Ivan Bell's right of reply

Hawk-eyed readers may have noticed that we had some comments from one of our subjects of ridicule over the past 12 months. Yes, Ivan Bell seems to have discovered this blog on New Year's day, and set about leaving comments on this post about SCC, and also on our 2007 round-up post.

On the SCC post, Bell is charitable enough to afford the (now quiet) protestors over Rossington Park some degree of success. He thinks that if they had not been active, even more sheds would now be present. And let's face it, he should know being a Councillor. We will discuss more about High Peak Borough Council's continuing environmental onslaught on this part of the High Peak in future posts, but for now, we'll agree with that statement.

The other comment is a mix of compliments, insults and absurd statements. The compliments are aimed at us for our 'interesting' views. Clearly, Bell didn't read our posts about him earlier in the year. The insult is where he says we should stand for election: if he'd read the blog closely enough, he'll know that our politics leave us with nothing but contempt for politicians of all kinds, along with the whole political and economic system of capitalism.

Absurd statements come in the form of his views of what should happen now about Rossington Park:

"our only chance is to try and get it more environmentally friendly"

We'd agree, but we're from the Jack Mansfield* school of views regarding eyesores: a stick of dynamite will do the job.

What Bell means - and it's the drum he's been banging for a long time - is that Rossington Park should be painted a different colour. He's been in the Glossop Chronicle with this familiar refrain only the other week. And we now agree - paint them Hi-Viz yellow. That way, the locals will sooner resort to the Jack Mansfield tactics these eyesores deserve. And the sooner someone calls him out for being the distraction from outrage that he is, the better.

But before we close this post, it's probably best to have a little tour of the skidmarks Ivan Bell has left on his travels around the internet. First stop is his lovely blogger user profile: he likes drinking 'real beer' (as opposed to false), and his favourite movie is 'Doctor Zivargo' (sic) and his favourite book is that well-known tome 'History Novels' (we'll be asking for that at the library next week).

Next is his lovely website. He promised to give us a link on here, and he has bless his heart. But wait, oh dear - his comments on the Peak District tourist logo:

"This is not the GAY site even if it is pink"

...except it's purple. Never mind Ivan, we're all as 'good as you'.

But have a look at his other links: "Soil Stabilization" (sic) ("Soil stabilization and erosion control and dust control products and services"). Hmmn, what about this - "Massage School" ("Best massage therapy school with latest techniques"), ahem...

We do so hope that Ivan stops by again. It's nice to be having a political debate, even if it's with a cretin who wears a hat too small for his head.

*Jack Mansfield was a lovely old Glossopian, very reminiscent of Compo, who publicly called for urban guerilla tactics to demolish the (still present) eyesore that is the Ferro Alloys chimney.

Ivan Bell...again

Further to yesterday's post, Councillor Bell's letter in the Chronicle is markedly different than that in the Advertiser. Again, here it is verbatim:

I wish to thank all the voters in Old Glossop for supporting Independent Councillor Chris Webster and myself.

There have been a lot of changes to the High Peak Borough Council this election and I hope that the 'in power' Conservative Party will recognise the expertise and commitment of two hardworking, honest, non-party councillors who have been returned virtually unopposed in Old Glossop.

Unti April 7, 2006, our unelected Peak District National Park Authority Council had supported the Longendale Bypass.

However, the officers of this quango had decided that the residents of Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Mottram should continue to suffer the continuing traffic problems by brining (sic) a motion before the April Council 2006 meeting to change policy and object to it.

Unfortunately, no recorded vote was taken, indeed the names of the proposer and seconder were not recorded and only a Cllr Mrs J Bevan (a Derbyshire Dales councillor) requested that her vote against the motion be recorded.

I have requested under the freedom of information act that these people's names and the full vote count be made available to me so I can name and shame them in a future letter.

I have also asked for a full list of all the expenses that these people are getting for misrepresenting the majority of Peak District residents.

Some of the more responsible environmental groups and councillors are pressing for wetland and tree planting (to replace the areas required for the bypass), to take place now so that when the bypass is constructed these will already be established and if the bypass is not constructed we will have gained extra wildlife areas

I would have thought that if the park authority were genuinely concerned about the area they would have been at the forefront of such a move instead of being swayed by negative thinking of non-park members.

I do not know how our two Labour Derbyshire County Council representatives voted, but I am rather concerned because their addresses listed on the Peak District website are very misleading, non-Post Office approved which could be construed to make people think they lived in the Peak District.

I really think that until such time as the Peak District National Park Authority is made up of elected members from the Peak District and not from selected members, its views on non-park issues should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

One of the things I will be hoping to cure now I have been re-elected, are the council speak gobbledygook documents and reports. These are designed to cover up secrets and hide the truth from the public by using terribly written buzz words, and jargon etc.

It seems that not only the HPBC and DCC are guilty of this, but a recent consultation document issued by the Park Authority is full of this gobbledygook and could do with a makeover from the Campaign for Plain English people (sic).

It's interesting that the Advertiser clearly chose to judiciously edit this rant to within an inch of it's life, but also how the Chronicle have excised all references to Rossington Park.

Perhaps he should have his own blog and give everyone a laugh on a regular basis?

Join the dots

Whilst we know that Labour Party Councillors (if not their members) are fully behind the bypass (and we needn't even talk about the Tories), some people might have hopes of independent councillors.

But that's all dispelled in a letter from Ivan Bell to this week's Glossop Advertiser. Once again, we will reproduce it verbatim below:

I wish to thank all the voters in Old Glossop for supporting Independent Councillor Chris Webster and myself.

There have been a lot of changes to the High Peak Borough Council this election and I hope that the powers that be in the Conservative Party will recognise the expertise and commitment of two hardworking, honest, non-party councillors who have been returned virtually unopposed in Old Glossop.

I have many things to do as a councillor, but most importantly, at the Public Inquiry on the bypass at Stalybridge I will be asking the inspector to give weight to the opinions of people who live in the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

And to only note the opinions of unelected bodies like the Peak District National Park Authority and people who are not resident in those areas.

Some of the more responsible environmental groups and councillors are pressing for wetland and tree planting to replace the areas required for the bypass so that when the bypass is constructed these will be already established.

And regarding the eyesores of Rossendale Park (sic) Hadfield and Bridgend (sic) Tintwistle, I am sure the residents would applaud the Peak Park authority if it helps to curb the ravages of the council planners in allowing such unsightly developments to take place.

This plonker wants to have it both ways. He wants a bypass, but not Rossington Park. He's a fool - as we've shown, RP has been built in anticipation of the bypass, and the clear (but latent) plan to create a strategic transportation route will entail further development of this kind in the area.

Who cares if the Peak Park isn't an elected body? Councillors are, and look what a shower of shit they are. The fact of the matter is that the Peak Park are the only institution fighting this road. If they were elected, they no doubt be lobbied by corporations to bend over and give them want they want. Either that or they would be comprised of people who have a past career amongst those behind this road - hauliers for example, or even former councillors who've taken a bung at every available opportunity.

But then again, his contradictory logic condemns the 'unelected' Peak Park for opposing the bypass but commends it for anything they can do to stop Rossington Park. To cap it all he lives in and represents people in Old Glossop, not Hadfield, Tintwistle, Mottram and Hollingworth.

There's clearly something else at work here which merits further examination.

Those fighting Rossington Park have common cause with us. If this road goes ahead, it will be almost impossible to prevent Rossington Park and other such schemes.

2+2=5?

It seems that following our post on Saturday last, Longdendale Siege Mentality have been going all out to make up the numbers in the largely redundant respective online petitions.

Have a look now and spot some (in)famous names (& thankfully not faces) from Siege meetings, as well as the creator of this static, moribund website (where time truly stands still). Tameside Councillors are strangely absent though, as is the 'Chief' (copyright D Jones, Glossop Chronicle) Mike Flynn. The presence of 'Deputy Dog' also clearly lends credibility to the efforts of this shower.

Someone should mention to them - TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. According to certain contrary souls, the supporters numbers are 'unprecedented'* in any Public Inquiry. Well, that must make the objection numbers 'un-fucking-precedented', because we have 30% more, as we demonstrated last week. Do your homework sonny!

*The term 'Unprecedented' can be applied to the objectors to the Weymouth Relief Road, where there are nearly 6,000. Makes us both look rather weedy by comparison but the government continue to push on regardless. Plus ca change.