We're pretty stunned with the report of the Siege protest in this week's Glossop Chronic. Despite using a similar excuse to the Advertiser that a "fire at the Peniston (sic) end" meant traffic wasn't as heavy as expected (so vehicles heading North on the M1 weren't re-routing via the A616 then?), the papers agrees that "traffic flowed normally through to Mottram and on into Tameside. There were no problems either in Glossop".
Even better, the usual Bypass cheerleader and exemplar of partial journalism David Jones deals a crippling blow to Siege's credibility with the opening paragraph "a demonstration designed to bring rush hour traffic to a standstill failed" (our emphasis).
Worse still, Mike Flynn is quoted as being disappointed that "only five members of the public turned out to support us at Tintwistle".
Well it's hardly surprising - as we pointed out yesterday, Bypass 2.0 offers absolutely nothing to those living in Tintwistle (& Hollingworth) that want a road solution.
But perhaps the real shock here is the complete contrast with the article in this week's Advertiser papers. They said "traffic came to a standstill", quoting Mike Flynn as saying "I think it was very successful and we were very pleased with how it came off" which is the complete opposite of his comment in the Chronic that "it's very disappointing". The Advertiser put the people taking part as "70". On the day, our contact counted around 6 people at Mottram, Flynn himself says five turned up at Tinsle, and the photo of protesters at Mottram in the Chronic has about 14 glum-looking individuals (is that Sean Parker-Perry at the back?), a total of around 25. Now we've always been the first to point out how the virtual TMBC house-journal that is the Advertiser purposefully distorts the news (as well as occasionally stealing our stories, without credit, natch), but the contrast between fantasy and reality can be well and truly appreciated in this little controlled experiment in the manufacture of consent.
We must leave you with a priceless quote from an unnamed Siege protester "we may be back on Monday when the traffic will hopefully be heavier" - from our point of view, if the traffic is too sparse to justify a protest to stop it, then it's clearly far too sparse to justify a bypass to 'solve' a non-existent problem.
11 comments:
Another brilliant blog depicting the reality and exposing the media slant upholding whatever the Seige Group decide.
When will Longendale folk (and the press) take on board that the large Public Inquiry created to discuss the pro/cons of a ByPass was also starting to expose the facts,hence its collapse.
The rhetoric continually hammered home by local politicians was "a plan to assist the 3 villages in
Longendale"which was a deliberate deception created for the locals.
What was immerging was the disguised political infested agenda to further increase thousands more vehicles from the Humberside Ports via the M1,ByPass,M67/M60/M56/M6/M5 ie the DELTA ROUTE ie The M62Mk11 major route.
The Longendale Valley would be swamped by international HGV vehicles,destroying the region environmentally FOR GOOD
by European Countries and UK Companies.
No wonder the Politicans and their followers would not consider solving the problem by a weight restriction THEN and NOW on the Longendale route,because if the weight limits were implemented it would blow the lid off the backroom decision for a major new Trans European Road Link.Time the media exposed what they know,and if they don`t know the truth "starting learning" otherwise they are complict in the ultimate agenda and misleading the public.
Give the Electorate the FACTS NOT THE RHETORIC.
A challenge: Rather than slag each other off in this perpetual and tedious stalemate, why don't you talk with the pro-bypass people and work on a solution together? By joining forces a truly powerful demonstration could be engineered in order to implement a HGV ban.
...because they want a road, not a HGV ban. Pay attention at the back!
They want a solution to the traffic congestion - not necessarily a new road! HGV ban could be a compromise the pro-bypass people are willing to entertain.
Do you think it's possible for people to give themselves a nickname so then we can differentiate some of these comments from one another? If anyone else posts as 'anonymous' on this thread, I'm turning on mandatory signing-in to a google account...
If they want to campaign for a HGV ban, they should start it...let's test sincerity shall we? But it'd be hard to take the likes of Mike Flynn, Brian Butler, David Moore etc seriously.
The pro-bypass are willing to entertain with a compromise then.(big deal) considering you and your spokespersons including politicians have raided the pockets and wallets of the Public for more than £25 million for nothing,because you could not and still cannot supply substantiated Public Inquiry evidence for your
overplayed situation.
As a group who was unable or unwilling to even recognise a HGV ban solution for years it takes a bloody long time for you to see light.
How dim can folk get ?? or is this a ruse to break the solidarity of those opposing ??.
So declare your names Mr.Flynn if you accept a HGV ban.
John Hall
No responses again from Mr.Flynn
It would be great to see a HGV ban demonstration rather than bypass or anti-bypass preferably without the older gits such as Flynn Oldham and Hall having anything to do with it.
You're clearly not from around here or you'd know Roy Oldham died months ago...
Of course Oldham is dead but others like him continue (Flynn for example) - the point I am making is that both pro and anti bypass should put their noggins together to sort something out. If they dont then the struggle will continue maybe for another generation.
Post a Comment