Second Siege crossing protest a failure - as their own video demonstrates!

We've yet to write a proper feature on the second pedestrian crossing protest by the Longdendale Siege Committee, although one is in the works along with a video, but in the meantime we thought we'd reverse-engineer their own propaganda. The above video is from the MEN's YouTube page, and is linked to from Siege's website. The only problem is, it clearly illustrates the failure of their protest: traffic is not even queuing back from the lights at the junction of the A628 & A57 in the near-distance for any significant length of time...

'Medieval Dramatists' Longdendale Siege appear on Andy Crane's Radio show - bring back Edd the Duck

Now we're sure there are some readers out there that have fond memories of the BBC's Andy Crane in his days in the BBC's broom cupboard with his sidekick hand puppet Edd the Duck. But after last Monday's lunchtime show, we really wished he was still presenting the junction slots on Children's BBC.

A large part of his show was dedicated to discussing that morning's protest by Longdendale Siege, and Brian Butler from Siege was awarded a slot to call for the bypass. Along the way, we also had a contribution from someone called Pat who lives in Broadbottom, who pointed out that Siege have nothing to say about the Hattersley Tesco and pointed out the lack of local consultation about the plans for the store. Whilst Pat intimated she supported the Bypass, it's clear that her main concern, like everyone who lives in and around the area, is traffic - and she doesn't see how the construction of the Tesco is going to help.

Andy Crane himself revealed his clear bias on this issue by wittering on and on about how bad the traffic was, although it was interesting how he couldn't get the BBC traffic expert to agree that it was one of the worst places in Greater Manchester for traffic hold ups. We're informed that Crane lives in Charlesworth.

Unlike with other audio presentations on this blog, we just cannot be bothered transcribing the key bits - an mp3 of the 'highlights' appears below.

Shock horror: previously loyal Glossop Chronicle labels Siege protest a "failure"

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.

Longdendale Siege's dismal protest failure

Longdendale Siege Committee's protest on Wednesday morning was by all accounts a dismal failure (worthy of failblog, hence the picture). But you wouldn't know it if you'd read the new online article that has appeared on the Advertiser website. They put the apparent lack of westbound traffic in evidence yesterday at Tintwistle down to 'a fire near to Sheffield'. (Incidentally, we love the cretinous banner in the middle of the picture which says "The Best HGV Ban is a Bypass" - HGVs are not planned to be banned from the Bypass).

Skip back in time to this time last week, and Siege Chair Mike Flynn and his mouthpiece at the Glossop Chronicle, David Jones, was predicting gridlock in all directions, in particular from Hollingworth to Glossop via Woolley Lane. Yet pictures taken by a contact of ours show quite clearly, no congested traffic along the A57 at Brookfield at 9.14 a.m., and similarly uncongested traffic at Woolley Lane at 9.25 a.m. Looking in a Western direction directly up Mottram Moor, and there is sparse traffic coming to down the moor at 9.29 a.m. How many times have Tameside politicians told us - in particular the late Roy Oldham - that the traffic problem is down to traffic from the High Peak? On this evidence, that's a myth.

All in all, our contacts tell us that the road was no more congested than it usually is at this time on a weekday morning. The clear implication for the Longdendale Siege Committee is that if they need to set off pedestrian crossings to cause traffic jams then it suggests the jams are not there in the first place. So what exactly are they campaigning for? If the traffic jams do exist at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, then why the need to activate pedestrian crossings? What difference did it make? The evidence suggests none at all.

But what Siege must also explain, is why they are activating pedestrian crossings at Hollingworth and Tintwistle, when the new plans for Bypass 2.0 offer nothing to either of those villages - it is a Bypass of Mottram only.

Siege are threatening to protest again in a similar manner soon. Perhaps, if they have the courage of their convictions, they should stage a sit-down protest to properly stop the traffic - because the evidence suggests that pedestrian crossings being activated don't make that much difference when the traffic is relatively free-flowing anyway.

No Mottram Bypass would like to encourage all those who feel able to contribute to the documentation of Siege's future protests to send us any pictures, films and reports. We are sure there are some people with time on their hands who would be willing to make the effort!

Longdendale Siege plan 'pedestrian crossing' demonstration next week

Longdendale Siege's Mike Flynn gives the exclusive to this week's Glossop Chronic that he and his chums are planning a novel demonstration next Wednesday morning: they plan to stand at pedestrian crossings along the route of the A57 and A628 throughout Longdendale, constantly activating them in order to create massive tailbacks of traffic between 9.00 and 9.30 a.m. Siege realise that time is running out for Bypass 2.0, since the Comprehensive Spending Review that is due on 20th October may well cut this scheme, as well the original bypass program, which is currently shelved.

This is not a new idea: similar protests were reported in May in Dorset, where some people used the tactic to protest about HGV traffic going through small villages. Now Dorset is one of the few English Counties that has no motorways running through it, and it's not clear that the protestors in that case were calling for new roads to be built. But is must be remembered that Longdendale Siege have continually refused to back calls for a HGV ban along the road, which demonstrates their insincerity about seeking a solution to the problems with congestion.

Of course, the irony is that Longdendale Siege's main constituency has been a mythical one - 'the motorist'. But although we don't believe there is such a thing, from their perspective, it seems a bit daft to alienate those you most rely on for support. If they agree with the government that money is tight, and if they are so desperate, then why not call for a HGV ban? In the Chron article, Flynn mentions the Hattersley Tesco almost as an afterthought, no doubt hoping to attract some passing anger and link the two up.

In the Dorset case, the response to the protest from persons unknown was swift. The button that activated the pedestrian crossing was glued tight. Now there's an idea...

Possible "new" bypass 2.0 routes

Despite all the fuss and brouhaha raised over the cancellation and vague "reinstatement" of plans for a bypass recently (bypass 2.0 as we'll now call it), firm details of any alternative plan for a road through Longdendale are thin on the ground. 

But as far as we're concerned, there's no harm in speculating about what any eventual plan may look like. After locating details of alternative routes considered in past years, we can now reveal the most likely locations for any new road. And wherever it goes, it's bound to stir up new dissent, perhaps even amongst those who so far have been all for it.

Leading up to 1993, a total of 7 possible routes had been considered by the Highways Agency as possible schemes. You can view a plan of them all here. This document* has a written description of each route, plus reasons for rejection, along with a potted history (opens PDF, see pages 27-30). The route that was eventually chosen after consultation was the eventually ill-fated (but aptly named) 'Brown Route', shortlisted alongside but winning out over the 'Grey Route'.

We feel pretty safe in speculating that any 'new' route for a bypass will utilise plans already drawn up in order to keep down costs, and the 7 routes identified in past years presumably represent all the viable options open to roadbuilders. So the question is, which one is now the most likely?

A good place to start is what has already been said in public, and in private as far as we know. As we've already pointed out, back in November 2008, local MPs and Roy Oldham met with Geoff Hoon, and the possibility of alternative alignments which "hugged the conurbations more closely" was discussed. James Purnell was said to have commented that "such a route would be popular with neither residents nor environmentalists".

However, one has to consider that the MPs wanted movement on the Bypass proposals and the PI that existed back at the end of last year: like the heady days of Globalised Capitalism, that situation no longer exists. Being left with a new situation, we imagine the MPs and local councillors are now starting to think about what costs less in terms of money, if not any supposed public support. 

The only point of detail that has emerged since then has been this article written by two MEN journalists which says that the new route will be "shorter". Looking again at the route plans, to our eyes there is only really one candidate which can be considered shorter than any of the other routes - that of the 'Blue route'. The bad news for the people of Tintwistle is that this route cuts around the South side of their village, leaving them surrounded by both the existing A628 to the North and the 'new' bypass to the South. It also comes a lot closer to Hollingworth than the 'Brown route' ever threatened. 

We can only surmise that Longdendale Siege members like Mike Flynn and David Moore in Hollingworth and Pat Jenner in Tintwistle will be extremely unpopular with their fellow villagers should this be the case. Rest assured, we and others will be doing our utmost to make clear to local people the implications of these plans for the area when more clarity can be obtained. 

* - as we write, this document is still available on the Public Inquiry website, but we will host the file when/if the PI website is taken offline

Longdendale Siege are back on the march...

With immaculate timing, and at long last, the Longdendale Siege Committee have updated their website. It seems that nothing spurs them into action like the threat of the collapse of their beloved road.

Linked to from numerous points on the homepage is a three page newsletter, which can be viewed here (opens PDF), which Mike Flynn was seen distributing at weekend. Now we could spend all day taking this document apart, not least because of it's shocking grammar, but we'd rather highlight one or two issues that crop up in it that have been covered here on the blog in the past.

Firstly, you have the reference to the fact that the Smithy Surgery at Hollingworth wrote in to the Public Inquiry to support the bypass. We covered this in August 2007, and pointed out that the Highways Agency's own evidence shows that pollution levels will increase, and that far being from a detailed and reasoned analysis, the GPs preferred to merely state opinions (that they 'were told') rather than facts on an A5-sized compliment slip.

Secondly, the document regurgitates unreferenced & unsourced pollution statistics. We covered this in depth as well back in March 2008, by again outlining in detail how pollution would worsen with the bypass. We also noted that Longdendale Siege were not willing to present this data to the Public Inquiry so it could be subject to scrutiny.

The most laughable part of this document is the threat that direct action will be taken to obtain the road! How we'd love to see that - surely nothing would endear Siege less to their only constituency, the inpatient motorist.

But the most interesting part of the PDF is who's written it. If you go the file properties, it tells you the author is a David Moore. Remember him? Yes, we wrote a long article about this character back in February 2008. Moore is well known to anti-bypass objectors, at one time he frequently wrote in to local papers in support of the road, but what was less well known was that he was project manager for the Tameside MBC sponsored North European Trade Axis (NETA). This was a project to promote a 'trans-European transport network', linking the Humber ports with the Irish Sea ports, bringing HGV traffic from Europe, via Longdendale (& the bypass) to Ireland and back again. The website has since been taken down (how mysterious!), but the links to the pages we provided still work in the Internet Archive - you can view here David's lovely face and his contact details for the NETA project.

Siege are threatening to lobby 4NW - so that tells you who still holds the purse strings in this whole affair. But in the meantime, why not welcome them back by dropping them a line at their new email address - bypassnow09@googlemail.com - or give them a call on 07913 034896. Tell them we sent you and blow them a kiss...

The Longdendale Bypass - 'the weakest link'

Two weeks after their decision to defer funding for the Bypass, 4NW this week released the full text of their report presented to members to aid said decision being made. The document can be found here (opens PDF), and it makes troubling reading for those supporting the Bypass, both now and in the future.

Page 4 makes it clear that "there is a clear regional policy steer against sacrificing sustainable transport and essential maintenance schemes in favour of funding increased costs of major road schemes".  The current economic crisis only serves to underline that ever more strongly. 

On the same page, and onto page 5, the Bypass is described as "not a priority" for the Northern Way Growth Strategy". Ouch.

And the elephant in the room is highlighted further on, making it clear that the "scheme may conflict with ... the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas". This further highlights why High Peak's MP, Tom Levitt, is potentially the biggest environmental vandal in the High Peak and a threat to the first National Park.

The killer line is on page 6. The report identifies that in terms of "strategic justification" the Bypass "is the weakest" - link, goodbye! 

Even better, we learn that 4NW are warning the members that "deferral will increase outturn costs due to inflation". They still voted to dump it though. Expect the costs to continue to climb ever on.

All of this must leave Mike Flynn and Longdendale Siege severely depressed. In last week's Glossop Chronicle, Flynn voiced his frustration at "various government people" that had let them down (join the queue!) . Like the bypass, he too is the weakest link. He's failed, and surely must resign his post if he has any dignity.

But he's right in his final comment in the article "the future of the bypass will be decided at the public inquiry". Indeed, where he's never taken the opportunity to stand up and speak in favour of the scheme. But he's right, that's where the focus moves now. We're sure there's much fun and games in store there...

If you love roadworks, the bypass is for you - a letter to the Glossop Chronicle

Over the past fortnight, readers of the Glossop Chronicle will have noticed a steady stream of correspondents linking the issue of the recent roadworks at Woolley Lane and abortive ones at Shaw Lane, Hadfield to their desire for a bypass. 

In our post about these roadworks and the disruption they caused, we predicted such simplistic arguments would emerge. What was also inevitable was that sooner or later, Mike Flynn of the Longdendale Siege Mentality would join in, and he didn't let us down with his comments in the Bypass cost increase article we initiated.

Today, we have written to the Chronicle responding to the pro-bypass opportunists, and the letter is reproduced below:

I note the conscious decision of various correspondents over the past 2 weeks - on and off your letters page - to link traffic problems caused by two Highways authorities to the alleged need for a bypass.

On the contrary, I would like to contend that the two are entirely separate matters.

In his comments on the increase in the bypass costs, Mr Mike Flynn of the Longdendale Siege Committee states that holdups will not occur with the bypass in place. Yet he would have us endure several months if not years of traffic disruption in order to ensure that it is built.

Furthermore, he assumes that the Inspector at the Public Inquiry will order that the Glossop Spur will be constructed alongside a bypass, an assumption which is ill-founded and far from certain. If the bypass is built without the Spur, traffic will still have to divert via Broadbottom or Tintwistle in the event of Woolley Lane being closed. Indeed, in the scenario that they wished to get onto the bypass from Tintwistle to go towards Manchester, they would have to queue at Townhead Farm along with traffic coming in the opposite direction, a situation surely worse than at present.

And of course Mr Flynn seems to be unable to envisage the traffic chaos that will be the result of any accident which closes the bypass.

Mr Flynn seems to contend that a lack of localised traffic planning means upwards of £315 million should be spent on a pseudo-motorway. Surely it would be far cheaper to employ someone who had an inkling about planning measures and traffic management. Looking at Derbyshire's website for instance would have alerted Tameside to the fact that the Shaw Lane works had been planned well ahead. Notices at the Flouch and beyond could have alerted motorists to avoid the A628 or expect delays etc. Similar notices could have been posted on the Tameside side. It's really not that difficult.

Or was the chaos meant to happen? Are the Highways authorities so stupid that they hadn't the foresight to do some of the basic ideas suggested above? Or is it one last desperate attempt from the promoters of this road amongst the two relevant authorities to put the traffic problems back on the Agenda big time, to act as a spur or a new impetus for the pro-bypass brigade as the Inquiry fragments and hopes fade? If the former then there should be some sackings. If the latter, it should be exposed. It's not an argument they can win.

At least one High Peak Borough Councillor - Anne Worrall - has publicly called for modern two-lane bridges to replace Besthill Bridge & Woolley Bridge - the latter currently has an abandoned, boarded-up, semi-refurbished building where a proper bridge and roundabout could be. Why isn't anyone calling for similar improvements to the existing highways that will cost a fraction of the bypass?

Living in the real world it seems that whilst all these authorities claim to be concerned for the valley's residents, when it comes down to it they do not care at all, as they have failed to try to minimise the impact - as was their duty. This has got nothing to do with a bypass, neither real nor - as is far more likely - imagined.

Lewin
Editor, www.nomottrambypass.blogspot.com

Lorry Ban Now!

It seems that our opposition are dividing themselves very nicely. Readers of last week's Glossop Chronicle may have noticed an article calling for a trial Lorry Ban to close the A628 Woodhead Road to HGVs - but the call was coming from a pro-bypass supporter, Tintwistle Parish Councillor Bill Clarke. 

And although Clarke states that he wants a Lorry Ban to make the wait for the Bypass easier, there's no doubt that if it's particularly successful, that it's going to change a lot of people's minds about the bypass. 

Which is why Longdendale Siege's Mike Flynn did the usual huffing and puffing stating "it won't work" (can any tech-heads out there build us a Mike Flynn Press Babble generator?). Even better was his brilliant grasp of mathematics with this classic quote:

"I have seen figures saying it will be £300m, yet not too long ago they were quoting £100m ... it will probably end up at around £150m" 

Yes, Mike still remembers his "Mean, Median and Mode" from his 11+ days many years ago. Well, almost...

He's afraid a Lorry Ban might work - which is why we'd like to support any calls for it, from wherever they come. We'll echo Bill Clarke's sentiments in the article - "Trial it for 12 months ... I am sure diverting HGVs will make a big difference" - amen to that.

Four more years...

...of Sean Parker-Perry. That's what Longdendale voted for last Thursday. Or did it?

To give Sean some credit, after our lambasting him for not campaigning on the bypass issue, he did talk about it in his statement which appeared in the local Reporter Group Newspapers publications. Whether or not he went door-to-door on the issue, we have no information. But we have been told that James Purnell was seen delivering leaflets in Longdendale 6 days before the election - when was the last time you heard of a Government Secretary of State out helping a local councillor to retain his seat?

This tells us 3 things - that the Government is in the shit. That Parker-Perry is in the shit. And that James Purnell is also in the shit. Indeed, on Thursday night's election programme, there was a report that projected that were the same voting patterns repeated at a General Election, Purnell would have lost his seat. Amen to that, the sooner he's back in Islington, the better.

So Sean will probably now claim that he has a mandate as a councillor, and that those electing him voted for the bypass. Apart from the fact that people vote for all kinds of reasons, and that his leaflet mentioned ASBOs, IKEA and cheap Council Tax and not the bypass, how do the stats stack up?

Firstly, his majority. Sean had 259 votes more than his nearest rival (Sue Barker, the Tory candidate with 1057 votes to Sean's 1316). Hardly a convincing margin of success. Indeed, if 130 of those people had voted for Sue, Sean would have been out.

Secondly, the turnout. A total of 2895 people turned out, with 7 spoiling their ballot papers. This is 37.6% of the (registered) Longdendale electorate. Hence, 6376 people didn't vote for Sean (or anyone else) - 83%. So if, as he alleges, all of Longdendale are screaming for a bypass and see Sean as the answer, he must be disappointed. Using these percentages, Sean's 'majority' is 3% of Longdendale's electorate.

Thirdly, following on from that, let's play devil's advocate. Let's pretend Sean's majority voted for him solely on the bypass issue. If it's the case that 83% didn't vote for Sean on any issue, then clearly only 17% may have voted for him on the bypass issue. How often are Longdendale Siege - of whom Sean is a member - quoting that 90-odd percent of people in Longdendale want a bypass? So often, we've lost count. The truth is that they're clearly neither motivated to vote for it, nor for a politician who has personally identified himself with the campaign for it.

So from now on, let's hear Siege quote their figures in the following way - 17% of people in Longdendale might be in favour of the bypass. Because that's the only thing they can say with any degree of certainty.

As for Sean, we're looking forward to the next 4 years. With his track record, he can only make things a lot worse, and you will read all about it here.

Friends in high places...

Our ongoing series of features on visitors to the blog shows that certain folk are being sought out by one of the biggest engineering & road building firms in the UK. Perhaps they know something that we don't about Carillion? It seems that after years of being courted by Carillion (who even turn up at their meetings), Costain are searching the internet for the Longdendale Siege Committee and Mike Flynn - see the screen grab from our sitemeter here.

How ironic they landed on our site and not the official abortion of a website that our old friend Bob Haycock is responsible for...happy hunting roadmunkeys!

An open letter to the Glossop Chronicle - not a 'hacker' but certainly 'hacked off'

Last week's Glossop Chronic showed how desperate the Longdendale Siege Committee are to keep themselves in the paper. Last week's article about the 'hacker' that somehow broke into Robert Haycock's email to send a message to his mate David Jones was reprised again!

It's often said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true, and that's what Siege and the Chronic are up to here. So we've decided to write to them both, and we'll display our email below:

Hello Bob & David

Well, it's very interesting to see how you are spinning the story of the 'hacker' who broke into Longdendale Siege's email address. Trying to stretch this story across 2 whole issues of the newspaper seems pretty desperate to us.

By us, I mean our blog - known either as 'No Mottram Bypass' or 'Stop the A57/A628 Bypass' - we've been writing on the bypass for over 12 months now and you've done your best to ignore us. Even when we provide you with material for stories, as we often do, we get no credit.

But there's no hard feelings. By the way, as you know, it was us that pulled the April Fool hoax. But before we look at your accusations about hacking, we must first remark that if Mr Haycock is so concerned about his email address being used by others, then why is it still displayed on the Longdendale Siege website as the contact address? Furthermore, the Bob contacted us with the exact same email address you say we 'hacked' and not the new one you mention in the article.

As for the 'hacking' - well, we wish we had such abilities. In truth we created an email address - bobhaycock@gmail.com - and then placed Bob's real email address (robert@haycock1.fsnet.co.uk) in the 'account name' section of the settings. All this meant was that instead of displaying a 'name', the email address was displayed. Merely a confidence trick.

You see David, we know you are trying to wind your readership up by taking more potshots at those opposed to the bypass. But we don't care - I'll wager more people from Glossop and Longdendale search Google daily than read the Chronicle each week. And if they search for information about the bypass, they have an excellent chance of landing on our website and reading all about the things that you ensure don't reach your readership.

We know there isn't a cat in hell's chance of you printing this email. But it exists on our site, and anyone searching for Glossop Chronicle, Robert Haycock, Longdendale Siege and 'Hacker' will land here and read it.

Isn't all this such fun?! Until next time...

PS - David - how about a weekly column in the Chron? We'd charge much less than Anthony McKeown does to get his face in the Advertiser, as long as we can wear our balaclava for the photoshoot, it's OK by us...

The Joke's on Siege

The less cynical amongst you may have noticed that this story that we published on Tuesday was actually an April Fool wind-up. That fact notwithstanding, we did spend a certain amount of time carefully crafting it so that it sounded quite convincing. Personally, we think we have Siege's Mike Flynn off to a tee, we even managed to bring the petition up - like they do at every opportunity.

To make the joke somewhat funnier, we tried to get it published. We're unsurprised to report that David Jones of the Glossop Chronicle (known round here as 'Chronic' from now on) didn't fall for it, and there's a feature in this week's paper about our 'hoax' (viewable here). It doesn't name us - after all, why give us free publicity - so we're adding this post to ensure that those curious enough to search the internet may land on this site.

But for us the funniest part of this story is the accusation that we 'hacked' into Siege webmaster Robin Haycock's email address to send the release. We only wish we had such powers, as if we did, we'd have got up to all kinds of mischief by now. So to slay this dragon and spell things out for the unimaginative (or the downright thick as pigshit) this is how we did it:

We created a (free) googemail account as close as possible to 'robert haycock' (bobhaycock@gmail.com - someone has already taken roberthaycock@gmail.com). We then placed robert's actual email address (robert@haycock1.fsnet.co.uk - lots of spam coming your way Robert) in the 'account name' bit, so that that would be the first thing anyone would see when they got a message from the (anti)bob. No hacking involved, just a confidence trick.

We subsequently received a message from Robert Haycock on the same day, it goes thus:

Hi folks

just like to say thanks for hacking into my email and sendind (sic) the spurious email to the Glossop Chronicle. If you are this desperate then no wonder that you do not have the support of local people. If you would like to contact me for any "quotes" please feel free to contact me and I will be glad to have the debate or meet face to face.

Regards

A long time resident of Hollingworth who lives on the A57.

Bob Haycock

Longdendale Siege Secretary

Whatever... we're game for a laugh, unlike Siege and their resident hack at the Chronicle. The spoof press release follows:

Longdendale Siege Committee call for donations large and small to ensure construction of the A628 Bypass

The Longdendale Siege Committee, who are campaigning for a Bypass to be built to relieve Longdendale of traffic, have today called for the general public to donate money to their campaign to ensure that the bypass is built.

Siege chairman Mike Flynn outlined the plan:

"We're obviously concerned about all of the delays to the scheme that seem to keep cropping up, plus the mounting costs. Although we think the potential benefits outweigh any costs, we're aware the government might not see it that way, so we're asking our supporters and anyone else who wants this road to donate what they can."

Mr Flynn envisages that a Private Finance Initiative could seal the deal, "a PFI is increasingly in favour in government circles, so rather than the taxpayer stump up all of the £184 million, we'd like to encourage companies, private investors, institutions and the general public to dig deep and help form a PFI to make sure the road is built."

Mr Flynn was hoping to meet with Tesco representatives, who are planning to build a store at Mottram over the next few years to ask for their support and possible donations: "as Tesco say, 'Every Little Helps'. They stand to benefit greatly from the increased custom at the Mottram site for their new store which the bypass will bring, so they might not be averse to helping us out a little".

"We've got 9,000 signatories to our petition that we presented to Parliament, and over the next few months, we'll be contacting them all to ask them to give what they can. If everyone who has signed our petition gave us £20,000, we'll be well on the way to paying for the scheme by ourselves. Obviously, we don't expect people to give that much, but the point is that some will be able to give more than others, and we may be able to reach our target before the Public Inquiry is over".

"Plus we'll be taking to the Streets all around the area again on Saturday mornings with our bucket if folk want to donate".

The Longdendale Siege Committee have a website at http://www.longdendalebypass.co.uk/ and pledges can be emailed to robert@haycock1.fsnet.co.uk.

Exclusive - Longdendale Siege's new fundraising drive

Word has reached us that the Longdendale Siege Committee are getting very worried about the PI delays. So much so, they have decided to do what they can to raise money in case the government decide the scheme is too costly.

In what must be a clear indication of discontent within their ranks, an anonymous source inside Siege has emailed us a copy of a press release sent out last night which reveals the plan. You have read it here first (click on the thumbnail below to get to the larger image). We'll see how this one runs...

Roadmunkey's Rail Conversion

Whilst doing a search for new local blogs I discovered that Longdendale Councillor and pro-bypass fanatic Sean Parker-Perry (nee Sean Perry) a.k.a. Roadmunkey, has a new web presence.

No, I'm not talking about the resurrected Roadmunkey blog, or even the blog of all Sean's Wikipedia edits, this is something entirely different. The road lobbyist-cum-fake environmentalist appears to have a new hobby horse which is the hiring out of tools to the local community. The website can be found here in exactly the same style and design as the old Roadmunkey blog!

Ironically, in his first and only post to date, there is no mention of his beloved bypass ('will fight to the end') but rather a picture of a railway arch in Broadbottom which is to be the home of Active Longdendale (AL), its 'community toolshed depot' so to speak. Indeed, Sean himself has sought and unsurprisingly achieved planning permission for the project himself (documents here).

So who's a good, public spirited, altruistic, community loving little boy then? Who indeed!

Cue new local blog number two: www.activelongdendale.blogspot.com Yes, it's the same URL as Sean's but without the hyphen. The author(s) of the blog could be some of Sean's own customers for (s)he/they have been doing a spot of digging themselves and appear to have an handle on AL's activity.

The blog has clearly been set up to parody, shadow, imitate and mickey take. It is also scrutinising the motives behind AL's creation. It's opening shots note a political thread running through the organisation and muses over the usefulness of the small business enterprise/voluntary organisation/charity/co-operative when a full time Ranger service already exists supported by a small army of Volunteer Rangers!

So it's www.active-longdendale.blogspot.com versus www.activelongdendale.blogspot.com

With Roadmunkey (sorry, that should be Sean) coming up for re-election this May I shall be keeping a close eye on both these blogs and trust our readers will have their bookmarks at the ready. Let battle commence.

Siege must be choking

After a long, long wait, the Longdendale Siege Committee have finally updated their website, and the most noticeable addition is a new page about Nitrogen Dioxide pollution in Hollingworth.

From an academic point of view, the data they provide is useless - in the sense that they do not provide sources for their data. If there are no points of reference for the information they provide, then it cannot be effectively verified or checked.

Now don't get us wrong: we are not saying that there is not pollution in Longdendale or Hollingworth, but we would like to be able to examine the validity and accuracy of the data they present. We feel that this is not unreasonable.

So in the absence of proper references, we can only turn to the information put before the Public Inquiry. The Highways Agency's Air Quality expert, Mr Bean (seriously), presented a lot of information about pollution. The accuracy of his data and the methodology deployed may be looked at in a future post here, but for the time being, we'll accept his figures as accurate.

That being the case, Longdendale Siege choose two particular areas to demonstrate their data - Green Lane & Market Street. In Mr Bean's supporting data, these sites are given the designation R8 & R30 respectively.

Regarding Green Lane, where Siege have provided a figure of 21 μg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) in the year 2000, whilst the Highways Agency say it is 31.4 μg/m3 in 2005 - a rise (page 51). But their own study goes on to show a drop to 24 μg/m3 by 2015 without the bypass, owing to anticipated improvements in Car Engines etc. Add the Bypass, and it only achieves a further drop of 1.2 μg/m3 by 2015 to 22.8 μg/m3.

Regarding Market Street, Siege provide a figure of 46 μg/m3 in 2000 and 85 μg/m3 in 2007. But the Highways Agencies info is much lower - 23.1 μg/m3 in 2005, with a drop to 18.8 μg/m3 with or without the bypass by 2015 (page 51). In this case, the building of the bypass makes no difference by 2015 to literally 'doing nothing'.

Two quotes from the article are highly significant (emphasis added):

"There would be a small increase in NO2 concentrations along all road links due to an increase in road traffic with the operation of the Scheme" (i.e. the bypass - page 42, paragraph 5.7.2.9)

"The regional assessment indicates that the Scheme would result in an increase in all emissions compared to without the Scheme for both the Main and Air Quality Extended Study Areas" (page 47, paragraph 6.1.12)

So the Highways Agency's own expert says that the Bypass will entail an increase all forms of pollution in the area they have studied.

Returning to the Siege website, the key here is Siege's chosen year of 2007. This suggests they have access to data that not even the PI has before it. Either that, or it is a fabrication. Our contacts have emailed them to ask for more information., but have not had replies.

All of this leads us to two conclusions. Firstly, why are they publishing this data on their website and not at the PI? Is it because it will not stand up to scrutiny, or is there some other reason? Their submission to the PI does not mention pollution, or quote any data, although presumably it was as much of a problem then as it is now.

Secondly, if we accept that emissions from slow-moving vehicles causes pollution along the A628 and A57, then why not implement a HGV ban now? It's no use demanding a bypass that is at least 4-5 years away if you want to lessen pollution now - if it's bad enough now, advocate a trial HGV ban now.

Here are the results of the Longdendale Siege Committee...

Older readers will remember the many japes we've had teasing the Longdendale Siege Committee about their pathetic pm.gov.uk petition. Over the months, they've gone to all sorts of lengths to get signatures on it - their friend David Jones at the Glossop Chronicle even did his best to make sure everyone knew about it.

So what's the status of the petition? Well, it's now closed. And - wait for it - it has the fantastically convincing number of - oh, 198 signatures...

Time to rehash the bullshit about their 9,000 manual signature petition then. I suppose this is the last we'll hear from them about the electronic petition - though not if we've got anything to do with it.

Public Inquiry cancellation - TV news item

Here we are again with Channel M news: to illustrate their news items, they love to use a traffic jam which is actually along the A57 going into Glossop at Brookfield, and in the opposite direction to the A628. They've done this before.

And they've got Mike Flynn to stand not far from his house again too. Our spies tell us there was no sign of him at the PI yesterday, as is usual. He's obviously not that outraged, or he'd be there telling the Inspector.

But the best bit is when he says "...it's like this all day, every day for 24 hours...". Yes Mike, that's because it's a main road. But it's simply not true to say the traffic is the same all the time "24 hours a day". It's at it's worst at Peak times, and significantly less during school holidays.

You can always get the other side of the story here.

Spot the fake...

After noticing that a weblog has popped up documenting James Purnell's fake photo album, here's a little gallery of clearly fake photos that can be added:

Purnell lurking around the rear entrance to the Stalybridge Civic Hall...


...lurking around the front....


...and joined by a few friends.

All of these people - James Purnell MP, Cllr Roy Oldham, Mike Flynn, Tom Levitt MP, Cllr Sean Parker-Perry & Cllr Jonathan Reynolds - have not and will not be appearing at the Public Inquiry (held at the Civic Hall) to defend their cause, the Longdendale Bypass...

What a bunch of fakes