Camp Cuckoo sorrow as trees are felled by council (From Echo)

kittylitter wrote:
Oh be quiet Denis .... nobody cares, what we care about is less road congestion, less pollution, fantastic cheap flights on our doorstep and lots of jobs ... and that has eben proved now

I can understand you feel the need to keep bleating, as what on earth are you going to protest about now you have lost the airport and Cuckoo battles in less than 24 hours ?!!

evilc wrote:
Sad about the trees, good news for the the people of Southend.

Sorry but we can always plant double the amount of trees.

As for the huggers Timber!!!!!!!!!!!!!'

up yours'

essexboi1989 wrote:
things have to change from time to time, at least more trees have been planted else where ;-)

guygrim wrote:

essexboi1989 wrote: things have to change from time to time, at least more trees have been planted else where ;-)

Yeah right! you really believe that!

kittylitter wrote:
Oh be quiet Denis .... nobody cares, what we care about is less road congestion, less pollution, fantastic cheap flights on our doorstep and lots of jobs ... and that has eben proved now I can understand you feel the need to keep bleating, as what on earth are you going to protest about now you have lost the airport and Cuckoo battles in less than 24 hours ?!!

kittylitter wrote:
But Southend is not a horrible backward place - it has wonderful seafront with clean beaches, lots of great green parks, fantastic theatres, good shopping, lots of super restaurants and bars ... I LOVE living in Southend ... and when I can drive around it without stress or hassle and fly off on holiday from there, then I will love it even more. Like the usually silent MAJORITY of people, as opposed to serial protestors who see any bandwagon and jump on it, or people whose only kick they get out of life is moaning about the Council and abusing a woman who is an easy atarget for you but she is just doing her job, and a pretty **** good one at that...

kittylitter wrote:
But Southend is not a horrible backward place - it has wonderful seafront with clean beaches, lots of great green parks, fantastic theatres, good shopping, lots of super restaurants and bars ... I LOVE living in Southend ... and when I can drive around it without stress or hassle and fly off on holiday from there, then I will love it even more.

Like the usually silent MAJORITY of people, as opposed to serial protestors who see any bandwagon and jump on it, or people whose only kick they get out of life is moaning about the Council and abusing a woman who is an easy atarget for you but she is just doing her job, and a pretty **** good one at that...

'V' wrote:
The morons who don't give a d@mn for what is handed down to our children win again.

Southend was a lovely town. Southend Borough Council's Tories have destroyed it.

Remember this come election time.

The CONSERVATIVES are directly responsible for the destruction of Southed.

The CONSERVATIVES hate green spaces and want only more and more concrete.


How ironic they are called CONSERVATIVES, when all they do is destroy our heritage.

kittylitter wrote:
And your proof of that? Have you been round and spoken to every person in Southend to find out how they feel? Or are you just saying that as that fits in with your agenda?
I really hate to break to you, as you are clearly convinced of your own self righteousness, but people don't actually agree with you!

Denis Walker wrote:
This is a sad day for Southend - Priory Crescent will never look the same again. James Duddridge describes the current proposals as a "short term solution". So even he acknowledges that the felling of these trees and the widening of the road is not going to solve the problem in the medium or long term. No evidence has been provided that this work will actually improve traffic flow - just a vague assertion from the Council that 400 minutes of driver time will be saved per day. They've since changed that to 400 hours with no explanation, but that still works out at less than 30 seconds per person. If you look at this logically though, you will see that for three quarters of the time, each road will have the lights against them and so traffic will be held up longer than at the roundabout. They are wasting over £5m of our money on this, which is a complete disgrace. Anna Waite's argument in the papers over the last few days seems to be that because they've got the money they must spend it as giving it back to the Government is too horrible to contemplate. If they did give it back to the Government though, the money doesn't just disappear - it could be spent on something useful. Petrol at the pump is £1.16/litre today - more expensive than fruit juice. At this rate, it will soon be cheaper to fill your tank with supermarket own brand vodka than petrol. What use will the road be when no-one can afford to drive?

'V' wrote:

kittylitter wrote: And your proof of that? Have you been round and spoken to every person in Southend to find out how they feel? Or are you just saying that as that fits in with your agenda? I really hate to break to you, as you are clearly convinced of your own self righteousness, but people don't actually agree with you!

Where is YOUR proof the at those who remain silent support YOUR destruction of our town? How do YOU have the arrogance to speak for others YOU have never met or spoken to? YOU do NOT know what the majority wants or thinks, so who the hel l are YOU to speak for them? My 'agenda'? I don't have an agenda, I just don't want more traffic, more pollution, and less open spaces in our town. I want more open spaces, a better environment for our children to grow up in. YOU want a concrete ghetto full of traffic and pollution. YOU are the one with an agenda. YOU are responsible for this destruction.

bytheway wrote:

Denis Walker wrote: This is a sad day for Southend - Priory Crescent will never look the same again. James Duddridge describes the current proposals as a "short term solution". So even he acknowledges that the felling of these trees and the widening of the road is not going to solve the problem in the medium or long term. No evidence has been provided that this work will actually improve traffic flow - just a vague assertion from the Council that 400 minutes of driver time will be saved per day. They've since changed that to 400 hours with no explanation, but that still works out at less than 30 seconds per person. If you look at this logically though, you will see that for three quarters of the time, each road will have the lights against them and so traffic will be held up longer than at the roundabout. They are wasting over £5m of our money on this, which is a complete disgrace. Anna Waite's argument in the papers over the last few days seems to be that because they've got the money they must spend it as giving it back to the Government is too horrible to contemplate. If they did give it back to the Government though, the money doesn't just disappear - it could be spent on something useful. Petrol at the pump is £1.16/litre today - more expensive than fruit juice. At this rate, it will soon be cheaper to fill your tank with supermarket own brand vodka than petrol. What use will the road be when no-one can afford to drive?

If you don't like it-you have an option-.MOVE - to a forest!

evilc wrote:
V just except it and go back behind your Iron curtain.

A change is coming to the area at long last, try fighting your battle with former members of the Politburo.

This 'scheme' is doomed to failure as it will only move the congestion on to the next junction.

'V' wrote:

evilc wrote:
V just except it and go back behind your Iron curtain.

A change is coming to the area at long last, try fighting your battle with former members of the Politburo.

I AM taking exception to this vandalism.

But reading your post again it looks like that barely literate Sun-reader peanut inside your head you call a brain used 'except' instead of the correct 'accept'.

evilc wrote:

'V' wrote:

evilc wrote:
V just except it and go back behind your Iron curtain.

A change is coming to the area at long last, try fighting your battle with former members of the Politburo.

I AM taking exception to this vandalism.

But reading your post again it looks like that barely literate Sun-reader peanut inside your head you call a brain used 'except' instead of the correct 'accept'.

Just like Maggie Anne dealt with people like you!!

Well done Anne.

V go do something useful with your own kind The BA worker or the railway signal workers.

jebe wrote:
Watching the destruction of a hundred year old tree a few hours ago was heartbreaking...As the crane swung in the air with the massive trunk that had been sawed in 3 parts, I cried....The so called security bully boys in black and the tree fellas actually cheered as this beautiful tree died....It was sickening to witness...but no doubt alls well in their obviously tiny brains, and world, as tons of concrete will replace the home of this once magnificant sight...Its a sad day for Southend as Concreted in corruption "CROOKED CORNER " wins the day.

southend_born_and_br
ed wrote:
I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

bronte wrote:
Just remember the rayleigh weir roundabout problem when the main roundabout was replaced by a new layout using traffice lights to control traffic, all it acheived was to push the bottle neck to progress road traffic lights and cars queueing to get off the A127 onto the slip road for the Rayleigh and Thundersley turn off. Changes do not always mean better flowing traffic it just pushes the problem further along the road.
Can't understand why Southend Council has two projects going on at the same time, one at Priory Crescent and the other at Victoria Circus, this is going to cause a lot of problems travelling into Southend. Not a lot of commonsense was used with the planning of these projects.

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

evilc wrote:
It is beyond belief that idiots on here are prepared to take the view:

'Lets do nothing just accept traffic congestion,more unemployment,allow the town to continue to decline' accept that area's of the town needing massive improvements from the original Victorian period should not change and allow them to become hovels for more druggies, drunkards and benefit seekers.

That is the view of total idiots or activists encourage poverty leading to a revolution.

This town must improve, modernise, encourage growth and do everything to attract private enterprise this is the only way of increasing wealth and helping those stuck in the poverty trap in run down Victorian multi occupant area's to be able to get jobs and pay taxes AND RENEW PRIDE IN THEMSELVES.

The alternative is more benefit seekers trapped in depressed areas with no future no jobs and costing us the wealth generators more taxes to pay more benefits.

All you moaners about everything that improves the town look around you, at least the Council are doing and not moaning and suggesting nothing like you miserable preachers of Neo-Luddism.

Well done the Council, improving the sea front, Road Junctions, improving the toilets on the seafront, providing cycle paths, encouraging new companies to develop locally with your business meeting programme, providing better safer playground facilities in parks.

Forget the luddites they shout the loudest and want us to become a Socialist ghetto providing them with endless benefits.

And V stuff your marking of spelling mistakes that really is unimportant other than to a luddite.

evilc wrote:
It is beyond belief that idiots on here are prepared to take the view: 'Lets do nothing just accept traffic congestion,more unemployment,allow the town to continue to decline' accept that area's of the town needing massive improvements from the original Victorian period should not change and allow them to become hovels for more druggies, drunkards and benefit seekers. That is the view of total idiots or activists encourage poverty leading to a revolution. This town must improve, modernise, encourage growth and do everything to attract private enterprise this is the only way of increasing wealth and helping those stuck in the poverty trap in run down Victorian multi occupant area's to be able to get jobs and pay taxes AND RENEW PRIDE IN THEMSELVES. The alternative is more benefit seekers trapped in depressed areas with no future no jobs and costing us the wealth generators more taxes to pay more benefits. All you moaners about everything that improves the town look around you, at least the Council are doing and not moaning and suggesting nothing like you miserable preachers of Neo-Luddism. Well done the Council, improving the sea front, Road Junctions, improving the toilets on the seafront, providing cycle paths, encouraging new companies to develop locally with your business meeting programme, providing better safer playground facilities in parks. Forget the luddites they shout the loudest and want us to become a Socialist ghetto providing them with endless benefits. And V stuff your marking of spelling mistakes that really is unimportant other than to a luddite.

keptquietillnow wrote:

evilc wrote:
It is beyond belief that idiots on here are prepared to take the view: 'Lets do nothing just accept traffic congestion,more unemployment,allow the town to continue to decline' accept that area's of the town needing massive improvements from the original Victorian period should not change and allow them to become hovels for more druggies, drunkards and benefit seekers. That is the view of total idiots or activists encourage poverty leading to a revolution. This town must improve, modernise, encourage growth and do everything to attract private enterprise this is the only way of increasing wealth and helping those stuck in the poverty trap in run down Victorian multi occupant area's to be able to get jobs and pay taxes AND RENEW PRIDE IN THEMSELVES. The alternative is more benefit seekers trapped in depressed areas with no future no jobs and costing us the wealth generators more taxes to pay more benefits. All you moaners about everything that improves the town look around you, at least the Council are doing and not moaning and suggesting nothing like you miserable preachers of Neo-Luddism. Well done the Council, improving the sea front, Road Junctions, improving the toilets on the seafront, providing cycle paths, encouraging new companies to develop locally with your business meeting programme, providing better safer playground facilities in parks. Forget the luddites they shout the loudest and want us to become a Socialist ghetto providing them with endless benefits. And V stuff your marking of spelling mistakes that really is unimportant other than to a luddite.

Actually its people like you who are doing nothing about the situation.
There are many many people who really are doing something about the problem of congestion around Southend and leaving the car on the driveway and using their bicycles or public transport to get around.

evilc wrote:
It is beyond belief that idiots on here are prepared to take the view: 'Lets do nothing just accept traffic congestion,more unemployment,allow the town to continue to decline' accept that area's of the town needing massive improvements from the original Victorian period should not change and allow them to become hovels for more druggies, drunkards and benefit seekers. That is the view of total idiots or activists encourage poverty leading to a revolution. This town must improve, modernise, encourage growth and do everything to attract private enterprise this is the only way of increasing wealth and helping those stuck in the poverty trap in run down Victorian multi occupant area's to be able to get jobs and pay taxes AND RENEW PRIDE IN THEMSELVES. The alternative is more benefit seekers trapped in depressed areas with no future no jobs and costing us the wealth generators more taxes to pay more benefits. All you moaners about everything that improves the town look around you, at least the Council are doing and not moaning and suggesting nothing like you miserable preachers of Neo-Luddism. Well done the Council, improving the sea front, Road Junctions, improving the toilets on the seafront, providing cycle paths, encouraging new companies to develop locally with your business meeting programme, providing better safer playground facilities in parks. Forget the luddites they shout the loudest and want us to become a Socialist ghetto providing them with endless benefits. And V stuff your marking of spelling mistakes that really is unimportant other than to a luddite.

evilc wrote:
Spike I agree with most that you say BUT surely it is better to try and fail than not try at all ? To avoid Grid lock doing nothing is no longer an alternative. The Council must be congratulated for trying.

leighbloke wrote:
Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley.
Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary

And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

openspace wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed to read comments like, " these schemes have always failed elsewhere", or "this scheme will not work", without offering any evidence to back up these claims. The truth, ( unpalatable to many ), is that time will tell. I just wish that people who post on this site did not make claims that cannot be substantiated, or certainly not yet !!!!. Opinions aren't facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

leighbloke wrote:
Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley.
Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary

And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

SpikeEssex wrote:

openspace wrote: Does anyone else get annoyed to read comments like, " these schemes have always failed elsewhere", or "this scheme will not work", without offering any evidence to back up these claims. The truth, ( unpalatable to many ), is that time will tell. I just wish that people who post on this site did not make claims that cannot be substantiated, or certainly not yet !!!!. Opinions aren't facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence is all around us. - The most obvious examples locally are: - Rayleigh Weir. - Saddlers Farm. - Both were completely re-vamped in the not too distant past with the aim of increasing traffic flow and reducing congestion. Neither has made a blind bit of difference to the flow of traffic or congestion. I constantly listen to people at work complaining about how long they have sat in traffic at these junctions. - Looking slightly further away, but still entirely relevant to Southend. - The M25. - This road was supposed to ease traffic around London but since it's been completed all that has happened is that it has filled up and is now one huge car park. Oh and are the roads that it was supposed to relieve any less congested? No they are still congested as well. - The A13 approaches into London - A huge amount of money has been spent over the last decade or so but anyone who uses these approaches still sits in the same traffic jams that they were sitting in 10 years ago. - Shall I go on? The list is pretty endless. - The evidence is all around us and plain for anyone to see. More tarmac and road infrastructure invariably leads to growth in traffic levels as the number of cars expands to fill the available space.

openspace wrote:

SpikeEssex wrote:

openspace wrote: Does anyone else get annoyed to read comments like, " these schemes have always failed elsewhere", or "this scheme will not work", without offering any evidence to back up these claims. The truth, ( unpalatable to many ), is that time will tell. I just wish that people who post on this site did not make claims that cannot be substantiated, or certainly not yet !!!!. Opinions aren't facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence is all around us. - The most obvious examples locally are: - Rayleigh Weir. - Saddlers Farm. - Both were completely re-vamped in the not too distant past with the aim of increasing traffic flow and reducing congestion. Neither has made a blind bit of difference to the flow of traffic or congestion. I constantly listen to people at work complaining about how long they have sat in traffic at these junctions. - Looking slightly further away, but still entirely relevant to Southend. - The M25. - This road was supposed to ease traffic around London but since it's been completed all that has happened is that it has filled up and is now one huge car park. Oh and are the roads that it was supposed to relieve any less congested? No they are still congested as well. - The A13 approaches into London - A huge amount of money has been spent over the last decade or so but anyone who uses these approaches still sits in the same traffic jams that they were sitting in 10 years ago. - Shall I go on? The list is pretty endless. - The evidence is all around us and plain for anyone to see. More tarmac and road infrastructure invariably leads to growth in traffic levels as the number of cars expands to fill the available space.

More road infrastructure is certainly not proven to lead to more traffic volumes. People will almost certainly continue to buy more cars, whether the roads are there to support the increase or not !!. Sad but almost certainly true. When did you last hear someone say, "We are not buying a second car because the roads are too crowded ". The fact that people sit in possibly the same or similar road queues as they sat in years ago actually tends to prove that these schemes do work to some extent. If not the queues would almost certainly be very much longer, given the huge increase in road traffic. To take just one example given, prior to the Rayleigh Weir underpass, I sat in queues to Southend every night that started at a point well beyond the A130 turn-off to Chelmsford, is this still the case or does the queue start much closer to Southend this side of Rayleigh!!!!. Much the same principle of looking in detail at each example quoted probably applies, or in other words, " what would it be like now if the changes had not beeen made". The only realistic comparison would be to look at results from a very recent change. I suspect that the truth is that these schemes proably do work to a limited extent but that little evidence of improvement in the long term is seen because of the year on year increase in traffic volumes. Pure common sense!!.

SpikeEssex wrote:

openspace wrote:

SpikeEssex wrote:

openspace wrote: Does anyone else get annoyed to read comments like, " these schemes have always failed elsewhere", or "this scheme will not work", without offering any evidence to back up these claims. The truth, ( unpalatable to many ), is that time will tell. I just wish that people who post on this site did not make claims that cannot be substantiated, or certainly not yet !!!!. Opinions aren't facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence is all around us. - The most obvious examples locally are: - Rayleigh Weir. - Saddlers Farm. - Both were completely re-vamped in the not too distant past with the aim of increasing traffic flow and reducing congestion. Neither has made a blind bit of difference to the flow of traffic or congestion. I constantly listen to people at work complaining about how long they have sat in traffic at these junctions. - Looking slightly further away, but still entirely relevant to Southend. - The M25. - This road was supposed to ease traffic around London but since it's been completed all that has happened is that it has filled up and is now one huge car park. Oh and are the roads that it was supposed to relieve any less congested? No they are still congested as well. - The A13 approaches into London - A huge amount of money has been spent over the last decade or so but anyone who uses these approaches still sits in the same traffic jams that they were sitting in 10 years ago. - Shall I go on? The list is pretty endless. - The evidence is all around us and plain for anyone to see. More tarmac and road infrastructure invariably leads to growth in traffic levels as the number of cars expands to fill the available space.

More road infrastructure is certainly not proven to lead to more traffic volumes. People will almost certainly continue to buy more cars, whether the roads are there to support the increase or not !!. Sad but almost certainly true. When did you last hear someone say, "We are not buying a second car because the roads are too crowded ". The fact that people sit in possibly the same or similar road queues as they sat in years ago actually tends to prove that these schemes do work to some extent. If not the queues would almost certainly be very much longer, given the huge increase in road traffic. To take just one example given, prior to the Rayleigh Weir underpass, I sat in queues to Southend every night that started at a point well beyond the A130 turn-off to Chelmsford, is this still the case or does the queue start much closer to Southend this side of Rayleigh!!!!. Much the same principle of looking in detail at each example quoted probably applies, or in other words, " what would it be like now if the changes had not beeen made". The only realistic comparison would be to look at results from a very recent change. I suspect that the truth is that these schemes proably do work to a limited extent but that little evidence of improvement in the long term is seen because of the year on year increase in traffic volumes. Pure common sense!!.

Which is why we need to try something inovative and different. - In order for the town to develop and thrive economically we need solutions that will last well into the long term and not be swallowed up by increasing traffic volumes. - Even if Cuckoo Corner does work it will only be a short term gain before we are back to square one. What then? Do we add another lane? Traffic flows better for a short time and then back once again to square one as that also gets congested, then add another lane....... and so on in a never ending cycle. - The long term solution is to break the cycle and find inovative and imaginative ways of reducing the traffic levels rather than adding more tarmac.

Nebs wrote:
If all the untaxed, uninsured, or unMOT'd cars were taken off the roads and crushed then the problem of congestion would be solved for years to come, as well as providing some much needed demand for our motor car industry.

'V' wrote:
That was a public road and not the protest site. The council's hired thugs are now wide open to prosecution for assault.

SpikeEssex wrote:

openspace wrote:
Does anyone else get annoyed to read comments like, " these schemes have always failed elsewhere", or "this scheme will not work", without offering any evidence to back up these claims. The truth, ( unpalatable to many ), is that time will tell. I just wish that people who post on this site did not make claims that cannot be substantiated, or certainly not yet !!!!. Opinions aren't facts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence is all around us.

-

The most obvious examples locally are:

-

Rayleigh Weir.

-

Saddlers Farm.

-

Both were completely re-vamped in the not too distant past with the aim of increasing traffic flow and reducing congestion. Neither has made a blind bit of difference to the flow of traffic or congestion. I constantly listen to people at work complaining about how long they have sat in traffic at these junctions.

-

Looking slightly further away, but still entirely relevant to Southend.

-

The M25.

-

This road was supposed to ease traffic around London but since it's been completed all that has happened is that it has filled up and is now one huge car park. Oh and are the roads that it was supposed to relieve any less congested? No they are still congested as well.

-

The A13 approaches into London

-

A huge amount of money has been spent over the last decade or so but anyone who uses these approaches still sits in the same traffic jams that they were sitting in 10 years ago.

-

Shall I go on? The list is pretty endless.

-

The evidence is all around us and plain for anyone to see. More tarmac and road infrastructure invariably leads to growth in traffic levels as the number of cars expands to fill the available space.

'V' wrote:

leighbloke wrote: Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley. Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

Southend Borough Council's CONSERVATIVES did the same at Victoria Circus, turning up at 4.00am to fell the trees. Like all mindless vandals SBC's CONSERVATIVES like to carry out their crimes under cover of darkness.

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

Soozie wrote:

'V' wrote:

leighbloke wrote: Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley. Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

Southend Borough Council's CONSERVATIVES did the same at Victoria Circus, turning up at 4.00am to fell the trees. Like all mindless vandals SBC's CONSERVATIVES like to carry out their crimes under cover of darkness.

People who do things under the cover of darkness show guilt.

smalrh wrote:
I have seen and heard it all now. Trees cannot be murdered, they may be living, but you cannot murder a tree. Myself and my son had to laugh when we saw a cross with flowers by cuckoo corner, I presume for the trees that have been cut down. Get a grip protesters they are only trees, and more have been planted. As for that protester crying, Get a life will you, maybe go to college and you will realise that trees cannot be murdered. And for the record, I think Priory Crescent looks much brighter with those trees cut down.

evilc wrote:

Soozie wrote:

'V' wrote:

leighbloke wrote: Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley. Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

Southend Borough Council's CONSERVATIVES did the same at Victoria Circus, turning up at 4.00am to fell the trees. Like all mindless vandals SBC's CONSERVATIVES like to carry out their crimes under cover of darkness.

People who do things under the cover of darkness show guilt.

Hi Soozie does that go for coal miners?

Nebs wrote:
Always entertaining reading these threads. Where will the next "Camp" be?

southend_born_and_br
ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

evilc wrote:

Soozie wrote:

'V' wrote:

leighbloke wrote: Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley. Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

Southend Borough Council's CONSERVATIVES did the same at Victoria Circus, turning up at 4.00am to fell the trees. Like all mindless vandals SBC's CONSERVATIVES like to carry out their crimes under cover of darkness.

People who do things under the cover of darkness show guilt.

Hi Soozie does that go for coal miners?

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

Actually cars produce BOTH CO (carbon-monoxide) and CO2 (carbon-dioxide) gases. Or have you missed all those GOVERNMENT ads about CO2 emissions from cars. LEARN here: http://actonco2.dire ct.gov.uk/actonco2/h ome/what-you-can-do/ On-the-move/Compare- CO2-emissions.html Or you could carry on getting your info from someone who paid so much attention at school all he's good for now is using a chainsaw.

BASILBRUSH wrote:

'V' wrote: That was a public road and not the protest site. The council's hired thugs are now wide open to prosecution for assault.

And Mr Sharp should be prosecuted for obstructing a public highway and endangerment. It looked to me like reasonable force, he then tripped on the kerb.

southend_born_and_br
ed wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

Actually cars produce BOTH CO (carbon-monoxide) and CO2 (carbon-dioxide) gases. Or have you missed all those GOVERNMENT ads about CO2 emissions from cars. LEARN here: http://actonco2.dire ct.gov.uk/actonco2/h ome/what-you-can-do/ On-the-move/Compare- CO2-emissions.html Or you could carry on getting your info from someone who paid so much attention at school all he's good for now is using a chainsaw.

why bother with all that tripe?!?! global warming has been happening for years, and i honestly beleive it's better than what it is now to 20 odd years ago.

or i could listen to someone who doesnt use a chainsaw, he is a manager

evilc wrote:
For V's a jolly good fellow, For V's a jolly good fellow, For V's a jolly good fellow, and so say all of him!!

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

Actually cars produce BOTH CO (carbon-monoxide) and CO2 (carbon-dioxide) gases. Or have you missed all those GOVERNMENT ads about CO2 emissions from cars. LEARN here: http://actonco2.dire ct.gov.uk/actonco2/h ome/what-you-can-do/ On-the-move/Compare- CO2-emissions.html Or you could carry on getting your info from someone who paid so much attention at school all he's good for now is using a chainsaw.

why bother with all that tripe?!?! global warming has been happening for years, and i honestly beleive it's better than what it is now to 20 odd years ago. or i could listen to someone who doesnt use a chainsaw, he is a manager

Who said anything about global warming? My original point was in response to some idiot claiming the trees were 'diseased' because they're next to a road. My point being that all plants thrive on CO2, and there is more concentration of CO2 by a road than elsewhere. But you carry on listening to a pikey 'tree surgeon'.

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

Actually cars produce BOTH CO (carbon-monoxide) and CO2 (carbon-dioxide) gases. Or have you missed all those GOVERNMENT ads about CO2 emissions from cars. LEARN here: http://actonco2.dire ct.gov.uk/actonco2/h ome/what-you-can-do/ On-the-move/Compare- CO2-emissions.html Or you could carry on getting your info from someone who paid so much attention at school all he's good for now is using a chainsaw.

why bother with all that tripe?!?! global warming has been happening for years, and i honestly beleive it's better than what it is now to 20 odd years ago. or i could listen to someone who doesnt use a chainsaw, he is a manager

Who said anything about global warming? My original point was in response to some idiot claiming the trees were 'diseased' because they're next to a road. My point being that all plants thrive on CO2, and there is more concentration of CO2 by a road than elsewhere. But you carry on listening to a pikey 'tree surgeon'.

So if what you are saying is correct, then the more cars there are the more Co2 there is and the trees will thrive.

So you should be advocating an increase in traffic and people backing their cars up to a tree and revving the engine.

Somehow I think there is a flaw in your logic.

'V' wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

Actually cars produce BOTH CO (carbon-monoxide) and CO2 (carbon-dioxide) gases. Or have you missed all those GOVERNMENT ads about CO2 emissions from cars. LEARN here: http://actonco2.dire ct.gov.uk/actonco2/h ome/what-you-can-do/ On-the-move/Compare- CO2-emissions.html Or you could carry on getting your info from someone who paid so much attention at school all he's good for now is using a chainsaw.

why bother with all that tripe?!?! global warming has been happening for years, and i honestly beleive it's better than what it is now to 20 odd years ago. or i could listen to someone who doesnt use a chainsaw, he is a manager

Who said anything about global warming? My original point was in response to some idiot claiming the trees were 'diseased' because they're next to a road. My point being that all plants thrive on CO2, and there is more concentration of CO2 by a road than elsewhere. But you carry on listening to a pikey 'tree surgeon'.

So if what you are saying is correct, then the more cars there are the more Co2 there is and the trees will thrive. So you should be advocating an increase in traffic and people backing their cars up to a tree and revving the engine. Somehow I think there is a flaw in your logic.

Plants do need CO2. http://www.homeharve st.com/carbondioxide enrichment.htm Now that Priory Crescent is being widened, the traffic WILL increase, and there WILL be more CO2 in the area. D@mn glad I don't live there. I wouldn't give you tuppence for a property on Priory Crescent now the council have vandalised it and are encouraging more traffic to use that route.

'V' wrote:
Not if you've got to cross four lanes of industrial traffic to get to the park.

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:
Not if you've got to cross four lanes of industrial traffic to get to the park.

There's a gadget called a pelican crossing. Seems to work quite well in all the busy streets of London.

'V' wrote:
That was a public road and not the protest site. The council's hired thugs are now wide open to prosecution for assault.

Max Impact wrote:

'V' wrote:
That was a public road and not the protest site. The council's hired thugs are now wide open to prosecution for assault.

What would the protester have done if the guy driver the tractor had not jumped on the breaks as quick as he did and drove ove rhim...

Ods on he would have sued the driver, ignoring the fact that hr was in the WRONG by running in to the road.

The security were only clearing the road to keep the traffic flowing if the protesters were so stupid to block the road then they only have themselfs to blame for falling into a bush.

Hope the bush was not hurt...

Soozie wrote:

evilc wrote:

Soozie wrote:

'V' wrote:

leighbloke wrote: Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley. Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

Southend Borough Council's CONSERVATIVES did the same at Victoria Circus, turning up at 4.00am to fell the trees. Like all mindless vandals SBC's CONSERVATIVES like to carry out their crimes under cover of darkness.

People who do things under the cover of darkness show guilt.

Hi Soozie does that go for coal miners?

no. :)

perini wrote:
To take just one example given, prior to the Rayleigh Weir underpass, I sat in queues to Southend every night that started at a point well beyond the A130 turn-off to Chelmsford, is this still the case or does the queue start much closer to Southend this side of Rayleigh!!!!. Try driving Southend bound at 1630hrs during the week - traffic queues start at the A130 junction.

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote:

southend_born_and_br ed wrote: I know one of the top men at tree fellas (the surgeons who i believe have a contract with southend council for this) and he said it was funny seeing and hearing people claiming that these trees are healthy trees. he told me that they ARE NOT healthy as they are next to a road and what does the road have? cars! and what do cars have? fumes which made these trees unhealthy a LOOOOONG time ago. so tree-huggers shut the hell up and look ooutside the box!! d'uuhhh

Your 'friend' at Tree Fellas is spouting utter bullsh!t. Plants, ALL plants, including trees, absolutely THRIVE on CO2. Here, learn something: http://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/200 5/12/051213074239.ht m

I'm no chemist, but I thought the main emission from a car exhaust was Carbon Monoxide ?

haha, 'V', you seem to be the one who is as I quote "spouting utter bullsh!t" as Mary Lou says cars produce Carbon MONOXIDE, not Carbon DIOXIDE, two verrrrryy different things. So please think, before you speak/type, and my 'friend' who I have known for a long time is very rarely wrong about these things, and as the saying goes; "it's not what you know (in your case f*** all), it's who you know (like me!)"

Actually cars produce BOTH CO (carbon-monoxide) and CO2 (carbon-dioxide) gases. Or have you missed all those GOVERNMENT ads about CO2 emissions from cars. LEARN here: http://actonco2.dire ct.gov.uk/actonco2/h ome/what-you-can-do/ On-the-move/Compare- CO2-emissions.html Or you could carry on getting your info from someone who paid so much attention at school all he's good for now is using a chainsaw.

why bother with all that tripe?!?! global warming has been happening for years, and i honestly beleive it's better than what it is now to 20 odd years ago. or i could listen to someone who doesnt use a chainsaw, he is a manager

Who said anything about global warming? My original point was in response to some idiot claiming the trees were 'diseased' because they're next to a road. My point being that all plants thrive on CO2, and there is more concentration of CO2 by a road than elsewhere. But you carry on listening to a pikey 'tree surgeon'.

So if what you are saying is correct, then the more cars there are the more Co2 there is and the trees will thrive. So you should be advocating an increase in traffic and people backing their cars up to a tree and revving the engine. Somehow I think there is a flaw in your logic.

Plants do need CO2. http://www.homeharve st.com/carbondioxide enrichment.htm Now that Priory Crescent is being widened, the traffic WILL increase, and there WILL be more CO2 in the area. D@mn glad I don't live there. I wouldn't give you tuppence for a property on Priory Crescent now the council have vandalised it and are encouraging more traffic to use that route.

Now now stop winding up the locals. I'm sure a property next to a nice park that has plenty of trees is always very desirable.

'V' wrote:
That was a public road and not the protest site. The council's hired thugs are now wide open to prosecution for assault.

Will1966 wrote:

'V' wrote: That was a public road and not the protest site. The council's hired thugs are now wide open to prosecution for assault.

Interesting point of view 'V' So I take it that throwing youself under the tractor, intimidating the driver and trying to chain yourself to the thing is NOT open to prosecution then. I believe that the security guys would be allowed to stop employees being hurt by protesting thugs and equipment being damaged. Still I bet you'd prefer the tax payers of Southend to be compensating the tractor owner for damage to his equipment instead. May I apologise in advance for any spelling or typograhical errors so that you can leave it out of the personal abuse that I am sure is bound to follow.

Soozie wrote:

'V' wrote:

leighbloke wrote: Regardless of the arguments for or against tree felling just what are we coming to when workmen arrive in the dead of night delivering leaflets through letterboxes of residents and start to fell trees immediatley. Sounds to me a bit like the tactics of a dictator rather than a democratic council..It's scary And just for the record I am neither concrete man or a tree hugger but a democrat. Southend Tories please dont knock at my door...at least in the dead of night

Southend Borough Council's CONSERVATIVES did the same at Victoria Circus, turning up at 4.00am to fell the trees. Like all mindless vandals SBC's CONSERVATIVES like to carry out their crimes under cover of darkness.

People who do things under the cover of darkness show guilt.

'V' wrote:
"The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

insanelad wrote:
Good post Will - well said !! On a slightly different tack -albeit still traffic related - did anybody try to negotiate Western Esplanade yesterday afternoon ? Now that the cycle track is sort of in situ, the road is really narrow and extremely congested. Should be dreadful in the summer if yesterday was anything to go by. The traffic is now shunted perilously close to the parked vehicles on the central parking bays - there are going to be accidents for sure. OK - the project is not finished yet but I think we have got another SBC created bottleneck. Time will tell......

keptquietillnow wrote:

insanelad wrote: Good post Will - well said !! On a slightly different tack -albeit still traffic related - did anybody try to negotiate Western Esplanade yesterday afternoon ? Now that the cycle track is sort of in situ, the road is really narrow and extremely congested. Should be dreadful in the summer if yesterday was anything to go by. The traffic is now shunted perilously close to the parked vehicles on the central parking bays - there are going to be accidents for sure. OK - the project is not finished yet but I think we have got another SBC created bottleneck. Time will tell......

Forget the traffic being close to parked vehicles and look the otherside. A two way cyclelane, 3 meters wide 1.5meters each direction, with nothing to stop a child/cyclist riding stright off and into on coming traffic travelling at 30mph. A gust of wind from the estuary may even be enough to blow someone off course. All that is in place from the footpath a 2" drop curb down to the cyclepath and a 2" drop kerb into the road.

evilc wrote:

'V' wrote:

evilc wrote: V just except it and go back behind your Iron curtain. A change is coming to the area at long last, try fighting your battle with former members of the Politburo.

I AM taking exception to this vandalism. But reading your post again it looks like that barely literate Sun-reader peanut inside your head you call a brain used 'except' instead of the correct 'accept'.

Just like Maggie Anne dealt with people like you!! Well done Anne. V go do something useful with your own kind The BA worker or the railway signal workers.

eric naylor wrote:
most cars seem to turn left by the railway bridge into Prioy Crescent to avoid the roundabout, those that continue mostly either turn right into Manners Way or go across to the A.127 with only very few actually turning left there into Victoria Avenue. All very well with the extra west bound lane but you will still have problems on the other side, single file to the railway bridge. I see they have removed all the fencing from around the trees inside Priory Park on that side today and from the Camp Cuckoo site.

'V' wrote:

Mary Lou wrote:

'V' wrote: Not if you've got to cross four lanes of industrial traffic to get to the park.

There's a gadget called a pelican crossing. Seems to work quite well in all the busy streets of London.

Would that be the same pelican crossing we've all been saying will cause the same hold-ups this widening is supposed to cure? Thank you for proving the point that this council's vandalism of Priory Crescent has been a complete waste of time and money.

'V' wrote:
"The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

Max Impact wrote:

'V' wrote:
"The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

Please go back and re-read my post

Where have I said they broke the law by taking photos... I cant see it anywhere.

I took photos of the protesters who dragged their kids along the kids look frozen they do appear in the photos I took but before I posted them on line I edited out the kids faces and the protesters to save the the shame of being identified so I will now get the master copy of each photo and post them up in non-face blanked edition.

My comment about the faces is a logical one some protest groups are not as "peaceful" as those in Southend just look at the G8 riots and other protests that have ended in violence then you get the nutters who send stuff through the post.

By not showing peoples faces there is no chance of them being tracked down and attacked by a mindless few morons who only ever hijack protest with the intent to cause maximum damage to private property or to scare people out of a job.

evilc wrote:
V cheers for V Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!!

And V cheers for the tree fellers on site all three deserve it Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!!

Rode (on a tandem)down that road today it is nice and bright down the road on one side the old Echo building has gone and now the few trees didn't need to put my light on!!!!

If you want a lift 'V' get your own bike.

'V' wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

'V' wrote: "The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

Please go back and re-read my post Where have I said they broke the law by taking photos... I cant see it anywhere. I took photos of the protesters who dragged their kids along the kids look frozen they do appear in the photos I took but before I posted them on line I edited out the kids faces and the protesters to save the the shame of being identified so I will now get the master copy of each photo and post them up in non-face blanked edition. My comment about the faces is a logical one some protest groups are not as "peaceful" as those in Southend just look at the G8 riots and other protests that have ended in violence then you get the nutters who send stuff through the post. By not showing peoples faces there is no chance of them being tracked down and attacked by a mindless few morons who only ever hijack protest with the intent to cause maximum damage to private property or to scare people out of a job.

If people are taking part in a controversial event, then they must know that it will be photographed. If they don't want to be identified either don't take part or cover your face. But don't expect photographers going about their legal business to take that responsibility for you.

'V' wrote:

evilc wrote: V cheers for V Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! And V cheers for the tree fellers on site all three deserve it Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! Rode (on a tandem)down that road today it is nice and bright down the road on one side the old Echo building has gone and now the few trees didn't need to put my light on!!!! If you want a lift 'V' get your own bike.

I've got my own bike, four bikes actually. Different bikes for different purposes. Each one worth well over £1000. I am a lifelong CTC member, and bicycle advocate. It's amazing what you can afford when you don't pay through the nose for petrol every week.

openspace wrote:

'V' wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

'V' wrote: "The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

Please go back and re-read my post Where have I said they broke the law by taking photos... I cant see it anywhere. I took photos of the protesters who dragged their kids along the kids look frozen they do appear in the photos I took but before I posted them on line I edited out the kids faces and the protesters to save the the shame of being identified so I will now get the master copy of each photo and post them up in non-face blanked edition. My comment about the faces is a logical one some protest groups are not as "peaceful" as those in Southend just look at the G8 riots and other protests that have ended in violence then you get the nutters who send stuff through the post. By not showing peoples faces there is no chance of them being tracked down and attacked by a mindless few morons who only ever hijack protest with the intent to cause maximum damage to private property or to scare people out of a job.

If people are taking part in a controversial event, then they must know that it will be photographed. If they don't want to be identified either don't take part or cover your face. But don't expect photographers going about their legal business to take that responsibility for you.

Presumably then, you would support the taking of photographs, ( quite legal as you say ), by police photographers at protest marches !!!.

Obviously the answer must be yes, it's difficult to argue on both side of an argument at the same time, ( unless you have two faces ).

'V' wrote:

openspace wrote:

'V' wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

'V' wrote: "The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

Please go back and re-read my post Where have I said they broke the law by taking photos... I cant see it anywhere. I took photos of the protesters who dragged their kids along the kids look frozen they do appear in the photos I took but before I posted them on line I edited out the kids faces and the protesters to save the the shame of being identified so I will now get the master copy of each photo and post them up in non-face blanked edition. My comment about the faces is a logical one some protest groups are not as "peaceful" as those in Southend just look at the G8 riots and other protests that have ended in violence then you get the nutters who send stuff through the post. By not showing peoples faces there is no chance of them being tracked down and attacked by a mindless few morons who only ever hijack protest with the intent to cause maximum damage to private property or to scare people out of a job.

If people are taking part in a controversial event, then they must know that it will be photographed. If they don't want to be identified either don't take part or cover your face. But don't expect photographers going about their legal business to take that responsibility for you.

Presumably then, you would support the taking of photographs, ( quite legal as you say ), by police photographers at protest marches !!!. Obviously the answer must be yes, it's difficult to argue on both side of an argument at the same time, ( unless you have two faces ).

Of course, I have never said I was against it. I don't see the point of your post. What I object to, and have taken part in protests against, is police harassment of photographers by abusing section 44 of of the Terrorism Act.. Here is the last protest I took part in: http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23 /photographers-prote st-stop-search-terro rism-police

Iffy wrote:

'V' wrote:

evilc wrote: V cheers for V Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! And V cheers for the tree fellers on site all three deserve it Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! Rode (on a tandem)down that road today it is nice and bright down the road on one side the old Echo building has gone and now the few trees didn't need to put my light on!!!! If you want a lift 'V' get your own bike.

I've got my own bike, four bikes actually. Different bikes for different purposes. Each one worth well over £1000. I am a lifelong CTC member, and bicycle advocate. It's amazing what you can afford when you don't pay through the nose for petrol every week.

V why do you bother try to convince and educate the uneducated? These people who post for trees being cut down and roads widening have no idea what is in store for them in the long run. They cannot see the big picture. You know, and I know that these protesters were doing what they believe in and standing up for what they believe in and I wonder how many of the ill-formed would do the same? It is easy enough for them to post how they want this and that, but if it was their house they were losing, or their trees, I wonder what they would do - eh? The ill informed and 'me me me' generation are ruining things for their kids and they will only have themselves to blame. 50,000 people a year die from the pollution in this country. Says a lot really. Those who live in priory crescent can now look forward to cleaning their windows daily because of all the extra cars on the road and the slow delapidation of their houses from the exhaust and other pollutants. Save your breath V, miserable weather breeds miserable attitudes and half these folk are so unfit they couldn't walk 10 metres, let alone ride a bike. We'll see how they bleat once petrol is 5 quid a litre and that isn't too far off!

Max Impact wrote:

Iffy wrote:

'V' wrote:

evilc wrote: V cheers for V Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! And V cheers for the tree fellers on site all three deserve it Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! Rode (on a tandem)down that road today it is nice and bright down the road on one side the old Echo building has gone and now the few trees didn't need to put my light on!!!! If you want a lift 'V' get your own bike.

I've got my own bike, four bikes actually. Different bikes for different purposes. Each one worth well over £1000. I am a lifelong CTC member, and bicycle advocate. It's amazing what you can afford when you don't pay through the nose for petrol every week.

V why do you bother try to convince and educate the uneducated? These people who post for trees being cut down and roads widening have no idea what is in store for them in the long run. They cannot see the big picture. You know, and I know that these protesters were doing what they believe in and standing up for what they believe in and I wonder how many of the ill-formed would do the same? It is easy enough for them to post how they want this and that, but if it was their house they were losing, or their trees, I wonder what they would do - eh? The ill informed and 'me me me' generation are ruining things for their kids and they will only have themselves to blame. 50,000 people a year die from the pollution in this country. Says a lot really. Those who live in priory crescent can now look forward to cleaning their windows daily because of all the extra cars on the road and the slow delapidation of their houses from the exhaust and other pollutants. Save your breath V, miserable weather breeds miserable attitudes and half these folk are so unfit they couldn't walk 10 metres, let alone ride a bike. We'll see how they bleat once petrol is 5 quid a litre and that isn't too far off!

I don't pay for petrol either... Got a company car and company fuel card the car is a Spyker Spyder Open C8 the fuel guage drops quicker than tress getting cut down! Only got it till the end of the fiscal year when it go's back to the company and they sell it on as the new stock come in.

openspace wrote:

'V' wrote:

openspace wrote:

'V' wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

'V' wrote: "The way the protesters were photographing all the workmen was also a sign of intimidation, any photos that they post on the internet should have all the workers faces obscured." Wrong. In British Law there is NO expectation of privacy in a public place. Also photography in a public place by the public is NOT illegal. As such anyone can take photographs of anything in or that can be seen from a public place with a few exceptions such as something which is a national security issue. The ONLY time faces should be obscured is if the photographs are to be used commercially and a model release has not been signed, for example as in Google Streetview where faces are blurred. You can download and read a pdf about photographers' rights in the UK here: http://www.sirimo.co .uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph otographers-rights-v 2/

Please go back and re-read my post Where have I said they broke the law by taking photos... I cant see it anywhere. I took photos of the protesters who dragged their kids along the kids look frozen they do appear in the photos I took but before I posted them on line I edited out the kids faces and the protesters to save the the shame of being identified so I will now get the master copy of each photo and post them up in non-face blanked edition. My comment about the faces is a logical one some protest groups are not as "peaceful" as those in Southend just look at the G8 riots and other protests that have ended in violence then you get the nutters who send stuff through the post. By not showing peoples faces there is no chance of them being tracked down and attacked by a mindless few morons who only ever hijack protest with the intent to cause maximum damage to private property or to scare people out of a job.

If people are taking part in a controversial event, then they must know that it will be photographed. If they don't want to be identified either don't take part or cover your face. But don't expect photographers going about their legal business to take that responsibility for you.

Presumably then, you would support the taking of photographs, ( quite legal as you say ), by police photographers at protest marches !!!. Obviously the answer must be yes, it's difficult to argue on both side of an argument at the same time, ( unless you have two faces ).

Of course, I have never said I was against it. I don't see the point of your post. What I object to, and have taken part in protests against, is police harassment of photographers by abusing section 44 of of the Terrorism Act.. Here is the last protest I took part in: http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23 /photographers-prote st-stop-search-terro rism-police

Nice to know you have the spare time to take part in all these protests but apologies if I misread your comments.

On a slightly different point, if anybody should take the time to look at the PPPS website, you will find on the main page under, " Is it illegal to occupy a tree", a report of the High Court case where the squatters, ( or whatever you like to call them ), were told to vacate the land.

It is quite long and wordy, very comprehensive if totally opinionated and completely one sided and full of sour grapes, ( but terribly well written !!). Rubbish of course but very well presented.
To summarise the report for those who cannot be bothered to read this report, I offer the following summary in nine words.
" They lost the case and they don't like it !!"

And just when I was despairing of British Justice !!!

"

j-w wrote:
"v" are you in the vicinity of Benfleet?

Iffy wrote:
I don't pay for petrol either... Got a company car and company fuel card the car is a Spyker Spyder Open C8 the fuel guage drops quicker than tress getting cut down! Only got it till the end of the fiscal year when it go's back to the company and they sell it on as the new stock come in. Your point being? I have diplomatic number plates and pay EU commuity tax @ 12% but that has nothing to do with this story does it now?

evilc wrote:
V cheers for V Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! And V cheers for the tree fellers on site all three deserve it Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray Hip Hip Hooray!! Rode (on a tandem)down that road today it is nice and bright down the road on one side the old Echo building has gone and now the few trees didn't need to put my light on!!!! If you want a lift 'V' get your own bike.

Iffy wrote:
Max Impact, Southend says... 3:31pm Tue 23 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: I don't pay for petrol either... Got a company car and company fuel card the car is a Spyker Spyder Open C8 the fuel guage drops quicker than tress getting cut down! Only got it till the end of the fiscal year when it go's back to the company and they sell it on as the new stock come in. Your point being? I have diplomatic number plates and pay EU commuity tax @ 12% but that has nothing to do with this story does it now? V was going on about that fact he does not pay for petrol because he has this number of bikes... All I said was I dont pay for petrol either because the company pay They are linked. I doubt it, sounds more like a boast for attention. Shame it didn't do the trick.

Iffy wrote:
Max Impact, Southend says... 1:44pm Wed 24 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: Max Impact, Southend says... 3:31pm Tue 23 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: I don't pay for petrol either... Got a company car and company fuel card the car is a Spyker Spyder Open C8 the fuel guage drops quicker than tress getting cut down! Only got it till the end of the fiscal year when it go's back to the company and they sell it on as the new stock come in. Your point being? I have diplomatic number plates and pay EU commuity tax @ 12% but that has nothing to do with this story does it now? V was going on about that fact he does not pay for petrol because he has this number of bikes... All I said was I dont pay for petrol either because the company pay They are linked. I doubt it, sounds more like a boast for attention. Shame it didn't do the trick. Learn to use the Quote button correctly, your posts in which you quote people all merge into one long posting that takes up vital seconds of surfing time. Thank you for your lecture but the quote button isn't working for me right now. Learn to be less arrogant - you might find it wins you friends and people won't think you are such twit.

Max Impact wrote:

Iffy wrote: Max Impact, Southend says... 1:44pm Wed 24 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: Max Impact, Southend says... 3:31pm Tue 23 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: I don't pay for petrol either... Got a company car and company fuel card the car is a Spyker Spyder Open C8 the fuel guage drops quicker than tress getting cut down! Only got it till the end of the fiscal year when it go's back to the company and they sell it on as the new stock come in. Your point being? I have diplomatic number plates and pay EU commuity tax @ 12% but that has nothing to do with this story does it now? V was going on about that fact he does not pay for petrol because he has this number of bikes... All I said was I dont pay for petrol either because the company pay They are linked. I doubt it, sounds more like a boast for attention. Shame it didn't do the trick. Learn to use the Quote button correctly, your posts in which you quote people all merge into one long posting that takes up vital seconds of surfing time. Thank you for your lecture but the quote button isn't working for me right now. Learn to be less arrogant - you might find it wins you friends and people won't think you are such twit.

Got plenty of friends some think I'm a twit most a nutter as I do Extreme sports from jumping out a perfectly serviceable airplane with only a piece of cotton above my head to deep diving on shipwrecks to white water rafting to hiking through forests and deserts. but we all have our own little hobbies mine a just a little bit diffrent to most so if that makes me a twit or a nutter then so be it. I did not mean to cause any offence or distress its just a bugbear of mine lets face facts we all have those little things that annoy us such as the kettle not being refilled now that really is annoying...!

Iffy wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

Iffy wrote: Max Impact, Southend says... 1:44pm Wed 24 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: Max Impact, Southend says... 3:31pm Tue 23 Mar 10 Iffy wrote: I don't pay for petrol either... Got a company car and company fuel card the car is a Spyker Spyder Open C8 the fuel guage drops quicker than tress getting cut down! Only got it till the end of the fiscal year when it go's back to the company and they sell it on as the new stock come in. Your point being? I have diplomatic number plates and pay EU commuity tax @ 12% but that has nothing to do with this story does it now? V was going on about that fact he does not pay for petrol because he has this number of bikes... All I said was I dont pay for petrol either because the company pay They are linked. I doubt it, sounds more like a boast for attention. Shame it didn't do the trick. Learn to use the Quote button correctly, your posts in which you quote people all merge into one long posting that takes up vital seconds of surfing time. Thank you for your lecture but the quote button isn't working for me right now. Learn to be less arrogant - you might find it wins you friends and people won't think you are such twit.

Got plenty of friends some think I'm a twit most a nutter as I do Extreme sports from jumping out a perfectly serviceable airplane with only a piece of cotton above my head to deep diving on shipwrecks to white water rafting to hiking through forests and deserts. but we all have our own little hobbies mine a just a little bit diffrent to most so if that makes me a twit or a nutter then so be it. I did not mean to cause any offence or distress its just a bugbear of mine lets face facts we all have those little things that annoy us such as the kettle not being refilled now that really is annoying...!

I find it highly amusing that people feel the need to offer more information about themselves than is required.. Without offending you, you seem to have a tendency to boast. I'm sure 90% of the people on here do not care if oyu jump out of planes, I certainly don't. Less information is best, people will respect you for it.