This is an answer to Mr Winship’s hand delivered letter of 06 May 2014. It is answered here rather than on Waldringfielders so as to give a slight barrier to those who are not interested in reading about the dispute. Mr Winship’s refusal to use Waldringfielders has little to do with the fact that I ‘Control’ it. Anyone registered can post to Waldringfielders freely. It is not censored, so I don’t know what control I am exercising over posts! It is more to do with the fact that it is more difficult to reply to a hand delivered letter.
The best way to ‘rebut an attack’ is to answer the questions constantly asked of you. Don’t play the victim. I am really interested in the legal action! What exactly is the crime related to asking your councillors to justify their actions? Emailing certain groups is swaying the results. Did you email motoring groups asking them to voice their opinion?
Yes, I attended the launch. It was a ‘self congratulationfest’ and despite having all of the main people there and having a long converstation with, amongst others, a barrister, still nobody was able to tell me how the results would be measured. The ‘Speed Watch’ guru (watch out for the next initiative in the village vigilante group) said that hopefully the results wouldn’t matter, it would just continue on regardless. I didn’t announce my interest in advance of my question. Agreed… when I said the sole metric is walkers, it was shorthand for ‘walkers, horses and cyclists.’ apologies if this caused confusion. The point was, not the inconvenience to car drivers, the cost or the addition of signs. Will a decrease in cars signify success or failure? Any decrease will show that people are deviating from their preferred route and is therefore a disadvantage. I guess that the interpretation will be otherwise!
How are you going to measure attitudes?
regarding me telling you how to measure inconvenience, you are running the trial. You should be measuring the success factors and if you cannot do it objectively, you should not be running a trial. It is not for me to measure part of the effect, it is your responsibility to measure it ALL. This should all have been decided beforehand. I indeed was referring to the EADT article. I accept your statement above that it was erroneous. This was not published however, highlighting the need to correct errors in a public forum. Nevertheless, I was referring also to your email of 21st April 2013 to Waldringfielders informing us that: “The signs at £100 approx per wooden post with authorised sign on are a relatively insignificant cost.” This was disputed at the time as ridiculous and your figures bear this out.
Yes, I am ‘Harking back’ to the ONLY evidence that you used to impose this scheme on us. The fact that it was a hurried questionnaire indicates that you know it was inadequate, so why was it used?
I did not renege on my offer of help. I spent a long time formulating questions – far longer than you, even though I had no interest in the changes. We had a comprehensive and unbiased questionnaire nearly ready to go. The last correspondence I can see was from Janet Elliot saying, ” I’m OK with most of your comments so I think we are pretty much there – just a couple of suggested tweaks in red attached.If you are happy with those, suggest it is put to the PC for approval in which case it can then go out in the PC’s name and remain a neutral survey.” I am not certain what happened after that, but I remember I was concerned that your own (Neil’s) flawed initiative was still continuing, so the biased results were still being collected.
I also have an Email from Ian Kay on 2nd April 2013 saying, “Steve,Neil’s information will not be used by the PC to assess the level of support/opposition to quiet lanes, or to affect or augment the statistics on any of the questions in the official survey. This is because everyone (including Neil) agrees that it is biased and therefore of no value statistically. ” How then was it allowed to be used, whether or not I produced a questionnaire?
Regarding the 2:1 in favour. Yes, Ian has repeatedly said that there was a 2:1 majority. It is about time he and you listened to the criticism, which is not the majority, but the statistical insignificance of the sample. Only 9% of the village felt strongly enough about wanting change to vote that way. This is a fact that you constantly ignore. I cannot answer for Anna, but as I share the same opinion, I can tell you my reasons. Simply, the overwhelming majority of people I talk to are not in favour of the scheme and do not feel adequately represented. So you want to promote cycling and well-being. I am fed up with people inflicting their ideals on me. If I want to drive instead of cycle, that is my choice. You get on with your own life and stop fiddling in others’.
The support locally is an old survey, and a presumption you have made. You seem to be indicating that Quiet Lanes will be safer than otherwise. You have not a shred of evidence for this as they have no change to their legal status. This has been pointed out many times, but as usual, you are blind to facts, fail to answer questions and fail to listen to your parishioners – more evidence for the one man show. Who is posting anonymously?
Your opinion of people trying to get the truth and answers does not constitute bad manners. What DOES constitute bad manners (and worse) is a councillor failing to answer questions, ignoring facts and failing to run a proper scheme. Yes, I started this thread by being very emotive. Unfortunately, without that, you ignore the questions.
By the way, if you responded on Waldringfielders instead of your ridiculous need to ‘sign’ the letter, the tree.b would have received it. People do not have a requirement to tell you where they live and what they look like for their views to be listened to.
I have seen fit to pass it on to anyone who can click on a link.