Family forced to help medics with torches: Streetlight blackout hampered stroke victim’s trip to hospital

Family forced to help medics with torches: Streetlight blackout hampered stroke victim’s trip to hospital

Family forced to help medics with torches: Streetlight blackout hampered stroke victim’s trip to hospital

First published in Local News by

AN AMBULANCE crew had to rely on torchlight to carry a seriously-ill woman out of her home because Canvey’s streetlights were turned off.

Paramedics were called to a home in The Ridings shortly before midnight after the woman suffered a stroke.

They arrived on the lit street at 11.58pm, but by the time they came to carry the woman to the ambulance the street – along with much of the rest of Essex – had been plunged into darkness by Essex County Council’s controversial midnight switch-off.

It was so dark, the crew had to ask the woman’s relatives to light their way with torches.

The woman has asked not to be named, but her brother-in-law, Dennis Frost, said he felt County Hall needed to behave more responsibly.

He has written to the council and to Castle Point MP Rebecca Harris about what happened.

He said: “When Essex County Council made the decision to turn the lights off, did it do a risk assessment?

“It has no right to put people in jeopardy.

“The ambulance crew was great, but I had to hold the torch for the crew while my sister-inlaw was moved from the house to the ambulance in a wheelchair.”

The woman is now recovering at home.

National campaigns have highlighted the important of stroke victims getting urgent treatment and Mr Frost said the delay had been frustrating.

He added: “I wanted to get her away to the hospital as soon as possible, but we were held up because of the complete darkness.

“It isn’t good enough and Essex County Council needs to understand that.”

The woman’s daughter, Mandy Hayhoe, 32, who also lives the Ridings, said she was furious her mother had to be moved under such conditions.

She added: “I couldn’t believe it.

How can the ambulance staff do their job properly in such conditions?

It’s terrible.”

Dave Blackwell, who leads the Canvey Island Independent Party group on Castle Point Council, said he had been inundated with e-mails since the lights started going out, almost two months ago.

This latest incident, on March 11, showed how serious the situation was, he said.

He added: “It’s a joke. The thought that residents are now having to help the emergency services, because of Essex County Council’s shortcomings is absurd.

“The resident’s daughter actually said the situation would have been laughable if it hadn’t been so serious.”

Mr Blackwell has also been contacted by another islander who claimed a taxi in which he was riding was almost involved in a head-on collision in the foggy conditions.

Essex County Council has decided to turn off streetlights between midnight and 5am every night to save money. In Castle Point, it expects to save £64,000 a year.

An Essex County Council spokesman said: “We are working closely with the emergency services on the issue of part-night lighting.

“We will consider any representation which is made to us by the ambulance service or the hospital.”

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:08am Fri 28 Mar 14

ThurrockResident says...

People are being attacked, more accidents are happening. Vote Tory for your County Council and this is what you get. The Victorians introduced street lighting for a very good reason!
People are being attacked, more accidents are happening. Vote Tory for your County Council and this is what you get. The Victorians introduced street lighting for a very good reason! ThurrockResident
  • Score: 10

8:56am Fri 28 Mar 14

Jack222 says...

People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening.

The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances.

The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed. Jack222
  • Score: -4

9:39am Fri 28 Mar 14

InTheKnowOk says...

It really p155es me off when I read things like ... "after all it's only between midnight and 5 am" ... Think about the people like the emergency services, Doctors on call, milkmen, shift workers, people that work in clubs etc,... Not everyone is tucked up in bed during those hours ..
It really p155es me off when I read things like ... "after all it's only between midnight and 5 am" ... Think about the people like the emergency services, Doctors on call, milkmen, shift workers, people that work in clubs etc,... Not everyone is tucked up in bed during those hours .. InTheKnowOk
  • Score: 20

9:58am Fri 28 Mar 14

Kim Gandy says...

Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening.

The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances.

The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
You still won't have it will you?

You and the other naysayers are swimming against the tide.

This is the 21st century and the issues are even more in the forefront. Yes, the Victorians had to endure footpads and other criminals stalking the streets but this country is now a free for all for anyone who fancies doing a bit of crime. We have terrorists, paedos and rapists, none of which are adequately punished, if they are even caught - and when they do, half of them wave the racism card and the rest hide behind "human rights".

Crimes are going undetected and even when the criminals are known, they get off with a slap on the wrist. The police can't even be bothered to investigate things that are a danger to the public. And how many people do you know who have called them out for legitimate reasons, only to be ignored?

In a lot of ways these are even more dangerous times. Have you not read the other stories on this website today?

And you say ALL "sane" people are at home in bed between midnight and 5am. On what do you base that assumption? So you are ignoring the large sector of people who work in the night time economy then, people who return home in the early hours, some on foot? And those who are returning home from visiting family, or a night out.

And you are ignoring the 20 percent of the population who are over 70, many of whom live alone and are afraid to open their front doors at night - and even more so when it's dark.

They may go outside for any number of reasons, they may have pets, some of them may be putting out rubbish. People's routines are all different. Shiftworkers for example.

In your world, people obviously all work 9 till 5, come home and have their tea, sit and watch TV, have supper, bolt all the doors and are in bed by 11. In a perfect world maybe.

This isn't a perfect world.

And having a spotlight on an ambulance will fix it will it? And what about people who live in homes that have bushes and trees in the garden, homes that the ambulance can not gain access to. Maybe they have a long garden path or driveway.

You just need to get used to the idea that in a civilised country, people do not want to be creeping about in the dark and hiding indoors locked, and bolted because their entire outside world has been plunged into darkness and our criminal justice system, once admired by the world, is now a complete shambles thanks to Labour's obsession with upholding "human rights"..

And we are not talking about a "handful" of people either as you suggest.

And this is not an age of austerity. There is plenty of money around. It's just in the wrong hands that's all.

Finally, if we are to have reduced police and reduced street lighting, we expect reduced council tax.

Or had you not considered that?
[quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]You still won't have it will you? You and the other naysayers are swimming against the tide. This is the 21st century and the issues are even more in the forefront. Yes, the Victorians had to endure footpads and other criminals stalking the streets but this country is now a free for all for anyone who fancies doing a bit of crime. We have terrorists, paedos and rapists, none of which are adequately punished, if they are even caught - and when they do, half of them wave the racism card and the rest hide behind "human rights". Crimes are going undetected and even when the criminals are known, they get off with a slap on the wrist. The police can't even be bothered to investigate things that are a danger to the public. And how many people do you know who have called them out for legitimate reasons, only to be ignored? In a lot of ways these are even more dangerous times. Have you not read the other stories on this website today? And you say ALL "sane" people are at home in bed between midnight and 5am. On what do you base that assumption? So you are ignoring the large sector of people who work in the night time economy then, people who return home in the early hours, some on foot? And those who are returning home from visiting family, or a night out. And you are ignoring the 20 percent of the population who are over 70, many of whom live alone and are afraid to open their front doors at night - and even more so when it's dark. They may go outside for any number of reasons, they may have pets, some of them may be putting out rubbish. People's routines are all different. Shiftworkers for example. In your world, people obviously all work 9 till 5, come home and have their tea, sit and watch TV, have supper, bolt all the doors and are in bed by 11. In a perfect world maybe. This isn't a perfect world. And having a spotlight on an ambulance will fix it will it? And what about people who live in homes that have bushes and trees in the garden, homes that the ambulance can not gain access to. Maybe they have a long garden path or driveway. You just need to get used to the idea that in a civilised country, people do not want to be creeping about in the dark and hiding indoors locked, and bolted because their entire outside world has been plunged into darkness and our criminal justice system, once admired by the world, is now a complete shambles thanks to Labour's obsession with upholding "human rights".. And we are not talking about a "handful" of people either as you suggest. And this is not an age of austerity. There is plenty of money around. It's just in the wrong hands that's all. Finally, if we are to have reduced police and reduced street lighting, we expect reduced council tax. Or had you not considered that? Kim Gandy
  • Score: 1

10:18am Fri 28 Mar 14

Bettycraven says...

At least we are all going to be more prepared than the rest of the country when the power company's switch the lights off
At least we are all going to be more prepared than the rest of the country when the power company's switch the lights off Bettycraven
  • Score: 4

1:32pm Fri 28 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument.

This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch?
There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.'

Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?
Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument. This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch? There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.' Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way? stopmoaning1
  • Score: 6

1:38pm Fri 28 Mar 14

_Lotus_ says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument.

This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch?
There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.'

Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?
This article IS a reasoned argument.

Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions!
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument. This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch? There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.' Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?[/p][/quote]This article IS a reasoned argument. Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions! _Lotus_
  • Score: -20

1:52pm Fri 28 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument.

This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch?
There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.'

Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?
This article IS a reasoned argument.

Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions!
I work closely with the emergency services in my job (in motor insurance) They have the equipment to be able to do this and have been doing so for many years now. Many roads in this country, including major trunk roads are unlit.
This story is essentially a paramedic saying to a relative "hold this torch please"

Like I said, I see arguments for both sides, but this is not a good example.
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument. This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch? There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.' Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?[/p][/quote]This article IS a reasoned argument. Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions![/p][/quote]I work closely with the emergency services in my job (in motor insurance) They have the equipment to be able to do this and have been doing so for many years now. Many roads in this country, including major trunk roads are unlit. This story is essentially a paramedic saying to a relative "hold this torch please" Like I said, I see arguments for both sides, but this is not a good example. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 36

1:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

niki-loo says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument.

This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch?
There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.'

Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?
This article IS a reasoned argument.

Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions!
many stretches of the m25 are not lit.......they seem to cope with accidents there
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument. This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch? There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.' Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?[/p][/quote]This article IS a reasoned argument. Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions![/p][/quote]many stretches of the m25 are not lit.......they seem to cope with accidents there niki-loo
  • Score: 28

2:07pm Fri 28 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Mr Blackwell has also been contacted by another islander who claimed a taxi in which he was riding was almost involved in a head-on collision in the foggy conditions.

Another poor argument. If the insured person claimed to me he/she had a 'head on' in the fog and blamed the fact there was no street lighting, well, anybody like to guess the response?
Mr Blackwell has also been contacted by another islander who claimed a taxi in which he was riding was almost involved in a head-on collision in the foggy conditions. Another poor argument. If the insured person claimed to me he/she had a 'head on' in the fog and blamed the fact there was no street lighting, well, anybody like to guess the response? stopmoaning1
  • Score: 31

2:14pm Fri 28 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

niki-loo wrote:
_Lotus_ wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument.

This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch?
There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.'

Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?
This article IS a reasoned argument.

Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions!
many stretches of the m25 are not lit.......they seem to cope with accidents there
Thats because all fire engines are equipped with large spot lights and so are ambulances which are powerful enough to light a large area.
I feel for this lady and wish her a full and speedy recovery but seriously using the street light issue to claim it caused a delay is scrapping the barrel in excuses to have these lights switched back on.
And Kim if your comments weren't so **** boring and so off topic it might have made a good read but I gave up after the first paragraph as it had no relevance to this story and continues your usual unsubstantiated rhetoric bile.
[quote][p][bold]niki-loo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: Well I see both the pros and cons of the decision to switch the lights off at these times. However, whichever side you are on, you do need to have a reasonable argument. This particular one does seem to be a bit sensationalist. If the true facts were known, **how much of a delay was actually caused** by asking the relatives to hold a torch? There may be more to this that the Echo have failed to report, but I suggest that if you say the words "can you hold this torch for me please" out loud, however long that took you would be extent of the 'delay.' Is there a story out there that presents a reasoned argument either way?[/p][/quote]This article IS a reasoned argument. Imagine if the ambulance had been called to a road traffic accident, with bits strewn all over the place - including people, injured, try working in torchlight under those conditions![/p][/quote]many stretches of the m25 are not lit.......they seem to cope with accidents there[/p][/quote]Thats because all fire engines are equipped with large spot lights and so are ambulances which are powerful enough to light a large area. I feel for this lady and wish her a full and speedy recovery but seriously using the street light issue to claim it caused a delay is scrapping the barrel in excuses to have these lights switched back on. And Kim if your comments weren't so **** boring and so off topic it might have made a good read but I gave up after the first paragraph as it had no relevance to this story and continues your usual unsubstantiated rhetoric bile. iknowbetter
  • Score: 27

3:30pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Kim ;Gandy says...

Having looked at all the evidence, I concede, this was an isolated incident.
Having looked at all the evidence, I concede, this was an isolated incident. Kim ;Gandy
  • Score: -8

4:11pm Fri 28 Mar 14

I hate the police! says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening.

The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances.

The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
You still won't have it will you?

You and the other naysayers are swimming against the tide.

This is the 21st century and the issues are even more in the forefront. Yes, the Victorians had to endure footpads and other criminals stalking the streets but this country is now a free for all for anyone who fancies doing a bit of crime. We have terrorists, paedos and rapists, none of which are adequately punished, if they are even caught - and when they do, half of them wave the racism card and the rest hide behind "human rights".

Crimes are going undetected and even when the criminals are known, they get off with a slap on the wrist. The police can't even be bothered to investigate things that are a danger to the public. And how many people do you know who have called them out for legitimate reasons, only to be ignored?

In a lot of ways these are even more dangerous times. Have you not read the other stories on this website today?

And you say ALL "sane" people are at home in bed between midnight and 5am. On what do you base that assumption? So you are ignoring the large sector of people who work in the night time economy then, people who return home in the early hours, some on foot? And those who are returning home from visiting family, or a night out.

And you are ignoring the 20 percent of the population who are over 70, many of whom live alone and are afraid to open their front doors at night - and even more so when it's dark.

They may go outside for any number of reasons, they may have pets, some of them may be putting out rubbish. People's routines are all different. Shiftworkers for example.

In your world, people obviously all work 9 till 5, come home and have their tea, sit and watch TV, have supper, bolt all the doors and are in bed by 11. In a perfect world maybe.

This isn't a perfect world.

And having a spotlight on an ambulance will fix it will it? And what about people who live in homes that have bushes and trees in the garden, homes that the ambulance can not gain access to. Maybe they have a long garden path or driveway.

You just need to get used to the idea that in a civilised country, people do not want to be creeping about in the dark and hiding indoors locked, and bolted because their entire outside world has been plunged into darkness and our criminal justice system, once admired by the world, is now a complete shambles thanks to Labour's obsession with upholding "human rights"..

And we are not talking about a "handful" of people either as you suggest.

And this is not an age of austerity. There is plenty of money around. It's just in the wrong hands that's all.

Finally, if we are to have reduced police and reduced street lighting, we expect reduced council tax.

Or had you not considered that?
I commit crime during the day, and in bed by 11. Crime pays for me!
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]You still won't have it will you? You and the other naysayers are swimming against the tide. This is the 21st century and the issues are even more in the forefront. Yes, the Victorians had to endure footpads and other criminals stalking the streets but this country is now a free for all for anyone who fancies doing a bit of crime. We have terrorists, paedos and rapists, none of which are adequately punished, if they are even caught - and when they do, half of them wave the racism card and the rest hide behind "human rights". Crimes are going undetected and even when the criminals are known, they get off with a slap on the wrist. The police can't even be bothered to investigate things that are a danger to the public. And how many people do you know who have called them out for legitimate reasons, only to be ignored? In a lot of ways these are even more dangerous times. Have you not read the other stories on this website today? And you say ALL "sane" people are at home in bed between midnight and 5am. On what do you base that assumption? So you are ignoring the large sector of people who work in the night time economy then, people who return home in the early hours, some on foot? And those who are returning home from visiting family, or a night out. And you are ignoring the 20 percent of the population who are over 70, many of whom live alone and are afraid to open their front doors at night - and even more so when it's dark. They may go outside for any number of reasons, they may have pets, some of them may be putting out rubbish. People's routines are all different. Shiftworkers for example. In your world, people obviously all work 9 till 5, come home and have their tea, sit and watch TV, have supper, bolt all the doors and are in bed by 11. In a perfect world maybe. This isn't a perfect world. And having a spotlight on an ambulance will fix it will it? And what about people who live in homes that have bushes and trees in the garden, homes that the ambulance can not gain access to. Maybe they have a long garden path or driveway. You just need to get used to the idea that in a civilised country, people do not want to be creeping about in the dark and hiding indoors locked, and bolted because their entire outside world has been plunged into darkness and our criminal justice system, once admired by the world, is now a complete shambles thanks to Labour's obsession with upholding "human rights".. And we are not talking about a "handful" of people either as you suggest. And this is not an age of austerity. There is plenty of money around. It's just in the wrong hands that's all. Finally, if we are to have reduced police and reduced street lighting, we expect reduced council tax. Or had you not considered that?[/p][/quote]I commit crime during the day, and in bed by 11. Crime pays for me! I hate the police!
  • Score: -12

5:08pm Fri 28 Mar 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

Indeed! The very thought that residents are now having to HELP the Emergency Services - The very audacity of it!

How degrading for them!

Whatever next?
Indeed! The very thought that residents are now having to HELP the Emergency Services - The very audacity of it! How degrading for them! Whatever next? OMPITA [Intl]
  • Score: 22

5:22pm Fri 28 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
[quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets? cg1blue
  • Score: -21

5:33pm Fri 28 Mar 14

ThurrockResident says...

You only have to read the local papers for Basildon, Chelmsford, Halstead and Southend re the incidents to see what a real negative impact that the light switch off has had in Essex.
You only have to read the local papers for Basildon, Chelmsford, Halstead and Southend re the incidents to see what a real negative impact that the light switch off has had in Essex. ThurrockResident
  • Score: -25

5:38pm Fri 28 Mar 14

ThurrockResident says...

Braintree and Witham too.
Braintree and Witham too. ThurrockResident
  • Score: -25

6:25pm Fri 28 Mar 14

woolstone says...

Why could they not turn every other light off that will still save money. I don't think this has been thought our sensibly so that everyone that needs to have street lights on at night, emergency services etc., and people that work nights still have the benefit of lighting.
Why could they not turn every other light off that will still save money. I don't think this has been thought our sensibly so that everyone that needs to have street lights on at night, emergency services etc., and people that work nights still have the benefit of lighting. woolstone
  • Score: -16

7:00pm Fri 28 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!! iknowbetter
  • Score: 22

7:00pm Fri 28 Mar 14

ThurrockResident says...

woolstone wrote:
Why could they not turn every other light off that will still save money. I don't think this has been thought our sensibly so that everyone that needs to have street lights on at night, emergency services etc., and people that work nights still have the benefit of lighting.
An excellent idea. All these morons saying sane people should be in bed are the first to criticise the unemployed. Don't they know that many are expected to work throughout the night now?
[quote][p][bold]woolstone[/bold] wrote: Why could they not turn every other light off that will still save money. I don't think this has been thought our sensibly so that everyone that needs to have street lights on at night, emergency services etc., and people that work nights still have the benefit of lighting.[/p][/quote]An excellent idea. All these morons saying sane people should be in bed are the first to criticise the unemployed. Don't they know that many are expected to work throughout the night now? ThurrockResident
  • Score: -21

10:15pm Fri 28 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives.
That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation.
So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!![/p][/quote]On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives. That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation. So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on? cg1blue
  • Score: -18

1:58am Sat 29 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives.
That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation.
So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?
Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated,
Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say.
It was done as a cost saving exercise.
Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight.
To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!![/p][/quote]On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives. That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation. So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?[/p][/quote]Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated, Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say. It was done as a cost saving exercise. Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight. To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it. iknowbetter
  • Score: 19

8:43am Sat 29 Mar 14

bb2471 says...

I work for the ambulance and can honestly say that the blackout has not interferred with my job at all. The ambulances are fitted with powerful exterior lighting and have torches have been supplied for as long as i can remember exactly for this situation. Family members are often ASKED not FORCED as your headline states to assist crews with carrying various items and even using torches to assist us and it certainly not a new thing and does not delay treatment. I wish the Echo would not use us as a tool in its crusades without getting the facts from people actually doing the job first.
I work for the ambulance and can honestly say that the blackout has not interferred with my job at all. The ambulances are fitted with powerful exterior lighting and have torches have been supplied for as long as i can remember exactly for this situation. Family members are often ASKED not FORCED as your headline states to assist crews with carrying various items and even using torches to assist us and it certainly not a new thing and does not delay treatment. I wish the Echo would not use us as a tool in its crusades without getting the facts from people actually doing the job first. bb2471
  • Score: 20

10:49am Sat 29 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives.
That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation.
So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?
Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated,
Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say.
It was done as a cost saving exercise.
Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight.
To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.
So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle.

I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!![/p][/quote]On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives. That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation. So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?[/p][/quote]Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated, Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say. It was done as a cost saving exercise. Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight. To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.[/p][/quote]So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle. I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell.... cg1blue
  • Score: -4

10:55am Sat 29 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives.
That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation.
So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?
Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated,
Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say.
It was done as a cost saving exercise.
Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight.
To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.
So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle.

I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....
One more thing - while i dont like the switch off, this particular story is ridiculous, and really scraping the barrel.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!![/p][/quote]On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives. That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation. So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?[/p][/quote]Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated, Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say. It was done as a cost saving exercise. Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight. To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.[/p][/quote]So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle. I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....[/p][/quote]One more thing - while i dont like the switch off, this particular story is ridiculous, and really scraping the barrel. cg1blue
  • Score: 7

1:07pm Sat 29 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives.
That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation.
So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?
Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated,
Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say.
It was done as a cost saving exercise.
Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight.
To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.
So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle.

I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....
No not at all, what I am saying is, it dosnt bother me as much as it seems to be bothering a lot of people on here and the scare mongers need to ensure any argument they have is at least substantiated with an element of truth, rather than scare mongering with weak and pathetic reasons.
just above is a comment from an emergency services worker bb2471 who thankfully has put the rumor of his/her experiences working with the ambulance service being hampered due to the light switch off, in real context, I also know a few firefighters and they are not hampered at all, which seems to confirm what I have been saying and demonstrates the arguments up to now against the light switch of as unsupported with any real facts.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!![/p][/quote]On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives. That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation. So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?[/p][/quote]Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated, Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say. It was done as a cost saving exercise. Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight. To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.[/p][/quote]So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle. I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....[/p][/quote]No not at all, what I am saying is, it dosnt bother me as much as it seems to be bothering a lot of people on here and the scare mongers need to ensure any argument they have is at least substantiated with an element of truth, rather than scare mongering with weak and pathetic reasons. just above is a comment from an emergency services worker bb2471 who thankfully has put the rumor of his/her experiences working with the ambulance service being hampered due to the light switch off, in real context, I also know a few firefighters and they are not hampered at all, which seems to confirm what I have been saying and demonstrates the arguments up to now against the light switch of as unsupported with any real facts. iknowbetter
  • Score: 6

1:13pm Sat 29 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.
Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely. iknowbetter
  • Score: -1

1:15pm Sat 29 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
Jack222 wrote:
People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.
I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon:

Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest.
We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable).
Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc.
So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off?
Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?"
Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?
I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion.
Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion.
So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm.
I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight.
He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off.
Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!!
On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives.
That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation.
So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?
Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated,
Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say.
It was done as a cost saving exercise.
Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight.
To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.
So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle.

I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....
No not at all, what I am saying is, it dosnt bother me as much as it seems to be bothering a lot of people on here and the scare mongers need to ensure any argument they have is at least substantiated with an element of truth, rather than scare mongering with weak and pathetic reasons.
just above is a comment from an emergency services worker bb2471 who thankfully has put the rumor of his/her experiences working with the ambulance service being hampered due to the light switch off, in real context, I also know a few firefighters and they are not hampered at all, which seems to confirm what I have been saying and demonstrates the arguments up to now against the light switch of as unsupported with any real facts.
I agree with you on emergency services, absolutely. My concerns are around us having more dark streets and pathways, giving opportunist muggers and thugs more cover.
I speak from experience having been mugged 5 years ago down an unlit road which i'd always considered safe.
This story about emergency services being hampered is weak. I am just against the switch off in general for other reasons.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jack222[/bold] wrote: People are NOT being attacked, more accidents are not happening. The issue about the ambulance is of interest - just instal a spotlight on ambulances. The Victorians introduced street lighting as before then they had none and yes, at 4pm of a smaoky winter Victorian evening it's needed. And it was cheap. In this age of austerity why should we waste money for a handful of people? It is, after all only between midnight and 5 am when all sane people are home in bed.[/p][/quote]I repeat my earlier post to you and Woodenspoon: Strange how you and Jack222 seem to revel in the big switch off. Makes me wonder if you have a vested interest. We all know we can take extra security measures and carry torches etc. The point most of us are making is that we've had street lighting since Victorian times, and for good reasons. Lighting helps us to see things and make us feel more secure at night (particularly the elderly and vulnerable). Are you in favour of this because it will save the council some money? Because it's going to make hardly any difference to the council budget, certainly not enough to improve services, fix roads etc. So if it's not the money, why are you so keen to support the switch off? Is it just a macho ego trip thing, i.e. "I'm not scared of the dark, so why should anyone else be?" Or do you work the 'nightshift' on our streets?[/p][/quote]I dont understand, Jack has a good point here and you accuse him of having a vested interest in the big light switch off just because he has a difference of opinion. Maybe we can suggest by your comment that we live in a communist state and everyone has to live by one rule and not have an opinion. So far not one shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest the lights going out have caused an increase in crime or personal injury. All of a sudden the masses are out taking walks after midnight including pensioners and the infirm. I read the Y.A letters page today and couldn't believe one guy, he claims he called the council thinking the lights were faulty near some garages and was in shock when told the lights are fine but we switch them off after midnight. He was gobsmacked by all accounts and was disgusted that people are having accidents and hurting themselves all because the Council decided to switch the lights off. Knee jerk reaction or what, first he says he had no idea the lights were switched off after midnight but still claims people are hurting themselves and having accidents as a result. So all of a sudden their are people hurting themselves and having accidents due to a light switch off he knew nothing about. Perleeeeease!!![/p][/quote]On the contrary, i want to hear his / your opinion, but with reasons why you have this opinion. All we've seen from the pro switch off people is them rubbishing our concerns, rather than explaining how the switch off will improve our lives. That's what i was trying to provoke, an explanation. So tell me, why do you think switching off the street lights is better than keeping them on?[/p][/quote]Well firstly the problem with your "concerns" is they are unsubstantiated, Personally there are a number of reasons for me to believe turning them off isn't all a bad idea and one of them is definitely NOT because it will improve my life, F.Y.I it was never said or insinuated by anyone that Im aware of that turning the lights off will improve peoples lives as you say. It was done as a cost saving exercise. Try looking up at the night sky after midnight on a clear night you may appreciate a small benefit that is as a result of this switch off rather being so worried about things that have not happened, namely a huge rise in crime, ambulance services being hampered, old age pensioners tripping over on their walks past midnight. To be honest I'm out and about after midnight, if it isnt my journey home from work its from the local and most people I pass on my way home have adapted to the situation. Its called getting on with it.[/p][/quote]So essentially your reason for supporting the switch off is that it makes the night sky look nicer. And it saves the council a few quid so that councilors can maintain their free lunch lifestyle. I do honestly hope i'm wrong, and that muggers and thieves don't benefit from this. Only time will tell....[/p][/quote]No not at all, what I am saying is, it dosnt bother me as much as it seems to be bothering a lot of people on here and the scare mongers need to ensure any argument they have is at least substantiated with an element of truth, rather than scare mongering with weak and pathetic reasons. just above is a comment from an emergency services worker bb2471 who thankfully has put the rumor of his/her experiences working with the ambulance service being hampered due to the light switch off, in real context, I also know a few firefighters and they are not hampered at all, which seems to confirm what I have been saying and demonstrates the arguments up to now against the light switch of as unsupported with any real facts.[/p][/quote]I agree with you on emergency services, absolutely. My concerns are around us having more dark streets and pathways, giving opportunist muggers and thugs more cover. I speak from experience having been mugged 5 years ago down an unlit road which i'd always considered safe. This story about emergency services being hampered is weak. I am just against the switch off in general for other reasons. cg1blue
  • Score: 3

1:38pm Sat 29 Mar 14

ThurrockResident says...

Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?
Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers? ThurrockResident
  • Score: -10

2:13pm Sat 29 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

ThurrockResident wrote:
Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?
While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise.
Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.
[quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?[/p][/quote]While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise. Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle. iknowbetter
  • Score: -1

3:09pm Sat 29 Mar 14

The Macduffian says...

As it is Saturday afternoon, and the weather is cold and damp up here, l will add to this, obviously the medics were helping the person involved, and as they like all humans, just a better variety, only have two hands, needed some help, end of story, as l have said before, up here we do not have street lights on our roads, and when friends and relatives come up they say they cannot drive , towns and villages have no street lighting, and our winter darkness is a lot longer than yours, but we don't have excessive crime, accidents and so on, infact the latest idea is to take out the centre road markings, only having cats eyes in the middle, and line marking and reflector poles on the edges, this is aimed at reducing speed, please do not forget we have lots of salt on the roads so middle lines get obscured anyway, l can just imagine the 127 with no markings, the mind boggles, so anyway lights out for a few hours does no harm, and in summer yo wont really notice it, good day
As it is Saturday afternoon, and the weather is cold and damp up here, l will add to this, obviously the medics were helping the person involved, and as they like all humans, just a better variety, only have two hands, needed some help, end of story, as l have said before, up here we do not have street lights on our roads, and when friends and relatives come up they say they cannot drive , towns and villages have no street lighting, and our winter darkness is a lot longer than yours, but we don't have excessive crime, accidents and so on, infact the latest idea is to take out the centre road markings, only having cats eyes in the middle, and line marking and reflector poles on the edges, this is aimed at reducing speed, please do not forget we have lots of salt on the roads so middle lines get obscured anyway, l can just imagine the 127 with no markings, the mind boggles, so anyway lights out for a few hours does no harm, and in summer yo wont really notice it, good day The Macduffian
  • Score: 6

3:12pm Sat 29 Mar 14

imnotanimby says...

If anyone has an exceptionally long garden path or drive way surely it is their responsibility to have it safely lit at their own expense rather then relying on street lights at the expense of other council tax payers. Likewise for those who choose to seclude their gardens with tall bushes, trees, etc (who presumably cannot be overly worried about security risks, with or without street lights!)
If anyone has an exceptionally long garden path or drive way surely it is their responsibility to have it safely lit at their own expense rather then relying on street lights at the expense of other council tax payers. Likewise for those who choose to seclude their gardens with tall bushes, trees, etc (who presumably cannot be overly worried about security risks, with or without street lights!) imnotanimby
  • Score: 7

4:39pm Sat 29 Mar 14

bazza 1 says...

OMPITA wrote:
Indeed! The very thought that residents are now having to HELP the Emergency Services - The very audacity of it!

How degrading for them!

Whatever next?
Think you might be missing the point here. Not everyone has someone to hold a light for them. Try climbing down off that very high horse you are sitting on, and see it for what it is. A cost saving exercise that actually puts tax payers safety at risk. Lighting the streets was a brilliant idea from our Victorian forebears. Now we have a bunch of Numpty's who don't really give a toss for the very people who pay their inflated salaries. You don't happen to work for Essex CC by any chance , do you ?
[quote][p][bold]OMPITA [Intl][/bold] wrote: Indeed! The very thought that residents are now having to HELP the Emergency Services - The very audacity of it! How degrading for them! Whatever next?[/p][/quote]Think you might be missing the point here. Not everyone has someone to hold a light for them. Try climbing down off that very high horse you are sitting on, and see it for what it is. A cost saving exercise that actually puts tax payers safety at risk. Lighting the streets was a brilliant idea from our Victorian forebears. Now we have a bunch of Numpty's who don't really give a toss for the very people who pay their inflated salaries. You don't happen to work for Essex CC by any chance , do you ? bazza 1
  • Score: -7

4:49pm Sat 29 Mar 14

bazza 1 says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.
So people installing their own lighting, which many have already, but generally only porch lights, is a good thing then ? Installing EXTRA lights , which many have in my area, are generally 500 watt flood lights. The installation of these is not only quite expensive to run, due to electricity costs, but also totally negates any GREEN saving on the part of Essex CC, which was one of their reasons for turning the lights off in the first place. Now, council tax payers are effectively paying twice for a service that should be provided by the council. In my opinion, it stinks.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.[/p][/quote]So people installing their own lighting, which many have already, but generally only porch lights, is a good thing then ? Installing EXTRA lights , which many have in my area, are generally 500 watt flood lights. The installation of these is not only quite expensive to run, due to electricity costs, but also totally negates any GREEN saving on the part of Essex CC, which was one of their reasons for turning the lights off in the first place. Now, council tax payers are effectively paying twice for a service that should be provided by the council. In my opinion, it stinks. bazza 1
  • Score: -3

4:52pm Sat 29 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

iknowbetter wrote:
ThurrockResident wrote:
Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?
While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise.
Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.
You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged.

You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly?

Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?[/p][/quote]While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise. Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.[/p][/quote]You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged. You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly? Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue cg1blue
  • Score: 4

4:54pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Mattster says...

A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.
A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived. Mattster
  • Score: -5

9:26pm Sat 29 Mar 14

rude boy says...

Are the council going 2 lower our council tax?!
Are the council going 2 lower our council tax?! rude boy
  • Score: 1

10:43pm Sat 29 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

Mattster wrote:
A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.
The facts are, ALL councils have had to reduce spending, if it wasnt street lights then another service would have had to be further reduced.
Turning off street lights arguably is the less disruptive option, its more of an inconvenience unlike having to further reduce more important services or another alternative is to increase our taxes,
Sorry cg1blue to hear you were mugged and I can understand your concerns for not wanting to walk around dark streets, that to me is a genuine and valid reason, but its not enough for me to feel the big switch off is not the right thing to have done given what other services may have been affected to save money.
[quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote: A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.[/p][/quote]The facts are, ALL councils have had to reduce spending, if it wasnt street lights then another service would have had to be further reduced. Turning off street lights arguably is the less disruptive option, its more of an inconvenience unlike having to further reduce more important services or another alternative is to increase our taxes, Sorry cg1blue to hear you were mugged and I can understand your concerns for not wanting to walk around dark streets, that to me is a genuine and valid reason, but its not enough for me to feel the big switch off is not the right thing to have done given what other services may have been affected to save money. iknowbetter
  • Score: -1

8:43am Sun 30 Mar 14

bazza 1 says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.
Extra lighting probably is being installed by home owners, and for them, that is probably a good thing. Most houses have at least an automatic porch light. Essex council, however, have listed as one of the reasons for turning the lights off, as "Reducing Carbon Emissions". Now, surely, if we all increase our own security lighting to make up for the lack of street lights, it will negate any so called saving of CO reduction, as most of the lights now being installed where I live, are 500 watt flood lights. I personally, have already installed mine. Two at the back of my house and one at the front, as well as the porch light I already had. Burglaries in Basildon were already bad in several areas, including mine, and vandalism to property, and cars was an ongoing problem, and that was with the lights on. Basildon in particular is a warren of footways and paths, many have bad surfaces and are trip hazards, and because they are traffic free, you dont even get lights from passing cars to help light your way.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.[/p][/quote]Extra lighting probably is being installed by home owners, and for them, that is probably a good thing. Most houses have at least an automatic porch light. Essex council, however, have listed as one of the reasons for turning the lights off, as "Reducing Carbon Emissions". Now, surely, if we all increase our own security lighting to make up for the lack of street lights, it will negate any so called saving of CO reduction, as most of the lights now being installed where I live, are 500 watt flood lights. I personally, have already installed mine. Two at the back of my house and one at the front, as well as the porch light I already had. Burglaries in Basildon were already bad in several areas, including mine, and vandalism to property, and cars was an ongoing problem, and that was with the lights on. Basildon in particular is a warren of footways and paths, many have bad surfaces and are trip hazards, and because they are traffic free, you dont even get lights from passing cars to help light your way. bazza 1
  • Score: 3

12:58pm Sun 30 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

bazza 1 wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.
Extra lighting probably is being installed by home owners, and for them, that is probably a good thing. Most houses have at least an automatic porch light. Essex council, however, have listed as one of the reasons for turning the lights off, as "Reducing Carbon Emissions". Now, surely, if we all increase our own security lighting to make up for the lack of street lights, it will negate any so called saving of CO reduction, as most of the lights now being installed where I live, are 500 watt flood lights. I personally, have already installed mine. Two at the back of my house and one at the front, as well as the porch light I already had. Burglaries in Basildon were already bad in several areas, including mine, and vandalism to property, and cars was an ongoing problem, and that was with the lights on. Basildon in particular is a warren of footways and paths, many have bad surfaces and are trip hazards, and because they are traffic free, you dont even get lights from passing cars to help light your way.
Come on Bazz keep it real, without statistics no one can argue that with householders installing new lighting the carbon footprint has increased to above or equal to that as when street lighting was on, this argument to me is a non starter, the people that seem to have an issue with the turn off are just clutching at straws just to make some kind of point, jsut like when we hear them saying how crime will go up, and old ladies falling down pot holes during their midnight walks because they couldnt see the pot hole, all unfounded so far.
The real reason and the only reason for the light switch off is as simple as a money saving exercise,
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: Another plus point for the light switch off as well as , the night sky thing is, its forcing more people to purchased and install extra lighting and security around their property as a result of the big switch off. This can only be a good thing surely.[/p][/quote]Extra lighting probably is being installed by home owners, and for them, that is probably a good thing. Most houses have at least an automatic porch light. Essex council, however, have listed as one of the reasons for turning the lights off, as "Reducing Carbon Emissions". Now, surely, if we all increase our own security lighting to make up for the lack of street lights, it will negate any so called saving of CO reduction, as most of the lights now being installed where I live, are 500 watt flood lights. I personally, have already installed mine. Two at the back of my house and one at the front, as well as the porch light I already had. Burglaries in Basildon were already bad in several areas, including mine, and vandalism to property, and cars was an ongoing problem, and that was with the lights on. Basildon in particular is a warren of footways and paths, many have bad surfaces and are trip hazards, and because they are traffic free, you dont even get lights from passing cars to help light your way.[/p][/quote]Come on Bazz keep it real, without statistics no one can argue that with householders installing new lighting the carbon footprint has increased to above or equal to that as when street lighting was on, this argument to me is a non starter, the people that seem to have an issue with the turn off are just clutching at straws just to make some kind of point, jsut like when we hear them saying how crime will go up, and old ladies falling down pot holes during their midnight walks because they couldnt see the pot hole, all unfounded so far. The real reason and the only reason for the light switch off is as simple as a money saving exercise, iknowbetter
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Sun 30 Mar 14

imnotanimby says...

Most people sensibly install security lights that only come on when someone is in the vicinity so it is unlikely that there will be 500 watt bulbs burning in every other property all night long. They will only be on when necessary unlike street lights.
Most people sensibly install security lights that only come on when someone is in the vicinity so it is unlikely that there will be 500 watt bulbs burning in every other property all night long. They will only be on when necessary unlike street lights. imnotanimby
  • Score: 4

3:12pm Sun 30 Mar 14

woolstone says...

Can somebody tell me why Southend has their street lighting still on and Rochford doesn't, what's their secret maybe they could tell Rochord.
Can somebody tell me why Southend has their street lighting still on and Rochford doesn't, what's their secret maybe they could tell Rochord. woolstone
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Mattster says...

iknowbetter wrote:
Mattster wrote:
A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.
The facts are, ALL councils have had to reduce spending, if it wasnt street lights then another service would have had to be further reduced.
Turning off street lights arguably is the less disruptive option, its more of an inconvenience unlike having to further reduce more important services or another alternative is to increase our taxes,
Sorry cg1blue to hear you were mugged and I can understand your concerns for not wanting to walk around dark streets, that to me is a genuine and valid reason, but its not enough for me to feel the big switch off is not the right thing to have done given what other services may have been affected to save money.
My point was that the switch off will lead to compensation claims which ultimately will COST money rather than save it, only time will tell.
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote: A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.[/p][/quote]The facts are, ALL councils have had to reduce spending, if it wasnt street lights then another service would have had to be further reduced. Turning off street lights arguably is the less disruptive option, its more of an inconvenience unlike having to further reduce more important services or another alternative is to increase our taxes, Sorry cg1blue to hear you were mugged and I can understand your concerns for not wanting to walk around dark streets, that to me is a genuine and valid reason, but its not enough for me to feel the big switch off is not the right thing to have done given what other services may have been affected to save money.[/p][/quote]My point was that the switch off will lead to compensation claims which ultimately will COST money rather than save it, only time will tell. Mattster
  • Score: 1

5:27pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Mattster says...

woolstone wrote:
Can somebody tell me why Southend has their street lighting still on and Rochford doesn't, what's their secret maybe they could tell Rochord.
Southend is a unitary authority as is Thurrock so they can politically give ECC the finger as they have no say in the councils running.
[quote][p][bold]woolstone[/bold] wrote: Can somebody tell me why Southend has their street lighting still on and Rochford doesn't, what's their secret maybe they could tell Rochord.[/p][/quote]Southend is a unitary authority as is Thurrock so they can politically give ECC the finger as they have no say in the councils running. Mattster
  • Score: 11

5:54pm Sun 30 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

Mattster wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
Mattster wrote:
A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.
The facts are, ALL councils have had to reduce spending, if it wasnt street lights then another service would have had to be further reduced.
Turning off street lights arguably is the less disruptive option, its more of an inconvenience unlike having to further reduce more important services or another alternative is to increase our taxes,
Sorry cg1blue to hear you were mugged and I can understand your concerns for not wanting to walk around dark streets, that to me is a genuine and valid reason, but its not enough for me to feel the big switch off is not the right thing to have done given what other services may have been affected to save money.
My point was that the switch off will lead to compensation claims which ultimately will COST money rather than save it, only time will tell.
I see your point but dont agree, sorry. Firstly any accidents will have to be proven that it was the Councils fault, very difficult to do.
I have to say though, there has been some excellent discussion had with some intelligent people, it makes a change on here. lol.
Cheers
[quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mattster[/bold] wrote: A great phrase is this, 'Is the Juice worth the squeeze?' and the lights switch off doesn't really pass the test, yes its saving a few quid but once the lawsuits start coming and if any can be linked to the lights being off then it will be game over for ECC and they will have to put the lights back on or pay millions in compensation. In short its ill conceived.[/p][/quote]The facts are, ALL councils have had to reduce spending, if it wasnt street lights then another service would have had to be further reduced. Turning off street lights arguably is the less disruptive option, its more of an inconvenience unlike having to further reduce more important services or another alternative is to increase our taxes, Sorry cg1blue to hear you were mugged and I can understand your concerns for not wanting to walk around dark streets, that to me is a genuine and valid reason, but its not enough for me to feel the big switch off is not the right thing to have done given what other services may have been affected to save money.[/p][/quote]My point was that the switch off will lead to compensation claims which ultimately will COST money rather than save it, only time will tell.[/p][/quote]I see your point but dont agree, sorry. Firstly any accidents will have to be proven that it was the Councils fault, very difficult to do. I have to say though, there has been some excellent discussion had with some intelligent people, it makes a change on here. lol. Cheers iknowbetter
  • Score: 6

6:05pm Sun 30 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
ThurrockResident wrote:
Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?
While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise.
Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.
You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged.

You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly?

Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue
In answer to your question cg1blue, yes there is the possibility that muggings could increase as a result, and I'd like to think the police and authorities will act accordingly to deal with it if this was to happen which brings me to my point, we can all assume different scenarios as to what could happen due to the street lights going out but so far the evidence would show this is not happening. I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even , god forbid just being that little bit extra careful when travelling during the lights out.
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?[/p][/quote]While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise. Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.[/p][/quote]You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged. You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly? Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue[/p][/quote]In answer to your question cg1blue, yes there is the possibility that muggings could increase as a result, and I'd like to think the police and authorities will act accordingly to deal with it if this was to happen which brings me to my point, we can all assume different scenarios as to what could happen due to the street lights going out but so far the evidence would show this is not happening. I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even , god forbid just being that little bit extra careful when travelling during the lights out. iknowbetter
  • Score: 1

6:15pm Sun 30 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

P.s great night tonight to see the night sky. lol........Go on I dare you!!!
P.s great night tonight to see the night sky. lol........Go on I dare you!!! iknowbetter
  • Score: 1

6:49pm Sun 30 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
ThurrockResident wrote:
Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?
While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise.
Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.
You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged.

You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly?

Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue
In answer to your question cg1blue, yes there is the possibility that muggings could increase as a result, and I'd like to think the police and authorities will act accordingly to deal with it if this was to happen which brings me to my point, we can all assume different scenarios as to what could happen due to the street lights going out but so far the evidence would show this is not happening. I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even , god forbid just being that little bit extra careful when travelling during the lights out.
Didn't I read that Basildon council are going to pay to get the lights back on? Presumably they have concerns which must be evidence based.

I'd say darkened streets are more dangerous in some areas then others. So perhaps it could have been a bit more of a targeted switch off.

" I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even"

I've sussed it - you're the store manager at B&Q! :)
[quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?[/p][/quote]While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise. Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.[/p][/quote]You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged. You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly? Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue[/p][/quote]In answer to your question cg1blue, yes there is the possibility that muggings could increase as a result, and I'd like to think the police and authorities will act accordingly to deal with it if this was to happen which brings me to my point, we can all assume different scenarios as to what could happen due to the street lights going out but so far the evidence would show this is not happening. I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even , god forbid just being that little bit extra careful when travelling during the lights out.[/p][/quote]Didn't I read that Basildon council are going to pay to get the lights back on? Presumably they have concerns which must be evidence based. I'd say darkened streets are more dangerous in some areas then others. So perhaps it could have been a bit more of a targeted switch off. " I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even" I've sussed it - you're the store manager at B&Q! :) cg1blue
  • Score: 3

7:27pm Sun 30 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
cg1blue wrote:
iknowbetter wrote:
ThurrockResident wrote:
Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?
While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise.
Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.
You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged.

You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly?

Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue
In answer to your question cg1blue, yes there is the possibility that muggings could increase as a result, and I'd like to think the police and authorities will act accordingly to deal with it if this was to happen which brings me to my point, we can all assume different scenarios as to what could happen due to the street lights going out but so far the evidence would show this is not happening. I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even , god forbid just being that little bit extra careful when travelling during the lights out.
Didn't I read that Basildon council are going to pay to get the lights back on? Presumably they have concerns which must be evidence based.

I'd say darkened streets are more dangerous in some areas then others. So perhaps it could have been a bit more of a targeted switch off.

" I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even"

I've sussed it - you're the store manager at B&Q! :)
Did I mention you can also buy a kitchen and or bathroom suit while in buying your torch. **** the game is up. lol
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iknowbetter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: Maybe people don't read the Essex press? Perhaps the stupid comments about sane people being in bed have swayed the pro switcher offers? I am reading of attacks and accidents in the towns and city in Essex. Others seem not to have seen them. I will be getting a cab home from my social if Thurrock ever switch the lights off. There is no austerity only government measures causing austerity. Where is the austerity dished out to the wealthiest 1%? Where is the austerity to the bankers?[/p][/quote]While I can understand your concerns being you have been mugged before but you have provided no evidence that these muggings are as a result of the street lights being switched off, please provide the crime statistics that say otherwise. Like I have said many people are upping their security around their homes as a result of the switch off, if more people did the same as they should have done pre light switch off then one could argue crime is being reduced as a result, or at the very least certain crime like break ins. Until I am presented with the facts my views will not change through people scare mongering with unsubstantiated twaddle.[/p][/quote]You got the wrong person, it was me who was mugged. You make some good points. But, although i dont have the stats to hand, dont you think it makes muggings and street attacks easier in the dark? Honestly? Put home security aside for a minute, because that's not the only issue[/p][/quote]In answer to your question cg1blue, yes there is the possibility that muggings could increase as a result, and I'd like to think the police and authorities will act accordingly to deal with it if this was to happen which brings me to my point, we can all assume different scenarios as to what could happen due to the street lights going out but so far the evidence would show this is not happening. I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even , god forbid just being that little bit extra careful when travelling during the lights out.[/p][/quote]Didn't I read that Basildon council are going to pay to get the lights back on? Presumably they have concerns which must be evidence based. I'd say darkened streets are more dangerous in some areas then others. So perhaps it could have been a bit more of a targeted switch off. " I'd also like to say that people should also be willing to adapt, if this means buying a torch, (buy a big enough one and it can be used for self defense), lol or installing security lights around you home or even" I've sussed it - you're the store manager at B&Q! :)[/p][/quote]Did I mention you can also buy a kitchen and or bathroom suit while in buying your torch. **** the game is up. lol iknowbetter
  • Score: 2

7:29pm Sun 30 Mar 14

iknowbetter says...

I'd say darkened streets are more dangerous in some areas then others. So perhaps it could have been a bit more of a targeted switch off.

**
I wouldn't disagree with that.
I'd say darkened streets are more dangerous in some areas then others. So perhaps it could have been a bit more of a targeted switch off. ** I wouldn't disagree with that. iknowbetter
  • Score: 2

1:15pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Letmetryagain says...

It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all. Letmetryagain
  • Score: 6

2:14pm Mon 31 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Probably fewer muggers hanging around in rural areas
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Probably fewer muggers hanging around in rural areas cg1blue
  • Score: 7

5:19pm Mon 31 Mar 14

bazza 1 says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned. bazza 1
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Tue 1 Apr 14

jolllyboy says...

At the end of the day - no pun intended - it is madness to have total darkness. it is a criminals haven. Already we DO have more crime. So many are unrecorded. Get a number for every offence and then maybe they may be.
At the end of the day - no pun intended - it is madness to have total darkness. it is a criminals haven. Already we DO have more crime. So many are unrecorded. Get a number for every offence and then maybe they may be. jolllyboy
  • Score: 0

8:51am Wed 2 Apr 14

Rouge9 says...

bazza 1 wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.
So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area?

Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude Rouge9
  • Score: 2

11:46am Wed 2 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

Rouge9 wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.
So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude
Do you think there are the same number of gangs and muggers on the streets in the countryside?
[quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude[/p][/quote]Do you think there are the same number of gangs and muggers on the streets in the countryside? cg1blue
  • Score: 1

9:24pm Wed 2 Apr 14

bazza 1 says...

Rouge9 wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.
So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area?

Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude
I don't know if you actually got what I was saying mate? You go on to agree with me on the effects of lack of lighting by using the very point I was trying to make. More neighbourly behavior and less chance of being mugged is a real plus. My comment had nothing to do with people in towns being more important, and everything to do with the chance of violent antisocial behavior. I too would prefer to live in the sticks, as would probably 90% of the people I know.
[quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude[/p][/quote]I don't know if you actually got what I was saying mate? You go on to agree with me on the effects of lack of lighting by using the very point I was trying to make. More neighbourly behavior and less chance of being mugged is a real plus. My comment had nothing to do with people in towns being more important, and everything to do with the chance of violent antisocial behavior. I too would prefer to live in the sticks, as would probably 90% of the people I know. bazza 1
  • Score: 1

1:10pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Rouge9 says...

bazza 1 wrote:
Rouge9 wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.
So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude
I don't know if you actually got what I was saying mate? You go on to agree with me on the effects of lack of lighting by using the very point I was trying to make. More neighbourly behavior and less chance of being mugged is a real plus. My comment had nothing to do with people in towns being more important, and everything to do with the chance of violent antisocial behavior. I too would prefer to live in the sticks, as would probably 90% of the people I know.
Actually, your comment was rather ambiguous as to it's direction, (are you a politician?? ;-p) so it is hard to tell where I am agreeing with you. However. my stand is that if the lights out can save money and means our tax can be spent better elsewhere, then good.

As a council you have to look at what is best for the Majority of residents, not just the few.
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude[/p][/quote]I don't know if you actually got what I was saying mate? You go on to agree with me on the effects of lack of lighting by using the very point I was trying to make. More neighbourly behavior and less chance of being mugged is a real plus. My comment had nothing to do with people in towns being more important, and everything to do with the chance of violent antisocial behavior. I too would prefer to live in the sticks, as would probably 90% of the people I know.[/p][/quote]Actually, your comment was rather ambiguous as to it's direction, (are you a politician?? ;-p) so it is hard to tell where I am agreeing with you. However. my stand is that if the lights out can save money and means our tax can be spent better elsewhere, then good. As a council you have to look at what is best for the Majority of residents, not just the few. Rouge9
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Thu 3 Apr 14

cg1blue says...

Rouge9 wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
Rouge9 wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
Letmetryagain wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.
Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.
So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude
I don't know if you actually got what I was saying mate? You go on to agree with me on the effects of lack of lighting by using the very point I was trying to make. More neighbourly behavior and less chance of being mugged is a real plus. My comment had nothing to do with people in towns being more important, and everything to do with the chance of violent antisocial behavior. I too would prefer to live in the sticks, as would probably 90% of the people I know.
Actually, your comment was rather ambiguous as to it's direction, (are you a politician?? ;-p) so it is hard to tell where I am agreeing with you. However. my stand is that if the lights out can save money and means our tax can be spent better elsewhere, then good. As a council you have to look at what is best for the Majority of residents, not just the few.
The savings are not significant enough and will probably just help the councillors keep up their 'free lunch' lifestyles.
The switch off in Basildon puts people who need to walk the streets after midnight in genuine danger. That is not a good saving in my opinion.
It's probably why Southend BC decided against the switch off.

As I said earlier, a more targetted switch off leaving certain areas lit, or maybe leaving 1 in every 3 lights on might have left the street gangs with a little less cover.
[quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rouge9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It makes me wonder how people cope in rural areas, where there is no street lighting at all.[/p][/quote]Rural areas are completely different to losing lighting in large urban housing areas. I have lived in both, and there are very few similarities, especially where safety issues are concerned.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that townies are more important than those who live in rural area? Having lived in both aswell, the safety issues are the same, in fact probably worse in the countryside, but, people living there have more comon sense and are used to not having things given to them, so it is not expected. I would much prefer to live "in the sticks" than in a town. Less light polution and more neighbourly behaviour, where folk look out for each other and is less of a "me first, me only" attitude[/p][/quote]I don't know if you actually got what I was saying mate? You go on to agree with me on the effects of lack of lighting by using the very point I was trying to make. More neighbourly behavior and less chance of being mugged is a real plus. My comment had nothing to do with people in towns being more important, and everything to do with the chance of violent antisocial behavior. I too would prefer to live in the sticks, as would probably 90% of the people I know.[/p][/quote]Actually, your comment was rather ambiguous as to it's direction, (are you a politician?? ;-p) so it is hard to tell where I am agreeing with you. However. my stand is that if the lights out can save money and means our tax can be spent better elsewhere, then good. As a council you have to look at what is best for the Majority of residents, not just the few.[/p][/quote]The savings are not significant enough and will probably just help the councillors keep up their 'free lunch' lifestyles. The switch off in Basildon puts people who need to walk the streets after midnight in genuine danger. That is not a good saving in my opinion. It's probably why Southend BC decided against the switch off. As I said earlier, a more targetted switch off leaving certain areas lit, or maybe leaving 1 in every 3 lights on might have left the street gangs with a little less cover. cg1blue
  • Score: 1

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