Thursday, 1 November 2012

Happy Birthday L S Lowry

Today would have been his 125th birthday. For many years the great L S Lowry lived on Stalybridge Rd in Mottram. His former house still stands and can be identified by the blue commemorative plaque on the wall.


Cornelia Kuchmy said...

Thank you very much for showing his wonderful concept of life as it really was.
He was a great, natural, artist!

Anonymous said...

Lowry the essential recorder of the urban landscape in his localised enviroment-sas

dragonfairy said...

Fantastic Lowery is my favourite artist and I love his work. Remind me of home. I now live in the Rhondda Valley in Wales where I believe has produced a painting.

Luke Eveleigh said...

I remember going up to Manchester, and seeing exhibitions about the Lowry on Wednesday 23rd June 2004. it doesn't seem all that long ago. happy 125th birthday!

Tameside Citizen said...

I can find no evidence to support the allegation by an anonymous poster at 04.17. It was a collector of his paintings who was accused and convicted, not the great man himself.

bobby kilbride said...

Good to keep his birthday.
Although he probably would not have been bothered, that awful song just perpetuates the rather ignorant view that he only painted 'matchstick men'!
Take some time to look at all his work. You will be amazed!!

Distinctive but not very good said...

Re Lowry controversy, there were some graphic paintings of several similar looking young women (late teens/early twenties) he befriended throughout his life, discovered after his death. Some involved bondage type imagery.

The fact that he painted unfashionable and lesser known subjects and areas in his better known street scenes etc made him a bit of a cause celebre from the 50s on. He was a very limited painter and in my view extremely overrated.

Goebbels would have been proud said...

Check out the 'new' Reporter newspaper (owned by New Charter), a eulogy to all the fantastic good works done by our wonderful local Labour councillors, so good they're featured on virtually every other page. Plus a big feature on Tameside Radio (owned by New Charter).
Good job it's free.

Concerned Bloke said...

Google also paid tribute to Lowry's birthday - nice touch.
Check out the new Glossop Gazette newspaper that has really taken hold in the town. Hopefully it will mean that 'The advertiser' sales will fall to zero in Glossop, and New Charter (and all the Labour directors) will be left with a huge loss making paper on their hands.

Labour Councillors in Greenfield said...


Anonymous said...

Lowry was talanted, but there were other artists I preferred who painted on the same theme of the old industrial north including Roger Hampson, Theodore Major, Marc Grimshaw and Hyde's very own Trevor Grimshaw.

Anonymous said...

I checked out the new Reporter last week. I noticed a local history page inside had been appropriated by councillor Taylor who didn't miss the chance to make a few propaganda points about Thatcher and recent cuts.

Stalag Dukinfield said...

Taylor's promoting the closure of one of the most heavily frequented Public Footpaths in Duki, the one between Kenyon Avenue and Cheetham Hill Rd...again.
Schoolkids and locals use it all the time but occasional graffiti and a few problems with other scumbags mean Taylor and a handful of local residents want it shut. They've tried on previous occasions and been knocked back but are now trying again under new government legislation.

Lodge a formal complaint with Michael Hughes of Environmental Services in writing before Thursday 8th of November if you want to object to the closure of this very popular and useful Public Footpath that's been there for years and years.
Why should decent folk be stopped from using it because the local authorities and police have failed to deal with a few local scum who will simply move elsewhere to inflict themselves on people. Try putting some proper cameras in to deter miscreants, but then some people in authority have got their own agendas re gating off throughways and paths etc.

Anonymous said...

@01/11/2012 20:31
Ashton CID put vital resources into investigating comments about him on this blog.
Someone called him a nasty, violent, man, and can you believe it he got the CID involved.
What a man.

Another corrupt Labour criminal said...

Former Labour minister Denis MacShane is being suspended from the Commons over a string of false expenses claims running to thousands of pounds.

The Committee on Standards and Privileges said it would recommend Mr MacShane be suspended as an MP for 12 months after it found he submitted 19 false invoices "plainly intended to deceive" Parliament's expenses authority.

what a truly vile creature this is. not surprisingly he got off far too lightly. If an impoverished working class person was got swindling vast sums like this they would have been slung into jail. There's no real justice in this country anymore.

Anonymous said...

Nick ££££Griffin wants you to leave all your money to him when you snuff it.
Can you believe this guy.?

Anonymous said...

Labour Councillors in Greenfield said...


01/11/2012 19:53

That's an insult to those lovely pigs.

Anonymous said...


The problem with cameras is they are notorious for not working properly and being vandalised. In the long-term the presence of such cameras are always at risk of being pulled by the council, and I doubt residents would appreciate having to fork out themselves because a few bone idle swines can't be bothered to walk a bit further. There're enough obese and unhealthy people in Tameside who need encouraging to exercise more. Closing such walkways off is the only surefire permanent solution that will bring real peace of mind to residents. And those who don't like it should focus their blame on the inconsiderate youths and their parents. The usual busybody who has something to say about such issues does not themselves live with the unpleasant ill-effects.

Stalag Dukinfield said...

Anonymous 16:25, modern CCTV is vastly more reliable and of course any potential perpetrators would have no way of knowing if it worked or not. High mounted cameras with anti-vandal paint virtually never get vandalised.
The extra distance isn't particularly significant but the principle of blocking off a very busy and useful Public Footpath to hundreds of people a day simply to benefit a handful of residents from a relatively miniscule number of incidents is a significant one.
It is a surefire solution, just as reducing the speed limit to 5mph would be to stopping road accidents, but both are also unbalanced, draconian, lack intelligence, are disproportionate and patently unfair to the law abiding majority who the authorities have a duty and responsibility to support and protect.
I DID focus on the criminals and scum responsible, which is precisely what the police, council and other relevant bodies should be doing instead of denying access to the law abiding. Moving scum down the road has never been a solution to anything.
Using abusive, irrelevant terms like 'busybody' and 'bone idle swines' simply emphasises the weakness and lack of logic and proportion in your argument.
A rational objection to a patently irrational and unfair proposal has nothing to do with interference. People have a legal right to use Public Footpaths, any problems need to be solved not shunted elsewhere to gratify the few.

Anonymous said...

@stalag dukinfield

Yes - in an ideal world as soon as local young yobs start causing a disturbance trusty Dickson of Dockgreen will be along on his bicycle to give 'em a good old clip round the ear and ask why they haven't got homes to go to. But those of us living in the real world understand that times and people have changed, and it is somewhat unreasonable to ask concerned residents to live in the hope that one day 1950s style community policing will come to the rescue. And since the courts and politicians have for decades been pathetic when dealing with anti-social behaviour, that renders the whole camera scheme an exercise in futility.

Also - comparing the closure of a footpath to invoking a blanket nationwide 5MPH speed limit on the roads is just laughable. Individuals have a right to live in peace in their own homes. It is the community at large that spawns and rears the many cocky arrogant so-and-sos that are many of today's youngsters, and if through their behaviour the community at large loses a footpath then tough. Perceived benefits to 'the community' do not justify a single person having to suffer such a nuisance in their own living environment.

Bent Labour MP blames his downfall on the BNP said...

In an extraordinary statement today Mr MacShane attempted to blame the BNP, which made a complaint in 2009 about his expenses, for his downfall.

Mr MacShane said in a statement: “I am shocked and saddened the BNP has won its three-year campaign to destroy my political career as a Labour MP, despite a full police investigation which decided not to proceed after investigations and interviews. I remain committed to work for progressive values, for Britain playing a full part in Europe and for combating anti-semitism, though I can no longer undertake this work as a Labour MP.

Stalag Dukinfield said...

@ Anonymous 20:48, Despite your going off on a complete tangent about Dixon of Dock Green (presumably you've conceded the CCTV argument, which whilst not perfect would certainly help. It has been proven to significantly reduse incidents on public transport for example), I actually agree that a return to 50s style policing and justice would be a good idea. Kow towing to scum and punishing everyone by blocking a Public Footpath is a very bad one as criminals and miscreants will simply move elsewhere, achieving absolutely nothing. Part of CCTV's function is to deter and at least this particular, useful path would be open and safer for the law abiding.
The 'community at large' doesn't exist, individuals are responsible for their actions. By your 'logic' someone could throw a brick through your window and that would be 'the community at large's fault' (including yourself), I somehow doubt if you would shrug your shoulders and say, "That's 'tough' on me."
Why should the many law abiding individuals who use this useful Publid Footpath be denied access when they have done nothing to 'create and spawn' the increasing amount of scum on the streets. Tarring everyone with the same brush in this way is irrational nonsense.
My comparison with a 5mph speed limit (of course we already have a similar situation with the ludicrous cancer of the speed bump, a lunatic 'alternative' to actually severely punishing individual dangerous drivers, by inflicting a general punishment on the vast majority of innocent ones) was to demonstrate that just because something is a 'surefire solution' it can be worse than the problem if it is unbalanced, unthinking, draconian and wholly disproportionate. I fail to see anything 'laughable' in such a considered comparison unless you can explain otherwise with the use of reasoned argument.
There is no 'perceived' benefit, there is an extant one, for a large number of people on a daily basis.

Roooaaarrrr!! said...

Shut the M6, it's bloody noisy near Junction 19 and my house is right next to it.

Anonymous said...

That has well and truly made my day, well done to anyone who helped to down this horrible creature.
Mr MacShane (real name Matyjaszek) added: “I remain committed to work for progressive values, for Britain playing a full part in Europe, and for combating anti-semitism even though I can no longer undertake this work as a Labour MP": Translation....I remain committed to work for all forms of perversion and degeneracy, for the European Soviet to play a full part in the country formerly known as Britain, and for combatting anti-Zionism even though I can no longer use my influence as a member of labour friends of Israel

Good riddance.

Anonymous said...

"Why should the many law abiding individuals"

It is called collective responsibility. I didn't much like the fact that in Hattersley the 201bus service was pulled by Stagecoach after 7pm because of the growing number of attacks on their vehicles and drivers. But I had to accept the fact that the local youth and their dross parents had brought such a situation about. Of course, they could instead have adopted your policy of waiting around for some half-bothered politicians to change the very character of much of our youth, a project that could last many decades. Well do excuse us, but in the meantime those of us suffering the ill-effects of 21st century Britain's shortcomings will deal with it in whatever way necessary. Your god-given birth right to take a short cut isn't going to hold much sway with those spending their evenings listening to the shouts screams and mp3 music of a load of teenagers.

I propose a deal. First, we'll gauge how much (and how often) noise nuisance is generated in that footpath as well as the rest of the annoying behaviour. Those objecting to the footpath closure can then have it all replicated outside their homes until we have all solved the problem their way. Somehow, I can't see such a deal being reach. Wanting to live in peace is a basic right of everyone. The loss of a small walkway is more a case of having nowt better to worry about.

Stalag Dukinfield said...

Anonymous 01:00, The people who live near this path are also part of the 'community at large' who, according to you, are responsible for the actions of criminals and scum in society, therefore it is 'tough' if they have to suffer the consequences. Exactly the same as it is 'togh' on those who would be denied access to this Public Footpath.
'Collective responsibility' doesn't exist and people are not responsible for the actions of others, the reality is individuals are responsible for their actions and should be punished accordingly. This type of fundamentally irrational, 'spread the blame' approach is becoming endemic in western society generally. The truth of course is the residents are no more responsible for the behaviour of a minority of society's detritus than the law abiding people who use this Public Footpath.
Any Public Footpath that causes problems would be automatically shut down under such 'reasoning', a patently nonsensical, disproportionate and unfair 'solution' and punishment to decent people who have done nothing.
When they pulled the 201 were you a'busybody' or a 'bone idle swine' who couldn't be bothered to walk or get a bike, or did you put in an official complaint to Stagecoach, Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and the other relevant authorities. Or did you just 'have to accept it' and do nothing. If enough people on Hattersley had complained, as a group or individually, it may well not have been pulled.
Hopefully the many people who use this Public Footpath will not adopt such an apathetic, fatalistic attitude and IT won't be pulled.
If they DO shut the path and people decide to respond by re-opening it themselves in 'whatever way necessary' no doubt you won't complain at such fascistic unreasonableness, or does that principle only apply from your side of the argument.
It isn't a short cut or 'small walkway' (its size is in any case irrelevant) it's a long standing, well used official Public Footpath on the Ordnance Survey map, and as such it is an important principle not to simply stand idly by (as usually happens with things like bus route withdrawals, after all it's only one bus route, 'nowt to worry about') whilst a few people try to close it.
Far too many paths and thorughways, often used for many years, have already been shut in this Borough to facilitate the useless and patently illogical and unfair to the law abiding, tactic of moving troublemakers elsewhere instead of trying to solve the problem.

Anonymous said...


On your first point, there is a fundamental difference relating to any such collective responsibility. One person's right to live in peace in their own home without the nuisance of local yobs is greater than the right of others to use a short footpath. That being the case, collective responsibility should fall on the latter not the former. Quite simple really, and your apparent inability to appreciate that fact shows a total lack of common sense.

Secondly, I didn't complain to Stagecoach, and why you idiotically assume I did is anyone's guess. And the 201 bus service was of far greater importance to the people of Hattersley than that yellow brick road you're infatuated with in Dukinfield.

And last (but not least) you didn't address the deal I put on the table. Quite simply, when you and the rest of the local Footpath Liberation Front agree to a mini communal meeting ground outside your homes for the local youth, then perhaps those already suffering might listen to what you have to say. If you can sit in your home and alleviate the stress by ruminating on the wonders and pleasures of a footpath, then I'll be outside yours tomorrow night with a few of the lads, a stereo and a few litre bottles of cheap cider.

Stalag Dukinfield said...

Anonymous 14:38, who says a few people's rights (as you put it, we're all part of the 'collective reponsibility', apart from you now moving the goalposts and exempting the selective few of your choosing without explaining why) are more important than a much greater number of peole's rights to use a lawful right of way? You do, but without explanation or reasoned argument. Such blanket, vacuous statements show a total lack of ability to construct a reasoned counter argument, which indeed you have failed to do on all of the points I raised.
I didn't assume you DID complain to Stagecoach, I assumed you DIDN'T, (and was correct) read my post properly, and don't make idiotic, careless assumptions.
The closure of a busy, useful official Public Footpath is of far greater importance to the many people in Dukinfield who use it than diverting one bus route after 7pm in Hattersley. You obviously weren't that bothered about it as you didn't even bother to object (or be a 'busybody').
Perhaps we should just adopt your 'solutions' of letting the scum win by: apathetically doing nothing as per the 201; or adopting unreasoning, draconian, catch all methods that punish a large number of law abiding citizens whilst the criminals simply move up the road to the next path or recess. Then we can shut THEM too, then the next one, then the next one etc etc. Solving, in reality, absolutely nothing.

Anonymous said...

"Who says...."

Whoever is in charge. There is always a subjective element to such decisions. It is up to those in power to balance the implications and make decisions accordingly. Such is the case with many things in life for everyone.

This isn't simply a case of numbers - how many inconvenienced versus how many granted peace in their homes. A further consideration should be the scale of the inconvenience versus the scale of the nuisance being caused. For the majority to simply say "I'm alright jack" and cock a snook at those living in those homes is all rather selfish. You wouldn't have some makeshift youth centre several yards from your front door irrespective of shortcuts made available when out strolling.

As for Hatts, what you said wasn't entirely obvious, not really my fault. The 201 wasn't diverted it was terminated at Hyde bus station. If that Duki shortcut saves a walking distance the equivalent of walking from Hattersley estate to Hyde bus station then you might just have a point.

"whilst the criminals simply move up the road to the next path or recess"

That's about as daft as saying installing burglar alarms is reprehensible because it just moves the thieves on to someone else's home that isn't alarmed. Wherever such measures can be implemented to resolve such nuisance behaviour to residents they should be. It is desirable that the layout of pathways / houses / roads etc is such that homes are not susceptible to this sort of thing. So long as main access routes remain open, the loss of a few walkways with a history of being misappropriated by yobs should concern no-one but the interfering percy sugden type.

D E L?? You CANNOT be serious said...

Taylor (surprise surprise) is the one pushing for the closure of the path (again). As Deputy Leader of a major metropolitan borough, footpaths and dog s**t are his main areas of expertise and responsibility.
Wasn't he also the driving force behind the downright stupid and totally unenforced and unenforcable length of dog lead by-laws.
Short lead = responsible dog owner.
Long lead = Irresponsible dog owner. Only a cretin or a child could come up with such moronic drivel. I won't criticise him too much or I might get accused of harassment or something, seeing as he's so thin skinned.

I think that says alot about the man said...

Judge Osborne County court Tameside
Quote: "I think Cllr Taylor needs to grow a thicker skin."

Stalag Dukinfield said...

Anonymous 20:43, In your first post you said there was a 'fundamental difference' between the rights of the householders and path users and that anyone who didn't understand that displayed 'a total lack of common sense'. In your second post it changes to a 'subjective decision and a question of balance', hardly sounds like the apparently blindingly obvious statement of fact you described previously.
It isn't 'up to those in power', otherwise there would be no formal procedure for objecting, especially when many in power in the one party state of Tameside have their own vested interests and agendas, and impartial, proportionate, intelligent and reasoned decisions are far from their minds, and in some cases capabilities.
I didn't say it was'simply a case of numbers', I emphasised the important principles of stopping the closure of a well used, official Public Footpath and also that it would simply move the problem elsewhere instead of solving it, both points which you chose to ignore and not counter by reasoned argument.
As for youth centres, some people do live near them and no doubt they aren't automatically closed because of a few complaints from residents, because there is the general principle of the well being and rights of the decent non-misbehaving users of the youth centre to consider, just as there is for the users of the path.
The original Hattersley post WAS obvious, you just didn't read it properly, and if that isn't your fault whose is it. I nver suggested anyone should walk to from Hattersley to Hyde, apart from in ironic response to your insulting comment about 'bone idle swines' re the path. If enough people had wanted to save the 201 post 7pm, instead of just accepting it as you did, it might still be running. Perhaps they needed a few more 'Percy Sugden types', i.e those who bother to object to actions by the authorities they disagree with instead of apthetically sitting back and 'accepting' it.
What IS daft is connecting burglar alarms designed to protect private property and which affect no-one other than potential criminals adversely, with closing an official path which would adversely affect large numbers of law abiding citizens.
What do you mean by 'main access route'? Footpath 27 must be one of the busiest paths in the area, check it out at school times in particular. Ths 'loss of a few walkways' is a casual, unreasoning statement that completely ignores the important principles of denying the law abiding access and in effect punishing them because of the actions of miscreants, and also failing to catch and punish the perpetrators. They will simply move elsewhere to inflict themseleves on others. Such are the 'benefits' of the ideology of collective responsibility. What society needs in general is the re-instatement, particularly by the authorities, of INDIVIDUAL responsibility where criminals are held accountable and punished and the law abiding are protected, supported and their rights upheld.

Anonymous said...

TMBC shut a 50 yard path between Dewsnap Lane and Blocksages playing fields a few years back. In the same ward, (about 100 yards from this one, coincidence?) and the same excuses were used.

Anonymous said...


Your posts are getting longer but you're arguments are just as flaccid. Whether you like it or not, a right to live in peace without nuisance from yobs is more important than your right to take a shortcut. You can straw man me and others all you like, but ultimately any right thinking person will lend their ear to those most affected.

No-one's going to erect a mini police station at that footpath to keep it in good order 24/7. You can shout from the rooftops all you like about the solutions you know damned well are never going to come into being, those living there will deal with the issue on real world terms because they've no other choice. And if they take my advice, any upstart out to kibosh proceedings will have a car parking up outside his house each night to provide loud gangsta rap as a nightcap. The upstart in question won't mind because he'll regard a local shortcut as ample compensation....

Stalag Dukinfield said...

Aninymous 00:05, your posts are getting shorter, but still contain a series of unreasoned statements as opposed to reasoned argument/counter argument. You have also constantly shifted or amended your position and failed to counter any posts that point this out.
I didn't strawman, I simply reponded directly to statements you made using reasoned counter argument and occasionally irony when referring to your previous abuse or errors in consistency or argument. Something you have singly failed to do.
You have now resorted (again) to 'I say the householders rights are more important than the path users so that's the end of it.' A meaningless, unreasoned statement that ignores any of the reasoned arguments I posted. You don't have omnipotent powers of universal moral insight that mean 'right thinking' people are on your side, if so that that omnipotence would not extend to explaining why.
I don't know who the 'others' you refer to are.
As for 'solutions that are never going to come along', if everyone adopts such an apathetic approach, they certainly won't. Apathy in general has been a major contributor to the decline in standards of behaviour in British society over the last few decades.
Your absurd police station comment aside I have already proposed CCTV as a part solution, it is up to the authorities to implement the existing laws which allow them to move people along if they are being a public nuisance. A sign clearly stating this was a residential area and loud noise/music was prohibited would also help, as would much more powerful lighting. The problem with people riding bikes down this path WAS solved by the installation of anti-cycling barriers. Graffiti exists on many other paths in Tameside that are not under threat of closure so is irrelevant as part of the complaint of those trying to close it.
The easy catch all that punishes the innocent and moves the guilty down the road is no solution, just repositioning and postponement.