Friday, 1 February 2013

Local newspaper reports on the closure of Footpath 27

I think Sue Carr reporting in The Advertiser is being a little bit too dramatic by describing Footpath 27 a "crime path". In The Reporter it is good to see that Cllr Taylor does "genuinely feel" for the residents who now have to walk further thanks to this closure which he was determined to bring about. He tells us the closure was "inevitable" and it would have happened sooner or later anyway.

There's nothing like good old 'dictatorial' democracy is there Cllr Taylor? The vast majority of residents oppose the closure but their wishes are ignored and those with vested interests force the closure regardless of public opinion.

To read the articles click on either image to enlarge.


Mi nAyMe iZ Jon said...

The crimes/incidents mentioned were apparently committed 'in the area', how many were actually committed on the Public Footpath (it's not an 'alleyway' despite friendly and totally impartial Mr Plod constantly, and no doubt accidentally, describing it as such) or indeed had anything to do with it is unknown. The way these so-called incidents were thrown in at the meeting was totally unacceptable.
The Labour voters of Tameside have got the DEL they deserve.
The law abiding vast majority of users of this path will suffer because of the short sighted, dim witted 'solution' imposed on them, and because the authorities have totally failed (again) to deal with a small number of incidents somewhere near (within a mile or so) of this path, which may or may not be tenuously connected to it.
Taylor's next target is the paths going through Richmond Park estate, a well known hive of international drug dealers, gang rapists and ritual stranglers.

Anonymous said...

For anyone not on Kenyon Avenue, this amounts to an extra 100 metres walking distance (200 both ways) to make the journey from Cheetham Hill Road to Birch Lane. As for those on Kenyon Avenue - many have cars, and surely the views which count most are those of the people closest to the path.

Anonymous said...

It's a maximum of 495 metres each way and a probable average of 250 to 300, but it's the principle that's most important. Why should the law abiding majority have to suffer because of the failure of the authorities to deal with miscreants?

Anonymous said...

'This amounts to an extra hundred metres...' get back to your Kenyon Avenue cave, and try not to cry if someone walks past your house once every twenty years.

Anonymous said...

How an earth do you calculate an 'average' extra walking distance imposed on Dukinfield residents - survey every address in Dukinfield to find out who uses the path and how frequently?

If we can agree that about an extra 200 metres walked by everyone passing through (not residing on) Kenyon Avenue is trivial, then the only issue is the residents of Kenyon Avenue. Those least affected would be those situated nearest to Birch Lane, the worst affected those higher up near the entrance to the footpath.

So the question is what proportion of those on Kenyon Avenue near the path want the path closed. That 9after all) is 1. where complaints about nuisance arise, and 2. where the greatest extra walking distance will be imposed. I haven't surveyed those particular residents, but that is the proper basis to judge the issue. If a majority of those living at the footpath end of Kenyon Avenue want it closed, then the case would be unanswerable. If not, then keep it open.

Anonymous said...

"Why should the law abiding majority have to suffer because of the failure of the authorities to deal with miscreants?"

Because the 'law abiding majority' should at least have the decency to acknowledge that if their cherished path is causing grief for nearby residents, then it may be appropriate to forego a shortcut to grant them some relief (rather than smugly commiserate them with the highly unlikely prospect of some ideal world solution).

On balance, I don't regard taking a moderate short cut as a greater right than the right to live in peace in one's own home. Moral dilemmas find real solutions in more than just number contests.

ex labour voter said...

I curse that bloody councillor every day. He is forcing our kids away from the safety of the passage onto the roads. If any get run over as a result he is to blame. It is the young and old who will suffer the most because of this abuse of power.

Cheetham Hill Road said...

"Data from the latest Census shows Cheetham Hill Road in Manchester is one of Britain’s most diverse streets.

Nearly half (48 per cent) of all residents in the Cheetham area – historically home to migrants from across the world – said English was not their main language.

According to the Office of National Statistics, Urdu is the most commonly spoken language after English, followed by Arabic, Polish, Kurdish and Italian. Across Manchester, 17 per cent of adults said English was not their first language."

Perhaps the loss of a footpath on another Cheetham Hill Road should be the least of our worries.

Anonymous said...

@ Cheetham Hill Rd, so allowing us in Duki to be steamrollered by a few selfish locals and the chief footpath closing moron is going to improve the OTHER Cheetham Hill Rd? We should be focussing on BOTH types of issue.
'How on earth do you calculate an average extra walking distance.' 'If we can agree about an extra 200 metres'. No I don't agree but you can't ask how it's possible for someone to come up with an average and then give one yourself. How do YOU know how many footpath users walk how far. As a massive number of them are schoolchildren at All Saints, a large proportion will be walking nearly the full 495 metres extra each way.
If it was an extra two miles each way you'd still want it closed so put your tape measure away and stop pretending you give a toss about the distance.
No-one said numbers were everything but they are an important factor especially when a massively disproportionate number want the path to stay open.
The point about the narrow pavements, particularly on the corner of Yew Tree Lane and Cheetham Hill rd is a good one. An extra few hundred kids going round an already chronically busy corner, and area in general, at school times (unless you live in the new, Kenyon Avenue 'Gated Community') in this area could cause such an incident.

TMBC Elite = Recession Free Zone said...

Harringey Council in London are having a clampdown on the serious crime of vans with no, 'No Smoking' stickers inside. The fine? £200. Sounds like a nice little earner for brain dead, greedy, petty minded councils/councillors to get their teeth into.
TMBC and their alleys and dog shit specialist might follow up this new revenue stream (something's got to fund councillor's extortionate allowances and executive's £200,000 wage packets, 'what recession?') as soon as every path in the borough is closed.

Choo choo, paa paa said...

Anyone know when the tram starts in service?

Stalag Tameside said...

There used to be a path at the top of Taylor's road, a few yards long, no dog-leg, guess if it's still open.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, I didn't come up with an average. That's roughly the extra walking distance incurred by anyone not living on Kenyon Avenue.

It's simple mathematics - the distance walked from the Kenyon / Birch junction up Kenyon and through the footpath onto CH Rd. Subtract that figure from the distance walked from the same Kenyon / Birch juntion round to the bottom of Yew Tree then up CHill to the opposite end of the footpath. That gives the extra walking distance imposed.

If I was to be generous about it and give an absolute maximum (going off google maps) then it would be 350 minus 200. That's an extra 150 metres walked, 300 in total (there and back) for anyone not living on Kenyon. Those living on Kenyon would be the worst affected in terms of extra walking distance, which presumably is where councillor Reynolds comes by her figure of 500 metres (250 extra metres each way). Figures have been quoted round here of up to an extra kilometre walked - either someone needs to go back to school or they're just telling porkies.

Also - quite bizarre to label as unduly 'selfish' someone's desire to live in peace in their own home free from crime and anti social behaviour, especially when the course of action being requested has no viable realistic alternative available. The barbed wire and industrial grease along with supportive police statements doesn't hint to me at exageration. Presumably it's the consequence of noise nuisance, criminal damage, burglaries, muggings, arson and sexual assault. The selfishness accusation cuts both ways, as does heart breaking stories of all those moaning about being inconvenienced. The only question this whole issue does beg is exactly what it would take to close holy footpath27....

"We have had sexual offences in that area within the last six months where the alleyway was used as an escape route. We are there on a regular basis. There's a course of crime in that area using the alleyway and I believe they are only the tip of the iceberg".
- PC Darren Royle

Reap what you sow said...

Given the overwhelming level of Labour support in Tameside (inc. Duki), it's a fair bet that the vast majority of those bitchin about the closure of the path are themselves Labour voters too - so hard cheese for them I say.

SerpentSlayer said...

Considering how effective GMP is at preventing crime not just in alleyways but on streets also, does this mean we will all have to be under 24 hour curfew just to cut down crime?

Sunnyside road, Droyslden has a path blocked off for similar reasons and it has nothing to do with inconvenience why I oppose it's closure and everything to do with personal liberty and the right to walk wherever we damn well like!

All the arguments here seem to gloss over that fact as unimportant. But convenience is a minor factor, our right to walk on a footpath is tied to our inalienable rights as Englishmen and women.
We are denied our rights to speech, self defense, to carry tools, to hunt, to tread wherever we care to and to defend our own lands.

This little footpath is but one of innumerable insults towards English folk and freedoms.

close that gate before it's too late said...

One of the many unreported facts to emerge from the 2011 Census is the staggering growth in Manchester’s official population between 2001 and 2011. To be precise from 392,818 in 2001 to 503,127 in 2011 – that’s roughly a 30% increase. In fact, as a percentage, it’s about double the increase experience by Greater London over the same period.

Growth on such a scale is unprecedented in the city and, clearly, has little to do with “natural increase”.

As Manchester’s “White British”, to use the official Office for National Statistics (ONS) term, has decrease over the same period from 74.5% to 59.3% it neither takes a rocket scientist nor a Home Office demographer to discover the reason why.

In actual fact we, the White British are officially now an ethnic minority in 8 of Manchester’s 32 wards.

These being: Ardwick (35.5%),Cheetham (28.6%), Crumpsall (44.5%), Hulme (46.9%), Longsight (21.5%), Moss Side (25.7%) Rusholme (35.6%) and Whalley Range (38.7%).
Should the trend continue, and there is no reason to suppose it won’t, then we are going to find ourselves an ethnic minority in a further 9 wards by the time of the next census: these being (with 2011 White British percentages in parenthesis) Bradford (61.5%), Burnage (59.5%), City Centre (54.6%), Fallowfield (54.1%), Gorton North (60.4%), Gorton South (50.2%), Harpurhey (63.2%), Levenshulme (50.6%) and Old Moat (54.9%).

Taking into account that the census data was collated almost two years ago and factoring in “illegals” it is all but certain that Gorton South and Levenshulme can be added to the number of wards currently having minority White British communities.

Should the situation continue to deteriorate then in 2021, when the next census will be taken, only 15 Manchester wards will (for the time being) retain White British majorities – meaning that Manchester will follow London, Leicester, Luton, Slough and Birmingham into becoming a former English city.

That’s the shocking reality as exposed by the government’s own statistics.

Manchester’s fate, like so much else in our country, depends on YOU getting off the fence, getting organised and fighting for both your and your children's birthright.

Anonymous said...

Well in that case serpent slayer we'll gauge the level of nuisance being caused to residents near footpath27, and come round and inflict on you and your family outside your home.

I'm quite sure you won't have any complaint, the thought of an English yeoman enjoying his local shortcuts will more than compensate for having rape, burglary and arson right on your doorstep. You can also console yourself that such nuisance won't last forever, because ideal world solutions exist of dealing with 'miscreants' that you can go out and campaign for.

But for those of us more inclined to dealing with reality on more practical and realistic terms, we'll happily forego a footpath or two to grant some peace to those who (just as much as you!) are entitled to live in peace in their own home. There is no greater inalienable right than that!

Most Britons support fox hunting ban, survey finds said...

He said the Ipsos Mori results were a warning to the coalition not to "waste valuable parliamentary time" on the issue. He said: "They should listen to the majority of decent people in the country who consistently think that hunting should remain illegal and support the act. While hunts may want to spin their "lawful hunting activities" to the media, the uncomfortable truth is that cruel hunting and killing of wild animals in the name of 'sport' still goes on."

Why can he get away with this? said...

You certainly fall for Countryside Alliance propaganda don’t you!

Vixens are always hunted and killed in the spring. They are often either heavily pregnant or lactating which leaves the cubs to die a slow and painful death of starvation while sadly waiting for their mothers to return.

Take a look on YouTube and you will see proof of fox foetus' ripped from their mothers body by fox hounds.

Anonymous said...

It is now accepted the minority and Councillor Taylor have won on the closure of the public footpath the arguments on distances continue, however the point raised in regards to the narrow pavement on the corner of Yew Tree lane and Cheetham Hill Road is a valid point. I also can forsee major issues with the extra school children and parents with buggies making their way to and from schools , nurseries, play groups and bus stops.

Tameside Citizen said...

It is interesting that the subject of foxes should appear out of the blue. Just yesterday I filmed two foxes in the TMBC gardening HQ in Denton. I only had my mobile phone with me so the footage is not brilliant. I will upload it later if I get the time.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 23:07, the maximum extra distance, measured by a borough surveyor is 495 metres, the figure Councillor Reynolds quoted. Your 'rough' distance is based on a guess at the number of walkers doing the shorter and longer extra distances, i.e. you have no information what proportion of the path's overall users are, for example, All Saints pupils, many of whom will have to walk virtually the full 495 metres each way. So to calculate a 'rough' or average distance by path users is impossible without an exact head count and poll of their respective destinations. In any case if the extra distance was a rigid two miles you'd still want the path closed so why do you keep quoting distances?
There are no reliable figures re incidents on the path as opposed to the deliberately nebulous, 'in the area', statistics quoted by various vested interests who want the path closed no matter what. There have been many burglaries, assaults and other crimes within a mile or two of this path (CLEARLY unconnected) so making it out as a hotspot with no reliable (or impartial) figures is disingenuous to say the least. There was a local lady at the meeting strongly against the closure who had been burgled six times in twenty nine years. She doesn't live on the path, but going by the constant use of the phrase 'in the area' no doubt the burglaries, or indeed any crime incident 'in the area' could be linked to it.
I prefer to rely on the independent statement in the report by the PCSO with six years on the beat in this area, that she thought there was no significant or specific problem with this path (funny how it took a local resident who had scrutinised the report to bring this PCSO's statement to everyone's attention as all those concerned with 'crime' on the path never mentioned it). Strange how it was almost diametrically opposed to PC Royle's view of problems 'in the area', who sat with Councillor Taylor who has a long history of blocking off paths.
The question of inconvenience, selfishness, principle, rights of way and every issue related to this useful and extremely busy Public Footpath, whether based on what a tiny number of householders want or a vastly greater number of Public Footpath users comes down to a reasoned, proportionate argument. Like the one at the speakers panel meeting where those opposed to the closure clearly won: residents representing the vast majority of path users in the area; experts from three highly respected footpath/access/pedestrian organisations; and all three councillors from the Dukinfield/Stalybridge ward. Only to be followed by an instant vote with zero deliberation of all the complex submissions, confirming the closure. The words 'done deal' spring to mind.

T. Janson said...

On the plans the maximum extra distance is 495 metres. The exact average or rough distance walked by a path user is unknown. It is however certain that a significant proportion of the path's users are All Saints pupils who will now have to walk almost the full extra distance.
Those who want it shut don't care if the actual distance is ten miles, they just want it shut and quote distances to distract from that indifference.

White British said...

@ Close that gate before it's too late, One of the best, most important and relevant posts ever posted on this blog.
Those population facts and the sheer scale and speed of the increase demonstrate with absolute clarity what is being done (not happening, being done) to our country.

Traitors Gate said...

Labour MPs with a high proportion of Muslim and/or Jewish electors who like to be seen strongly protesting against the 'cruelty' of fox hunting are nowhere to be found when the barbaric methods of Halsl/Kosher slaughter come up for debate.
I suppose if you're an unprincipled votewhore with your financial and job promotion interests linked to a party that is fundamentally treasonous scum (not that the other two are much better), you've got to remember which side your bread is buttered on. That's not an excuse, they either knew it when they joined or know it now and have chosen to continue.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, I find it quite remarkable that I would be invited to trust the word of a paramilitary social worker (known euphemistically as a 'PCSO') above that of a fully operational police officer.

As for the majority, it comes as very little surprise what they want. Like majorities all over the place, joe public wants what is best for him and sod everyone else. The phenomenon is most manifest at election time - who is most for me and who is least for me. ME ME ME sums it up. Of course, broader concerns such as the state of the country are at best secondary concerns. That attitude exists right across the board amongst all social groups, and goes a long way to explaining the awful long term problems liberal democracy is bringing about. So coming on here and arguing the case of 'the majority' really doesn't cut it friend. I'll repeat my concern - the right of someone to take a moderate shortcut weighed against the right of someone to live in peace in their own home. That is the proper moral test when BOTH sides are arguing on the basis of selfish concerns. And no - I don't care either what bearded woolly headed prigs from 'walking associations' think either.

You don't have the balls to say it, but it's about time you did - you don't give a stuff about what any residents might have to suffer as a consequence of that footpath, and that is why the most you can offer them is some hopelessly unrealistic solutions that stand zero chance of ever coming to fruition (when not downplaying the relevance of street robbery and sexual assault). You'd quite happily go tottering along there without thought or regard for what it means for those close by, all the way back to your cosy pad where any anti social behaviour would be bang out of order.

As for extra distance walked by All Saints pupils, it is the 300 maximum I stated which (BTW) was most likely way too generous an estimate. You clearly don't even understand the most basic of logistics. Any maximum figure would relate ONLY to residents on Kenyon close to the entrance of the footpath - UNDERSTAND???? That figure relates strictly to the walk from the the footpath entrance at the top end of Kenyon Avenue all the way around to its opposite side on CH Rd. (via Birch Lane). Pensioners have free bus journeys, which is why they're filling up the buses week days. In that area they have the 343 the 346and the 389. If that is not adequate then they need a mobility scooter.

To calculate any figure for those going to All Saints from CH Rd. area, you have to factor out the distance along the footpath and Kenyon Avenue, the current route being used. The fact that you assert that All Saints pupils would have the full 500 extra metres to walk shows one thing - you don't know what you're talking about.

I make use of shortcuts too, and I have arthritis, sciatica and plantar fasciitis. But I would not dream of subjecting anyone to such nuisance at their property so as to accomodate me and my condition. But then again, if my policy was instead to cause such trouble for others, it would (apparently!) be them being the selfish ones....

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 16:01, Firstly, are you calling the PCSO a liar?
I didn't say it was simply a case of what the majority want so don't misquote me. I said, 'The question of inconvenience, selfishness, rights of way and every issue related to this useful and extremely busy Public Footpath.' In other words there are a large number of factors to consider, not simply 'I live here, I want it shut.' You don't OWN the path or 'the area'.
Any impartial observer at the meeting would state that the objectors to the closure clearly won the argument by reasoned and proportionate argument taking into account the whole array of relevant factors.
The people who 'want what is best for them and sod everyone else' are in reality the tiny minority of people who live next to the path.
You don't care about the extra distance whether it's fifty yards or fifty miles so why not say so and stop quoting distances. The actual extra distance is 495 metres, so the pupils at All Saints coming from Cheetham Hill Rd will have to walk virtually all that distance, both ways.
Anti-social behaviour is a factor, in a lot of areas and in various situations, but is only one of the many to consider. Such as people's rights to use this longstanding Public Footpath. The actual number of incidents on the path as opposed to the conveniently vague, 'in the area' is unknown. It is being shut by a tiny number of people with vested interests at the expense of the law abiding majority and as such is simply giving in to local troublemakers.

Anonymous said...

In reply to anonymous 14:01 you seem to be under the impression that only school children and pensioners use the path but there are also many low paid workers and families who have to walk as they are unable to afford to own a car or find the bus fare, after all it was a public foot path. You have won but still seem to find the need to be rude and hostile particularily to pensioners I was taught to respect my elders. To finally finish your post with a list of ailments and to admit you also use short cuts shows just how much you enjoy antagonising people.

Anonymous said...

"The actual extra distance is 495 metres, so the pupils at All Saints coming from Cheetham Hill Rd will have to walk virtually all that distance, both ways"

Right, to settle this unbelievable argument once and for all.... Anyone reading this blog can go to google maps. Zoom in to the area around Kenyon Avenue to the point where the measuring gauge at the bottom left of the screen shows the 50m scale. 50m measures 3/4 of an inch.

The distance walked from the entrance of fp27 on CH Rd. to Kenyon Avenue (along the footpath) is approx. 50m or so. Then, the distance from there along Kenyon to Birch Lane (by the 50m 3/4 inch gauge) measures about 200 metres. That's about 250 metres walked.

On the alternative route.... from the entrance of fp27 on CH Rd. down to the bottom of Yew tree measures 200m. From there along the bottom end of Yew Tree which runs in to Birch Lane and along to the junction with Kenyon measures approx 150m - that's 350 metres walked.

So the difference between 250 and 350 metres is 100 metres - 200 metres when walking there and back. Now if anybody can account for another 300 missing metres to give us the 500 metres being quoted by some around then feel free!

As I've already said - the worst affected in terms of added walking distance are those at the top end of Kenyon Avenue around the entrance to fp27, where added walking distance could (by my reckoning) be as high as 550 metres. The residents of Kenyon Avenue are the ones whose views count most, since anyone else is only walking an extra 200 metres.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 18:32, As you've lost every other aspect of the argument you've resorted to speculative guesswork about the average distance people will have to walk if the path is closed. Ironic and completetely disingenuous as you couldn't care in the slightest if everyone had to walk an extra ten miles, you'd still want the path shut.
The extra distance, path end to path end is the only KNOWN figure at 495 metres. As the destinations of the hundreds of people who use the path everyday are UNKNOWN it is impossible to calculate the average distance walked by an average walker.
The only 'unbelievable' thing is that you've admitted to being a user of 'shortcuts', the same 'shortcuts' you have repeatedly derided, and derided the users thereof and also for expressing the opinion that they are important.
So a supposed extra 300 metres (after stating such a distance was insignificant and people should expect to walk that no problem, including many insulting comments about the elderly) is now of vital importance, as long as it's accompanied by the supreme proviso: You must be a resident of Kenyon Avenue because as you say, 'THEIR views count most.'

Anonymous said...

Either you're being a troll who enjoys wasting his time being such or just plain stupid. Neither of those is particularly flattering.

The simple fact is that residents in close proximity to the path on Kenyon Avenue will (by far) be the biggest losers in terms of added walking distance. Many on Kenyon have cars, and the rest (who don't live on Kenyon) will have at most an extra 250 metres walking distance. Your apparent inability to grasp the most basic rudimentary mathematical concepts (like the difference between an estimated average and a maximum) does not invalidate any of the above.

As for stating that anyone opposed to the closure of one particular shortcut must (as a matter of principle) desist from ever taking a shortcut - well that's a new high watermark for stupidity around here. You might well argue that someone who (for whatever reason) approves the closure of a pub is then morally obliged to never set foot in a pub again. It gets better all the time.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 21:24, Parrot fashion guesswork re the unknown average distance walked and juvenile namecalling make it transparently obvious that you've lost the argument. You've finally admitted the twin facts that it is 1) estimated, and 2) an average. You can't construct an accurate average based on guesswork as there are hundreds of people using the path every day.
Seeing as neither you nor anyone in favour of the closure cares in the least if the extra distance is fifty times whatever the actual average figure is, focussing on it obsessively betrays the fact that you've comprehensively lost the argument ragrding the many factors and considerations outlined in the submissions of those objecting to the closure at the meeting.
I didn't state that 'anyone opposed to the closure of a particular shortcut must desist from ever taking a shortcut' so don't misquote me. I pointed out your hypocrisy in contemptuously and repeatedly deriding the users of this busy, useful and important Public Footpath simply as a few troublemakers who want the convenience of a shortcut.

Bull. S**t. said...

Anonymous @ 2124, if someone shuts that shortcut YOU use because of a bit of trouble on it (or maybe near it), will you be one of the 'moaning minnies' or 'busybodies' who object and try to keep it open. Or will you just quietly accept it (doubt it somehow) as by your argument, only those who live near a path have the right to have a say.

Anonymous said...

I hate to disappoint you kid, but no - I would support the closure. Call me altruistic, but I put an absolute premium on the right of people to live in peace in their home free from crime and anti social behaviour right on their doorstep.

I should know because I've suffered it, and as a result of the very same thing - the poor planning and layout of residential districts which takes no account of modern social realities. What may serve as convenient insular havens for yobs and criminals need to be reconsidered. The closure of such havens may serve as a wake up call to out of touch planners and designers. This is 21st century 'modern Britain' not 1920s Merrie England. The underpass near Garry Newlove's home springs to mind, and now a wife and three daughters are without a husband and father.

There's a lot of talk on here about the rights of an Englishman etc etc. Well I'm afraid I believe in the old adage that an Englishman's home is his castle, and where the state has not (or will not) implement the necessary measures to protect such rights, we are well within our rights to demand other measures where such measures are realistic, regardless of whether a few extra hundred metres walking distance offends the finer feelings of Tom Dick or Harry.

That particular area around Birch Lane and CH Rd is well catered for by a number of bus services, and anyone for whom they are insufficient is in need of a mobility scooter. My policy is simple.... take all the objectors, and ensure that a similar degree of nuisance exists outside their home. Those somewhat better placed in that regard should agree to have it replicated outside their homes indefinitely as a condition of the proposal being shelved. See how many objectors you get then!

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 15: 14, You've confirmed you'd support the closure of any Public Footpath if there was trouble on it (would that include ones where the alternative route was several miles) and that the rights of residents should always take precedence over the rights of the law abiding vast majority to walk over their own land. Thereby endorsing perpetual kow towing to the criminal minority. Where would you draw the line, when every Public Footpath and 'underpass' or whatever it might be had been permanently blocked off, as 'redesign' would often be a practical impossibility. In any case why SHOULD the law abiding majorit have to take such exponentially spreading avoidance tactics.
If that did happen your philosophy would have simultaneously adversely affected the law abiding majority, whilst also moving the problem elsewhere (as opposed to making any attempt to actuallty deal with it), solving precisely nothing.
This easy way out approach/philosophy is of course absolutely symptomatic of the one pursued nationally by our legislature when it comes to crime and misbehaviour in general. Hence the massive and ongoing decline in law and order and standards of behaviour of the last 70 years.
And don't worry about altruism, no-one will ever accuse you of it.

Manc said...

Suppose there was a path with one residence next to it, with one person living in it, that had the odd incident, but five thousand people a week used it. No-one could possibly say that closing it was proportionate or reasonable. It's obviously (to anyone impartial) a question of balance and taking ALL the relevant factors into account.

Anonymous said...

"It's obviously (to anyone impartial) a question of balance and taking ALL the relevant factors into account."

That would explain why the path is being closed.

When the immediate vicinity is surrounded by major bus services, when it's an extra few hundred metres walking, and when others as well as the residents (muggings, sexual assault etc) are also victims, then there are more relevant factors to be considered than in your highly contrived (and less than partial) comparison.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 23:44, No, when all the relevant factors are taken into account (which you don't want anyway as you believe only residents views should count) the argument was clearly won by the vast majority of path users and experts from three independent walking/access/pedestrian organisations, and the three independent minded councillors from the Dukinfield/Stalybridge wards who acted because of the high volume of local residents contacting them strongly objecting to the closure.
If the distance was 500 or 5000 metres you'd still want it closed, and only keep repeating distance guesses because you've comprehensively lost the argument on reason, proportion and principle.
The bus services are only relevant in that people, many of them the elderly and less mobile you've repeatedly and arrogantly dismissed, will have to walk further to catch them.
The facts about the number of incidents on the path, as opposed to the catch all, in the area' is, conveniently for those who want the path closed, unknown and highly speculative at best.
You don't want ANY relevant or indeed any facts at all to be considered, apart from 'we're the residents and we want it shut.' If there WAS a path as described at 21:33 you'd want that shut as well, because only residents, or in this hypothetical case resident, have rights.
You're right I'm not impartial, in cases like this interested parties never are but, like all those objecting, at least I'm prepared to consider and weigh up all the factors in a reasoned and proportioanate way. As the independent inspector did in 2003 when concluding the path was a useful and well used public amenity and it was totally wrong to consider closing it. Nothing has changed since then.

Anonymous said...

"the argument was clearly won by the vast majority of path users and experts from three independent walking/access/pedestrian organisations, and the three independent minded councillors from the Dukinfield/Stalybridge wards who acted because of the high volume of local residents contacting them strongly objecting to the closure."

I wasn't aware that the 'vast majority' of path users had lodged complaints about the closure. Since (apparently) there are many hundreds using that path each day, have they all been surveyed? That in itself doesn't inform of us anything. For all we know, a fair proportion of them (when given all the facts) might come to the rather unselfish conclusion that foregoing a moderate shortcut might be called for in the circumstances. All that's been quoted around here is the grand figure of 19 - hardly half the population of Dukinfield. If this proposal was such a traumatic injury to the people of the town, I would've expected at least a few more residents getting the time off work to be in attendance.

As for the 'three independent minded' councillors, all they were doing was serving the interests of their own constituents some of whom may use the path but none of whom live near to it - no yardstick for being independent minded. And representatives from anorak organisations for 'walking' aren't exactly independent either. And whilst some unelected voices might be deemed earworthy like the police, I would have to seriously question the right of Alfred Wainwright wannabes to be sticking their noses in.

"If the distance was 500 or 5000 metres you'd still..."

And this game of hyperbole of your's is a game two can play. We've already quoted a number of serious crimes around that footpath, so perhaps you'd care to inform us of exactly what it would take to warrant its closure - serial killers alley perhaps? The local police have given unequivocal supportive statements about the problems associated with that path. But for someone whose implacable stance is that one side is (and can only ever be) intelligent and 'objective' and the other side selfish bent and biased, I don't propose to waste any more time trying to inject reason and balance into this debate. So you can have the last word.

"The bus services are only relevant in that people, many of them the elderly and less mobile you've repeatedly and arrogantly dismissed, will have to walk further to catch them"

Any old person coming from Birch Lane up Kenyon for the 346 bus stop can instead catch the 343 on Birch to Morrisons where they'll find another 346 stop - that's a minor inconvenience which (in fact) involves LESS walking. And the only shops I'm aware of in that vicinity are the ones on the Yew Tree estate - the 389 bus goes all round that area. Anyone who currently walks up there via fp27 must have a reasonable pair of legs on them, otherwise they would already be using the 389 from the bottom of Yew Tree Lane.

I have no particular axe to grind in this case - I judge any such case which doesn't affect me personally on its own individual merits. In all honesty (going off what I know) neither argument is particularly devastating against the other, though if one argument was to win-out it would probably be for the closure. That's my opinion, and if it's the opinion of the democractically elected (by more than 19) councillors of Dukinfield then it should be closed. Who can shout and stamp their feet the loudest at some meeting is no measure of fairness.

Curmudgeon said...

Yet another Tameside council policy achieving the exact opposite of its intended aim!32 aeaefo

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 12:26, The four people in favour of closure, according to the official letter sent out by the council, lived adjoining the path or on Kenyon Avenue. There may be a hypothetical person, who DOESN'T live next to or very near the path, who for some reason is in favour of closure, but as no such person bothered to contact the council, it's irrelevant. But then it's patently obvious virtually all the path's users would want it to remain open.
If nineteen formal objections is small then the four people who formally wrote to the council in favour of closure is EXTREMELY small.
All three councillors from Dukinfield/Stalybridge were contacted by many of their constituents protesting against the closure and opinion was so strong they formed a united front.
All the three Dukinfield councillors were doing was representing the extremely narrow interests of a tiny number of residents, which I agree is, 'no yardstick for being independent minded'.
Calling experts standing up for the principle of public access, 'anoraks' and 'Alfred Wainright wannabes' again demonstrates the weakness of your argument. You're right they're not impartial, no-one on either side is in cases like this, apart of course from the independent planning inspector who in 2004 unequivocally stated the path was an unquestionably useful public amenity and should remain open.
As for serious crimes, 'around the path', or is it 'in the area', the statistics given at the meeting were so vague and tenuously linked to the path itself as to be almost worthless. As for the police's 'unequivocal support' that was more than countered by the deposition in the official report by the PCSO specific to the area in question for six years, who 'unequivocally' stated she believed there was no specific or significant problem on the path.
I never said one side was intelligent and objective and the other side selfish, bent and biased, I have repeatedly said that in cases like this all factors have to be taken into consideration and a balanced and proportionate decision taken. Repeated misquotation and juvenile abuse are transparent signs of the weakness of your argument, whereas reason and balance have been conspicuous by their absence.
Distance guessing and references have disappeared as it's obvious you'd still want the path shut however much further people had to walk.
Buses go different routes, that's why they have different numbers, but if people have to adjust themselves, by getting two buses for instance, that's just tough, a bit like having access to a Public Footpath denied isn't it.
I agree about 'individual merits' which is why I've repeatedly stated all the factors should be taken into consideration and a reasoned and proportionate decision taken. As it was in 2003 by the independent planning inspector who dismissed the case for closure and categorically said the path should remain open, and he really DID have 'no axe to grind'.
It was the opinion of twelve councillors, who, as they spent absolutely no time deliberating the many complex submissions, had clearly made their minds up beforehand.
Their was no shouting and stamping of feet at the meeting by anyone objecting to the closure, only reasoned argument.