What … ?
WHAT … !!
I think I’d like to register a complaint … !
Because I’ve just bought this week’s Gazette, and they’ve printed neither of the letters I sent in, this week.
Honestly, you’d think 65p would count for something, wouldn’t you … ?
Geeerrrr … !
At any rate, I do know that I’ve sent them another email.
And one that ties in directly to the parking, here on Rollason Way.
As you know, we’ve probably all had our forms from South Anglia: the ones that let us vote on which scheme to have to control the parking in Rollason Way’s car-parks.
The trouble is, is that the scheme we have in now — and the one I voted to keep — is a wheel clamping scheme.
And, as Movie Night Adrian pointed out to me, last night, the fact that Central government is planning legislation to ban wheel-clamping on private land does put that into doubt.
Bless him, Adrian’s got a nasty habit of bringing these things up.
But the clamping scheme was and is one I think is possible the only viable option for the car-parks.
And the Gazette happened to carry a report about disgruntled members of the congregation at St. Thomas Church getting clamped, when they parked, there.
Here’s what I told the Gazette.
Dear Sir,
I read your article in this week’s Gazette about disgruntled — and wheel-clamped — worshippers at St. Thomas Cathedral, and have to admit to a certain amount of …
Well …
Mixed feelings, certainly.
Now, while I can sympathise with those drivers who feel hard done by, I do know that the clamping scheme that operates in the car-parks on the street where I live seems to be working well; it allows residents to park near their homes.
Rather than commuters with no connection to my street and that I or my neighbours have ever seen before.
Now, granted, there’s rogue operators in the industry; bad apples that spoil the bunch for others. And granted, the scheme on our street has had hiccups.
But the same is true for any industry.
My thought here is a simple one.
That instead of central government’s proposed ban, there should quite simply be better regulation.
After all, I’d like to see I and my neighbours be able to park near where we live. Rather than get crowded out of our (metaphorical) driveways by commuters.
The clamping scheme in place in the area is the only that’s worked. I’d rather not see it go.
Now I know that Councillor Chilvers is thinking of writing a follow-up letter: I also know she’s planning to talk Sara Bartleman, the South Anglia Housing Officer for the area, first.
But I do know that she’s had a bit of a result just ’round the corner in St. James Road.
Remember that Taylor-Wimpey, the developers who want to put up MORE flats, along with completely inadequate parking on the patch of greenery round there … ?
Well, they put in for an extension to the planning application for the offices they originally put in for the land.
Councillor, would you mind me doing my happy dance, now, or should I save it ’til later … ?
‹‹‹—›››
Phew … !
Now, before I sign off, there’s one final thought.
You know that, over the past few years, I’ve always suggested going for open-source software and alternative proprietary computer software … ?
You’ve probably already worked out I’m a sucker for Macs and Mac OS X, haven’t you … ?
Pay attention at the back, there … !
At any rate, suffice to say, I believe that not only should we — as consumers, where-ever we are — have a choice of hardware, but also a choice of software.
And operating system software.
Proprietary or otherwise.
Now I’ll happily grant that Apple aren’t perfect: despite the fact that, given the choice, their combination of hardware and software is the one I go for, every time.
But I managed to come across this piece on Wikipedia, today.
And can’t help but think that, all joking aside, that’s a good example.
Of seriously dodgy practise.
‹‹‹—›››
