps you might like to contact the owner and the management team at Brighton and Hove Albion and ask them for some ideas, as they have worked miracles to achieve what they have achieved in the last few years.
I want to be proud of my home city!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: There is a good reason why Privat Eye refers to Brighton and Hove as "Skidrow-on-Sea " - and it has got much worse since it coined that name. A tourist tax will hasten Brighton's demise. We have to be careful that the city doesn't descend into a jungle of bars, cafes and pound shops at the end of a railway line/road catering for day trippers. Oh wait.....[/p][/quote]That would be the death bell of the city. The only city in England to tax tourists. The papers would love that. I have an idea stop spending money on signs and road schemes no one wants and as a council do your job which is maintain the basics.[/p][/quote]Amsterdam has a tourist tax you pay to the hotels and they have many visitors[/p][/quote]Tourist tax is very common on the continent. A modest rate of a couple of pounds a night on a stay would not be noticed. Most places would quickly follow as everyone is being starved of cash. We have done well to maintain services in face of year on year government grant cuts, but more cuts are to come. As things get tighter, so maintenance gets squeezed.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - what rubbish! If the council stopped wasting money on ideological vanity projects such as gender-neutral toilets and updating forms to allow confused people to put Mx down instead of Mr or Ms then, perhaps, they might find money to stop the city crumbling into the sea through lack of maintenance. Once again this inept green-'led' council that you act for as (un)official spin-doctor for just can't get it's priorities right and look after the important things, such as maintenance, first. How much did they spend protecting residents from "bedroom tax" to only later support the concept of moving residents to buildings of more suitable size? How much money is thrown in the direction of the bus companies to allow pensioners to go on regular day trips to Eastbourne and Worthing? And what about the £20m of uncollected council tax? Yet again this council pleads poverty and wants more income for government, tourists, businesses and residents whilst being irresponsible in looking after the money it already has.[/p][/quote]You hit the nail on the head, money has been wasted on vanity projects and political schemes. The whole seafront and promenade are where visitors flock to, and spend money there and then in the city's bars and restaurants. You won't find a houseowner who is right in the head spending money on garden gnomes and hand carved wind chimes, instead of keeping their house watertight and maintained. This is basic business common sense. Brighton and Hove seafront is our most important asset, and needs to be fully maintained and improved year on year, including the chewing gum being cleaned off the pavements each spring. City Council......you need to start thinking outside the box and fnd some innovative ways of getting the money to fix the problem in the short and long term. Perhaps you might like to contact the owner and the management team at Brighton and Hove Albion and ask them for some ideas, as they have worked miracles to achieve what they have achieved in the last few years. I want to be proud of my home city! Gee Jay
  • Score: 20

3:19pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Dealing with idiots says...

Looks like its torches and pitchforks for Jason and his cronies. Could someone bring the tar if I bring the feathers?
Looks like its torches and pitchforks for Jason and his cronies. Could someone bring the tar if I bring the feathers? Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 19

3:26pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

can'tfindausername wrote:
Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise.
Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
ONCE vibrant??!!
Are you for real? Despite your negativity the FACTS are that B&H's economy has stood up relatively well during the recession, hotels, bars and restaurants are generally busy especially at weekends (especially considering the weather we have had for the last few months!) When the sun was out a couole of Sundays ago the seafront was absolutely mobbed from Hove Lagoon to Peter Pans!! Plus we have a thriving and diverse arts scene!
I am sure it may be a bit tough out there for those on the breadline - but dont give me "once vibrant" because it is absolute bulls**t!!
[quote][p][bold]can'tfindausername[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise. Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.[/p][/quote]ONCE vibrant??!! Are you for real? Despite your negativity the FACTS are that B&H's economy has stood up relatively well during the recession, hotels, bars and restaurants are generally busy especially at weekends (especially considering the weather we have had for the last few months!) When the sun was out a couole of Sundays ago the seafront was absolutely mobbed from Hove Lagoon to Peter Pans!! Plus we have a thriving and diverse arts scene! I am sure it may be a bit tough out there for those on the breadline - but dont give me "once vibrant" because it is absolute bulls**t!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -7

3:57pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Fairfax Aches says...

Typical right wing propoganda/ Green Party bashing by the Argus. If they wealthy elite contributed more to helping the homeless and student populations via improved shelter and benefits many of these problems would be irrelevant.
Typical right wing propoganda/ Green Party bashing by the Argus. If they wealthy elite contributed more to helping the homeless and student populations via improved shelter and benefits many of these problems would be irrelevant. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: -23

4:11pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

can'tfindausername wrote:
Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise.
Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
BTW - 'Infuriated' because a couple of parking machines weren't working - not ideal but 'infuriated'??!!!! Get a life ffs!!
And Church St car-park is run by NCP not by the council - though maybe the red mist prevented you from seeing their yellow livery!
[quote][p][bold]can'tfindausername[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise. Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.[/p][/quote]BTW - 'Infuriated' because a couple of parking machines weren't working - not ideal but 'infuriated'??!!!! Get a life ffs!! And Church St car-park is run by NCP not by the council - though maybe the red mist prevented you from seeing their yellow livery! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -12

4:11pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

can'tfindausername wrote:
Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise.
Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
BTW - 'Infuriated' because a couple of parking machines weren't working - not ideal but 'infuriated'??!!!! Get a life ffs!!
And Church St car-park is run by NCP not by the council - though maybe the red mist prevented you from seeing their yellow livery!
[quote][p][bold]can'tfindausername[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise. Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.[/p][/quote]BTW - 'Infuriated' because a couple of parking machines weren't working - not ideal but 'infuriated'??!!!! Get a life ffs!! And Church St car-park is run by NCP not by the council - though maybe the red mist prevented you from seeing their yellow livery! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -11

4:24pm Thu 27 Mar 14

can'tfindausername says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
can'tfindausername wrote:
Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise.
Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
ONCE vibrant??!!
Are you for real? Despite your negativity the FACTS are that B&H's economy has stood up relatively well during the recession, hotels, bars and restaurants are generally busy especially at weekends (especially considering the weather we have had for the last few months!) When the sun was out a couole of Sundays ago the seafront was absolutely mobbed from Hove Lagoon to Peter Pans!! Plus we have a thriving and diverse arts scene!
I am sure it may be a bit tough out there for those on the breadline - but dont give me "once vibrant" because it is absolute bulls**t!!
Last time I checked I was real. I really wish I could be positive about Brighton but the FACT is the road layouts are an unmitigated disaster and as most people have to navigate their way into Brighton via the roads by, dare I mention it, cars, it is a huge disincentive to actually fight ones way into the centre. And then there are the exorbitant parking charges even if one wanted to experience the "thriving and diverse arts scene" which we do. Sunny weather always brings out masses of people especially after the grim weather we have had but I expect most of the people hail from Brighton and Hove! Of course it is tough for those on the breadline - all the more reason to make the City more affordable to everyone, after all, I thought Brighton and Hove was proud of its 'inclusivity'.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]can'tfindausername[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise. Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.[/p][/quote]ONCE vibrant??!! Are you for real? Despite your negativity the FACTS are that B&H's economy has stood up relatively well during the recession, hotels, bars and restaurants are generally busy especially at weekends (especially considering the weather we have had for the last few months!) When the sun was out a couole of Sundays ago the seafront was absolutely mobbed from Hove Lagoon to Peter Pans!! Plus we have a thriving and diverse arts scene! I am sure it may be a bit tough out there for those on the breadline - but dont give me "once vibrant" because it is absolute bulls**t!![/p][/quote]Last time I checked I was real. I really wish I could be positive about Brighton but the FACT is the road layouts are an unmitigated disaster and as most people have to navigate their way into Brighton via the roads by, dare I mention it, cars, it is a huge disincentive to actually fight ones way into the centre. And then there are the exorbitant parking charges even if one wanted to experience the "thriving and diverse arts scene" which we do. Sunny weather always brings out masses of people especially after the grim weather we have had but I expect most of the people hail from Brighton and Hove! Of course it is tough for those on the breadline - all the more reason to make the City more affordable to everyone, after all, I thought Brighton and Hove was proud of its 'inclusivity'. can'tfindausername
  • Score: 12

4:53pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Notters_Seagull says...

£65m for the arches? That must be roughly what the parking meters below them make in a morning.
£65m for the arches? That must be roughly what the parking meters below them make in a morning. Notters_Seagull
  • Score: 7

5:16pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Gee Jay says...

Fairfax Aches wrote:
Typical right wing propoganda/ Green Party bashing by the Argus. If they wealthy elite contributed more to helping the homeless and student populations via improved shelter and benefits many of these problems would be irrelevant.
Some people will always expect others to fund their lives. I'm afraid you need to wake up and smell the roses, or try living as an ordinary citizen in Cuba.
You might find the promise of the kind of State you value is not so comfortable in real life.
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Aches[/bold] wrote: Typical right wing propoganda/ Green Party bashing by the Argus. If they wealthy elite contributed more to helping the homeless and student populations via improved shelter and benefits many of these problems would be irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Some people will always expect others to fund their lives. I'm afraid you need to wake up and smell the roses, or try living as an ordinary citizen in Cuba. You might find the promise of the kind of State you value is not so comfortable in real life. Gee Jay
  • Score: 7

5:38pm Thu 27 Mar 14

grumpybumm says...

Never mind about the seafront.We have money spent on Bus lanes,Cycle lanes,traffic lights,cycle counters(since removed),most corners of pavements widened so making it awkward for motorists to turn that corner.20mph limit consultations,paperw
ork and brochure printing for said projects.New signage going up around the areas,to have maps?Thats without the promised council money for the i sore. Did we pay for the big wheel on the front?ive lost track. Not long to go now.Vote any colour but G***n.
Never mind about the seafront.We have money spent on Bus lanes,Cycle lanes,traffic lights,cycle counters(since removed),most corners of pavements widened so making it awkward for motorists to turn that corner.20mph limit consultations,paperw ork and brochure printing for said projects.New signage going up around the areas,to have maps?Thats without the promised council money for the i sore. Did we pay for the big wheel on the front?ive lost track. Not long to go now.Vote any colour but G***n. grumpybumm
  • Score: 15

5:41pm Thu 27 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

The moanerati trying to obscure the main issue as usual.

We are already £60 million down on government grants so far since 2010 and £24 million less next year and similar the year after. By May 2015 we will have lost funding to the tune of over £100 million. The council is already run way more efficiently than under previous labour and conservative administrations, the latter that neglected the seafront, and have delivered more good quality infrastructure already than any administration managed in a full term. However, the cuts are so deep that it will be a struggle to keep front line services going, let alone embark upon costly seafront restoration. That is down to our incompitent government.

Many of the moanerati voted for the government, it's about time they took responsibility for the cuts and diabolical economy they have inflicted upon us. The rest of us should make sure we vote out Kirby and Weatherley, who have supported the cuts and done so little for the city.
The moanerati trying to obscure the main issue as usual. We are already £60 million down on government grants so far since 2010 and £24 million less next year and similar the year after. By May 2015 we will have lost funding to the tune of over £100 million. The council is already run way more efficiently than under previous labour and conservative administrations, the latter that neglected the seafront, and have delivered more good quality infrastructure already than any administration managed in a full term. However, the cuts are so deep that it will be a struggle to keep front line services going, let alone embark upon costly seafront restoration. That is down to our incompitent government. Many of the moanerati voted for the government, it's about time they took responsibility for the cuts and diabolical economy they have inflicted upon us. The rest of us should make sure we vote out Kirby and Weatherley, who have supported the cuts and done so little for the city. HJarrs
  • Score: -21

6:05pm Thu 27 Mar 14

pachallis says...

@HJarrs - round objects!

How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services?

How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans?

If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election?

If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati!
@HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati! pachallis
  • Score: 19

6:17pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Falmer Wizard says...

brightonaire wrote:
£65 million to repair a few bits of rusting metal... what are they replacing it with... 18 carat gold... this stinks of corruption... is the work being carried out by a similar nest-feathering company that;s been installing trafiic lights every 50M in Brighton for the last 10 years.
Could not agree more,the work should be put out to tender and be supervised closely.
[quote][p][bold]brightonaire[/bold] wrote: £65 million to repair a few bits of rusting metal... what are they replacing it with... 18 carat gold... this stinks of corruption... is the work being carried out by a similar nest-feathering company that;s been installing trafiic lights every 50M in Brighton for the last 10 years.[/p][/quote]Could not agree more,the work should be put out to tender and be supervised closely. Falmer Wizard
  • Score: 14

6:27pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

can'tfindausername wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
can'tfindausername wrote:
Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise.
Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.
ONCE vibrant??!!
Are you for real? Despite your negativity the FACTS are that B&H's economy has stood up relatively well during the recession, hotels, bars and restaurants are generally busy especially at weekends (especially considering the weather we have had for the last few months!) When the sun was out a couole of Sundays ago the seafront was absolutely mobbed from Hove Lagoon to Peter Pans!! Plus we have a thriving and diverse arts scene!
I am sure it may be a bit tough out there for those on the breadline - but dont give me "once vibrant" because it is absolute bulls**t!!
Last time I checked I was real. I really wish I could be positive about Brighton but the FACT is the road layouts are an unmitigated disaster and as most people have to navigate their way into Brighton via the roads by, dare I mention it, cars, it is a huge disincentive to actually fight ones way into the centre. And then there are the exorbitant parking charges even if one wanted to experience the "thriving and diverse arts scene" which we do. Sunny weather always brings out masses of people especially after the grim weather we have had but I expect most of the people hail from Brighton and Hove! Of course it is tough for those on the breadline - all the more reason to make the City more affordable to everyone, after all, I thought Brighton and Hove was proud of its 'inclusivity'.
Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!
[quote][p][bold]can'tfindausername[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]can'tfindausername[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]How much of the seafront will have to be closed if/when the i360 tower is constructed and how much disruption will it add to the already clogged up traffic? Lets face it, the seafront needs as much help as it can get maintenance wise. Brighton has become a complete nightmare to visit: bus lanes, cycle lanes, 20 mph limits and exorbitant parking charges all add to the disincentive to come to a once beautiful and vibrant city. We came down to Brighton the other night to see a show at the Dome and vowed not to come down again unless there was a show that we really wanted to see (forget staying for a meal and visiting the many varied and interesting shops). Having paid to park for the evening (admittedly a reasonable £5 evening ticket) we were infuriated that when it came to pay we found that 2 of the ticket machines were out of action! As one time residents of Brighton we found it monumentally depressing to visit. Kitkat and his cronies have a lot to answer for.[/p][/quote]ONCE vibrant??!! Are you for real? Despite your negativity the FACTS are that B&H's economy has stood up relatively well during the recession, hotels, bars and restaurants are generally busy especially at weekends (especially considering the weather we have had for the last few months!) When the sun was out a couole of Sundays ago the seafront was absolutely mobbed from Hove Lagoon to Peter Pans!! Plus we have a thriving and diverse arts scene! I am sure it may be a bit tough out there for those on the breadline - but dont give me "once vibrant" because it is absolute bulls**t!![/p][/quote]Last time I checked I was real. I really wish I could be positive about Brighton but the FACT is the road layouts are an unmitigated disaster and as most people have to navigate their way into Brighton via the roads by, dare I mention it, cars, it is a huge disincentive to actually fight ones way into the centre. And then there are the exorbitant parking charges even if one wanted to experience the "thriving and diverse arts scene" which we do. Sunny weather always brings out masses of people especially after the grim weather we have had but I expect most of the people hail from Brighton and Hove! Of course it is tough for those on the breadline - all the more reason to make the City more affordable to everyone, after all, I thought Brighton and Hove was proud of its 'inclusivity'.[/p][/quote]Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -18

6:54pm Thu 27 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
@HJarrs - round objects!

How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services?

How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans?

If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election?

If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati!
You do talk nonsense.

Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace.

You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati![/p][/quote]You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party. HJarrs
  • Score: -11

7:52pm Thu 27 Mar 14

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
@HJarrs - round objects!

How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services?

How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans?

If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election?

If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati!
You do talk nonsense.

Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace.

You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.
@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you!

You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services.

If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues.

As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes.

No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets.

No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites.

No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights.

Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'.

You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence.

At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati![/p][/quote]You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning? pachallis
  • Score: 12

8:13pm Thu 27 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

I must take exception to your notion that forcing people from their cars and into public transport will necessarily benefit the city in the long run. Public transport is a private (shareholders) and not a public concern and so the increase in uptake will not necessarily benefit the city financially.
Routing all the buses through the city centre will not significantly reduce pollution which does not benefit the city with regards to air quality.

The blank " ... people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" is an assumption with little to justify it.
I must take exception to your notion that forcing people from their cars and into public transport will necessarily benefit the city in the long run. Public transport is a private (shareholders) and not a public concern and so the increase in uptake will not necessarily benefit the city financially. Routing all the buses through the city centre will not significantly reduce pollution which does not benefit the city with regards to air quality. The blank " ... people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" is an assumption with little to justify it. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

8:29pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

...........meanwhile the council installs dozens of pavement signposts telling people where they are. These new signs can often be found adjacent to existing signposts telling where people are but you can see where you are due to the graffiti and fly posting.
Waste, waste, waste, lies, lies, lies and then threats of cuts to the vulnerable.
The truth about this councils incompetence and waste is being laid bare week after week.
Jason Kitkat and his amateur brigade of old fusspot men and stay at home wives need to have some decency and step down.
...........meanwhile the council installs dozens of pavement signposts telling people where they are. These new signs can often be found adjacent to existing signposts telling where people are but you can see where you are due to the graffiti and fly posting. Waste, waste, waste, lies, lies, lies and then threats of cuts to the vulnerable. The truth about this councils incompetence and waste is being laid bare week after week. Jason Kitkat and his amateur brigade of old fusspot men and stay at home wives need to have some decency and step down. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 13

8:34pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?!
New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues!
You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating!
Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?! New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues! You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -11

8:36pm Thu 27 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati!
You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.
@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?
Pachallis, you are really struggling. Stick to supporting fracking.

I am sorry you find change for the better so difficult to deal with. It must really pain you that the city is becoming more successful, not less. Hardly a sign of incompitance.

If this administration is so incompitent, name all these councils that are performing so much better? Who has cut less than this city? There must be hundreds according to you. And how incopitent the Labour and Conservatives must be as they ran less efficient and effective administrations than we have today.

Its about time you took some responsibility for the dreadful situation the country got itself into as you voted for the idiots that run it. The same idiots that have slashed funding to the city, cutting services and putting at risk our seafront.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati![/p][/quote]You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?[/p][/quote]Pachallis, you are really struggling. Stick to supporting fracking. I am sorry you find change for the better so difficult to deal with. It must really pain you that the city is becoming more successful, not less. Hardly a sign of incompitance. If this administration is so incompitent, name all these councils that are performing so much better? Who has cut less than this city? There must be hundreds according to you. And how incopitent the Labour and Conservatives must be as they ran less efficient and effective administrations than we have today. Its about time you took some responsibility for the dreadful situation the country got itself into as you voted for the idiots that run it. The same idiots that have slashed funding to the city, cutting services and putting at risk our seafront. HJarrs
  • Score: -12

9:07pm Thu 27 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?!
New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues!
You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating!
Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous.

Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?! New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues! You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating![/p][/quote]Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous. Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

9:38pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?!
New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues!
You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating!
Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous.

Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.
Christ do you actually know the area?!
Do you not know how the A29, A2, the A29 etc etc are jammed every weekday morning? That the A29 is jammed beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend?
And a belongs lot of those are heading towards the centre ~ whether for work or pleasure! Maybe you should sit a Preston Circus and watch how much traffic is heading for the centre!
And, with respect, your rare ventures into Brighton are far from typical for many many people!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?! New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues! You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating![/p][/quote]Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous. Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.[/p][/quote]Christ do you actually know the area?! Do you not know how the A29, A2, the A29 etc etc are jammed every weekday morning? That the A29 is jammed beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend? And a belongs lot of those are heading towards the centre ~ whether for work or pleasure! Maybe you should sit a Preston Circus and watch how much traffic is heading for the centre! And, with respect, your rare ventures into Brighton are far from typical for many many people! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -9

9:40pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Sorry ~ the A259, the A23, the A27, etc etc.........
Sorry ~ the A259, the A23, the A27, etc etc......... brighton bluenose
  • Score: -6

9:54pm Thu 27 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?!
New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues!
You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating!
Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous.

Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.
Christ do you actually know the area?!
Do you not know how the A29, A2, the A29 etc etc are jammed every weekday morning? That the A29 is jammed beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend?
And a belongs lot of those are heading towards the centre ~ whether for work or pleasure! Maybe you should sit a Preston Circus and watch how much traffic is heading for the centre!
And, with respect, your rare ventures into Brighton are far from typical for many many people!
So are you seriously suggesting that by preventing cars from accessing the centre of Brighton we are going to reduce the traffic on the A259, the A23, the A27 etcetera?

Do try and formulate your arguments before you present them for public scrutiny because we have gone from your rather ludicrous and unsupported assertion that forcing "people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" to limitless cars all heading towards Brighton city centre to it impacting on the traffic beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend ... So far within three posts you have effectively gone from claiming, without justification barring some bizarre ideological notion, that forcing people to using public transport (for the financial benefit of private sharehaolders) to for the foreclosure of all privately owned vehicular transport because traffic on a nice weekend is jamming the road beyond Wycombe.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?! New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues! You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating![/p][/quote]Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous. Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.[/p][/quote]Christ do you actually know the area?! Do you not know how the A29, A2, the A29 etc etc are jammed every weekday morning? That the A29 is jammed beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend? And a belongs lot of those are heading towards the centre ~ whether for work or pleasure! Maybe you should sit a Preston Circus and watch how much traffic is heading for the centre! And, with respect, your rare ventures into Brighton are far from typical for many many people![/p][/quote]So are you seriously suggesting that by preventing cars from accessing the centre of Brighton we are going to reduce the traffic on the A259, the A23, the A27 etcetera? Do try and formulate your arguments before you present them for public scrutiny because we have gone from your rather ludicrous and unsupported assertion that forcing "people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" to limitless cars all heading towards Brighton city centre to it impacting on the traffic beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend ... So far within three posts you have effectively gone from claiming, without justification barring some bizarre ideological notion, that forcing people to using public transport (for the financial benefit of private sharehaolders) to for the foreclosure of all privately owned vehicular transport because traffic on a nice weekend is jamming the road beyond Wycombe. mimseycal
  • Score: 8

10:12pm Thu 27 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?!
New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues!
You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating!
Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous.

Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.
Christ do you actually know the area?!
Do you not know how the A29, A2, the A29 etc etc are jammed every weekday morning? That the A29 is jammed beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend?
And a belongs lot of those are heading towards the centre ~ whether for work or pleasure! Maybe you should sit a Preston Circus and watch how much traffic is heading for the centre!
And, with respect, your rare ventures into Brighton are far from typical for many many people!
So are you seriously suggesting that by preventing cars from accessing the centre of Brighton we are going to reduce the traffic on the A259, the A23, the A27 etcetera?

Do try and formulate your arguments before you present them for public scrutiny because we have gone from your rather ludicrous and unsupported assertion that forcing "people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" to limitless cars all heading towards Brighton city centre to it impacting on the traffic beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend ... So far within three posts you have effectively gone from claiming, without justification barring some bizarre ideological notion, that forcing people to using public transport (for the financial benefit of private sharehaolders) to for the foreclosure of all privately owned vehicular transport because traffic on a nice weekend is jamming the road beyond Wycombe.
Unfortunately predictive text kicked in ~ I meant Pycombe!
1. I stated less traffic in the centre would be beneficial for pedestrians and other road users ~ you haven't told me why I am wrong;
2. I stated that many of the main arteries leading into the centre are very busy in the rush hour and at weekends and a lot of this traffic is heading towards the centre NOT that limiting traffic in the centre would reduce traffic on these roads!
3. It is obvious that less traffic is safer and better for people and the environment ~ end of!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Most sensible people would agree that less traffic make it easier, safer and more pleasant for pedestrians and other road users too so surely benefitting the city overall - why on earth would you disagree?! New low emission buses have been ordered so that will assist with air quality issues! You continue to throw up these objections but actually fail to provide an alternative to an increasing population with increasing car ownership - do you really want to have unlimited cars coming into the centre and clogging it up? Because that's what you seem to be advocating![/p][/quote]Unlimited cars? Where on earth do people come up with those absurd notions? I suppose you mean an endless stream of cars which is a totally different concept. Having said that, the idea of an endless stream of cars all heading towards the centre of Brighton is ludicrous. Not everyone driving a car in Brighton is necessarily heading for the centre of the city. I have often gone for a many as two months or more before needing to access Brighton centre and I don't think I am that unusual. Since my car was stolen, every time I exit my house to visit my daughters, attend a hospital appointment, go to the dentist or attend to any number of additional normal activities, I am forced to go through Brighton centre.[/p][/quote]Christ do you actually know the area?! Do you not know how the A29, A2, the A29 etc etc are jammed every weekday morning? That the A29 is jammed beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend? And a belongs lot of those are heading towards the centre ~ whether for work or pleasure! Maybe you should sit a Preston Circus and watch how much traffic is heading for the centre! And, with respect, your rare ventures into Brighton are far from typical for many many people![/p][/quote]So are you seriously suggesting that by preventing cars from accessing the centre of Brighton we are going to reduce the traffic on the A259, the A23, the A27 etcetera? Do try and formulate your arguments before you present them for public scrutiny because we have gone from your rather ludicrous and unsupported assertion that forcing "people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" to limitless cars all heading towards Brighton city centre to it impacting on the traffic beyond Wycombe on a nice weekend ... So far within three posts you have effectively gone from claiming, without justification barring some bizarre ideological notion, that forcing people to using public transport (for the financial benefit of private sharehaolders) to for the foreclosure of all privately owned vehicular transport because traffic on a nice weekend is jamming the road beyond Wycombe.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately predictive text kicked in ~ I meant Pycombe! 1. I stated less traffic in the centre would be beneficial for pedestrians and other road users ~ you haven't told me why I am wrong; 2. I stated that many of the main arteries leading into the centre are very busy in the rush hour and at weekends and a lot of this traffic is heading towards the centre NOT that limiting traffic in the centre would reduce traffic on these roads! 3. It is obvious that less traffic is safer and better for people and the environment ~ end of! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -10

10:43pm Thu 27 Mar 14

The Real Phil says...

For as long as I can remember the council have promoted the idea that Brighton had a high class front rivaled by no other, especially Blackpool which for some strange reason was used as a comparison. (Perhaps it was something to do with there being lights on the prom, as there used to be in Brighton).
Over recent years Blackpool has regenerated it's entire promenade from the North Shore to Star Gate encompassing the entire tourist area. If only Brighton could manage a tenth of the effort it would be a massive improvement.
Much has been written about the parking charges and how the money is not being used for anything useful (other than employing more parking wardens, perhaps). It would be great if the money raised could be used to repair the arches along the sea front as that would be protecting the parking bays directly beneath them.
And for any morons wanting to blame the greens, forget it. The neglect of Brighton seafront started long before the green party were ever heard of.
It was probably exacerbated by the introduction of city status when the focus of the responsibilities of the council just fell apart.
For as long as I can remember the council have promoted the idea that Brighton had a high class front rivaled by no other, especially Blackpool which for some strange reason was used as a comparison. (Perhaps it was something to do with there being lights on the prom, as there used to be in Brighton). Over recent years Blackpool has regenerated it's entire promenade from the North Shore to Star Gate encompassing the entire tourist area. If only Brighton could manage a tenth of the effort it would be a massive improvement. Much has been written about the parking charges and how the money is not being used for anything useful (other than employing more parking wardens, perhaps). It would be great if the money raised could be used to repair the arches along the sea front as that would be protecting the parking bays directly beneath them. And for any morons wanting to blame the greens, forget it. The neglect of Brighton seafront started long before the green party were ever heard of. It was probably exacerbated by the introduction of city status when the focus of the responsibilities of the council just fell apart. The Real Phil
  • Score: 6

10:52pm Thu 27 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Your actual statement was:

"Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!"

This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously.

Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton.

Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ...

It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)
Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 5

11:39pm Thu 27 Mar 14

tbirdbiker says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
Well the greens certainly wont do anything about it either, they are to busy playing politics, thats the main problem, the councillors are only interested in the party , not the city, we need business men that care about Brighton to do whats best for the city . That doesnt mean penalising the motorist and driving tourists away with exorbitant parking charges .
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]Well the greens certainly wont do anything about it either, they are to busy playing politics, thats the main problem, the councillors are only interested in the party , not the city, we need business men that care about Brighton to do whats best for the city . That doesnt mean penalising the motorist and driving tourists away with exorbitant parking charges . tbirdbiker
  • Score: 8

6:15am Fri 28 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

tbirdbiker wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
Well the greens certainly wont do anything about it either, they are to busy playing politics, thats the main problem, the councillors are only interested in the party , not the city, we need business men that care about Brighton to do whats best for the city . That doesnt mean penalising the motorist and driving tourists away with exorbitant parking charges .
Read my post again mate - THOSE are the reasons why the Greens are unable to do much about it! Do you think if/when the Tories or Labour get in they are going to magically find £65 million??!!!! Nothing to do with Green 'politics' just cold hard facts I'm afraid!
[quote][p][bold]tbirdbiker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]Well the greens certainly wont do anything about it either, they are to busy playing politics, thats the main problem, the councillors are only interested in the party , not the city, we need business men that care about Brighton to do whats best for the city . That doesnt mean penalising the motorist and driving tourists away with exorbitant parking charges .[/p][/quote]Read my post again mate - THOSE are the reasons why the Greens are unable to do much about it! Do you think if/when the Tories or Labour get in they are going to magically find £65 million??!!!! Nothing to do with Green 'politics' just cold hard facts I'm afraid! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -10

7:48am Fri 28 Mar 14

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati!
You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.
@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?
Pachallis, you are really struggling. Stick to supporting fracking.

I am sorry you find change for the better so difficult to deal with. It must really pain you that the city is becoming more successful, not less. Hardly a sign of incompitance.

If this administration is so incompitent, name all these councils that are performing so much better? Who has cut less than this city? There must be hundreds according to you. And how incopitent the Labour and Conservatives must be as they ran less efficient and effective administrations than we have today.

Its about time you took some responsibility for the dreadful situation the country got itself into as you voted for the idiots that run it. The same idiots that have slashed funding to the city, cutting services and putting at risk our seafront.
@HJarrs - sticks and stones....

You aren't very good at this 'spin doctoring' lark - are you? You are supposed to justify your position rather than just attack those who disagree with you.

Please prove your claims - or are you so arrogant (like most of the green councilors) that you don't need to do this?

Perhaps if you actually lived on the city (as you allegedly don't) you'd understand why most residents are now totally dis-satisfied with the green party and what they have achieved.

I am a tax-paying rate paying-resident - convince me and the rest of the electorate why you should stay in power.

Please keep up the 'spinning' - as I've said before you are of no value to the greens and now only serve to convince more to vote against them in the May 2015 elections.

We all remember the refuse strike and the various factions of the greens taking opposite positions and Kitkat hiding in the Town Hall tweeting away. I was going to detail more on the greens incompetence but you just need to re-read this whole article from the top.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati![/p][/quote]You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?[/p][/quote]Pachallis, you are really struggling. Stick to supporting fracking. I am sorry you find change for the better so difficult to deal with. It must really pain you that the city is becoming more successful, not less. Hardly a sign of incompitance. If this administration is so incompitent, name all these councils that are performing so much better? Who has cut less than this city? There must be hundreds according to you. And how incopitent the Labour and Conservatives must be as they ran less efficient and effective administrations than we have today. Its about time you took some responsibility for the dreadful situation the country got itself into as you voted for the idiots that run it. The same idiots that have slashed funding to the city, cutting services and putting at risk our seafront.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - sticks and stones.... You aren't very good at this 'spin doctoring' lark - are you? You are supposed to justify your position rather than just attack those who disagree with you. Please prove your claims - or are you so arrogant (like most of the green councilors) that you don't need to do this? Perhaps if you actually lived on the city (as you allegedly don't) you'd understand why most residents are now totally dis-satisfied with the green party and what they have achieved. I am a tax-paying rate paying-resident - convince me and the rest of the electorate why you should stay in power. Please keep up the 'spinning' - as I've said before you are of no value to the greens and now only serve to convince more to vote against them in the May 2015 elections. We all remember the refuse strike and the various factions of the greens taking opposite positions and Kitkat hiding in the Town Hall tweeting away. I was going to detail more on the greens incompetence but you just need to re-read this whole article from the top. pachallis
  • Score: 8

8:09am Fri 28 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
tbirdbiker wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
Well the greens certainly wont do anything about it either, they are to busy playing politics, thats the main problem, the councillors are only interested in the party , not the city, we need business men that care about Brighton to do whats best for the city . That doesnt mean penalising the motorist and driving tourists away with exorbitant parking charges .
Read my post again mate - THOSE are the reasons why the Greens are unable to do much about it! Do you think if/when the Tories or Labour get in they are going to magically find £65 million??!!!! Nothing to do with Green 'politics' just cold hard facts I'm afraid!
Ah, but you see, if all the Greens were going to do was sit around whilst Brighton sank further they should have made that clear.

The Greens did not don a toga, they did not grace their head with a laurel leaf crown .... they did not even reach for the Stradivarius but for all that .... they fiddle while Brighton carries on sinking!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbirdbiker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]Well the greens certainly wont do anything about it either, they are to busy playing politics, thats the main problem, the councillors are only interested in the party , not the city, we need business men that care about Brighton to do whats best for the city . That doesnt mean penalising the motorist and driving tourists away with exorbitant parking charges .[/p][/quote]Read my post again mate - THOSE are the reasons why the Greens are unable to do much about it! Do you think if/when the Tories or Labour get in they are going to magically find £65 million??!!!! Nothing to do with Green 'politics' just cold hard facts I'm afraid![/p][/quote]Ah, but you see, if all the Greens were going to do was sit around whilst Brighton sank further they should have made that clear. The Greens did not don a toga, they did not grace their head with a laurel leaf crown .... they did not even reach for the Stradivarius but for all that .... they fiddle while Brighton carries on sinking! mimseycal
  • Score: 11

8:19am Fri 28 Mar 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

Millions to waste on bus lanes cycle lanes and of course 20MPH zone signage but can't afford anything else
Just over 13 months of this shower left..
Millions to waste on bus lanes cycle lanes and of course 20MPH zone signage but can't afford anything else Just over 13 months of this shower left.. upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 15

8:50am Fri 28 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

The Real Phil wrote:
For as long as I can remember the council have promoted the idea that Brighton had a high class front rivaled by no other, especially Blackpool which for some strange reason was used as a comparison. (Perhaps it was something to do with there being lights on the prom, as there used to be in Brighton).
Over recent years Blackpool has regenerated it's entire promenade from the North Shore to Star Gate encompassing the entire tourist area. If only Brighton could manage a tenth of the effort it would be a massive improvement.
Much has been written about the parking charges and how the money is not being used for anything useful (other than employing more parking wardens, perhaps). It would be great if the money raised could be used to repair the arches along the sea front as that would be protecting the parking bays directly beneath them.
And for any morons wanting to blame the greens, forget it. The neglect of Brighton seafront started long before the green party were ever heard of.
It was probably exacerbated by the introduction of city status when the focus of the responsibilities of the council just fell apart.
From unification on there has been a deliberate Council wish to end the bucket and spade image of Brighton (Hove never had that) as a tourist destination. The perceived need (in the era of cheap beach holidays abroad that people preferred) was to big up 'city' type activities and put the emphasis on youth.

Words like "vibrant" and "diverse" became City mantras. And the seafront was seen almost as an embarrassment they had to put up with, along with the day trippers heading for it and ignoring the city they passed through to get to it.

But even before this determined anti-seafront emphasis began to take root, the whole country was put into a materialistic frame of mind - starting with Margaret Thatcher and the 1980's yuppies. And the seafront was seen as antithetical to all that.

Now we come full circle and suddenly the seafront is a handwringing problem that needs an i360 to turn it around. Bonkers. Really sad stuff.

Please sign the petition and try to stop the loan happening that gets it built. We can have and do better. Get others to sign it too And go to the council website to Consultations and make a constructive suggestion in the Seafront Scrutiny opportunity.

http://www.change.or
g/en-GB/petitions/pu
blic-works-loan-boar
d-uk-please-refuse-t
he-bhcc-loan-request
-for-36-2m-for-onwar
d-lending-to-brighto
n-i360-ltd-to-build-
the-i360-on-brighton
-s-seafront
[quote][p][bold]The Real Phil[/bold] wrote: For as long as I can remember the council have promoted the idea that Brighton had a high class front rivaled by no other, especially Blackpool which for some strange reason was used as a comparison. (Perhaps it was something to do with there being lights on the prom, as there used to be in Brighton). Over recent years Blackpool has regenerated it's entire promenade from the North Shore to Star Gate encompassing the entire tourist area. If only Brighton could manage a tenth of the effort it would be a massive improvement. Much has been written about the parking charges and how the money is not being used for anything useful (other than employing more parking wardens, perhaps). It would be great if the money raised could be used to repair the arches along the sea front as that would be protecting the parking bays directly beneath them. And for any morons wanting to blame the greens, forget it. The neglect of Brighton seafront started long before the green party were ever heard of. It was probably exacerbated by the introduction of city status when the focus of the responsibilities of the council just fell apart.[/p][/quote]From unification on there has been a deliberate Council wish to end the bucket and spade image of Brighton (Hove never had that) as a tourist destination. The perceived need (in the era of cheap beach holidays abroad that people preferred) was to big up 'city' type activities and put the emphasis on youth. Words like "vibrant" and "diverse" became City mantras. And the seafront was seen almost as an embarrassment they had to put up with, along with the day trippers heading for it and ignoring the city they passed through to get to it. But even before this determined anti-seafront emphasis began to take root, the whole country was put into a materialistic frame of mind - starting with Margaret Thatcher and the 1980's yuppies. And the seafront was seen as antithetical to all that. Now we come full circle and suddenly the seafront is a handwringing problem that needs an i360 to turn it around. Bonkers. Really sad stuff. Please sign the petition and try to stop the loan happening that gets it built. We can have and do better. Get others to sign it too And go to the council website to Consultations and make a constructive suggestion in the Seafront Scrutiny opportunity. http://www.change.or g/en-GB/petitions/pu blic-works-loan-boar d-uk-please-refuse-t he-bhcc-loan-request -for-36-2m-for-onwar d-lending-to-brighto n-i360-ltd-to-build- the-i360-on-brighton -s-seafront Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 5

8:59am Fri 28 Mar 14

Valerie Paynter says...

The Community Pay Back Teams (people having community work as their sentence) are replacing paid workers for things like painting of council estates and other such. I can see no reason why they cannot be used to paint the seafront railings. To strip back rust and cracking layers of paint to put repairs and new sealants and paint in place.

They could do a lot to help the seafront maintenance shortfall issue and they would be out in the fresh sea air getting some healthy sun.
The Community Pay Back Teams (people having community work as their sentence) are replacing paid workers for things like painting of council estates and other such. I can see no reason why they cannot be used to paint the seafront railings. To strip back rust and cracking layers of paint to put repairs and new sealants and paint in place. They could do a lot to help the seafront maintenance shortfall issue and they would be out in the fresh sea air getting some healthy sun. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 9

9:08am Fri 28 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

mimseycal wrote:
Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)
Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument.

Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish.

What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice.

The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)[/p][/quote]Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre. HJarrs
  • Score: -9

9:16am Fri 28 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati!
You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.
@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?
Pachallis, you are really struggling. Stick to supporting fracking. I am sorry you find change for the better so difficult to deal with. It must really pain you that the city is becoming more successful, not less. Hardly a sign of incompitance. If this administration is so incompitent, name all these councils that are performing so much better? Who has cut less than this city? There must be hundreds according to you. And how incopitent the Labour and Conservatives must be as they ran less efficient and effective administrations than we have today. Its about time you took some responsibility for the dreadful situation the country got itself into as you voted for the idiots that run it. The same idiots that have slashed funding to the city, cutting services and putting at risk our seafront.
@HJarrs - sticks and stones.... You aren't very good at this 'spin doctoring' lark - are you? You are supposed to justify your position rather than just attack those who disagree with you. Please prove your claims - or are you so arrogant (like most of the green councilors) that you don't need to do this? Perhaps if you actually lived on the city (as you allegedly don't) you'd understand why most residents are now totally dis-satisfied with the green party and what they have achieved. I am a tax-paying rate paying-resident - convince me and the rest of the electorate why you should stay in power. Please keep up the 'spinning' - as I've said before you are of no value to the greens and now only serve to convince more to vote against them in the May 2015 elections. We all remember the refuse strike and the various factions of the greens taking opposite positions and Kitkat hiding in the Town Hall tweeting away. I was going to detail more on the greens incompetence but you just need to re-read this whole article from the top.
Thanks for the promotion to Spin Doctor. Cheers. Live in the city thanks. Is this just to avoid answering my questions? Yup.

What was the refuse strike about again? Oh yes, an allowances issue that had disgracefully been left by incompitent Labour and Conservative administrations and that could have bankrupted the city. Birmingham is to pay over £700 million in compensation for the same issue.

When are you going to take some responsibility? You voted for a government that got us into the state where we will struggle to maintain the seafront.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - round objects! How come the progressive green led council is the only one in the UK that is unable to manage their budget and unable to provide basic services? How come the green led council is the only one in the UK that wanted a referendum to get a 4.75% increase in rates to meet their progressive spending plans? If the greens can't cope then maybe they should resign and call an early election? If you call us the moanarati then you must be the spinarati![/p][/quote]You do talk nonsense. Perhaps you care to name a council that has cut less with the same cut to government grant? Who knows, there might be one or two, there a hundreds to choose from. Certainly not the labour council a friend of mine works with that could shut her children's centre this year. What a disgrace. You do actually make a good point for a change though, why is it that only one council is willing to take on government cuts? It is because the LibLabCons have and continue to fail us. They are too interested courting headlines in the Daily Mail and Express than to support their constituents in most need. How sad that the Greens have been left as the last progressive party.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - you just don't get it do you! You make savings by making cuts to non-essential services and/or making efficiency savings - like we all have had to do in the recession. Only the gormless greens continue with a spend, spend, spend attitude on vanity schemes rather than concentrating on core services. If the greens were any good as council 'leaders' they would be looking at ways of encouraging more businesses and visitors to come to the town and increase council revenues. As it is they concentrate on getting government and european grants to fund grandiose ideological schemes (i.e. the infamous cycle lanes and 20 mph zones) and then screw up the implementation when they aren't used or are ignored.. They then whinge that they need even more financial support to meet their idealistic goals and spend on even more ludicrous non-essential schemes. No - we do not need progressive gender neutral toilets. No - we do not need progressive options for recording Mx as well as Mr and Ms on forms and web sites. No - we do not need progressive LED replacement street lights. Yes - other councils have had to make difficult decisions to meet spending targets - only the inept greens (and especially the loony left contingent) seem to think this shouldn't apply to them as they are 'special'. You call yourselves progressive - unfortunately progressive doesn't always mean a positive change. In the green's case it is progress into obscurity through incompetence. At least it's only 13 months to go and the green experiment will be no more. I hope you are all working on your CVs and in your case you will have to get back to your full time 'job' fiddling with your cursor. BTW - do you actually get paid considering the amount of time you spend spinning?[/p][/quote]Pachallis, you are really struggling. Stick to supporting fracking. I am sorry you find change for the better so difficult to deal with. It must really pain you that the city is becoming more successful, not less. Hardly a sign of incompitance. If this administration is so incompitent, name all these councils that are performing so much better? Who has cut less than this city? There must be hundreds according to you. And how incopitent the Labour and Conservatives must be as they ran less efficient and effective administrations than we have today. Its about time you took some responsibility for the dreadful situation the country got itself into as you voted for the idiots that run it. The same idiots that have slashed funding to the city, cutting services and putting at risk our seafront.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - sticks and stones.... You aren't very good at this 'spin doctoring' lark - are you? You are supposed to justify your position rather than just attack those who disagree with you. Please prove your claims - or are you so arrogant (like most of the green councilors) that you don't need to do this? Perhaps if you actually lived on the city (as you allegedly don't) you'd understand why most residents are now totally dis-satisfied with the green party and what they have achieved. I am a tax-paying rate paying-resident - convince me and the rest of the electorate why you should stay in power. Please keep up the 'spinning' - as I've said before you are of no value to the greens and now only serve to convince more to vote against them in the May 2015 elections. We all remember the refuse strike and the various factions of the greens taking opposite positions and Kitkat hiding in the Town Hall tweeting away. I was going to detail more on the greens incompetence but you just need to re-read this whole article from the top.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the promotion to Spin Doctor. Cheers. Live in the city thanks. Is this just to avoid answering my questions? Yup. What was the refuse strike about again? Oh yes, an allowances issue that had disgracefully been left by incompitent Labour and Conservative administrations and that could have bankrupted the city. Birmingham is to pay over £700 million in compensation for the same issue. When are you going to take some responsibility? You voted for a government that got us into the state where we will struggle to maintain the seafront. HJarrs
  • Score: -10

9:28am Fri 28 Mar 14

her professional says...

GreensToTheGallows wrote:
If this article is to be believed - the mind truly boggles.

£60m to repair the seafront? The council are ripped off on a daily basis for virtually every 'maintenance' or 'improvement program' or road scheme they implement.

The council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds refurbishing and fitting lights in council blocks at hugely inflated prices (not that refurbing council properties is a problem with me) - every contractor knows a contract with the council is a license to print money and rip off the tax payer.

The Greens are totally inept - every single one of them. If any of you morons are reading this then please do us all favour and get out. No one wants your ridiculous 20mph schemes that not one person obeys or cares about, nor forced parking permits when the majority of residents (in some areas) voted against the schemes.

You are all total morons and I hope you all get your comeuppance for squandering masses of public money on a daily basis and wrecking this city with stupid, ill planned green ideological hairbrained projects.

This sentiment is echoed by many on this website and through Brighton - no one wants the idiotic Green party in power, even the thieving Labour or Tories would be better by a long stretch and that's saying something. Save the planet and stop breathing for the sake of us all.
No one wanted the Greens in power???? They were voted in.
[quote][p][bold]GreensToTheGallows[/bold] wrote: If this article is to be believed - the mind truly boggles. £60m to repair the seafront? The council are ripped off on a daily basis for virtually every 'maintenance' or 'improvement program' or road scheme they implement. The council spent hundreds of thousands of pounds refurbishing and fitting lights in council blocks at hugely inflated prices (not that refurbing council properties is a problem with me) - every contractor knows a contract with the council is a license to print money and rip off the tax payer. The Greens are totally inept - every single one of them. If any of you morons are reading this then please do us all favour and get out. No one wants your ridiculous 20mph schemes that not one person obeys or cares about, nor forced parking permits when the majority of residents (in some areas) voted against the schemes. You are all total morons and I hope you all get your comeuppance for squandering masses of public money on a daily basis and wrecking this city with stupid, ill planned green ideological hairbrained projects. This sentiment is echoed by many on this website and through Brighton - no one wants the idiotic Green party in power, even the thieving Labour or Tories would be better by a long stretch and that's saying something. Save the planet and stop breathing for the sake of us all.[/p][/quote]No one wanted the Greens in power???? They were voted in. her professional
  • Score: -3

9:59am Fri 28 Mar 14

Richada says...

ripmaxman wrote:
Instead of wasting £36 million on the ridiculous i360 the money would be better spent on the seafront.

If as they say the seafront might have to be closed then no one would come here and visit the i360 and we the tax payers would be saddled with the debt.

Repairing the seafront would have a longer lasting legacy for Brighton then the i360!
Closing the seafront is just a marketing gimmick for the i360.

"Come to Brighton & Hove if you want to see the sea you'll only have to pay £14.00 to have a 30 minute view of it from our tower".

The i360 will be the tourist tax / trap - even if it is the ONLY place you'll be able top see the sea it STILL won't get the visitor numbers touted by Marks Barfield.
[quote][p][bold]ripmaxman[/bold] wrote: Instead of wasting £36 million on the ridiculous i360 the money would be better spent on the seafront. If as they say the seafront might have to be closed then no one would come here and visit the i360 and we the tax payers would be saddled with the debt. Repairing the seafront would have a longer lasting legacy for Brighton then the i360![/p][/quote]Closing the seafront is just a marketing gimmick for the i360. "Come to Brighton & Hove if you want to see the sea you'll only have to pay £14.00 to have a 30 minute view of it from our tower". The i360 will be the tourist tax / trap - even if it is the ONLY place you'll be able top see the sea it STILL won't get the visitor numbers touted by Marks Barfield. Richada
  • Score: 5

10:10am Fri 28 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)
Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument.

Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish.

What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice.

The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.
It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear.

As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology.

Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre.

If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ...

The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?!

Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)[/p][/quote]Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.[/p][/quote]It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play. mimseycal
  • Score: 5

10:41am Fri 28 Mar 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
The moanerati trying to obscure the main issue as usual.

We are already £60 million down on government grants so far since 2010 and £24 million less next year and similar the year after. By May 2015 we will have lost funding to the tune of over £100 million. The council is already run way more efficiently than under previous labour and conservative administrations, the latter that neglected the seafront, and have delivered more good quality infrastructure already than any administration managed in a full term. However, the cuts are so deep that it will be a struggle to keep front line services going, let alone embark upon costly seafront restoration. That is down to our incompitent government.

Many of the moanerati voted for the government, it's about time they took responsibility for the cuts and diabolical economy they have inflicted upon us. The rest of us should make sure we vote out Kirby and Weatherley, who have supported the cuts and done so little for the city.
Good post HJ!

Such a pity that it is pure and utter spin.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The moanerati trying to obscure the main issue as usual. We are already £60 million down on government grants so far since 2010 and £24 million less next year and similar the year after. By May 2015 we will have lost funding to the tune of over £100 million. The council is already run way more efficiently than under previous labour and conservative administrations, the latter that neglected the seafront, and have delivered more good quality infrastructure already than any administration managed in a full term. However, the cuts are so deep that it will be a struggle to keep front line services going, let alone embark upon costly seafront restoration. That is down to our incompitent government. Many of the moanerati voted for the government, it's about time they took responsibility for the cuts and diabolical economy they have inflicted upon us. The rest of us should make sure we vote out Kirby and Weatherley, who have supported the cuts and done so little for the city.[/p][/quote]Good post HJ! Such a pity that it is pure and utter spin. Richada
  • Score: 4

10:55am Fri 28 Mar 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

HJarrs you were a member of the Labour Party when it screwed the economy up and you left that party and joined the Greens who are missing every performance target so maybe you are part of the problem.
Maybe time for you to think about the way you see things or perhaps get a job which brings you into contact with large numbers of people. Listening is the key to learning.
HJarrs you were a member of the Labour Party when it screwed the economy up and you left that party and joined the Greens who are missing every performance target so maybe you are part of the problem. Maybe time for you to think about the way you see things or perhaps get a job which brings you into contact with large numbers of people. Listening is the key to learning. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 7

12:00pm Fri 28 Mar 14

spa301 says...

Having once been a Green enthusiast I am now totally bemused by their complete mismanagement of this beautiful city. I cannot recall the 'town' looking so scruffy, rundown and dysfunctional. It is an utter disgrace. As for the i360 the decision to proceed with this folly is utter lunacy. Those that proposed and agreed it will be long gone when we're still paying for it.
Banish these idiots back to the obscurity they crawled out from. Shame on them and their apologists.
Having once been a Green enthusiast I am now totally bemused by their complete mismanagement of this beautiful city. I cannot recall the 'town' looking so scruffy, rundown and dysfunctional. It is an utter disgrace. As for the i360 the decision to proceed with this folly is utter lunacy. Those that proposed and agreed it will be long gone when we're still paying for it. Banish these idiots back to the obscurity they crawled out from. Shame on them and their apologists. spa301
  • Score: 6

1:02pm Fri 28 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)
Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.
It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.
Very, very weak. You don't find the word "forced" in my comments above. You have purposefully used immotive language as you are scrabbling around with no argument.

I also drive up the Lewes Rd without going into the town centre at times. So what. Every morning several thousand vehicles do travel down the Lewes Rd into the town centre and thise that are cars generally have one passenger. If these people switched to bus / rail in large numbers then we would see a reduction of traffic along the arterial routes as can be seen from the figures recently published, which demonstrate that fewer cars are using the Lewes Rd, but a similar number of people are using the road due to switching to bus / bike. This does not include passengers on the train on the same transport corridor.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)[/p][/quote]Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.[/p][/quote]It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.[/p][/quote]Very, very weak. You don't find the word "forced" in my comments above. You have purposefully used immotive language as you are scrabbling around with no argument. I also drive up the Lewes Rd without going into the town centre at times. So what. Every morning several thousand vehicles do travel down the Lewes Rd into the town centre and thise that are cars generally have one passenger. If these people switched to bus / rail in large numbers then we would see a reduction of traffic along the arterial routes as can be seen from the figures recently published, which demonstrate that fewer cars are using the Lewes Rd, but a similar number of people are using the road due to switching to bus / bike. This does not include passengers on the train on the same transport corridor. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

1:09pm Fri 28 Mar 14

wippasnapper says...

If the green run council stopped spending money on cycle paths and redeemed the money to be spent on bringing Brighton’s heritage back up to standard we would not be having a problem but being the green party wants to change the way Brighton looks by modernizing it maybe this is the reason no reaper work has been dun i.e. remove to Victorian railings and replace them with modern ugly looking railings
If the green run council stopped spending money on cycle paths and redeemed the money to be spent on bringing Brighton’s heritage back up to standard we would not be having a problem but being the green party wants to change the way Brighton looks by modernizing it maybe this is the reason no reaper work has been dun i.e. remove to Victorian railings and replace them with modern ugly looking railings wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Fri 28 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)
Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.
It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.
Very, very weak. You don't find the word "forced" in my comments above. You have purposefully used immotive language as you are scrabbling around with no argument.

I also drive up the Lewes Rd without going into the town centre at times. So what. Every morning several thousand vehicles do travel down the Lewes Rd into the town centre and thise that are cars generally have one passenger. If these people switched to bus / rail in large numbers then we would see a reduction of traffic along the arterial routes as can be seen from the figures recently published, which demonstrate that fewer cars are using the Lewes Rd, but a similar number of people are using the road due to switching to bus / bike. This does not include passengers on the train on the same transport corridor.
Weak? Maybe ... but that would only be because I confused you with brightonbluenose. The language and arguments hardly differ but that is no excuse. So my apologies for that.

The fact remains that neither you nor your blue-nosed friend have brought anything that would lend weight to your assertions.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)[/p][/quote]Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.[/p][/quote]It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.[/p][/quote]Very, very weak. You don't find the word "forced" in my comments above. You have purposefully used immotive language as you are scrabbling around with no argument. I also drive up the Lewes Rd without going into the town centre at times. So what. Every morning several thousand vehicles do travel down the Lewes Rd into the town centre and thise that are cars generally have one passenger. If these people switched to bus / rail in large numbers then we would see a reduction of traffic along the arterial routes as can be seen from the figures recently published, which demonstrate that fewer cars are using the Lewes Rd, but a similar number of people are using the road due to switching to bus / bike. This does not include passengers on the train on the same transport corridor.[/p][/quote]Weak? Maybe ... but that would only be because I confused you with brightonbluenose. The language and arguments hardly differ but that is no excuse. So my apologies for that. The fact remains that neither you nor your blue-nosed friend have brought anything that would lend weight to your assertions. mimseycal
  • Score: 5

3:20pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Mancgulled says...

Tell you what - I'll jack my job as a stonemason and get cracking with painting those railings - I'll start tomorrow and I'll do it for a cut-price £1m - no problem -- and it won't take me 4 years either- guaranteed! and I'll sing every minute with a smile on my face as large as the one on the face of whomever came up with that interesting financial projection. No wonder the ******* community charge is so vast .........
Tell you what - I'll jack my job as a stonemason and get cracking with painting those railings - I'll start tomorrow and I'll do it for a cut-price £1m - no problem -- and it won't take me 4 years either- guaranteed! and I'll sing every minute with a smile on my face as large as the one on the face of whomever came up with that interesting financial projection. No wonder the ******* community charge is so vast ......... Mancgulled
  • Score: 5

3:57pm Fri 28 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
mimseycal wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)
Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.
It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.
Very, very weak. You don't find the word "forced" in my comments above. You have purposefully used immotive language as you are scrabbling around with no argument.

I also drive up the Lewes Rd without going into the town centre at times. So what. Every morning several thousand vehicles do travel down the Lewes Rd into the town centre and thise that are cars generally have one passenger. If these people switched to bus / rail in large numbers then we would see a reduction of traffic along the arterial routes as can be seen from the figures recently published, which demonstrate that fewer cars are using the Lewes Rd, but a similar number of people are using the road due to switching to bus / bike. This does not include passengers on the train on the same transport corridor.
Weak? Maybe ... but that would only be because I confused you with brightonbluenose. The language and arguments hardly differ but that is no excuse. So my apologies for that.

The fact remains that neither you nor your blue-nosed friend have brought anything that would lend weight to your assertions.
Neither have you. But there is a report on the Council web site on the first few months of the Lewes Rd scheme to back my argument. Also, I think you will find Brightonbluenose did not use the word force.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: Your actual statement was: "Sorry but the city centre has been choked with traffic at the best of times and putting in bus lanes to get people out of their cars and using public transport can only benefit the city in the long run!" This is your assertion which you would have to justify if you want it to be taken seriously. Your claim that a lot of traffic using the main arteries heads for the centre of Brighton is questionable at best and so far I have yet to see any independent study that would bear this out. Unless of course you limit your notion of what constitutes a main artery as a road that leads to the centre of Brighton and no where else along the way. The Lewes Rd., can be considered a main artery but there are many roads leading off it long before it reaches the centre of Brighton ... Unless of course you view the Lewes Rd. itself as being the centre of Brighton. Less traffic is one thing, but forcing people to utilise public transport does not necessarily mean better for people or the environment. There are many factors that improve matters for people and the environment aside from how they travel. Taking two hours and needing to use two buses to visit a dentist or hospital on public transport, where the journey could take 30 minutes by car would seriously put your claim in doubt. Look at it this way ... 4 hours travel time as opposed to one hour in total ... It matters not one iota whether it is Pycombe or Wycombe ... Reducing private vehicles in central Brighton does not necessarily reduce the traffic in or around either Pycombe or Wycombe. The trouble here m'dear isn't predictive text but the use of hyperbole ;-)[/p][/quote]Mimseycal you put up the straw man argument. Who is saying you should suddenly take 4 hours to make a journey on public transport? Nobody, it is nonsense. There are no gangs of council officers forcing people out of their cars. Nobody pressganging people onto bikes or buses. To use the word "force" is childish. What there has been is a small redistribution of space delivered at a tiny cost to council tax payers that provides choice other than just being lumbered with a car. You make not wish to make use of this choice, that is up to you, but you seem set against allowing others choice. The city's streets have been clogged with traffic for years and it holds the city back. It is no coincedence that as pedestrianisation, bus lanes and cycle routes have been improved so the city has continued to recover ahead of most of the rest of the country. There is a constant campaign by a minority to reduce what restriction already exist (except for their own CPZs that allow them to park outside their house!), this would only lead to gridlock and damage the local economy. Fewer cars coming into the city centre will reduce the number of cars on the main arteries. If you stand on Lewes Rd in the rush hour, those single occupancy vehicles are primarily heading to the town centre.[/p][/quote]It takes up to two hours one way which means up to 4 hours a return journey ... It is simple maths dear. As for the word "force" ... you used it first. I merely employed courtesy by continuing to use your chosen terminology. Heading towards does not necessarily mean heading to. I often drove some distance up the Lewes Rd., without ever going as far as Brighton centre. If you are going to argue the larger picture there are some factors you must take into consideration. I'll try and keep it simple .... hmmmmmm let me see .... Ah yes, here goes ... The dog runs up to my five year old granddaughter barking and growling loudly. She is standing in front of the dog with one foot in the air. She swings this foot to ... kick the dog?! Actually she kicks the ball which the dog then chases ... it is a game they play.[/p][/quote]Very, very weak. You don't find the word "forced" in my comments above. You have purposefully used immotive language as you are scrabbling around with no argument. I also drive up the Lewes Rd without going into the town centre at times. So what. Every morning several thousand vehicles do travel down the Lewes Rd into the town centre and thise that are cars generally have one passenger. If these people switched to bus / rail in large numbers then we would see a reduction of traffic along the arterial routes as can be seen from the figures recently published, which demonstrate that fewer cars are using the Lewes Rd, but a similar number of people are using the road due to switching to bus / bike. This does not include passengers on the train on the same transport corridor.[/p][/quote]Weak? Maybe ... but that would only be because I confused you with brightonbluenose. The language and arguments hardly differ but that is no excuse. So my apologies for that. The fact remains that neither you nor your blue-nosed friend have brought anything that would lend weight to your assertions.[/p][/quote]Neither have you. But there is a report on the Council web site on the first few months of the Lewes Rd scheme to back my argument. Also, I think you will find Brightonbluenose did not use the word force. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

3:59pm Fri 28 Mar 14

hubby says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!!
You couldn't make it up!
This hasn't just happened.I left Brighton to live in Spain eleven years ago.
Our rubbish is taken every day.We recycle if we want to.Road tax is £50 a year.No tv license.Council Tax £240 a year.Clean beaches with clear water.Both my kids have decent jobs.Health care is brilliant.Not a caravan in sight,and the sun shines.....a lot.
Tonight we're out for a family meal.Drinks included it won't be more than £40.
Brighton has gone downhill badly since the 90's.It is dirty and not safe.
Most sensible Brightonians who can get out have.Unless they are loaded or skint.
Sad because I loved growing up there,but didn't want to bring my own kids up there.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Decades of Labour and Tory neglect will now be exacerbated by the reduction in central government funding to Local Authorities due to ..............Labour and Tory mismanagement of the economy!! You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]This hasn't just happened.I left Brighton to live in Spain eleven years ago. Our rubbish is taken every day.We recycle if we want to.Road tax is £50 a year.No tv license.Council Tax £240 a year.Clean beaches with clear water.Both my kids have decent jobs.Health care is brilliant.Not a caravan in sight,and the sun shines.....a lot. Tonight we're out for a family meal.Drinks included it won't be more than £40. Brighton has gone downhill badly since the 90's.It is dirty and not safe. Most sensible Brightonians who can get out have.Unless they are loaded or skint. Sad because I loved growing up there,but didn't want to bring my own kids up there. hubby
  • Score: 1

4:14pm Fri 28 Mar 14

HJarrs says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
HJarrs you were a member of the Labour Party when it screwed the economy up and you left that party and joined the Greens who are missing every performance target so maybe you are part of the problem.
Maybe time for you to think about the way you see things or perhaps get a job which brings you into contact with large numbers of people. Listening is the key to learning.
An irrelevant comment about the subject of continuing government cuts threatening the seafront.

For your information among many reasons building up to leaving the Labour Party was indeed the misplaced subservience to free market neoliberal Mumbo jumbo. However, the bale of hay that broke the camel's back was the marginalisation of all but a small clique and gerimandering, something that is alive as well as the local Labour Party try and fix council seats ( notably not reported in the Argus surprise, surprise).

Unlike you, I haven't voted Labour since 1997, time you took some responsibility for the state we are in.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: HJarrs you were a member of the Labour Party when it screwed the economy up and you left that party and joined the Greens who are missing every performance target so maybe you are part of the problem. Maybe time for you to think about the way you see things or perhaps get a job which brings you into contact with large numbers of people. Listening is the key to learning.[/p][/quote]An irrelevant comment about the subject of continuing government cuts threatening the seafront. For your information among many reasons building up to leaving the Labour Party was indeed the misplaced subservience to free market neoliberal Mumbo jumbo. However, the bale of hay that broke the camel's back was the marginalisation of all but a small clique and gerimandering, something that is alive as well as the local Labour Party try and fix council seats ( notably not reported in the Argus surprise, surprise). Unlike you, I haven't voted Labour since 1997, time you took some responsibility for the state we are in. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

5:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

wippasnapper wrote:
If the green run council stopped spending money on cycle paths and redeemed the money to be spent on bringing Brighton’s heritage back up to standard we would not be having a problem but being the green party wants to change the way Brighton looks by modernizing it maybe this is the reason no reaper work has been dun i.e. remove to Victorian railings and replace them with modern ugly looking railings
OMG 'modernisation'!!! It's almost as if its (whispers) a "dirty word"!!!
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: If the green run council stopped spending money on cycle paths and redeemed the money to be spent on bringing Brighton’s heritage back up to standard we would not be having a problem but being the green party wants to change the way Brighton looks by modernizing it maybe this is the reason no reaper work has been dun i.e. remove to Victorian railings and replace them with modern ugly looking railings[/p][/quote]OMG 'modernisation'!!! It's almost as if its (whispers) a "dirty word"!!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

6:14pm Fri 28 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Mimseycal - please tell us a route which takes two hours each way on a bus?! From say Coldean to the Old Steine it can only be half an hour and say on to Rottingdean is 20 minutes or similar to Portslade so with a 10 minute wait you can get anywhere within an hour or so! Two hours is oure 'hyperbole'! And more importantly if you were going to either of those destinations from Coldean you would obviously use the car (if available) - no-one is objecting to that!
Mimseycal - please tell us a route which takes two hours each way on a bus?! From say Coldean to the Old Steine it can only be half an hour and say on to Rottingdean is 20 minutes or similar to Portslade so with a 10 minute wait you can get anywhere within an hour or so! Two hours is oure 'hyperbole'! And more importantly if you were going to either of those destinations from Coldean you would obviously use the car (if available) - no-one is objecting to that! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -4

10:56pm Fri 28 Mar 14

clubrob6 says...

Tell you what ill take the job on for £50M and have it done in a month guaranteed.Ill employ 1000 polish workers who are not that fussed about scaffolding ETC ,the job will look great long enough for my cheque to clear.
Tell you what ill take the job on for £50M and have it done in a month guaranteed.Ill employ 1000 polish workers who are not that fussed about scaffolding ETC ,the job will look great long enough for my cheque to clear. clubrob6
  • Score: 3

8:02pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Midnightrunner says...

Mancgulled wrote:
Tell you what - I'll jack my job as a stonemason and get cracking with painting those railings - I'll start tomorrow and I'll do it for a cut-price £1m - no problem -- and it won't take me 4 years either- guaranteed! and I'll sing every minute with a smile on my face as large as the one on the face of whomever came up with that interesting financial projection. No wonder the ******* community charge is so vast .........
I think the real problem is the seafront was constructed over a 150 year ago and its not just a case of painting the distinctive railings but trying to repair the unseen supports and structures under the seafront pavement much of which is made of cast iron and is at the end of its life due to rusting away.

Its also worth noting The arches and walkway of Madeira that have had to be closed are also supporting the cliff of the very busy upper road of Marine Parade so if this is not repaired we could up with major subsidence of our coast road.
[quote][p][bold]Mancgulled[/bold] wrote: Tell you what - I'll jack my job as a stonemason and get cracking with painting those railings - I'll start tomorrow and I'll do it for a cut-price £1m - no problem -- and it won't take me 4 years either- guaranteed! and I'll sing every minute with a smile on my face as large as the one on the face of whomever came up with that interesting financial projection. No wonder the ******* community charge is so vast .........[/p][/quote]I think the real problem is the seafront was constructed over a 150 year ago and its not just a case of painting the distinctive railings but trying to repair the unseen supports and structures under the seafront pavement much of which is made of cast iron and is at the end of its life due to rusting away. Its also worth noting The arches and walkway of Madeira that have had to be closed are also supporting the cliff of the very busy upper road of Marine Parade so if this is not repaired we could up with major subsidence of our coast road. Midnightrunner
  • Score: -2

8:16pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Midnightrunner says...

I think the real problem is the seafront was constructed over a 150 year ago and its not just a case of painting the distinctive railings but trying to repair the unseen supports and structures under the seafront pavement much of which is made of cast iron and is at the end of its life due to rusting away.

Its also worth noting The arches and walkway of Madeira that have had to be closed are also supporting the cliff of the very busy upper road of Marine Parade that constantly carrying HGV and buses so if this is not repaired expertly we could up with major subsidence of our coast road

On the 20mph argument,my feeling is that it has lost its effectiveness of what was originally intended by being an almost blanket zone across the city
if it was just near to schools then motorist would possibly take more noticed
I think the real problem is the seafront was constructed over a 150 year ago and its not just a case of painting the distinctive railings but trying to repair the unseen supports and structures under the seafront pavement much of which is made of cast iron and is at the end of its life due to rusting away. Its also worth noting The arches and walkway of Madeira that have had to be closed are also supporting the cliff of the very busy upper road of Marine Parade that constantly carrying HGV and buses so if this is not repaired expertly we could up with major subsidence of our coast road On the 20mph argument,my feeling is that it has lost its effectiveness of what was originally intended by being an almost blanket zone across the city if it was just near to schools then motorist would possibly take more noticed Midnightrunner
  • Score: 1

11:07pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Mr chock says...

Quiterie wrote:
In January the Argus reported that fixing the Arches would cost £100m. It's now gone down to £65m. Leave it a bit longer and it might go down even more!

http://www.theargus.

co.uk/news/10915047.

__100m_repairs_neede

d_to_stop_Brighton_a

nd_Hove_seafront_arc

hes_from_collapsing/
i wonder if they did what they did to the Forth rail bridge and this time did a better job or restoration than they did with the Band stand and the rusty lamp posts they spent more money coating in chemical protective coatings >> http://bromoco.co.uk
/Graffitiprotection.
aspx
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: In January the Argus reported that fixing the Arches would cost £100m. It's now gone down to £65m. Leave it a bit longer and it might go down even more! http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/10915047. __100m_repairs_neede d_to_stop_Brighton_a nd_Hove_seafront_arc hes_from_collapsing/[/p][/quote]i wonder if they did what they did to the Forth rail bridge and this time did a better job or restoration than they did with the Band stand and the rusty lamp posts they spent more money coating in chemical protective coatings >> http://bromoco.co.uk /Graffitiprotection. aspx Mr chock
  • Score: 3

8:55am Sun 30 Mar 14

the red head says...

I take your point Brighton bluenose but would add that the misdirection and mismanagement by Brighton council is more to blame in this case. The next administration must stop trying to be 'innovative' and start being proactive with protecting the charm and history of this city.
I take your point Brighton bluenose but would add that the misdirection and mismanagement by Brighton council is more to blame in this case. The next administration must stop trying to be 'innovative' and start being proactive with protecting the charm and history of this city. the red head
  • Score: 4

10:54am Sun 30 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

Midnightrunner wrote:
I think the real problem is the seafront was constructed over a 150 year ago and its not just a case of painting the distinctive railings but trying to repair the unseen supports and structures under the seafront pavement much of which is made of cast iron and is at the end of its life due to rusting away.

Its also worth noting The arches and walkway of Madeira that have had to be closed are also supporting the cliff of the very busy upper road of Marine Parade that constantly carrying HGV and buses so if this is not repaired expertly we could up with major subsidence of our coast road

On the 20mph argument,my feeling is that it has lost its effectiveness of what was originally intended by being an almost blanket zone across the city
if it was just near to schools then motorist would possibly take more noticed
Perhaps we should all just obey the law and drive at 20mph where required?
[quote][p][bold]Midnightrunner[/bold] wrote: I think the real problem is the seafront was constructed over a 150 year ago and its not just a case of painting the distinctive railings but trying to repair the unseen supports and structures under the seafront pavement much of which is made of cast iron and is at the end of its life due to rusting away. Its also worth noting The arches and walkway of Madeira that have had to be closed are also supporting the cliff of the very busy upper road of Marine Parade that constantly carrying HGV and buses so if this is not repaired expertly we could up with major subsidence of our coast road On the 20mph argument,my feeling is that it has lost its effectiveness of what was originally intended by being an almost blanket zone across the city if it was just near to schools then motorist would possibly take more noticed[/p][/quote]Perhaps we should all just obey the law and drive at 20mph where required? brighton bluenose
  • Score: -7

11:01am Sun 30 Mar 14

brighton bluenose says...

the red head wrote:
I take your point Brighton bluenose but would add that the misdirection and mismanagement by Brighton council is more to blame in this case. The next administration must stop trying to be 'innovative' and start being proactive with protecting the charm and history of this city.
I couldn't agree with you more - but that protection costs money that any future administration is very unlikely to find!
[quote][p][bold]the red head[/bold] wrote: I take your point Brighton bluenose but would add that the misdirection and mismanagement by Brighton council is more to blame in this case. The next administration must stop trying to be 'innovative' and start being proactive with protecting the charm and history of this city.[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree with you more - but that protection costs money that any future administration is very unlikely to find! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -6

5:22pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Zeta Function says...

Viewed some of the storm damaged seafront today.

It really is in a mess, the Hove end.

Some of the railings are missing. Rust is extensive with the paint almost gone in places.

It's obvious previous paint jobs didn't remove the underlying coats of paints properly. You can see the layers of paint close up.

All the previous paint layers need to be stripped off and the rust thoroughly removed, before repainting.

This is a labour intensive job. It will be costly. Why not put prisoners to work? Volunteers?
Viewed some of the storm damaged seafront today. It really is in a mess, the Hove end. Some of the railings are missing. Rust is extensive with the paint almost gone in places. It's obvious previous paint jobs didn't remove the underlying coats of paints properly. You can see the layers of paint close up. All the previous paint layers need to be stripped off and the rust thoroughly removed, before repainting. This is a labour intensive job. It will be costly. Why not put prisoners to work? Volunteers? Zeta Function
  • Score: 3

9:12am Wed 2 Apr 14

Zykonaton says...

It's only it's location that make Brighton 'convenient' for visitors.
Take a look at the promenade. It's made up of shoddy tarmac, repaired tarmac that's just been bunged in holes, rickety paving slabs of various colours that look like the really cheap ones at B&Q.
I can't imagine what visitors think! Every other town have nicely paved pedestrian areas...
... how much profit does BHCC make on parking annually?
It's only it's location that make Brighton 'convenient' for visitors. Take a look at the promenade. It's made up of shoddy tarmac, repaired tarmac that's just been bunged in holes, rickety paving slabs of various colours that look like the really cheap ones at B&Q. I can't imagine what visitors think! Every other town have nicely paved pedestrian areas... ... how much profit does BHCC make on parking annually? Zykonaton
  • Score: 5

9:19am Wed 2 Apr 14

Zykonaton says...

Zeta Function wrote:
Viewed some of the storm damaged seafront today.

It really is in a mess, the Hove end.

Some of the railings are missing. Rust is extensive with the paint almost gone in places.

It's obvious previous paint jobs didn't remove the underlying coats of paints properly. You can see the layers of paint close up.

All the previous paint layers need to be stripped off and the rust thoroughly removed, before repainting.

This is a labour intensive job. It will be costly. Why not put prisoners to work? Volunteers?
Yep, Unfortunately the council get 'Community Payback' teams to paint the railings. A couple of years ago, there were a team of lads 'trying' to paint the railings at Black Rock. A two year old could've done a better job. There was more laughing and joking going on than any decent work. More paint in the ground than on the railings and what paint that did get on the railings was painted directly over densely rusted and peeling, years old paint.
It would've been better to just leave it!!
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Viewed some of the storm damaged seafront today. It really is in a mess, the Hove end. Some of the railings are missing. Rust is extensive with the paint almost gone in places. It's obvious previous paint jobs didn't remove the underlying coats of paints properly. You can see the layers of paint close up. All the previous paint layers need to be stripped off and the rust thoroughly removed, before repainting. This is a labour intensive job. It will be costly. Why not put prisoners to work? Volunteers?[/p][/quote]Yep, Unfortunately the council get 'Community Payback' teams to paint the railings. A couple of years ago, there were a team of lads 'trying' to paint the railings at Black Rock. A two year old could've done a better job. There was more laughing and joking going on than any decent work. More paint in the ground than on the railings and what paint that did get on the railings was painted directly over densely rusted and peeling, years old paint. It would've been better to just leave it!! Zykonaton
  • Score: 5

9:52am Wed 2 Apr 14

brighton bluenose says...

Zeta Function wrote:
Viewed some of the storm damaged seafront today.

It really is in a mess, the Hove end.

Some of the railings are missing. Rust is extensive with the paint almost gone in places.

It's obvious previous paint jobs didn't remove the underlying coats of paints properly. You can see the layers of paint close up.

All the previous paint layers need to be stripped off and the rust thoroughly removed, before repainting.

This is a labour intensive job. It will be costly. Why not put prisoners to work? Volunteers?
As an apprentice painter and decorator in a previous life one of the first jobs I had was painting the railings from the bottom of West St to the West Pier for GJ Kings and that was 35 years ago (gulp!) - those coats of paint are undoubtedly still there and in reality they are never going to strip back to bare metal, partially due to cost but more so because that would probably expose even more problems!!
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Viewed some of the storm damaged seafront today. It really is in a mess, the Hove end. Some of the railings are missing. Rust is extensive with the paint almost gone in places. It's obvious previous paint jobs didn't remove the underlying coats of paints properly. You can see the layers of paint close up. All the previous paint layers need to be stripped off and the rust thoroughly removed, before repainting. This is a labour intensive job. It will be costly. Why not put prisoners to work? Volunteers?[/p][/quote]As an apprentice painter and decorator in a previous life one of the first jobs I had was painting the railings from the bottom of West St to the West Pier for GJ Kings and that was 35 years ago (gulp!) - those coats of paint are undoubtedly still there and in reality they are never going to strip back to bare metal, partially due to cost but more so because that would probably expose even more problems!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 1

9:57am Wed 2 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Mimseycal - please tell us a route which takes two hours each way on a bus?! From say Coldean to the Old Steine it can only be half an hour and say on to Rottingdean is 20 minutes or similar to Portslade so with a 10 minute wait you can get anywhere within an hour or so! Two hours is oure 'hyperbole'! And more importantly if you were going to either of those destinations from Coldean you would obviously use the car (if available) - no-one is objecting to that!
Firstly, time tables and traffic means that you cannot just get off one bus and directly jump on the next one you need to complete your journey. This adds time to the journey ... Journey time is not just the time you spend sitting on a bus.
Then you have to bear in mind that not all public transport users are fit young men or women aged between 16 and pre-pension age.

A bus can only take two buggies ... If there ar already buggies o board, you will have to wait for the next one. All that will add time to a journey.

I am a wheelchair user. Even on the 1/1A, which is a rather frequent bus, I can sometimes have to sit and wait for three or more buses to go by before there is room for me and my (t)rusty steed.

The other day I travelled from where I live to Moulsecoombe and back. I spent 4 hours and 36 minutes on the journey. Then it was an additional 10 minutes to get to the front doors at either end.

that can add time to a journey.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Mimseycal - please tell us a route which takes two hours each way on a bus?! From say Coldean to the Old Steine it can only be half an hour and say on to Rottingdean is 20 minutes or similar to Portslade so with a 10 minute wait you can get anywhere within an hour or so! Two hours is oure 'hyperbole'! And more importantly if you were going to either of those destinations from Coldean you would obviously use the car (if available) - no-one is objecting to that![/p][/quote]Firstly, time tables and traffic means that you cannot just get off one bus and directly jump on the next one you need to complete your journey. This adds time to the journey ... Journey time is not just the time you spend sitting on a bus. Then you have to bear in mind that not all public transport users are fit young men or women aged between 16 and pre-pension age. A bus can only take two buggies ... If there ar already buggies o board, you will have to wait for the next one. All that will add time to a journey. I am a wheelchair user. Even on the 1/1A, which is a rather frequent bus, I can sometimes have to sit and wait for three or more buses to go by before there is room for me and my (t)rusty steed. The other day I travelled from where I live to Moulsecoombe and back. I spent 4 hours and 36 minutes on the journey. Then it was an additional 10 minutes to get to the front doors at either end. that can add time to a journey. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

2:50am Mon 7 Apr 14

Mr chock says...

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Of course 'they' can't close the seafront.
If people want to use it they should and shall.
SADLY they have fenced off the upper promenade above madera drive from near the Concorde " well a few meters left " to somewhere near that shabby looking " piece of modern art "I HAVE A DESIRE MY DESIRE IS GREAT " thats going rusty and being vandalised.. ..Ohh not rusting This slow weathering brings an extra dimension to the artwork that will become more and more absorbed in its surroundings as it ages. ... someone commented brightonaire says...

£65 million to repair a few bits of rusting metal... what are they replacing it with... 18 carat gold... this stinks of corruption... is the work being carried out by a similar nest-feathering company that;s been installing trafiic lights every 50M in Brighton for the last 10 years. where are the traffic lights every 50 meters ? AND ANOTHER... that they would do the work for 1 million ... Mancgulled says...

Tell you what - I'll jack my job as a stonemason and get cracking with painting those railings - I'll start tomorrow and I'll do it for a cut-price £1m - no problem -- and it won't take me 4 years either- guaranteed! and I'll sing every minute with a smile on my face as large as the one on the face of whomever came up with that interesting financial projection. No wonder the ******* community charge is so vast ... THIS does not just mean re painting the iron railings the actual arches are all at the end of there safe operating life span just take a look at how bad the rusting arches are now they have started to build the frontage of the i360 .. .. IF all the arches are as structurally decrepit as that O M G dont go walking along the beach pavement .. YES it seems lot A VERY LOT of money but who thinks this 80+ million is good value put against the i360 36million ?
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: Of course 'they' can't close the seafront. If people want to use it they should and shall.[/p][/quote]SADLY they have fenced off the upper promenade above madera drive from near the Concorde " well a few meters left " to somewhere near that shabby looking " piece of modern art "I HAVE A DESIRE MY DESIRE IS GREAT " thats going rusty and being vandalised.. ..Ohh not rusting This slow weathering brings an extra dimension to the artwork that will become more and more absorbed in its surroundings as it ages. ... someone commented brightonaire says... £65 million to repair a few bits of rusting metal... what are they replacing it with... 18 carat gold... this stinks of corruption... is the work being carried out by a similar nest-feathering company that;s been installing trafiic lights every 50M in Brighton for the last 10 years. where are the traffic lights every 50 meters ? AND ANOTHER... that they would do the work for 1 million ... Mancgulled says... Tell you what - I'll jack my job as a stonemason and get cracking with painting those railings - I'll start tomorrow and I'll do it for a cut-price £1m - no problem -- and it won't take me 4 years either- guaranteed! and I'll sing every minute with a smile on my face as large as the one on the face of whomever came up with that interesting financial projection. No wonder the ******* community charge is so vast ... THIS does not just mean re painting the iron railings the actual arches are all at the end of there safe operating life span just take a look at how bad the rusting arches are now they have started to build the frontage of the i360 .. .. IF all the arches are as structurally decrepit as that O M G dont go walking along the beach pavement .. YES it seems lot A VERY LOT of money but who thinks this 80+ million is good value put against the i360 36million ? Mr chock
  • Score: 0

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