Friday, 30 November 2012

J Hall Responds To Mr Ridgway (Tameside Advertiser Readers Letters 29-11-2012) Update: 01/12/12

So Mr Ridgway (29/11/2012) has all the answers and propaganda to support a Longdendale By-Pass
but what he completely avoids is where the extra 40,000 HGV`s and cars produced
by this by-pass will end up, as declared in the Public Inquiry Highways Agency documents.

Let me tell him facts not propaganda in that the vast increase in vehicles from Sheffield,Leeds,Hull etc
using the by-pass heading via the M67 and onwards will completely halt everything at Hyde as they crawl at 1-3 mph towards Junction 24 of the M60 at Denton.

Of course what you do not hear is the A57 towards Manchester from the M67 begins in 4 lanes then 3,then 2 and then just 1 at Reddish Bridge,so the 9000 max inhabitants in Longdendale will derive some benefit compared with the extra road hell let loose for 47,000 residents in Denton and Audenshaw who already live in the largest air polluted region in the UK North and that`s also a fact.

Notice how the By-Pass picture debate shows 3 Longdendale politicians and a Tameside leader who decide what to do without "any reference whatsoever towards the intended M67/M6O total blockage for 3 miles" prove me wrong Mr Ridgway,I really do have the facts,and why no HGV ban over the years ?????????????

J.Hall (Tameside)

If anyone is unaware of the destruction to the countryside this unwanted by-pass would cause if ever built, do watch the video above J.Hall's letter where the proposed route is explained. Tameside Citizen

Just to illustrate a point raised by J Hall. Take a look at this photograph I took today while stuck in a lengthy queue on the approach to the Denton interchange. The reason for the queue today was possibly football traffic. Imagine how bad it would be all the time if traffic quadrupled following the building of the unwanted (by most!) bypass? The people of Tintwistle, Mottram and Longdendale may have less traffic to upset their rural idyll, but the overall issue of congestion would not be solved because, as J Hall correctly states, it would just get snarled up at a bottleneck further down, either at M67 J1 as pictured here, or at the point where Hyde Rd is reduced to one lane.

And on the subject of jams. Take a look at the picture below taken today on the approach to Stalybridge Road at Mottram. Poor old L.S.Lowry whose house is a third of the way down on the right wouldn't have been impressed if he were still around to see it. It appears the people who predicted the nearby Tesco superstore would create chaos on the roads were right as ever since the Tesco opened, this road has been plagued by worse than usual jams. By the way, what happened to the 'jobs for locals' the local Labour Mafiosi promised would be created when Tesco opened?


Anonymous said...

Instead of lecturing everyone from Land's End to John O'Groats on what roads they are or are not allowed to have, perhaps the people of Denton should focus simply on sorting their own roads out if they don't suit. Either that or move out and leave Denton's properties to those unconcerned about traffic volume. This issue turned into a farce a long time ago and the sooner it is resolved one way or the other the better.

Siege Committee said...

Please ignore the selfish rants of J Hall and consider our situation. All we ask is for peace and quiet by diverting the major road away from our villages. We don't want anything other than a peaceful existance free from the constant roar of traffic.

Alf Garnett said...

Leave our countryside as it is it dont belong to you lot that live there and if you dont like the traffic near your villages move and let someone live there that dont mine the traffic ? The only reason half of you live up there is your scare if you come down from the hills someone mite find you a job

Green Army said...

@Siege Committee, the Longdendale Mafia are already exempt from most of the downsides of living in the crumbling s**thole that is modern Tameside. Now they want to be exempt from the traffic hell and have it shipped down the road where the fumes can gather and only affect the 'plebs'. Anyone who demurs is dismissed with the purest hypocrisy as 'selfish'.
I notice no-one is prepared to debate on the facts, i.e those which involve the destruction of a vast swathe of our most beautiful local countryside to benefit a few thousand people. All a bypass will do is shift the blockage down the road where, as Mr Hall rightly points out, it narrows to one lane.

Give Us Our Bypass said...

You can tell Alf Garnett has never been stuck in the queue from hell. How would you feel if the village where you grew up was overwhelmed with thundering HGV's tearing past your house 24 hours a day?

Me, My selfishness and I said...

@ Give us our bypass (so the blockage can be moved down the road away from me). What a cogent and brilliantly constructed argument.
What's so special about 'your' village? What about EVERYONE'S countryside.

We Want Our Bypass. When Do We Want It? We Want It Now said...

The UN declaration of human rights states every inhabitant should have the right to live their lives in peace. How can we live in peace when we have 44 tonne HGV's thundering past our front door 24 hours a day? The vortex created by these passing monsters could easily suck in young children and pets. There are hundreds of square miles of open countryside around here. The bypass we need will only take up 6.8 miles so why do you want to condemn us to a life of misery for the sake of 6.8 miles of empty countryside which you would not even miss. Have some consideration for the long suffering residents.

Anonymous said...

The UN declaration of human rights states every inhabitant should have the right to live their lives in peace. How can we live in peace when we have 44 tonne HGV's thundering past our front door 24 hours a day?
The vortex created by these passing monsters could easily suck in young children and pets.How would you feel if the village where you grew up was overwhelmed with thundering HGV's tearing past your house 24 hours a day?
Everyone recalls your regular crib about slow moving/static vehicles in Longendale,depicted
in your concocted photographs,yet you have speed camera`s right along your roads,and now your Dr.Who vortex`s from thundering HGV`s 24 hours per day,which deprives you of peace.
What the hell is going on up there jammed up roads,or thundering vortex creating fast vehicles.
So its now Children vanishing into vortex`s created by "crawling slow traffic",
What strange concoctions are you drinking or puffing on up there ??

Anonymous said...

The plight of residents in Longdendale is only one of a number of considerations when considering the case in favour of a by-pass. I'm not necessarily for or against. But I do think it's spurious to propose that residents in other towns should be allowed to dictate the road building in other towns, irrespective of perceived side effects. Unless there's good evidence that Denton really would be so adversely affected by a new road in Mottram (highly dubious by the sounds of it) I don't think the paranoia of a few Denton fusspots should be allowed to sway any such decision.

Anonymous said...

Latest News on Israeli intimidation of Palestinians
Israel unveils plans for 3,000 more settlement homes a day after UN votes to recognise Palestine.
Lets ask all our local Israeli supporting Labour MP`s and Councillors whether they continue to support building these new 3000 homes each day for Jewish settlers on Israeli plundered land.
Vote Labour in Tameside and watch their friends in Israel keep jacking up the intimidation even in a cease fire period.
How many Muslims vote Labour in Tameside surely the Palestinians should know.

Anonymous said...

"But I do think it's spurious to propose that residents in other towns should be allowed to dictate the road building in other towns, irrespective of perceived side effects".
So Tintwistle with max 2000 is now a Town,and Hollingworth with a few hundred living near the road is also now a town?and Mottram Moor into Mottram with its handful of residents has now become a town
Your ramblings and definitions are somewhat screwed up.
Whats this next garbage:
"Denton really would be so adversely affected by a new road in Mottram (highly dubious by the sounds of it"
Your ignorance of the facts is alarming.
If you were getting 400,000 daily vehicles with the enormous noise and pollution already for 47,000 what would you say to Denton & Audenshaw folk
wanting to dump another 40,000 onto your Mottram,Tinwistle environment.
Your makeing comments from which orifice ??

tonydj said...

Surely the problem is caused by goods being moved in a fleet of HGVs when they could fit in one train.

Long distance lorries did not exist in years gone by. Goods went from factory by road to the nearest goods yard then long distance by train then road from goods yard to consumer or wholesaler. A relatively short journey.

Strange how the private road haulage industry grew when the trains were nationalised.

Of course such an integrated transport system will not be reintriduced in the face of the road haulage lobby.

Tameside Citizen said...

That is an excellent point TonyDJ and the ironic thing is, Britain’s first electrified main line railway known as The Woodhead Line takes a near identical route to the A628 which is the cause of the traffic congestion. The Tories insanely closed the Woodhead Line in 1981. The reasoning for closing the line is unclear, but many conspires exist. One thing is for sure; the route between Manchester and Sheffield which closed in 1981 was the quickest route between the two cities.

There was a proposal to reopen the Woodhead Line using a system where HGV’s could drive straight onto trains, similar to how the Channel Tunnel operates, but sadly it come to nothing.

Anonymous said...

Put a weight limit on the A628, and make these behemoths go round the M62 and down the M1, (or reverse of course). And don't say there can't be weight limits on A roads, the A66 over Shap is ample evidence there can be.

SerpentSlayer said...

As I said in my latest blog post (click on my name). Israel will never settle for what they have, they a will consume the earth if they were allowed to.

Anonymous said...

"So Tintwistle with max 2000 is now a Town"

Whether it's a town / estate / district or whatever you want to call it isn't important. What I'm talking about is Denton people sticking their noses into everyone else's road building affairs. It isn't just Mottram / Tintwistle that is affected, the traffic problems fan out into neighbouring areas such as Hyde. I should know I live in Newton and the daily rat run of HGVs down Matley Lane - Victoria Street - Clarendon Road is absolutely horrendous. Amongst others you'll see the likes of Hadfields Transport lorries thundering up and down just to avoid the horrendous congestion. There may be a case for mothballing the by-pass scheme, I just don't trust the residents of either Denton or Tintwwistle to put forward a balanced and objective judgement.

Green Army said...

@ anonymous 07:15, 'I do think it's spurious to propose that residents in other towns should be allowed to dictate the roadbuilding in other towns.' Is that even when the residents in those 'other towns' like Denton will suffer the consequences of a bypass being built in 'your' town? You're right, we should all keep quiet so the pro bypass lobby in Longdendale get their way as it's obviously the most important part of Tameside and no-one else has any rights.
As for the post about 6.8 miles of countryside, the reality is it will destroy by noise and massive visual intrusion one of the largest and most beautiful rural areas of Tameside, a borough which is rapidly being built on and concreted over, another 6500 in the last ten years alone. With ever growing immigrant communities expect that to grow exponentially before the next census.
We need to protect our local countryside as it comes under growing threat, especially areas of this type and scale, not devastate them with a bypass to facilitate less than 4% of the borough's population.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous 20:55, Criticising Dentonians and those from tintwistle for lack of objectivity and 'sticking their noses in' is nonsense. They have the same rights (and the same amount of objectivity as Newtonians affected by the traffic) to comment on traffic issues that may affect them. Them not living there is irrelevant.
As for Matley Lane, there is a 7.5 tonne weight limit, and on Victoria Street there are speed bumps and 20 mph zones. Presumably HGV companies, with the vast amounts of fuel and road tax they pay feel they have a right to use the roads.

Anonymous said...

"As for Matley Lane, there is a 7.5 tonne weight limit, and on Victoria Street there are speed bumps and 20 mph zones"

what an unbelieveably crass and ignorant comment. And what do you suppose it's like with lorries smashing into speedbumps right outside homes on Victoria Street - try asking the residents there! And the many lorries pay absolutely no attention to the joke speed limit of 20MPH. And it's a damned good job there's a weight limit on Matley Lane, because I really wouldn't fancy the prospect of huge juggernauts attempting to navigate their way along it. There's already been plenty of carnage in that area!

You can deride others for thinking they're the most important people in Tameside. But by the same token reading some of the comments here you'd think Denton was the centre of the damned universe. I will remind you - NOBODY other than Dentonians are laying the law down to all and sundry on what roads they are allowed to have. And as for that Denton roundabout, I have made use of it myself over the years. Do forgive but each time I approach it I'm not having visions of hell about what may await.

I'm not privy to all the facts, I just don't automatically assume that a few Denton residents who have their dander up over this are a reliable truth gauge. If they have 'facts' that by all means present them to relevant persons. But whatever the outcome there will probably be winners and losers all round (though I would never expect some to appreciate that fact).

Anonymous said...

The traffic outside Lowry's old house has been like that for 20 years - nothing to do with Tesco. Hardly anyone using that white elephant anyway.

Anonymous said...

The root of the traffic problem is the Stocksbridge bypass and its link to the M1. Nobody on this side of the Pennines was consulted when this road was built. A flyover at denton would help at that junction and manchester should widen Hyde road at Debdale whatever happens elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Anon said
I'm not privy to all the facts, I just don't automatically assume that a few Denton residents who have their dander up over this are a reliable truth gauge. If they have 'facts' that by all means present them to relevant persons
Obviously you background knowledge is zero.
We provided vast amounts of substantied evidence and the large Tameside/Highways/United Utilities
Development programme was scrapped.
Waterside Park was the Public Inquiry.
The Longendale Public Inquiry was served also with numerous facts ie Video Film,DfT Data,Epidemiological Research Studies,objects from many Recreation Groups Wildlife,and Countryside Alliance,Peak Park District NP evidence.
And ended up with proof that the Longendale submissions were inaccurate,false,misleading,and unsubstantiated.
And the same barrage will occur if another attempt is made to show the false and concocted evi9dence is again issued by the Seuige Committee/HA/and Tameside MBC.
Please establish and read the huge amounts of Internet background to the issues involved before you spout off again.
The Longendale Seige Committee provided a few scraps of paper andn its leadership never attended the Public Inquiry because their ramblings could not be substantiated and they new it.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous 06:45, there won't be any noise from lorries 'going over' the speed bumps because they're all of the straddle type, perhaps you are 'ignorant' of that.
I agree with the weight limit on Matley Lane, I was the one who pointed it out in the first place re your incorrect comment that HGVs went down it. There may have been incidents, I don't remember any 'carnage'.
It isn't 'laying the law down' to express an opinion on possible significant traffic increases in your area. As Dentonians will be amongst the most seriously affected they are the most likely to comment. You also have expressed views on the traffic problems in Newton without being falsely accused of 'laying the law down'.
I don't automatically assume objectivity from ANYONE re the bypass, just as you aren't objective about traffic issues in Newton.
As for appreciation of facts let's hope the people who make the final bypass decision have a better command of them than you.

Zolo said...

We need proper road networks both locally and nationally. Any parts of Mottram, Hollingworth etc that get in the way should be bulldozed to make way for it. That would benefit hundreds of thousands of road users daily, not to mention the massive boost to the economy, instead of the few thousand who live there.
The other end of the M67 should also be turned into a giant flyover with staggered, spiral junctions branching off to the most useful road in Greater Manchester, the M60, (as was originally planned), to keep traffic and the consequent massive economic benefits flowing. Demolish any houses in the Debdale area and make a wide, free flowing artery into the centre of Manchester that will be used by economy boosting, commercial, commuting and private road users.

Anonymous said...

"there won't be any noise from lorries 'going over' the speed bumps because they're all of the straddle type, perhaps you are 'ignorant' of that."

Actually, that relies on lorries hitting them at just the right spot, which invariably they do not. I do not have them outside my home, they are close-by and I know some households that do. They are right outside homes that have no front garden and are just feet away from the kerb. You my friend do not have a damned clue what you are talking about.

There were two terminally ill people on this street who had to suffer the nuisance of those bumps right outside their homes thanks to those evil pigs at Wellington Road who (like you) flipantly dismiss complaints without knowing the facts. Councillor Peter Robinson gave them those ill people the two fingered salute and was then spouting off in the local papers about having been the good samaritan in Margeret Oldham's last days. There were also vibration measurements (Testconsult Ltd.) conducted in homes which showed levels to be way in excess of nuisance thresholds, so please don't patronise me about objectivity.

My views on Newton were simply about emphasising the fact that this is about more than Tintwistle v Denton. And unless you've sat and monitored a series of cctv cameras along Matley Lane for the last 20 years I'd be interested to know how you immediately manage to come by the accident history of the place. I've already stated that there are winners and losers all round in this whatever the outcome, for which reason I'd prefer to reserve judgement without automatically believing the dictats of J Hall and his fellow Denton mouthpieces. All you and the Denton gang do is endlessly play the woe is me violin ballad. Despite the potential benefit in Newton I'm still prepared to consider that the best option (all considered) MAY be to shelve the plan for a by-pass. What I'm not prepared to do is soak up like a sponge 'facts' presented by biased parties.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous 21:28, you incorrectly stated HGVs go down Matley Lane, they don't as there is a 7.5 tonne weight limit. Then incorrectly stated lorries went over Victoria Street speed bumps without mentioning said bumps are of the straddle type, I think we all know not every single large vehicle straddles every speed bump with 100% accuracy. Presumably some would say (not me I think all speed bumps should be removed) more speed bumps would stop Hadfields Transport 'thundering' down Victoria Street etc breaking the 20 mph limit, but you can't have it both ways.
There is no 'carnage' on Matley Lane, I stated there had no doubt been incidents, as there are on virtually every busy road. CCTV isn't necessary to establish the truth of your gross exaggeration, unless you'd care to use it to back up your assertion of 'carnage'. Mistakes, omissions and exaggeration make it appear you lack objectivity. Then attacked Dentonians for doing precisely what you are doing, expressing a view on Tameside's traffic problems, real and potential.
The people of Denton and Longdendale are no more or less objective than the people of Newton or any part of Tameside on the traffic in their area, or the potential increase in traffic due to a road scheme in another area.

Anonymous said...

I used HGVs casually, since I'm really not interested in what size / weight etc classes as what. You other the other hand (being a pedantic arse) chose to make an issue of something that is really not relevant in this particular issue. The new video posted on this blog is said to prove otherwise, but I'm really unconcerned about the precise taxonomy of vehicles larger than a motor car. The simple fact is that traffic vibration measurements have been obtained in homes beside those bumps DOUBLE what the maximum recommended limit is for residential properties. And since the worst vibration is generated by the biggest vehicles, it's really of no import what those trucks / lorries / LGVs are exactly classed as coming down Matley Lane.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but those traffic vibration measurements also make an irrelevance of exactly what position the vehicles are hitting the bumps. If (as according to you) they do indeed 'straddle' them with pinpoint accuracy 100% of the time, then that too isn't good enough since the noise / vibration nuisance is still being caused.

I've already said that there may be a case for shelving the bypass for the sake of Denton. But what this issue does perhaps prove is how some of those in Denton are prepared to consider no-one's plight but their own. The daily rat run of trucks on Matley Lane IS horrendous, as is navigating the tight bend half way along Clarendon Road with them speeding past - another accident hotspot. Also - I'm not in need of proof / stats for such claims any more than you are to back your claim that there has been no carnage. I've lived in the area for nearly 60 years so I know what I'm talking (unlike somebody who dismisses the nuisance of traffic in nearby homes because speedbumps are there to alleviate it!!).

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous 22:44, you stated HGVs used Matley Lane without mentioning the 7.5 tonne weight limit that prohibits them. I use this road regularly and have never seen any, no doubt a very few incompetent lorry drivers fail to observe the road sign. If the size of vehicles is irrelevant and you aren't 'interested' in it why did you use the specific, exaggerated and incorrect term HGVs? Pointing out such errors isn't pedantry as it relates exactly, and is pursuant to rebutting your claims of a lack of objectivity in others and as such is entirely relevant to the debate.
No-one has disputed noise from speed bumps simply corrected your neglect to mention they were of the patently less noisy straddle type. And they would stop the 'thundering' down the road of lorries, that one part of your contradictory argument states.
If a vehicle correctly straddles the bumps it isn't 'irrelevant', as the noise would be considerably less than if it hit it. I did not state that all vehicles hit them with 'pinpoint accuracy', on the contrary I said, 'I think we all know not every single large vehicle straddles every bump with 100% accuracy' so don't quote the diametric opposite. I did not 'dismiss the nuisance of traffic because speed bumps are there to alleviate it', I specifically said in my opinion speed bumps should be removed nationwide. You've resorted to longevity of residence as a substitute for backing up your obvious gross exaggerations of 'carnage' as opposed to the reality of there being incidents, the same as any fairly busy road. I've driven along it thousands of times with out witnessing 'horrendous' things. Take more care regarding omissions, exaggerations and mistakes and your argument won't come across as lacking objectivity.
Dentonians and people in Longdendale are no doubt more concerned about the traffic problems (real and potential) in their area, as Newtonians are more concerned about the ones in theirs, and have the same right to express a view, and have a similar level of objectivity, as everyone's views are influenced by things that might adversely affect them.
Any problems on Matley Lane, Clarendon road etc at peak times could only be alleviated by road re-engineering (widening etc) at the affected spots, or the building of a bypass, something about which you apparently have no view, despite it being the core of the debate. I'm against it because of the devastating impact on nearby rural areas which I believe is vastly more important than temporary traffic problems (which could all be solved by other means, such as a re-routed bypass and/or road re-engineering) in Longdendale, Newton or Denton.

Anonymous said...

"why did you use the specific, exaggerated and incorrect term HGVs"

Because in the case of Vic.St the differentiation lgv/hgv would be of little consequence to the underlying point, something you are too bone headed to appreciate. I could have used truck as a general term, but it's a moot point where the issue of trucks flying down matley / victoria / clarendon are concerned. Even if they were lgvs coming down matley lane, the basic point of why they might be choosing this route would remain. Persisting with this futile and irrelevant point only demonstrates your desperation.

And since there are often cars parked half way on to speed bumps on this narrow street, it kind of makes a nonsense of your 'straddle' assertion. Sorry, but you cannot straddle either side of a speedbump whilst miraculously passing through a large solid object like a motor vehicle at the same time.

I know a great many trucks / vans (or whatever a learn-ed four wheels scholar chooses to label them as) use matley on a daily basis - I often see them from the vantage point of nearby Hough Hill when walking my dog (when not seeing them flying right past the outside of my home on Victoria Steet). That I'd say counts for a whole lot more than the rather limited 'experience' of some Denton know-all driving along here a few minutes at a time (esp. when I've been around here for decades). And I'd say something similar about road accidents too.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous 19:51, You have removed your exaggeration by using the term HGV and changed it to larger vehicles such as vans, lorries by definition are considerably noisier, bigger and more troublesome than vans etc. And corrected your omission to neglect that the bumps are of the straddle type that, by definition are considerably less noisy than the full width types which are of course struck by vehicles 100% of the time. These points are neither futile or irrelevant as they demonstrate the very lack of objectivity, in this case by exaggeration, omission and mistake, you accuse those in other areas of having. You have traffic problems in your area and your views are affected by your residency, the same as everywhere else.
Yet you apparently don't have, or don't want to express, a view on the bypass (despite your strong opinions about vehicles 'flying right past the outside' of your house, speed bumps etc) which would remove said problems, you yourself stated you knew the reason why many vehicles chose this route, we all do, there's no bypass. I use Matley Lane many times a week, NOT because of the bypass situation, and am very familiar with it.
I don't live in Denton, that is an incorrect assumption on your part, which further demonstrates your lack of objectivity (as well as the above exaggerations, mistakes and omissions which you have now admitted and corrected) towards Dentonians, and your invented assumption that they are any more or less objective than other residents of Tameside regarding traffic issues in their respective areas. No-one in Denton is dictating anything, they are simply expressing views which, like anyone's, could well be affected by the effect it might have on them or their area.

Anonymous said...

"by definition are considerably less noisy than the full width types which are of course struck by vehicles 100% of the time. These points are neither futile or irrelevant"

Sorry boss, but LESS noisy does NOT mean less ENOUGH. The tests confirmed that, as does the fact that residents up and down the land have complained about these monstrosities causing a noise / vibration nuisance. Initial government advice came from the Transport Research Laboratory who warned the government that bumps on busy roads may cause a nuisance irrespective of dimensions, something the last Labour government chose to arrogantly ignore. Implying that we're somehow well-off because the bumps are not 'full width' is about as daft as saying be appreciative that you were run over by a car and not a land rover.

"I don't live in Denton"

Possibly, but I'll choose to guess otherwise. And I do have an opinion on the by-pass (if you'd have read my posts properly). I've already said that it may be appropriate to shelve the plan with the effects on Denton being one good reason. My initial point about Newton was simply to illustrate the issue may be about more than just Denton v Tintwistle. On the other hand all you have done is show a vehement and uncompromising support for the Denton side and then (laughably) asked us to believe you do not live in Denton and you are a totally objective and unbiased outsider. If you think the rest of the world is as stupid as you are think again.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous 22:10, I did not say it meant 'less enough', I said straddle types are less noisy than full width ones which are struck 100% of the time, and pointed out that you neglected to mention the nature of these bumps in your original post and also omitted to mention the 7.5 tonne weight limit on Matley Lane, (both points you have now conceded) thereby illustrating the exaggerations, omissions and mistakes that demonstrate the same lack of objectivity you accuse Dentonians of. Unless you are stating these bumps are of some freakishly large size (which they aren't), their dimensions are irrelevant, and mere attempted obfuscation on your part.
I did not say anyone was well off, such inventions and misquotations make your argument look even weaker, I said straddle type bumps were less noisy than full width ones.
I don't live in Denton and your response that I am a liar, as that fact doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, is insulting and a ruse to cover up that another of the props of your argument doesn't exist.
You have finally repsonded to my repeated question re your full and open views on the bypass with a mealy mouthed repitition of,' it may be appropriate to shelve the plans', a vacillating and disingenuous non-view and non-commitment, despite all your complaints regarding the traffic problems outside your house relating directly to the lack of construction of said bypass. Why would you want to shelve it (maybe/maybe not, as you refuse to express a definite view) if it means the continuation of all the traffic problems you have described in your area, that you clearly feel so strongly about? If you're happy for there to be no bypass in the forseeable future why bother to complain about a) large vehicles 'thundering' past your house, or b) speed bumps outside your house. If the bumps WERE removed and the bypass not built you would have an ever increasing number of such vehicles going past your house, yet you mystyeriously have no discernible or definite view on the bypass, unless your sudden and previously unexpressed concerns about the 'effects on Denton' outweigh your repeatedly expressed concerns for the effects on your area.
I have not shown 'a vehement and uncompromising support' for the Denton side any more than one against the people of Longdendale, as I have repeatedly said I am against the bypass because of the devastating effect it will have on a vast and important part of the borough's countryside.
What I am against is the hypocrisy of those who criticise others with views on the bypass by saying they are only concerned about their own back yards and that Dentonians/people from Longdendale etc also demonstrate a lack of objectivity, especially when such criticisms emanate from those who repeatedly demonstrate the self same characteristics.
Tamesiders need to re-prioritise their thinking on the bypass by considering the devastatiing effect this massive rural destruction will have on the well being of the whole borough rather than simply their own areas. That goes for Denton, Longdendale and Newton.

Overpopulation said...

They're all NIMBYs, whether honest about it or not.

Overpopulation said...

I nearly forgot, Hall's a NIMBY too but there's nothing wrong with standing up for your area when a lot of people's health is involved. And if Hall's got it all wrong why's he got so many of the Labour mafia on his case.