Saturday, 7 February 2009

Back in business

After all the recent 'interesting' weather I was pleased to be able to get out and travel to my surgery by bike this morning. Having said that, it was some of the coldest weather I have ever cycled in, showing -2.7 on my first floor study thermometer, and probably a few degrees lower on the ground. Despite looking clear and dry from afar, the roads were covered in very thin patches of barely visible ice, which probably made cycling safer than driving.

It was the first chance I had to view the finished Southgate Street/St Marys Square works:
which certainly affected this car:

I was surprised to find this multicoloured flag flying at the Raingate Street police station. Can anyone explain it?
UPDATE SUNDAY: see East Anglian story by clicking here...
On my way back from the library (where fellow councillor Richard Rout and I were busier than we expected on such a cold morning) I took advantage of a missing temporary barrier to take this:
and then stuck my camera through the barrier gap to take this:

Can't wait for March 5th when Debenhams and the first shops open!


Anonymous said...

The use of rainbow flags as a sign of diversity, inclusiveness, hope and yearning has a long history. There are several unrelated flags in use today. The most widely known is the Pride Flag representing Gay Pride. Other rainbow flags are the Peace Flag and Co-operative flag.

The original Gay Pride flag had eight stripes and was hand dyed by San Francisco artist Gilbert Baker. It first flew on San Francisco Gay Freedom Day parade on 25th June 1978. This had a hot pink and a turquoise stripe, in addition to the colours you see on this flag.

The colours represent as follows:
Red-Life; Orange-Healing; Yellow-Sunlight; Green-Nature; Blue- Serenity; Violet-Spirit. You sometimes see variations in this flag, which may include a black stripe to symbolise members of the community lost to AIDS.

I am pleased to see that Bury St Edmunds police station are celebrating diversity.

Paul F said...

Many thanks anon - I had no idea, but have since read about this in the EADT - see link on post.

Mark G. Hardy said...

Now in the background of photo 2 do I see the St Mary'sSq planter that the Town and Borough Council are refusing to repair despite having "used" it for 30+ years? Seems to me that the StEdsBC councillors are facing a surcharge for gross negligence.....(upon application by an affected person aka me!).

Paul F said...

Mark - not quite sure what you can see in the picture that I can't, but in any case you are not as up to speed as your former neighbours.

Mark G. Hardy said...


The problem you have is that my former neighbours have asked me to continue to try and hold you to account as neither StEdsBC nor BTC has done a single thing.

Lest you think I have no legitimate interest, do be aware that as a non-resident UK citizen my rights to vote in parliamentary elections are guaranteed and you are stuck with me for the next 15 years (ps I look forward to ensuring there is no skullduggery at the postal vote opening!).

Back to the Planter. Why are you refusing to supply copies of the hideously expensive consultants report you commissioned?

English Heritage and the Audit Commission will hold you all to account. You (StEdsBC) have used the planter for 30+ years but have neglected the duty of maintenance. There really is no argument. Pay up and quickly because it deteriorates every cold and rainy day - as our "no charge" consultant stated.

Fobbing it off onto the Bury Society without an endowment is not an option.

StEdsBC owes a duty of care to its heritage but has been grossly negligent for years - and even when the problems have been pointed out seeks to make it worse. Surcharge? Almost guaranteed.

Now what about the clocks......

Paul F said...

Mark - Your former neighbours are quite capable of holding me to account over matters which are my councils' responsibilities. This morning I read a kind email from two, thanking me "on behalf of ourselves and our neighbours...for pressing for these measures before serious injury or a fatality occured". It is not the only example. If you do indeed live to your mid 70s you will not (unlike them) be able to vote in County, Borough or Town Council elections whilstever you remain in France (or wherever abroad). The "skullduggery" you refer to was not proven and indeed you lost your case in the High Court and were ordered to pay costs to St Edmundsbury Council. I am not aware that these have been paid. If you continue to write innacurate comments on this blog don't be surprised if I refuse to publish them.

Mark G. Hardy said...

At last - you admit the Planter is "your" council(s) responsibility. That is a first as you have been denying it publicly for years and until you are blue in the face.

You seem confused as to the role of the MP. I think Mr. Ruffley understands that, as a constituent, I can ask him to try and deal with admitted negligence by "his" junior councils in relation to an obligation imposed on them by UK statutes.

Just fix it - please? Its your fault it is now so expensive to do after 30 years of gross neglect and ownership denial.

Paul F said...

Mark - You need to read what I wrote more carefully before you get so excited. It is YOU who are making (false) assumptions about my councils' responsibilities.

The example I gave was Highways, which currently are devolved from the County Council to St Edmundsbury, but only within Bury St Edmunds.

I am not aware that local councils are legally accountable to their MP. In any case I don't recall your having much success with getting yours on side in connection with the local matter which you lost in the High Court - and about which I am told you are still being pursued.

Mark G. Hardy said...

Ah, but you have told everyone that the planter might originally have been highways... so you are admitting its yours now anyway.

Methinks you really are digging a hole.

Nobody said anything about "your" council being "legally accountable" to the MP, but he has a duty to try and get you to comply with the statutory duty he imposed by law from Westminster via English Heritage.

You also need to be a little more circumspect with your statements re the Judicial Review application and matters flowing from it.

The offences were as you know admitted, police cautions issued, but the Judge stated that in her judgment the only remedy against the Returning Officer for negligence was to lodge an election petition and have the election declared unlawful and I had to do that within (14?) days so I was too late.

Its very tempting to do that the next time the offences are committed (May 2009 EU elections perhaps? Guess who is the returning officer for that one!)- and for "your" council elections all I need is an office/shop in Bury and there are quite a few empty ones going cheap at the moment.

Paul F said...

Mark - The facts are that no caution was issued to SEBC, nor to any SEBC councillor; your Judicial Review failed; the planter's ownership is not known; the EU elections are in June not May; and shop owners do not have a vote.

Until I can announce further news about the planter this correspondence is now closed.