Saturday, June 07, 2008
We do get emails from time to time, and as far as I'm concerned, whatever mail is received is between you and us unless you state otherwise (and unless you're a particularly juicy specimen of our opponents). So when we were challenged to publish an email we received the other day, it has to be fair game to do so. A gentleman by the name of David Bridge sent this email, so below we'll outline the questions asked (bold) with my response (italics):
You appear to be against everything that Glossop wants to progress in modern society
No one knows what 'Glossop wants' because, as far as we are aware, no one has asked the people of Glossop. Or at least asked in a way that elicits a truthful and considered answer. What Glossop wants, is not the same thing as what High Peak Borough Council wants, nor what David Jones at the Glossop Chronic wants, nor anything that comes out of the mouths of the local bourgeoisie. If progression means the slow strangulation of the High Street and the construction of ugly, offensive Corporate warehouses that bring nothing to the area and take all of the profit from it, then I am are clearly against 'progress' as you label it. I suspect a lot of residents feel the same way. I don't want to live on Ashton Moss, or in a look-alike suburb of Manchester. If you do, then move there.
It takes me 20 minutes extra to travel in my car during the week than it does at the weekend from Glossop to Mottram. What does that do to my carbon footprint!!!!
That's probably rush hour traffic. I'm not sure what your point is - surely setting off 20 minutes earlier would help? As for your CO2 'footprint', the Highways Agency have clearly stated that CO2 emissions will rise with the bypass from the static position they are at now (because the roads are at capacity). Creating extra roads will encourage further traffic, ensuring more CO2. That much is incontrovertible.
The traffic figures for the combined Bypass and Spur demonstrate that traffic congestion will subsequently increase in Glossopdale (by 21% along the A57 at Brookfield - your route out of Glossop presumably?). Did you notice that bit when you read their literature? Surely you must have read it if you are in favour of the Bypass/Spur, or couldn't you be bothered?
Yes, I do need a car for my work and yes I do take other people, so why are you totally against anyone trying to improve the infrastructure of Glossop.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. I also currently need a car for work - but I'd like a viable alternative for getting to and fro, and building more roads will not bring this. All of the that grief and destruction is not worth 40 minutes of your or my time each day. So I'm against building new roads. You live in the Peak District by the way...
The infrastructure of Glossop is not being improved. It is being made totally unsustainable. Have you not seen Rossington Park?
May I ask where you as an organiser live?
Yes, you may ask...
Now you are against Sainsbury's moving in, why?
Read this bloody blog post, and this one! How will building another Supermarket improve anything about this area? Can you not conceive of the horrendous traffic congestion that will result? Do you want to make Glossop a 'clone town'? Or do you get a little thrill every time Jamie Oliver's ads appear on TV?
You are now againt Lidl coming to Glossop, Why?
Again, you need to actually read what's written here & here - or are these rhetorical questions?
Should we all go back to the iron age.
This sounds philosophical. Shouldn't that be 'forward to another Iron Age'? We may have to if we carry on along your preferred path: the Iron Age was a time of increasing class stratification of society brought about by climatic changes and entailed fierce competition for resources - along with a hefty amount of violence. Sounds familiar? We'll see what happens when Peak Oil is reached (most likely within both of our lifetimes)...
As an organisation to stop a bypass I could possibly understand where you were coming from but now you just seem to be a left wing group set against the state, basically the opposite of the BNP.
You flatter me. I can only speak for myself, and not necessarily other contributors, but the 'opposite of the BNP' is where I'm at - I'm not a paranoid, nationalist, racist, fascist bonehead. As for my view of the State, I'll point you in the direction of Comrade Kropotkin's 'The State: Its Historic Role'*.
I would argue that meaningful and utterly radical change of the social and economic conditions we currently tolerate is no longer merely an issue of fairness or justice - it is actually becoming a prerequisite for the survival of Homo Sapiens on large parts of this planet. 'Get busy livin', or get busy dying' indeed...
What's clear from your email is that you do not have any kind of considered and coherent argument faced with the evidence and dialectic we have constructed here. Unfortunately someone with similar attributes tried doing a pro-bypass blog last year, otherwise we'd suggest you try that yourself.
I BET THIS LETTER NEVER APPEARS ON YOUR WEBSITE
The one thing puzzling about this is why David just didn't leave a comment on a post? We accept anonymous comments, and they aren't moderated prior to publication. They appear verbatim as and when people post them.
*"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you!"