Congratulations to Sean & Sian - just don't tell the wife!

Well, it's rare that one of the talked about turns up to talk to us, but it may well be that we have an exclusive. You may remember in a post last week we mentioned that Sean Parker-Perry's mistress - a certain Sian Dominey - has seemingly changed her name on facebook to Sian Parker-Perry (try not to laugh).

Well now the lady in question - or at least someone masquerading as her - left a comment on the post with the following news:

I will be Sian Parker-Perry as of next summer when we get married! Thanks

Of course, this is all very lovely: but there is the small inconvenience in the fact that Sean is still married to someone else - Baron (Tom) Pendry's daughter, Fiona. At this rate, Miss Dominey will be lucky not to be named as co-respondent in the no doubt impending divorce proceedings...

Levitt's 2008 predictions

In his column in last week's Glossop Chronicle (actually a regurgitation of his own New Year press release), Tom Levitt makes an astonishing prediction:

"We will find out the result of the Tintwistle Mottram bypass enquiry in 2008 and I am confident that, despite hiccups, the result will be in its favour"

One wonders how Levitt has arrived at this conclusion: looking back to the last sitting of the Public Inquiry (PI) on December 18th last year, The Highways Agency (HA) could only give a vague commitment about when they would be ready to tell the PI when they would be ready!

If one imagines this is going to be 'after Easter 2008', then that would mean after 23rd March. So if we're being optimistic, it may be possible that the HA would be able to tell John Watson they would be ready by May this year - the first anniversary of the commencement of the PI.

Of course, all of their information may then have to be republished, and it's possible that another consultation period will then follow if the revisions are extensive. But even if this isn't the case, it's unlikely the PI will restart until June this year. Does Tom Levitt really think the PI will be concluded before December 31st 2008 and further that John Watson will make his decision before then? Really? Has he been following events closely at all? Is he - a former PPS to two Government Ministers/Secretaries of State - really that ignorant of the length of time consumed by statutory procedures such as this?

Is this man a cretin, or just incredibly optimistic? Answers on a postcard to the usual address...

The dangers of Dinting Road

Over the past few weeks, the Glossop Chronicle featured several articles by the pro-bypass journalist David Jones, both focusing on Dinting Road, between Glossop and Hadfield.

The first article was a feature about the latest instalment in the saga that is the 'Park & Ride' next to Dinting Railway Station. A businessman, Trevor Mooney, has blighted the area with this useless lump of tarmac and was moaning in the article that High Peak Borough Council have withdrawn permission to use it for Car Boot sales on Sundays. Apparently, he has had a premonition that the car park is doomed. There have been a succession of similar articles like this over the past few months - Mooney is eager to portray himself as an honest-to-goodness businessman (there's an oxymoron - as well as a moron - in there somewhere) hamstrung by bureaucracy. But the truth is more complex than that.

Firstly, prior to the construction of this park and ride, no one parked their cars halfway down Dinting Road. The mere fact that it was free to park on it for the first few weeks meant that the selfish idiots that now leave their vehicles down the road knew about it in the first place because of the car park (that they no longer use). Where do these people live? If it's near to Glossop - walk to the Railway station there and use it. The same for Hadfield. Surely if you live within 15 minutes of Dinting Station, you can walk? Is it really too much trouble?

That aside, these individuals are creating a very dangerous situation on Dinting Road. The vehicles are parked on one side of the road, from the top of a blind summit which snakes round a bend to nearly halfway down the road. If you're using the road in either direction, you have to hope that no-one is travelling at more than 40 mph (the speed limit on the road) and is paying a lot of attention to the route - it's even more precarious at night and in bad weather. With lorries from the nearby quarry travelling hell-for-leather (time is money) down the hill leaving mud all over the road surface, it is a dangerous route: and all the more so now for Mooney's useless car park.

But the fact his car park is not used suits his plans. Why? Well because after his development, it's now a brownfield site, so he can build on it. If his little venture fails, he'll move on to something else - either 'developing ' it himself or selling it on to someone else who will. As local people know, one of the great things about the Hadfield side of Dinting Road is the view from the Station across land which is unfarmed and uncultivated - and therefore very ecologically diverse. Mooney has done his bit to ruin it.

And over the last two weeks, we've seen Mooney in the Chronicle and the Glossop Advertiser again. His latest wheeze is to promote an idea to build a Golf Driving Range adjoining his car park. Jesus Christ! But hang on - didn't he once have the same wheeze about Wimberry Hill, above Hadfield? And there are rumours flying that there's a link up between Mooney and another businessman who made a Cemetery Road in Glossop a muddy deathtrap for weeks owing to earthworks they created for some ill-fated project a few years back.

Reading these articles, you could almost close your eyes and remember the time when Chris Woodward used to occupy the Chronicle virtually every other week. At one point, that charming individual plumbed the depths by using racism - he threatening to allow Gypsies to park on land he owned that HPBC had refused planning permission for. In a similar way, clad in his undertaker's jacket, Mooney is prone to portraying himself as the victim and using the local press at every opportunity. Who knows what depths he'll eventually plumb to keep his Slobodan Milošević-like fizzog in the local rag.

If anything, High Peak BC have not hindered this moron - they have in fact helped him to create this situation in the first place. Why did they allow his car park to be developed? This crew are continually making idiotic decisions about the environment in the area. Where will it end?

Another recent feature penned by David Jones highlights the hazardous nature of Dinting Road to schoolchildren who have to cross it to get to Hadfield School. They have for years - but now the road is recognised as being far more dangerous. All owing to Mooney - and High Peak BC.

But wait - one of those moaning about the road is Andrew Byford. Remember him? Is this the same guy that had his (best left in the loft) ideas for a Glossop Bypass and plugged them in the local papers earlier this year. So he wants less traffic now?

That's the trouble with the 'leading advocates' of this road, like Jones and to a much-lesser Byford (who is also a Neighbourhood Watch coordinator - thank god!) is that they live in a world full of contradictions. They want less traffic and less congestion, but more roads (is there such a thing as a new road that remains unused by traffic?). They want to shout about the special place that Glossop and the High Peak are (or increasingly were), but froth at the mouth with excitement about the plans of developers whose business plans bring nothing to the area that enhances the environment - and on the contrary makes it worse to inhabit.

9/11 - for the Highways Agency & TMBC - exclusive

You can read it here before you'll read it anywhere else, but today brings news that the Highways Agency have chosen today (of all days) to announce at the Public Inquiry that they had done their sums seriously wrong. Again.

Stephen Greenhalgh, the leader of the Highways Agency team, took his place to explain how their figures regarding traffic were incorrect, and that this meant that a whole slew of their other evidence would have to be reviewed alongside this, as well as Tameside's for the Spur. His words:

"I consider it to be a fundamental issue"

And so do we. It's clear that they've been rumbled (they admitted that the evidence of an objector had made them think again) - their 'back of fag packet' sums are a sure sign that they want this road and to hell with the science, ecology, pollution, the whole lot: "just do anything to get this road through". There's little doubt that's been said by someone, somewhere.

The Inquiry has now been adjourned to next Wednesday 19th September, when they will explain how much of their evidence has been 'written off'.

So this sham which they have been spinning for months now takes another twist - and it will certainly not be over in 2007. Their credibility is fatally flawed, and if this road is legally allowed to go ahead who the hell will believe it is a 'just decision', whatever that means.

They may as well start work now for all the difference it will make...

***update, 12/09/2007: the MEN are carrying the story today, and others are trumpeting the story as an 'MEN exclusive' - ppffft!!

Bounced out of Tintwistle - the pitfalls of campaigning on a 'pro-bypass ticket'

One of the more spectacular casualties of the local elections was Joyce Brocklehurst - a Labour Party Councillor, former mayor and very vocal in her support for the bypass.

She made no secret of her support for it, and unlike many of her fellow Councillors (and candidates for that matter) campaigned on the bypass.

And she was duly dumped by the electorate in Tintwistle.

If you read this article in the Glossop Advertiser, she's very contrite:

I am going to crack on and do what I can to get a community centre for Tintwistle, work to improve our traffic problems and most importantly see what can be done about these unsightly buildings.

The 'unsightly buildings' are of course, Bridge Mills and Rossington Park.

But people in Tinsle know all about her. Back in 2001 at a public meeting, she was mewling and puking openly about the need for a bypass, and also revealed some contradictions:

We have quite a lot of factories on the waterside. We are trying to get funding from the Government to help [such development] and the traffic problem is not helping our case. The local economy is suffering and local traffic is hindered.

What a surprise. She supported 'developments' at Waterside, but 'wanted to do something about the traffic'. Where did she think the traffic was headed?

And now of course, she wants to do something about 'unsightly buildings'. Built in anticipation of the bypass, which she supports. How will she get out of that one?

Tin-Foil Hat at the ready

In case anyone else was in any doubt whatsoever, the last post was largely humourous. Whilst it is true that the site meter showed a visit from the PM's office, I am fully aware that the 'Office' in this case is the institution (rather than the room that Tony Blair sits in), and no doubt a lot of people work for it, some of whom are bored enough to find us, rather than having any malevolent intent.

The reason I mention it is because a rival weblog has emerged (more of which later) which has lapooned my post as a pseudo-conspiracy theorists case of over-inflated egotism. Or something. Except the poster is so inarticulate that the blog is virtually sub-literate and reads ridiculously. Indeed, as shit websites go, it ranks alongside that of the Longdendale Siege Committee.

Yet whilst it would be fun to post the link to the site here, doing so would only help the site's Google rankings at the expense of ours, which are doing very nicely thank you. Indeed, having a generous 2 links from this site means that our rankings on Technorati have shot up by 1 million (yes one million!) overnight. Having no links to your site means Google oblivion, as he/she is finding out.

But if you really want a laugh, go to the comments section of the last post and have a look at the link provided. It really is fantastic entertainment.

Oh, and by the way Mr roadmunkey (with a non existent email address). Bacofoil is a brand - tin-foil hat is the phrase you're after.

If you think you know who 'roadmunkey' is, send your answers on a (e)post card. We have our own ideas...

Purnell's bleating in the Chronicle again

Purnell 'prematurely' begins work on the bypass. Is he premature in other respects too we wonder?

But he can't quite manage a front page like last week's article on the Peak District National Park objecting to the bypass. Though I'm in danger of boring you all to death, here's his letter in full:

"Bypass is now the only answer"

I write in response to your front page story last week regarding the Peak District National Park Authority and the Mottram-Hollingworth-Tintwistle Bypass.

I must insist that the record is set straight on the issue of possible alternatives to the bypass. All alternatives - including an HGV ban and major public transport improvements - have already been carefully analysed and rejected as being inadequate.

The forecasts showed that an HGV ban would only reduce the traffic flow in Mottram by two per cent. It is no longer enough for those who oppose then bypass to offer empty rhetoric in place of a solution. My constituents need relief from the traffic coming past their homes, and the evidence is clear that only a bypass will solve this problem.

As you'd expect of a politician, Purnell is using the research selectively. A response by the Highways Agency (HA) (opens PDF) to a Freedom of Information request in April last year shows his 2% reduction in traffic figure applies to the Hyde Road A57. Mottram is said to be 'negligible' (no figure given), but Tintwistle (not in his constituency of course) showed an 18% drop.

What he's not telling you is that the model the HA used was for a HGV ban on the A628 from the summit of Woodhead between the A6204 and the A616 - i.e. not the entire route. Unsurprisingly, the model showed HGVs using other routes to avoid it. And at the end of the FoI response, the HA trumpet that they are conducting a study into an 'Area Wide' HGV restriction in the Peak District National Park of which "the conclusions are not yet known".

So where is this study, and will the HA have it ready in time for the Public Inquiry? Or will it be conveniently be buried? In the meantime, Purnell's 'smoking gun' is clearly only 'half-cocked'.

Now they're all crawling out of the woodwork...

You often know you are winning when the real fruitcakes crawl out of the woodwork with monumentally stupid ideas at exactly the wrong moment (or right depending upon your POV).

Over the last couple of weeks in 2 local newspapers, we've been subjected to the delusional ramblings of one Andrew Byford (self-proclaimed Clerk to Derwent and Hope Woodlands Parish Meeting). He even managed to get his ruddy cheeks (those of his face, luckily - but can his arse look any worse one wonders?) onto the front page of the Glossop Advertiser.

Not content with the Highways Agency's plans to encroach onto a National Park, he is calling for a wholesale onslaught deeper into the Peak - a Glossop Bypass no less.

In his defence, he says he was born here, and 'loves the area', although no doubt he loves it in the same way a very lonely farmer does his sheep. This probably explains his fascination with 'burrowing tunnels' and the like.

One can only imagine how Herr Oldham and his evil Pixies are mightily displeased at Andrew jumping the gun and revealing their plans for Tameside's Sudetenland.

I could write a lot more about Mr B's flights of fancy, but his lowest point was when he gave away the address of an anti-bypass campaigner in his letter to the Glossop Chronicle, though admittedly, David Jones was a cretin for allowing it to be published. If we find his full address, we'll promise to publish it here, and then everyone can go and check out his house, which is no doubt made from Gingerbread. In the meantime, he lives somwhere on Snake Road...