Council will not back down over tyre wall near to Kingsway Bridge

Warrington Guardian: Tyre wall Tyre wall

THE council has said it will ‘vigorously’ defend any appeal to the high court after the owner of the wall of tyres near to the Kingsway Bridge vowed to fight the court ruling.

Peter Astley, assistant director in regulation and protection, said: “Magistrates have affirmed that the decision to issue an enforcement notice requiring the removal of the tyre wall was lawful, and have subsequently dismissed this appeal.

“The council will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the notice is complied with and to ensure that the tyre wall is removed, including vigorously defending any appeal to the higher court.

“The council treats any such unauthorised developments very seriously and this clearly demonstrates that we will do what we can within the laws available to us, taking formal action through the courts if necessary, to resolve this type of situation.”

Patrick Moran, of Glazebrook Lane, was told at Warrington Magistrates Court that he has eight weeks from Wednesday, May 21, to remove the bales of tyres from the land at the junction of Farrell Street and Kingsway North.

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:07pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Any more eyesores that we the general public can complain to the council about? The skittles would be a good start for some I've no doubt. How about the empty shops and above shop housing for accommodating the single people and couples on the social housing lists. WBC have the powers to do that or would they prefer to have vermin such as rats, mice and the prolific pigeons take over the much needed human accommodation? Then think about going to the High Court over the trivial misuse of public funds, yes rate payers hard earned cash over a an opinionated minority of Warrington citizens because of their dislike of someones boundary fence around land he is developing for public good and horticultural interests. Doesn't he have some rights under the Enclosures Act and its regulations?
Any more eyesores that we the general public can complain to the council about? The skittles would be a good start for some I've no doubt. How about the empty shops and above shop housing for accommodating the single people and couples on the social housing lists. WBC have the powers to do that or would they prefer to have vermin such as rats, mice and the prolific pigeons take over the much needed human accommodation? Then think about going to the High Court over the trivial misuse of public funds, yes rate payers hard earned cash over a an opinionated minority of Warrington citizens because of their dislike of someones boundary fence around land he is developing for public good and horticultural interests. Doesn't he have some rights under the Enclosures Act and its regulations? SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -21

1:26pm Tue 27 May 14

MikeJT says...

“The council treats any such unauthorised developments very seriously and this clearly demonstrates that we will do what we can within the laws available to us, taking formal action through the courts if necessary, to resolve this type of situation.” ....................
................ Including all the fly posters, A frame signs etc which basically the council dont give a crap about, because they dont think it will wind them votes, eventhough technically they are just as "illegal"
“The council treats any such unauthorised developments very seriously and this clearly demonstrates that we will do what we can within the laws available to us, taking formal action through the courts if necessary, to resolve this type of situation.” .................... ................ Including all the fly posters, A frame signs etc which basically the council dont give a crap about, because they dont think it will wind them votes, eventhough technically they are just as "illegal" MikeJT
  • Score: 5

1:36pm Tue 27 May 14

ninacatherine says...

Actually the magistrates in this instance didn't really consider the legalities of notice given by the council. They simply ruled that because they didn't like the tyres, they had to come down. The crown court will look into the actual legal issues surrounding this case & make a judgment on law, not opinion. It is another example whereby lay people who get involved in planning appeals get it wrong because they dont understand or appreciate the technicalities involved in how far the council is allowed to go within its powers. And clearly another case whereby the council wastes valuable resources trying to show its might against a guy trying to make a living. This council are bullies, plain & simple!
Actually the magistrates in this instance didn't really consider the legalities of notice given by the council. They simply ruled that because they didn't like the tyres, they had to come down. The crown court will look into the actual legal issues surrounding this case & make a judgment on law, not opinion. It is another example whereby lay people who get involved in planning appeals get it wrong because they dont understand or appreciate the technicalities involved in how far the council is allowed to go within its powers. And clearly another case whereby the council wastes valuable resources trying to show its might against a guy trying to make a living. This council are bullies, plain & simple! ninacatherine
  • Score: -11

2:04pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

ninacatherine wrote:
Actually the magistrates in this instance didn't really consider the legalities of notice given by the council. They simply ruled that because they didn't like the tyres, they had to come down. The crown court will look into the actual legal issues surrounding this case & make a judgment on law, not opinion. It is another example whereby lay people who get involved in planning appeals get it wrong because they dont understand or appreciate the technicalities involved in how far the council is allowed to go within its powers. And clearly another case whereby the council wastes valuable resources trying to show its might against a guy trying to make a living. This council are bullies, plain & simple!
Spot on comment and very good legal advice for the opinionated minority to take note of.
[quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: Actually the magistrates in this instance didn't really consider the legalities of notice given by the council. They simply ruled that because they didn't like the tyres, they had to come down. The crown court will look into the actual legal issues surrounding this case & make a judgment on law, not opinion. It is another example whereby lay people who get involved in planning appeals get it wrong because they dont understand or appreciate the technicalities involved in how far the council is allowed to go within its powers. And clearly another case whereby the council wastes valuable resources trying to show its might against a guy trying to make a living. This council are bullies, plain & simple![/p][/quote]Spot on comment and very good legal advice for the opinionated minority to take note of. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -11

2:12pm Tue 27 May 14

polleann says...

they are a bloody eye sore . need removing asap .
they are a bloody eye sore . need removing asap . polleann
  • Score: 20

2:13pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

polleann wrote:
they are a bloody eye sore . need removing asap .
That will be WBC then?
[quote][p][bold]polleann[/bold] wrote: they are a bloody eye sore . need removing asap .[/p][/quote]That will be WBC then? SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -13

2:24pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

polleann wrote:
they are a bloody eye sore . need removing asap .
I do not want my council tax spent on this issue as there are serious issues that need addressing as higher priorities such as accommodation for singles and couples, transport as provided currently by warrington Community transport, The care of the elderly, the care of those people who have additional needs, road surfacing, traffic management of warrington town Centre, the relocation of the War Memorial to name but a few of the important issues that need addressing with any cash that is available and not the trivial issue of a recycled tyre boundary fence that will be in all probability removed by the landowner when he finishes the development of his site. Why do you think your suffering is greater than those affected by the issues that I have previously mentioned in this comment?
[quote][p][bold]polleann[/bold] wrote: they are a bloody eye sore . need removing asap .[/p][/quote]I do not want my council tax spent on this issue as there are serious issues that need addressing as higher priorities such as accommodation for singles and couples, transport as provided currently by warrington Community transport, The care of the elderly, the care of those people who have additional needs, road surfacing, traffic management of warrington town Centre, the relocation of the War Memorial to name but a few of the important issues that need addressing with any cash that is available and not the trivial issue of a recycled tyre boundary fence that will be in all probability removed by the landowner when he finishes the development of his site. Why do you think your suffering is greater than those affected by the issues that I have previously mentioned in this comment? SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -15

2:47pm Tue 27 May 14

Lesdelooze says...

Yes but your council tax also goes to the fire brigade if
This eye sore goes up in flames and to the clean up
Of it. What is it not in your area so your not arsed. Let's dump in
In Lymm , Stockton Heath etc and hear the residents
Moan there
Yes but your council tax also goes to the fire brigade if This eye sore goes up in flames and to the clean up Of it. What is it not in your area so your not arsed. Let's dump in In Lymm , Stockton Heath etc and hear the residents Moan there Lesdelooze
  • Score: 13

3:13pm Tue 27 May 14

fedster says...

wow they can take on this chap and his tyres but cant sort out a tip ha ha ha ha

thats like trying to takle the big bully and taking out the kid with a lollipop
wow they can take on this chap and his tyres but cant sort out a tip ha ha ha ha thats like trying to takle the big bully and taking out the kid with a lollipop fedster
  • Score: 5

3:29pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Lesdelooze wrote:
Yes but your council tax also goes to the fire brigade if
This eye sore goes up in flames and to the clean up
Of it. What is it not in your area so your not arsed. Let's dump in
In Lymm , Stockton Heath etc and hear the residents
Moan there
My comment would still be the same. The money and time spent on this farceical and irelevent issue would be better spent on other more needy responsibilities in the control of OUR Council. If it catches fire it wouls cost a lot less than the legal action you so blindly support. Just glad that you or your family do net obviously need the services that have to be cut because of your objection to a boundary fence. I and many others would prefer that the money be spent on needs not cosmetic esthetics that will be removed in order to market the proposed and soon to completed if the landowners capital is not diminished further unnecessary legal defences to WBCs actions. Very, simple logic really that you fail to consider it would seem and demonstrated by you ill judged comment.
[quote][p][bold]Lesdelooze[/bold] wrote: Yes but your council tax also goes to the fire brigade if This eye sore goes up in flames and to the clean up Of it. What is it not in your area so your not arsed. Let's dump in In Lymm , Stockton Heath etc and hear the residents Moan there[/p][/quote]My comment would still be the same. The money and time spent on this farceical and irelevent issue would be better spent on other more needy responsibilities in the control of OUR Council. If it catches fire it wouls cost a lot less than the legal action you so blindly support. Just glad that you or your family do net obviously need the services that have to be cut because of your objection to a boundary fence. I and many others would prefer that the money be spent on needs not cosmetic esthetics that will be removed in order to market the proposed and soon to completed if the landowners capital is not diminished further unnecessary legal defences to WBCs actions. Very, simple logic really that you fail to consider it would seem and demonstrated by you ill judged comment. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -17

5:44pm Tue 27 May 14

grey_man says...

SAC

So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do?

It's an opinion, but that's all it is.
SAC So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do? It's an opinion, but that's all it is. grey_man
  • Score: 18

5:46pm Tue 27 May 14

grey_man says...

And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip. grey_man
  • Score: 27

6:20pm Tue 27 May 14

john latchford says...

Like i said before,dump them in glazebrook lane and see what his neighbours think.out of sight out of mind does appear to be the case
Like i said before,dump them in glazebrook lane and see what his neighbours think.out of sight out of mind does appear to be the case john latchford
  • Score: 27

7:03pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
SAC

So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do?

It's an opinion, but that's all it is.
No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision.
.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: SAC So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do? It's an opinion, but that's all it is.[/p][/quote]No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision. . SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -21

7:12pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
It's an opinion from a very small group of people who live more than 500 m away. hardly close enough to have a physical effect on then, but "it's an opinion that's all it is", to quote your previous comment.

It is certainly is a boundary fence whether you like it or not.

Stop encouraging the WBC to waist our hard earned Council Tax and start encouraging them to spend it more wisely!
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]It's an opinion from a very small group of people who live more than 500 m away. hardly close enough to have a physical effect on then, but "it's an opinion that's all it is", to quote your previous comment. It is certainly is a boundary fence whether you like it or not. Stop encouraging the WBC to waist our hard earned Council Tax and start encouraging them to spend it more wisely! SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -19

9:33pm Tue 27 May 14

grey_man says...

I'm not encouraging the council to do anything but they are doing the right thing. People like this guy should not be allowed to turn the roadside into a tip. And it certainly isn't just the people who live there who have a problem with what you try to call a 'fence'.
I'm not encouraging the council to do anything but they are doing the right thing. People like this guy should not be allowed to turn the roadside into a tip. And it certainly isn't just the people who live there who have a problem with what you try to call a 'fence'. grey_man
  • Score: 18

9:37pm Tue 27 May 14

grey_man says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
SAC

So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do?

It's an opinion, but that's all it is.
No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision.
.
And you'll find that I think the council does waste money on stupid schemes but they have a duty to protect the amenity of the town for everybody. Not let this bloke decide he can do whatever he bloody likes and the rest of us live with it.

You keep referring to it as a 'fence' but it won't make it one. He doesn't believe it either otherwise he'd happily live in a house surrounded by piles of old tyres and so would you. And I'm pretty confident neither of you do.
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: SAC So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do? It's an opinion, but that's all it is.[/p][/quote]No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision. .[/p][/quote]And you'll find that I think the council does waste money on stupid schemes but they have a duty to protect the amenity of the town for everybody. Not let this bloke decide he can do whatever he bloody likes and the rest of us live with it. You keep referring to it as a 'fence' but it won't make it one. He doesn't believe it either otherwise he'd happily live in a house surrounded by piles of old tyres and so would you. And I'm pretty confident neither of you do. grey_man
  • Score: 18

10:05pm Tue 27 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
SAC

So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do?

It's an opinion, but that's all it is.
No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision.
.
And you'll find that I think the council does waste money on stupid schemes but they have a duty to protect the amenity of the town for everybody. Not let this bloke decide he can do whatever he bloody likes and the rest of us live with it.

You keep referring to it as a 'fence' but it won't make it one. He doesn't believe it either otherwise he'd happily live in a house surrounded by piles of old tyres and so would you. And I'm pretty confident neither of you do.
His boundary fence is not top priority but you and the small number of protesters think it is. The majority of Warrington Council T ax Payers are not concerned with him building his boundary wall (since you don't like the term fence) I think it is a good use of recycled resources and I am sure it will be removed once the development has been completed if he is left with enough capital to complete it quickly. Why should he or i have a recycled tyre fence around our home because no one else has to, not you or any of you cohort of complainers who couldn't care a jot about the elderly, the infirm and those people who have additional needs. If you must have it removed, and have it a top priority then put you hand in you pocket additionally collect some cash form the other misguided lot.
of selfish protesters.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: SAC So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do? It's an opinion, but that's all it is.[/p][/quote]No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision. .[/p][/quote]And you'll find that I think the council does waste money on stupid schemes but they have a duty to protect the amenity of the town for everybody. Not let this bloke decide he can do whatever he bloody likes and the rest of us live with it. You keep referring to it as a 'fence' but it won't make it one. He doesn't believe it either otherwise he'd happily live in a house surrounded by piles of old tyres and so would you. And I'm pretty confident neither of you do.[/p][/quote]His boundary fence is not top priority but you and the small number of protesters think it is. The majority of Warrington Council T ax Payers are not concerned with him building his boundary wall (since you don't like the term fence) I think it is a good use of recycled resources and I am sure it will be removed once the development has been completed if he is left with enough capital to complete it quickly. Why should he or i have a recycled tyre fence around our home because no one else has to, not you or any of you cohort of complainers who couldn't care a jot about the elderly, the infirm and those people who have additional needs. If you must have it removed, and have it a top priority then put you hand in you pocket additionally collect some cash form the other misguided lot. of selfish protesters. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -12

1:09am Wed 28 May 14

ninearches says...

Surely the tyres could be dealt with under fly tipping laws especially when the council know who the culprit is.
Surely the tyres could be dealt with under fly tipping laws especially when the council know who the culprit is. ninearches
  • Score: 11

5:30am Wed 28 May 14

grey_man says...

SAC

You can work your way through a thesaurus for words to describe this but it won't change what it is: a pile of old tyres. I note you haven't taken up the chance to surround your own home with this type of 'fence' or 'wall' so we can be sure of what you really think it is.

And you are also sure he'll remove it are you? Well his track record of not giving a stuff about this town or its residents suggests otherwise.

Nice bit or moral indignation at the end there. The point your missing is that the person wasting council time and resources on this isn't anybody who don't want their town filled with piles of rubbish, but this shyster.
SAC You can work your way through a thesaurus for words to describe this but it won't change what it is: a pile of old tyres. I note you haven't taken up the chance to surround your own home with this type of 'fence' or 'wall' so we can be sure of what you really think it is. And you are also sure he'll remove it are you? Well his track record of not giving a stuff about this town or its residents suggests otherwise. Nice bit or moral indignation at the end there. The point your missing is that the person wasting council time and resources on this isn't anybody who don't want their town filled with piles of rubbish, but this shyster. grey_man
  • Score: 10

7:35am Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
SAC

You can work your way through a thesaurus for words to describe this but it won't change what it is: a pile of old tyres. I note you haven't taken up the chance to surround your own home with this type of 'fence' or 'wall' so we can be sure of what you really think it is.

And you are also sure he'll remove it are you? Well his track record of not giving a stuff about this town or its residents suggests otherwise.

Nice bit or moral indignation at the end there. The point your missing is that the person wasting council time and resources on this isn't anybody who don't want their town filled with piles of rubbish, but this shyster.
It is his land and he has used some recycled material to make a boundary Wall, Fence or enclosure. The wall is well constructed and is placed there intentionally not fly tipped as you infer. Your plainly blinkered view is of now interest to those campaigning for continued services that the council used to either assist with funding or provided fully funded services that that improve their quality of life. The Council is likely to lose their case as he has legislation that supports his case. You don't live within 500 m or more of this site so why would the land owner have to please you. The alternative boundary fence could be even more unsightly so be careful what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: SAC You can work your way through a thesaurus for words to describe this but it won't change what it is: a pile of old tyres. I note you haven't taken up the chance to surround your own home with this type of 'fence' or 'wall' so we can be sure of what you really think it is. And you are also sure he'll remove it are you? Well his track record of not giving a stuff about this town or its residents suggests otherwise. Nice bit or moral indignation at the end there. The point your missing is that the person wasting council time and resources on this isn't anybody who don't want their town filled with piles of rubbish, but this shyster.[/p][/quote]It is his land and he has used some recycled material to make a boundary Wall, Fence or enclosure. The wall is well constructed and is placed there intentionally not fly tipped as you infer. Your plainly blinkered view is of now interest to those campaigning for continued services that the council used to either assist with funding or provided fully funded services that that improve their quality of life. The Council is likely to lose their case as he has legislation that supports his case. You don't live within 500 m or more of this site so why would the land owner have to please you. The alternative boundary fence could be even more unsightly so be careful what you wish for. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -13

8:05am Wed 28 May 14

Squashking says...

SAC the sheer amount of negative votes you have indicates one thing, you're completly out of touch with the general population of warington, crawl back into the hole you came from and don't come out unless you have something more constructive to say. You're full of it!
SAC the sheer amount of negative votes you have indicates one thing, you're completly out of touch with the general population of warington, crawl back into the hole you came from and don't come out unless you have something more constructive to say. You're full of it! Squashking
  • Score: 13

8:57am Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Ha ha ha ha. You need to look at the big picture young man and not retain such a narrow perspective. Who are you to judge anyway are you pretending to be ignorant or are you really so unmercifully inflicted. While you sit and postulate you are effecting not change at all nor contributing anything to the sudo priority that you are discussing. An old saying comes to mind when I consider what I've read in your comments, "None so deaf as those who won't hear and none as blind as those who won't see". Time will tell with regards to this situation whatever we say, and your minority group will reap the possible adverse consequences of your ineffective actions and blinkered thinking. If the sight of the the orderly tyre wall has distressed you so much why haven't you sorgt compensation from the gentleman who placed it so carefully around his property?
Ha ha ha ha. You need to look at the big picture young man and not retain such a narrow perspective. Who are you to judge anyway are you pretending to be ignorant or are you really so unmercifully inflicted. While you sit and postulate you are effecting not change at all nor contributing anything to the sudo priority that you are discussing. An old saying comes to mind when I consider what I've read in your comments, "None so deaf as those who won't hear and none as blind as those who won't see". Time will tell with regards to this situation whatever we say, and your minority group will reap the possible adverse consequences of your ineffective actions and blinkered thinking. If the sight of the the orderly tyre wall has distressed you so much why haven't you sorgt compensation from the gentleman who placed it so carefully around his property? SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -13

9:30am Wed 28 May 14

Squashking says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
Ha ha ha ha. You need to look at the big picture young man and not retain such a narrow perspective. Who are you to judge anyway are you pretending to be ignorant or are you really so unmercifully inflicted. While you sit and postulate you are effecting not change at all nor contributing anything to the sudo priority that you are discussing. An old saying comes to mind when I consider what I've read in your comments, "None so deaf as those who won't hear and none as blind as those who won't see". Time will tell with regards to this situation whatever we say, and your minority group will reap the possible adverse consequences of your ineffective actions and blinkered thinking. If the sight of the the orderly tyre wall has distressed you so much why haven't you sorgt compensation from the gentleman who placed it so carefully around his property?
I will reiterate my final comment, which the majority will probably agreed. With all you're big words, you are still full of it!! Thank God you don't control WBC's finances........
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha. You need to look at the big picture young man and not retain such a narrow perspective. Who are you to judge anyway are you pretending to be ignorant or are you really so unmercifully inflicted. While you sit and postulate you are effecting not change at all nor contributing anything to the sudo priority that you are discussing. An old saying comes to mind when I consider what I've read in your comments, "None so deaf as those who won't hear and none as blind as those who won't see". Time will tell with regards to this situation whatever we say, and your minority group will reap the possible adverse consequences of your ineffective actions and blinkered thinking. If the sight of the the orderly tyre wall has distressed you so much why haven't you sorgt compensation from the gentleman who placed it so carefully around his property?[/p][/quote]I will reiterate my final comment, which the majority will probably agreed. With all you're big words, you are still full of it!! Thank God you don't control WBC's finances........ Squashking
  • Score: 11

10:06am Wed 28 May 14

grey_man says...

Squashking

To be fair I'm intrigued by SAC's theory that we should all be free to go around doing whatever we like, wherever we like and if the people and council of Warrington don't like it, it's because they don't want the elderly to have free minibuses.

I'd say it was muddled thinking but maybe he has a point so I'm prepared to test it. SAC - give us your address and I'll come build something outside it. Maybe a 'fence' made out of old milk cartons, tin cans or something. I don't know yet.

I know you won't mind and if you do, it's because you're not thinking about the council's budget.
Squashking To be fair I'm intrigued by SAC's theory that we should all be free to go around doing whatever we like, wherever we like and if the people and council of Warrington don't like it, it's because they don't want the elderly to have free minibuses. I'd say it was muddled thinking but maybe he has a point so I'm prepared to test it. SAC - give us your address and I'll come build something outside it. Maybe a 'fence' made out of old milk cartons, tin cans or something. I don't know yet. I know you won't mind and if you do, it's because you're not thinking about the council's budget. grey_man
  • Score: 8

11:37am Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
Squashking

To be fair I'm intrigued by SAC's theory that we should all be free to go around doing whatever we like, wherever we like and if the people and council of Warrington don't like it, it's because they don't want the elderly to have free minibuses.

I'd say it was muddled thinking but maybe he has a point so I'm prepared to test it. SAC - give us your address and I'll come build something outside it. Maybe a 'fence' made out of old milk cartons, tin cans or something. I don't know yet.

I know you won't mind and if you do, it's because you're not thinking about the council's budget.
The theory is entirely in your imagination as I do not, and I repeat it since you have an intellectual shortfall, I do not hold that view myself. and why on earth would I, as it implies a state of anarchy. My theory I believe based on the evidence in the public domain, either stated or implies that the fence / wall was to have been temporarily while the site is developed then it will be removed, however the protest action has prolonged that because, "it doesn't look nice", and some minute group of protesters think it an, "eyesore". Why are you so intent on paying money to provide me with such a recycled tyre fence / wall when you don't like the look of them, and that is not logical in my reckoning. I would much rather you donated the cost of building me a fence or a wall to Dial-a-ride and Community Transport so that the elderly and infirm can continue to access vital services in order to maintain indeed sustain their quality of life. Warrington Borough council currently set a politically biased budget and clearly not meeting the needs of warrington Community Charge and Business Ratepayers.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: Squashking To be fair I'm intrigued by SAC's theory that we should all be free to go around doing whatever we like, wherever we like and if the people and council of Warrington don't like it, it's because they don't want the elderly to have free minibuses. I'd say it was muddled thinking but maybe he has a point so I'm prepared to test it. SAC - give us your address and I'll come build something outside it. Maybe a 'fence' made out of old milk cartons, tin cans or something. I don't know yet. I know you won't mind and if you do, it's because you're not thinking about the council's budget.[/p][/quote]The theory is entirely in your imagination as I do not, and I repeat it since you have an intellectual shortfall, I do not hold that view myself. and why on earth would I, as it implies a state of anarchy. My theory I believe based on the evidence in the public domain, either stated or implies that the fence / wall was to have been temporarily while the site is developed then it will be removed, however the protest action has prolonged that because, "it doesn't look nice", and some minute group of protesters think it an, "eyesore". Why are you so intent on paying money to provide me with such a recycled tyre fence / wall when you don't like the look of them, and that is not logical in my reckoning. I would much rather you donated the cost of building me a fence or a wall to Dial-a-ride and Community Transport so that the elderly and infirm can continue to access vital services in order to maintain indeed sustain their quality of life. Warrington Borough council currently set a politically biased budget and clearly not meeting the needs of warrington Community Charge and Business Ratepayers. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -6

1:25pm Wed 28 May 14

grey_man says...

LMFAO

You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them.

The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me.

(Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)
LMFAO You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me. (Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish) grey_man
  • Score: 6

2:05pm Wed 28 May 14

gerrumonside says...

I think it's an eyesore. I want it removed. I'm a warrington resident and I think residents, local Councilors, and the council department responsible are right to campaign to take the tyres down.

Trying to tar objectors as a 'minority group', 'narrow minded' and 'selfish' and taking away funds for services from the elderly and infirm is plain stupid to be honest.

I am suprised however that you choose to attempt to educate those in favour of the tyre wall removal, rather than Mr Moran himself. This is a man whose argument was; in his view the area was unsightly so there is no problem adding further unsightly objects.

And where do you stand on his tagline "There has been an outcry about them (the tyres) but it is does not matter to some degree what people think,” is that not narrow minded and selfish....??

That is somebody who needs your guiding hand to the path of enlightenment and community spirit surely....??

any way SAC keep up the trolling/arguments/d
ebate it all helps keep this story in the public eye thanks...
I think it's an eyesore. I want it removed. I'm a warrington resident and I think residents, local Councilors, and the council department responsible are right to campaign to take the tyres down. Trying to tar objectors as a 'minority group', 'narrow minded' and 'selfish' and taking away funds for services from the elderly and infirm is plain stupid to be honest. I am suprised however that you choose to attempt to educate those in favour of the tyre wall removal, rather than Mr Moran himself. This is a man whose argument was; in his view the area was unsightly so there is no problem adding further unsightly objects. And where do you stand on his tagline "There has been an outcry about them (the tyres) but it is does not matter to some degree what people think,” is that not narrow minded and selfish....?? That is somebody who needs your guiding hand to the path of enlightenment and community spirit surely....?? any way SAC keep up the trolling/arguments/d ebate it all helps keep this story in the public eye thanks... gerrumonside
  • Score: 4

2:19pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
LMFAO

You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them.

The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me.

(Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)
I certainly agree with one part of the above comment and that trying to understand the reality of the situation is certainly beyond you and you have now admitted it. The majority of Warrington and Warrington's visitors are totally unconcerned with the temporary tyre boundary wall or fence, whatever. I have no need to talk with Mr. Moran he has said his piece and declared his case in front of the council, the town's magistrates and now is able to seek justice at he high court where only points of law Will be considered. Incidentally there is a further two steps available to him in the Court of appeal and then in the house of Lords so it could be some time before you get your wish granted. I don't believe that the constituent parts of recycled vehicle tyres can go rancid like the contents of our fortnightly collected black bins so there is a big flaw in your little argument. Now who will complain about that to warrington Unitary council and according to your erroneous theory it won't be a priority because of the budget cuts due to unforeseen circumstances and the need for high expenditure on councillors expenses, first class travel for the council, excessive catering and alcoholic beverage bills thou you seem happy with all those. We will just have to wait and see what transpires and at least agree to disagree as we both do not seem to have any influence with WBC in this matter and other issues.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: LMFAO You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me. (Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)[/p][/quote]I certainly agree with one part of the above comment and that trying to understand the reality of the situation is certainly beyond you and you have now admitted it. The majority of Warrington and Warrington's visitors are totally unconcerned with the temporary tyre boundary wall or fence, whatever. I have no need to talk with Mr. Moran he has said his piece and declared his case in front of the council, the town's magistrates and now is able to seek justice at he high court where only points of law Will be considered. Incidentally there is a further two steps available to him in the Court of appeal and then in the house of Lords so it could be some time before you get your wish granted. I don't believe that the constituent parts of recycled vehicle tyres can go rancid like the contents of our fortnightly collected black bins so there is a big flaw in your little argument. Now who will complain about that to warrington Unitary council and according to your erroneous theory it won't be a priority because of the budget cuts due to unforeseen circumstances and the need for high expenditure on councillors expenses, first class travel for the council, excessive catering and alcoholic beverage bills thou you seem happy with all those. We will just have to wait and see what transpires and at least agree to disagree as we both do not seem to have any influence with WBC in this matter and other issues. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -3

2:47pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

When will you or any of your minority group of cohorts be campaigning to have the old and used tyres removed from the premises on Church Street seeing that this issue has become a passion of yours. I now await with patience for your pathetic excuses and double standard reasoning to appear in the next few comments.
When will you or any of your minority group of cohorts be campaigning to have the old and used tyres removed from the premises on Church Street seeing that this issue has become a passion of yours. I now await with patience for your pathetic excuses and double standard reasoning to appear in the next few comments. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -4

3:24pm Wed 28 May 14

gazhopley says...

I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.
I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature. gazhopley
  • Score: 3

4:50pm Wed 28 May 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
LMFAO

You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them.

The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me.

(Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)
I certainly agree with one part of the above comment and that trying to understand the reality of the situation is certainly beyond you and you have now admitted it. The majority of Warrington and Warrington's visitors are totally unconcerned with the temporary tyre boundary wall or fence, whatever. I have no need to talk with Mr. Moran he has said his piece and declared his case in front of the council, the town's magistrates and now is able to seek justice at he high court where only points of law Will be considered. Incidentally there is a further two steps available to him in the Court of appeal and then in the house of Lords so it could be some time before you get your wish granted. I don't believe that the constituent parts of recycled vehicle tyres can go rancid like the contents of our fortnightly collected black bins so there is a big flaw in your little argument. Now who will complain about that to warrington Unitary council and according to your erroneous theory it won't be a priority because of the budget cuts due to unforeseen circumstances and the need for high expenditure on councillors expenses, first class travel for the council, excessive catering and alcoholic beverage bills thou you seem happy with all those. We will just have to wait and see what transpires and at least agree to disagree as we both do not seem to have any influence with WBC in this matter and other issues.
This comment SAC is just a rant and does not resolve anything it's just a rant. I remember the council not wanting this land hence the sale of such. But yet the council will spend more in legal fees defending law. A stupid scenario from a stupid council. I uphold the land owners rights to do with the land as he pleases and the council to be responsible for selling it to a land owner which will do so. If the council are that bothered about the local residents then I suggest they buy the land back and take care of it. But no they want to sell land so they don't have to take care of it but prosecute any kind of enterprise a land owner might do at great expense. WBC = What a Bunch of Cretin's.
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: LMFAO You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me. (Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)[/p][/quote]I certainly agree with one part of the above comment and that trying to understand the reality of the situation is certainly beyond you and you have now admitted it. The majority of Warrington and Warrington's visitors are totally unconcerned with the temporary tyre boundary wall or fence, whatever. I have no need to talk with Mr. Moran he has said his piece and declared his case in front of the council, the town's magistrates and now is able to seek justice at he high court where only points of law Will be considered. Incidentally there is a further two steps available to him in the Court of appeal and then in the house of Lords so it could be some time before you get your wish granted. I don't believe that the constituent parts of recycled vehicle tyres can go rancid like the contents of our fortnightly collected black bins so there is a big flaw in your little argument. Now who will complain about that to warrington Unitary council and according to your erroneous theory it won't be a priority because of the budget cuts due to unforeseen circumstances and the need for high expenditure on councillors expenses, first class travel for the council, excessive catering and alcoholic beverage bills thou you seem happy with all those. We will just have to wait and see what transpires and at least agree to disagree as we both do not seem to have any influence with WBC in this matter and other issues.[/p][/quote]This comment SAC is just a rant and does not resolve anything it's just a rant. I remember the council not wanting this land hence the sale of such. But yet the council will spend more in legal fees defending law. A stupid scenario from a stupid council. I uphold the land owners rights to do with the land as he pleases and the council to be responsible for selling it to a land owner which will do so. If the council are that bothered about the local residents then I suggest they buy the land back and take care of it. But no they want to sell land so they don't have to take care of it but prosecute any kind of enterprise a land owner might do at great expense. WBC = What a Bunch of Cretin's. GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 5

5:25pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
LMFAO

You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them.

The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me.

(Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)
I certainly agree with one part of the above comment and that trying to understand the reality of the situation is certainly beyond you and you have now admitted it. The majority of Warrington and Warrington's visitors are totally unconcerned with the temporary tyre boundary wall or fence, whatever. I have no need to talk with Mr. Moran he has said his piece and declared his case in front of the council, the town's magistrates and now is able to seek justice at he high court where only points of law Will be considered. Incidentally there is a further two steps available to him in the Court of appeal and then in the house of Lords so it could be some time before you get your wish granted. I don't believe that the constituent parts of recycled vehicle tyres can go rancid like the contents of our fortnightly collected black bins so there is a big flaw in your little argument. Now who will complain about that to warrington Unitary council and according to your erroneous theory it won't be a priority because of the budget cuts due to unforeseen circumstances and the need for high expenditure on councillors expenses, first class travel for the council, excessive catering and alcoholic beverage bills thou you seem happy with all those. We will just have to wait and see what transpires and at least agree to disagree as we both do not seem to have any influence with WBC in this matter and other issues.
This comment SAC is just a rant and does not resolve anything it's just a rant. I remember the council not wanting this land hence the sale of such. But yet the council will spend more in legal fees defending law. A stupid scenario from a stupid council. I uphold the land owners rights to do with the land as he pleases and the council to be responsible for selling it to a land owner which will do so. If the council are that bothered about the local residents then I suggest they buy the land back and take care of it. But no they want to sell land so they don't have to take care of it but prosecute any kind of enterprise a land owner might do at great expense. WBC = What a Bunch of Cretin's.
We share a very similar view on this issue I stand beside you with this logical and reasoned comment you make.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: LMFAO You're all over the place with this one. Either you think we should have some degree of control over what people do around the town or not. It's no good having rules that forbid people piling loads of tyres where they like if you don't enforce them. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran so I suggest you take it all up with him. The bloke clearly doesn't give a stuff about this town or its people so why you think he's suddenly going to act all public spirited by moving them is beyond me. (Oh and I think I made the point several times now that however much you call this a fence or wall, it's still a pile of rancid old rubbish)[/p][/quote]I certainly agree with one part of the above comment and that trying to understand the reality of the situation is certainly beyond you and you have now admitted it. The majority of Warrington and Warrington's visitors are totally unconcerned with the temporary tyre boundary wall or fence, whatever. I have no need to talk with Mr. Moran he has said his piece and declared his case in front of the council, the town's magistrates and now is able to seek justice at he high court where only points of law Will be considered. Incidentally there is a further two steps available to him in the Court of appeal and then in the house of Lords so it could be some time before you get your wish granted. I don't believe that the constituent parts of recycled vehicle tyres can go rancid like the contents of our fortnightly collected black bins so there is a big flaw in your little argument. Now who will complain about that to warrington Unitary council and according to your erroneous theory it won't be a priority because of the budget cuts due to unforeseen circumstances and the need for high expenditure on councillors expenses, first class travel for the council, excessive catering and alcoholic beverage bills thou you seem happy with all those. We will just have to wait and see what transpires and at least agree to disagree as we both do not seem to have any influence with WBC in this matter and other issues.[/p][/quote]This comment SAC is just a rant and does not resolve anything it's just a rant. I remember the council not wanting this land hence the sale of such. But yet the council will spend more in legal fees defending law. A stupid scenario from a stupid council. I uphold the land owners rights to do with the land as he pleases and the council to be responsible for selling it to a land owner which will do so. If the council are that bothered about the local residents then I suggest they buy the land back and take care of it. But no they want to sell land so they don't have to take care of it but prosecute any kind of enterprise a land owner might do at great expense. WBC = What a Bunch of Cretin's.[/p][/quote]We share a very similar view on this issue I stand beside you with this logical and reasoned comment you make. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

ninearches wrote:
Surely the tyres could be dealt with under fly tipping laws especially when the council know who the culprit is.
I am sure the council would have tried that if they thought it viable.
[quote][p][bold]ninearches[/bold] wrote: Surely the tyres could be dealt with under fly tipping laws especially when the council know who the culprit is.[/p][/quote]I am sure the council would have tried that if they thought it viable. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

john latchford wrote:
Like i said before,dump them in glazebrook lane and see what his neighbours think.out of sight out of mind does appear to be the case
The point at issue here is that they have not been dumped on public land. they have been intentionally built as on orderly structure to form a boundary wall. So therefore from what you have said about fly tipping them is pointless as the issue and your suggested solution are incongruent and not comparable.
[quote][p][bold]john latchford[/bold] wrote: Like i said before,dump them in glazebrook lane and see what his neighbours think.out of sight out of mind does appear to be the case[/p][/quote]The point at issue here is that they have not been dumped on public land. they have been intentionally built as on orderly structure to form a boundary wall. So therefore from what you have said about fly tipping them is pointless as the issue and your suggested solution are incongruent and not comparable. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

Squashking wrote:
SAC the sheer amount of negative votes you have indicates one thing, you're completly out of touch with the general population of warington, crawl back into the hole you came from and don't come out unless you have something more constructive to say. You're full of it!
That megar vote is only a negligible percentage of the total population so don't celebrate it yet.
[quote][p][bold]Squashking[/bold] wrote: SAC the sheer amount of negative votes you have indicates one thing, you're completly out of touch with the general population of warington, crawl back into the hole you came from and don't come out unless you have something more constructive to say. You're full of it![/p][/quote]That megar vote is only a negligible percentage of the total population so don't celebrate it yet. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -6

11:45pm Wed 28 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

gerrumonside wrote:
I think it's an eyesore. I want it removed. I'm a warrington resident and I think residents, local Councilors, and the council department responsible are right to campaign to take the tyres down.

Trying to tar objectors as a 'minority group', 'narrow minded' and 'selfish' and taking away funds for services from the elderly and infirm is plain stupid to be honest.

I am suprised however that you choose to attempt to educate those in favour of the tyre wall removal, rather than Mr Moran himself. This is a man whose argument was; in his view the area was unsightly so there is no problem adding further unsightly objects.

And where do you stand on his tagline "There has been an outcry about them (the tyres) but it is does not matter to some degree what people think,” is that not narrow minded and selfish....??

That is somebody who needs your guiding hand to the path of enlightenment and community spirit surely....??

any way SAC keep up the trolling/arguments/d

ebate it all helps keep this story in the public eye thanks...
This comment from you is so pitiable. You don't like- so I might not like your curtains, so what? You want the recycled boundary wall removed - so i might like you curtains removed, it is logically the same principle. You are a Warrington resident - I am also a Warrington resident additionally I am a 5th. Generation Warringtonion born and bred, So what? There is no point in WBC campaigning for the removal of the tyres, but they haven't been able to secure the removal of the Wall of recycled tyres because the law and circumstances are preventing them from doing so. I refute the notion that i have tared any of the objectors, as I have simply stated the honest and truthful facts. The percentage of protestors is clearly minimal in relation to the total population never mind the additional number of those who are employed in Warrington Unitary Area in fat is is probably only between 0.1% - 3% at most. I can't see anything wrong with the exact words of his tagline but I believe your interpretation of them is completely wrong. I take you back to my possible issue with regards to your curtains in order to justify my reason for thinking your interpretation is wrong. The protesters need to look at the big picture with regard to this issue. i.e. why the Council have not acted sooner and why they can't apply the law and statutes they only thought they could and then found that they couldn't remove the boundary wall . The area surrounding the site at issue is to a degree unsightly even without the very orderly and well defined boundary wall. There has been an outcry about the issue to no satisfactory effect and by so few people and the fact that the law is on the landowners side at the moment it would seem. The landowner feels the need to both protect his interest in the site and feels the need to enclose it like you expect to do with your property whether it is owned or tenanted. The landowner doesn't need my advice or support as he is an experienced businessman and confident in what he is doing. I dismiss your trolling acquisition as a technical inexactitude but willingly accept it as your opinion. My comments won't keep this issue live any more than yours .it is the legal process that will do that, and for the final outcome we will have to wait for it to be heard in the high court, then there's two possible further stages that it could go to before the wall may be moved. The next 2 stages after the High Court could be the Court of appeal and then to the House of Commons.
[quote][p][bold]gerrumonside[/bold] wrote: I think it's an eyesore. I want it removed. I'm a warrington resident and I think residents, local Councilors, and the council department responsible are right to campaign to take the tyres down. Trying to tar objectors as a 'minority group', 'narrow minded' and 'selfish' and taking away funds for services from the elderly and infirm is plain stupid to be honest. I am suprised however that you choose to attempt to educate those in favour of the tyre wall removal, rather than Mr Moran himself. This is a man whose argument was; in his view the area was unsightly so there is no problem adding further unsightly objects. And where do you stand on his tagline "There has been an outcry about them (the tyres) but it is does not matter to some degree what people think,” is that not narrow minded and selfish....?? That is somebody who needs your guiding hand to the path of enlightenment and community spirit surely....?? any way SAC keep up the trolling/arguments/d ebate it all helps keep this story in the public eye thanks...[/p][/quote]This comment from you is so pitiable. You don't like- so I might not like your curtains, so what? You want the recycled boundary wall removed - so i might like you curtains removed, it is logically the same principle. You are a Warrington resident - I am also a Warrington resident additionally I am a 5th. Generation Warringtonion born and bred, So what? There is no point in WBC campaigning for the removal of the tyres, but they haven't been able to secure the removal of the Wall of recycled tyres because the law and circumstances are preventing them from doing so. I refute the notion that i have tared any of the objectors, as I have simply stated the honest and truthful facts. The percentage of protestors is clearly minimal in relation to the total population never mind the additional number of those who are employed in Warrington Unitary Area in fat is is probably only between 0.1% - 3% at most. I can't see anything wrong with the exact words of his tagline but I believe your interpretation of them is completely wrong. I take you back to my possible issue with regards to your curtains in order to justify my reason for thinking your interpretation is wrong. The protesters need to look at the big picture with regard to this issue. i.e. why the Council have not acted sooner and why they can't apply the law and statutes they only thought they could and then found that they couldn't remove the boundary wall . The area surrounding the site at issue is to a degree unsightly even without the very orderly and well defined boundary wall. There has been an outcry about the issue to no satisfactory effect and by so few people and the fact that the law is on the landowners side at the moment it would seem. The landowner feels the need to both protect his interest in the site and feels the need to enclose it like you expect to do with your property whether it is owned or tenanted. The landowner doesn't need my advice or support as he is an experienced businessman and confident in what he is doing. I dismiss your trolling acquisition as a technical inexactitude but willingly accept it as your opinion. My comments won't keep this issue live any more than yours .it is the legal process that will do that, and for the final outcome we will have to wait for it to be heard in the high court, then there's two possible further stages that it could go to before the wall may be moved. The next 2 stages after the High Court could be the Court of appeal and then to the House of Commons. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -2

11:57pm Wed 28 May 14

ninacatherine says...

grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion. ninacatherine
  • Score: -3

12:00am Thu 29 May 14

ninacatherine says...

grey_man wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
SAC

So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do?

It's an opinion, but that's all it is.
No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision.
.
And you'll find that I think the council does waste money on stupid schemes but they have a duty to protect the amenity of the town for everybody. Not let this bloke decide he can do whatever he bloody likes and the rest of us live with it.

You keep referring to it as a 'fence' but it won't make it one. He doesn't believe it either otherwise he'd happily live in a house surrounded by piles of old tyres and so would you. And I'm pretty confident neither of you do.
Actually he build a house out of tyres so...
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: SAC So your argument is that people should be able to do whatever they bloody choose to do? It's an opinion, but that's all it is.[/p][/quote]No, oh no that is your argument not mine. I think WBC should spend our council tax more wisely on things the Town needs not trivial issues such at a disliked boundary wall. Further action will only delay the proposed redevelopment of the site into allotments and one of the very few options for this site. Quite honestly I am appalled at your selfish attitude towards the warrington Citizens who need the servicers that WBC are cutting in order to balance their extravagant budgets. Again as I have stated it is very, very simply logic logical and improve the quality of life for those who need those so vital services such as the Community Transport Mini| Buses and other additional needs provision. .[/p][/quote]And you'll find that I think the council does waste money on stupid schemes but they have a duty to protect the amenity of the town for everybody. Not let this bloke decide he can do whatever he bloody likes and the rest of us live with it. You keep referring to it as a 'fence' but it won't make it one. He doesn't believe it either otherwise he'd happily live in a house surrounded by piles of old tyres and so would you. And I'm pretty confident neither of you do.[/p][/quote]Actually he build a house out of tyres so... ninacatherine
  • Score: -3

11:34am Thu 29 May 14

grey_man says...

ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
[quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it. grey_man
  • Score: 3

4:17pm Thu 29 May 14

ninacatherine says...

grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can.

No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it.

My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed?

Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary!

As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts!
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can. No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it. My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed? Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary! As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts! ninacatherine
  • Score: -3

8:15pm Thu 29 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Exactly you can, and no doubt will on this subject and many other issues, but don't be surprised that other people may express an obverse opinion and that the majority of the local population will not agree with you and in mater of fact are not bothered about the wall of tyres. Incidentally and considering the same principle please get rid of your curtains as and I quote your words on such disliked items, " it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in", if your curtains weren't in it. Thats just an opinion so of no consequence to you I would expect. Seriously and sincerely no insult intended in my analogy.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Exactly you can, and no doubt will on this subject and many other issues, but don't be surprised that other people may express an obverse opinion and that the majority of the local population will not agree with you and in mater of fact are not bothered about the wall of tyres. Incidentally and considering the same principle please get rid of your curtains as and I quote your words on such disliked items, " it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in", if your curtains weren't in it. Thats just an opinion so of no consequence to you I would expect. Seriously and sincerely no insult intended in my analogy. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -4

8:29pm Thu 29 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Exactly you can, and no doubt will on this subject and many other issues, but don't be surprised that other people may express an obverse opinion and that the majority of the local population will not agree with you and in mater of fact are not bothered about the wall of tyres. Incidentally and considering the same principle please get rid of your curtains as and I quote your words on such disliked items, " it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in", if your curtains weren't in it. Thats just an opinion so of no consequence to you I would expect. Seriously and sincerely no insult intended in my analogy.
Lets have Mr. moran as the elected mayor of Warrington, yes seriously he would apply himself to do a much better public service than that of His Worshipful, The Mayor of Warrington. (not the individual you must understand, but the position of and their role).
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Exactly you can, and no doubt will on this subject and many other issues, but don't be surprised that other people may express an obverse opinion and that the majority of the local population will not agree with you and in mater of fact are not bothered about the wall of tyres. Incidentally and considering the same principle please get rid of your curtains as and I quote your words on such disliked items, " it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in", if your curtains weren't in it. Thats just an opinion so of no consequence to you I would expect. Seriously and sincerely no insult intended in my analogy.[/p][/quote]Lets have Mr. moran as the elected mayor of Warrington, yes seriously he would apply himself to do a much better public service than that of His Worshipful, The Mayor of Warrington. (not the individual you must understand, but the position of and their role). SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -3

6:49pm Fri 30 May 14

*Spartan* says...

I think the only reason the Council don't like it, is because of that fine UKIP advert. They don't want to remind people that they only won by several hundred votes. Was so close. We could have got rid of that rotten (Labour) council.
One after thought - If we do have to get rid of it, can we please keep the UKIP section.
I think the only reason the Council don't like it, is because of that fine UKIP advert. They don't want to remind people that they only won by several hundred votes. Was so close. We could have got rid of that rotten (Labour) council. One after thought - If we do have to get rid of it, can we please keep the UKIP section. *Spartan*
  • Score: 5

12:15pm Sat 31 May 14

grey_man says...

ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can.

No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it.

My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed?

Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary!

As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts!
Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment.

Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.
[quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can. No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it. My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed? Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary! As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts![/p][/quote]Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment. Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran. grey_man
  • Score: -2

2:50pm Sat 31 May 14

fedster says...

gazhopley wrote:
I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.
turn it into some nice picture wall
some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it.

where always being told to recycle.
and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge
[quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.[/p][/quote]turn it into some nice picture wall some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it. where always being told to recycle. and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge fedster
  • Score: 2

10:09pm Sat 31 May 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

fedster wrote:
gazhopley wrote:
I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.
turn it into some nice picture wall
some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it.

where always being told to recycle.
and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge
You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.
[quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.[/p][/quote]turn it into some nice picture wall some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it. where always being told to recycle. and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge[/p][/quote]You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -2

7:26pm Sun 1 Jun 14

fedster says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
fedster wrote:
gazhopley wrote:
I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.
turn it into some nice picture wall
some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it.

where always being told to recycle.
and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge
You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.
i like my idea of art its nice and sweet



bit better than the old cooie syndrome of **** and doing sod all
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.[/p][/quote]turn it into some nice picture wall some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it. where always being told to recycle. and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge[/p][/quote]You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.[/p][/quote]i like my idea of art its nice and sweet bit better than the old cooie syndrome of **** and doing sod all fedster
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Sun 1 Jun 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

fedster wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
fedster wrote:
gazhopley wrote:
I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.
turn it into some nice picture wall
some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it.

where always being told to recycle.
and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge
You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.
i like my idea of art its nice and sweet



bit better than the old cooie syndrome of **** and doing sod all
I am sincerely very sorry Fedstar. I seem to have attached a comment meant for grey_man to your comment. I actually agreed with your comment and sincerely support your view as an alternative to a plain fence or wall. I plead for and seek forgiveness from you on this occasion.
[quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazhopley[/bold] wrote: I am a bit confused with this one, going off the picture alone I can see some materials recycled into making a temporary barrier, on a road that has no raised kerb, using the same product (tyres) that racetracks have used as barriers for decades which have a proven positive effect on safety, theres no houses that overlook it as far as I can see, it's recycled and it promotes safety , we keep being told that is more important, I have an idea for those who don't like the look of it...Don't look at it! or at least paint them red and white and make them into a feature.[/p][/quote]turn it into some nice picture wall some of the local artist and grafiti artist in add a bit of culture to it. where always being told to recycle. and to be fair it doesnt look as untidy as that bunch of half built sheds running up to the island before the bridge[/p][/quote]You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.[/p][/quote]i like my idea of art its nice and sweet bit better than the old cooie syndrome of **** and doing sod all[/p][/quote]I am sincerely very sorry Fedstar. I seem to have attached a comment meant for grey_man to your comment. I actually agreed with your comment and sincerely support your view as an alternative to a plain fence or wall. I plead for and seek forgiveness from you on this occasion. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -1

7:53pm Sun 1 Jun 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can.

No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it.

My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed?

Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary!

As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts!
Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment.

Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.
You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can. No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it. My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed? Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary! As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts![/p][/quote]Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment. Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.[/p][/quote]You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -1

7:40am Mon 2 Jun 14

grey_man says...

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can.

No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it.

My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed?

Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary!

As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts!
Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment.

Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.
You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.
There aren't two sides to it. The reason I know that is nowhere in the world, in any towns or cities, do people like to have manky old piles of tyres lying around.

Nice trolling by the way, but your writing style is getting increasingly pompous, so you might want to watch that.
[quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can. No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it. My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed? Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary! As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts![/p][/quote]Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment. Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.[/p][/quote]You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.[/p][/quote]There aren't two sides to it. The reason I know that is nowhere in the world, in any towns or cities, do people like to have manky old piles of tyres lying around. Nice trolling by the way, but your writing style is getting increasingly pompous, so you might want to watch that. grey_man
  • Score: 1

8:02am Mon 2 Jun 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
ninacatherine wrote:
grey_man wrote:
And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.
Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.
No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.
Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can.

No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it.

My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed?

Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary!

As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts!
Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment.

Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.
You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.
There aren't two sides to it. The reason I know that is nowhere in the world, in any towns or cities, do people like to have manky old piles of tyres lying around.

Nice trolling by the way, but your writing style is getting increasingly pompous, so you might want to watch that.
Not trolling at all merely debating but obviously that is far beyond your comprehension and your lack of understanding with regards to philosophy. It is your choice to see and understand my recent comment as pompous, so I have no need to take care with that. There are numerous structures that are installed , "in the world, in any towns or cities", similar to the tidy and well contained wall of recycled tyres so that blows your theory then on that errent notion. There are always at least two sides of an argument or a point of discussion or debate even if you only promote one of them as being naively as an absolute as you have demonstrated.

To the minority of Warrington Community and Business Charge Payers it is aberrant, however to the majority of Warrington's Community and Business Charge Payers it is not and therefore deemed as insignificant and not requiring any attention at all. I have no doubt that you and your minimal cohort will whine on & on & on & on ... ad infinitum.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ninacatherine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And it's not a boundary fence. It's a pile of old tyres. There's a reason why people don't want anti-social chancers like this bloke and his little poodle ninacatherine making the town look like a tip.[/p][/quote]Excuse me Sir, there is no need to be rude or personal. Clearly you have the intellect of a dung beetle as you're unable to express a considered well thought opinion.[/p][/quote]No, I can express an opinion. And it is that the town would look and be a lot better place to live in, if this bloke and his pile of old tyres weren't in it.[/p][/quote]Well you clearly are unable to demonstrate that you can. No it wouldn't - have you seen the mess that is Church Street? Or the mess around the old school depot? Parts of this town are a mess & the Council do nothing to address it. My comments were factual, based upon sound legal knowledge whether you like them or not. Mr Moran has the right to appeal & I consider that he should. The judgment of the magistrates IN LAW was incorrect; they did not properly consider the legal issues put before them. The appeal court will look at the legalities & may find in favour of Mr Moran - what will the Council do then? Waste more money on trying to get the tyres removed? Had the Council not made such a fuss & tried the bully boy tactics I'm quite sure Mr Moran would have removed the tyres once his work on the land was completed. But all the action has done is delay any such work & kept the tyres up longer than necessary! As for Mr Moran not living in the town; I'd rather have him live here than you given the amount of money he pumps into the local economy and his charitable endeavours. Notwithstanding those, at least he has more personality than dung beetles such as you who take to insulting people rather than produce a coherent, decent argument in reply to peoples' posts![/p][/quote]Frankly you know nothing about what I pump into the local economy and my own charitable endeavours. And I assume you can't see the irony in your last comment. Believe me, I am no fan of this council but they are doing the right thing in this case. If they lose the case on appeal, so be it. It still won't change the fact that this man thinks he has the right to dump piles of tyres where they're not wanted. The only bully boy in this is Patrick Moran. The only person costing the council money is Patrick Moran. The only person who doesn't give a stuff about anybody else is Patrick Moran.[/p][/quote]You make such a plethora of odd assumptions to form your absolute opinion and so need reminding that assumptions are absolutely not facts. You also still fail to have understood both sides in this continued discussion.[/p][/quote]There aren't two sides to it. The reason I know that is nowhere in the world, in any towns or cities, do people like to have manky old piles of tyres lying around. Nice trolling by the way, but your writing style is getting increasingly pompous, so you might want to watch that.[/p][/quote]Not trolling at all merely debating but obviously that is far beyond your comprehension and your lack of understanding with regards to philosophy. It is your choice to see and understand my recent comment as pompous, so I have no need to take care with that. There are numerous structures that are installed , "in the world, in any towns or cities", similar to the tidy and well contained wall of recycled tyres so that blows your theory then on that errent notion. There are always at least two sides of an argument or a point of discussion or debate even if you only promote one of them as being naively as an absolute as you have demonstrated. To the minority of Warrington Community and Business Charge Payers it is aberrant, however to the majority of Warrington's Community and Business Charge Payers it is not and therefore deemed as insignificant and not requiring any attention at all. I have no doubt that you and your minimal cohort will whine on & on & on & on ... ad infinitum. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -2

8:14am Mon 2 Jun 14

grey_man says...

And I have no doubt that you will continue to talk as if your views represent those of the majority of Warringtonians, none of whom I notice have put up a wall of tyres outside their own homes.
And I have no doubt that you will continue to talk as if your views represent those of the majority of Warringtonians, none of whom I notice have put up a wall of tyres outside their own homes. grey_man
  • Score: 1

8:34am Mon 2 Jun 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
And I have no doubt that you will continue to talk as if your views represent those of the majority of Warringtonians, none of whom I notice have put up a wall of tyres outside their own homes.
Nor do they care a jot about the bespoke boundary wall either hence no action or reaction from them so there you go and we will still have to wait for the legal judgement to be heard, now won't we?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: And I have no doubt that you will continue to talk as if your views represent those of the majority of Warringtonians, none of whom I notice have put up a wall of tyres outside their own homes.[/p][/quote]Nor do they care a jot about the bespoke boundary wall either hence no action or reaction from them so there you go and we will still have to wait for the legal judgement to be heard, now won't we? SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -2

10:24am Mon 2 Jun 14

gazhopley says...

Hang on a minute grey-man, you had a go at SAC "And I have no doubt that you will continue to talk as if your views represent those of the majority of Warringtonians" but in the comment before you said "The reason I know that is nowhere in the world, in any towns or cities, do people like to have manky old piles of tyres lying around." You are accusing SAC of doing something that you DID in your previous comment, you cant berate someone for something you had done as well, is that not hypocritical? the only way you can say what the majority wants is by having a vote, that is the basis of democracy after all, you accused SAC of knowing what warringtonians want yet you state that you know what everyone in the WORLD wants, you do know thats over 6 billion people,
Personally I cannot speak for everyone in warrington but I have NO problems with the tyre wall so unfortunately that is proof positive that you are wrong, If I had land with a long boundary that ran adjacent to a road, used tyres is a good idea, they are an ideal material as they link with the road. There are a lot of presumptions being made, and we all know what presumptions are the mother of!
Hang on a minute grey-man, you had a go at SAC "And I have no doubt that you will continue to talk as if your views represent those of the majority of Warringtonians" but in the comment before you said "The reason I know that is nowhere in the world, in any towns or cities, do people like to have manky old piles of tyres lying around." You are accusing SAC of doing something that you DID in your previous comment, you cant berate someone for something you had done as well, is that not hypocritical? the only way you can say what the majority wants is by having a vote, that is the basis of democracy after all, you accused SAC of knowing what warringtonians want yet you state that you know what everyone in the WORLD wants, you do know thats over 6 billion people, Personally I cannot speak for everyone in warrington but I have NO problems with the tyre wall so unfortunately that is proof positive that you are wrong, If I had land with a long boundary that ran adjacent to a road, used tyres is a good idea, they are an ideal material as they link with the road. There are a lot of presumptions being made, and we all know what presumptions are the mother of! gazhopley
  • Score: -1

4:53pm Mon 2 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Not really. I'm judging them on their actions - ie they don't put up piles of tyres outside their own homes because they don't like them, in Warrington or anywhere else. Whereas SAC is just making stuff up.
Not really. I'm judging them on their actions - ie they don't put up piles of tyres outside their own homes because they don't like them, in Warrington or anywhere else. Whereas SAC is just making stuff up. grey_man
  • Score: 2

5:45pm Mon 2 Jun 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

The main difference between us 2 is that I can understand both sides of an argument, discussion or debate. Additionally I haven't suggested that the whole world population doesn't like Mr.Moran's boundary wall like you did.

The boundary wall is no way affecting access or egress at your house and there aren't any close households so close to the site to complain about it affecting their property either, to any significant detriment.

Whatever we think we will have to await the end of the legal process to find out the outcome for Mr. Moran and the Council.
The main difference between us 2 is that I can understand both sides of an argument, discussion or debate. Additionally I haven't suggested that the whole world population doesn't like Mr.Moran's boundary wall like you did. The boundary wall is no way affecting access or egress at your house and there aren't any close households so close to the site to complain about it affecting their property either, to any significant detriment. Whatever we think we will have to await the end of the legal process to find out the outcome for Mr. Moran and the Council. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -2

6:27pm Mon 2 Jun 14

gazhopley says...

grey_man wrote:
Not really. I'm judging them on their actions - ie they don't put up piles of tyres outside their own homes because they don't like them, in Warrington or anywhere else. Whereas SAC is just making stuff up.
yep, thats a good example of being presumptuous. I don't have a wind turbine in my garden so does that mean I don't support alternative energy? Neither do I have a lamborghini in the drive, so am I opposed to italian super cars? The answer to both is NO even though (sadly) I don't have either. I don't even have a tyre wall, which means according to your logic I am opposed to tyre walls when obviously I'm not. Warrington has a population of 203,700 and you know how they all think... Just because of their actions... I bet you don't, because that's not how it works.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: Not really. I'm judging them on their actions - ie they don't put up piles of tyres outside their own homes because they don't like them, in Warrington or anywhere else. Whereas SAC is just making stuff up.[/p][/quote]yep, thats a good example of being presumptuous. I don't have a wind turbine in my garden so does that mean I don't support alternative energy? Neither do I have a lamborghini in the drive, so am I opposed to italian super cars? The answer to both is NO even though (sadly) I don't have either. I don't even have a tyre wall, which means according to your logic I am opposed to tyre walls when obviously I'm not. Warrington has a population of 203,700 and you know how they all think... Just because of their actions... I bet you don't, because that's not how it works. gazhopley
  • Score: -2

8:54pm Mon 2 Jun 14

grey_man says...

Not really. Like I said, people obviously don't like looking at piles of old tyres. If they did, they'd be cheaper than hedges, fences, walls and all those other things that they do like. This is just junk which is why the council has to waste its time and money dealing with a man who is frankly a glorified fly tipper.
Not really. Like I said, people obviously don't like looking at piles of old tyres. If they did, they'd be cheaper than hedges, fences, walls and all those other things that they do like. This is just junk which is why the council has to waste its time and money dealing with a man who is frankly a glorified fly tipper. grey_man
  • Score: 1

9:18am Tue 3 Jun 14

SAC_in_Warrington says...

grey_man wrote:
Not really. Like I said, people obviously don't like looking at piles of old tyres. If they did, they'd be cheaper than hedges, fences, walls and all those other things that they do like. This is just junk which is why the council has to waste its time and money dealing with a man who is frankly a glorified fly tipper.
From your point of view and what seems like a very minute minority of casual observers who seem to be disarranged by it being there.

Incidentally those who like other things don't necessary have them on their owned or rented property, but some do and they are tolerated mostly.

Some people even had their housed build using Cow Dung, their Leather goods prepared by using public urine, some of your food is still grown using several forms of human and animal detritus and you haven't so far complained about that.

Clearly visible, contained well, recycled products used as a temporary boundary wall seem to have have caused you so much mental distress, now shouldn't you be able to claim some form of compensation from Mr. Moran?

What ever you will say, we will all still have to await the Judicial outcome from the at least the next or next two further stages of a legal appeal process that is available to Mr. Moran.
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: Not really. Like I said, people obviously don't like looking at piles of old tyres. If they did, they'd be cheaper than hedges, fences, walls and all those other things that they do like. This is just junk which is why the council has to waste its time and money dealing with a man who is frankly a glorified fly tipper.[/p][/quote]From your point of view and what seems like a very minute minority of casual observers who seem to be disarranged by it being there. Incidentally those who like other things don't necessary have them on their owned or rented property, but some do and they are tolerated mostly. Some people even had their housed build using Cow Dung, their Leather goods prepared by using public urine, some of your food is still grown using several forms of human and animal detritus and you haven't so far complained about that. Clearly visible, contained well, recycled products used as a temporary boundary wall seem to have have caused you so much mental distress, now shouldn't you be able to claim some form of compensation from Mr. Moran? What ever you will say, we will all still have to await the Judicial outcome from the at least the next or next two further stages of a legal appeal process that is available to Mr. Moran. SAC_in_Warrington
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree