Showing posts with label busybodies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label busybodies. Show all posts

Monday, 16 July 2012

Come on you New Puritans, lighten up and let people live a little?


The world now knows just how annoyingly officious British authorities have become:

E-Street Band guitarist Steven Van Zandt also took to Twitter to express his outrage. He said the stars had planned a final encore number before the sound was cut off.

The 61-year-old said: 'One of the great gigs ever in my opinion. But seriously, when did England become a police state? Is there just too much fun in the world? We would have been off by 11 if we'd done one more. On a Saturday night! Who were we disturbing?

This was a big deal but we’re pointing the finger at the wrong target. The truth is that, had Westminster Council allowed the event to run even a minute past the allotted finish time – the licence – that killjoy with a stopwatch somewhere within earshot of Hyde Park would have been on to them threatening action.

We have become the antithesis of ‘live and let live’, a nation of nosey parkers, busybodies and fussbuckets. Too many people are ready to point out every last minute infringement – just so long as it’s done safely by ringing up (or these days e-mailing) the authorities.

We seem unable to allow other people to have a modicum of pleasure. Youngsters making some noise in the town square after a good night? Binge drinking – get it stopped! Introduce curfews, ban outside drinking – whatever it takes get them away from where they might (just might) offend our ears or eyes.

A karaoke night at the local round the corner on a warm summer night (oh, for one of those) – a few folk stray outside for a smoke or perhaps a snog. And we’re on to the authorities about the pub’s license the next day. How dare these people enjoy themselves in my presence?

Or the wedding party at the club – good times, dads dancing, uncles getting a little drunk and cousins simpering over the best man. And children running around getting under everyone’s feet, wallowing in the excitement of staying up late. Nine o’clock arrives and our busybody is complaining - the licence says no children after 9pm.

Everywhere I look, I see fun being spoiled by our inability to let others live a little. We seem unable to tolerate a few minutes inconvenience so as to allow others to celebrate. We’ve forgotten that urban places – and we most of us live in urban places – are sometimes noisy. And we seem to believe that licensing – the exercise of mostly pointless control – is the way to proceed.

I recall, on one of those warm summer evenings, sitting outside a nice bar on Street Lane in Leeds only to be ushered inside at eleven “because of the licence”. So fifteen or so (anything but young) people dutifully traipsed inside, finished our drinks and then went home. Our pleasure was curtailed because some official in that big wedding cake building in the middle of Leeds, backed up by councillors and urged on by fussbuckets had decreed that drinking outside a quiet bar in the posh northern suburbs of the city represents the precursor to drunken violence, mayhem and chaos (and might be a little noisy).

Can’t we arrive at a place where we no longer have the officious enforcement of arbitrary time restrictions and move instead to a place where we agree reasonable behaviour? A world where every now and then it’s OK for a few (hopefully well-behaved) children to remain after nine? Where a group of no longer young folk can sit outside a bar after eleven on a warm evening (when they’re doing no-one any harm)?

And where thousands of people who’ve paid a lot of money to watch a concert (and aren’t about to riot) get to see the full set because someone’s seen sense and allowed the band a little bit of leeway on finishing time.

But I guess this won’t happen. It seems the new Puritans have won. And we are a worse nation for it.

....

Thursday, 17 February 2011

Clean advertising - creative cash generation dismissed by daft councillors

It's no surprise that council officers take the easy, 'don't-try-anything-risky' route because when they do, stupid, headline hungry councillors jump up and down all over the idea.

Take this example from Leeds where officers have set on Curb Media to do some 'clean advertising' on city centre pavement. There's some funky and creative advertising lifting otherwise dull streets - not permanent or damaging - and the City Council gets some income to go towards looking after those pavements. A win all round it seems to me. But for one Liberal Democrat councillor this is an "environmental crime":

Headingley Liberal Democrat councillor James Monaghan said: "I personally don't agree with having adverts on the pavements.

"In my opinion they are an environmental crime, illegal advertising and have the same effect as stencilling or tagging for bringing down an area. The fact that the council now intends to profit out of such an activity is surprising but I believe the decision was made with no consultation with environmental enforcement officers, who have spent years combating this environmental crime."

Duh? Has this idiot not seen these adverts? Does he not appreciate how they are different, fun, a bit edgy - used by such terrible advertisers and the BBC and Channel 4?

Sadly, Cllr Monaghan isn't alone in his condemnation - according to Labour Councillor, Graham Hyde:

"This is a modern version of flyposting. OK, it's a few streets in the city centre but it is happening illegally elsewhere. If we're not careful here we could be opening up Pandora's box. How can we enforce the illegal advertising when we're doing it ourselves?"


 Maybe, Graham, you can enforce against illegal adverts because they're illegal? These adverts are legal!

It gets still more interesting as the internal battle between council departments is revealed:

Head of environmental action at Leeds council, Graham Wilson, admitted he had been 'shocked' when he found out about the trial - by the city development department - back in November and had 'severe reservations' about the impact of the adverts on the city centre. He suggested the council could be in a duplicitous position in court when trying to enforce illegal action against other companies.

What? Seems the resident council eco-loon doesn't like the fact that something was done to "the environment" without his express permission - and money was made too! Quite terrible! So this man makes up a spurious legal problem to justify his unjustified concerns.

Utter nonsense!

...

Saturday, 28 August 2010

An approaching unintended consequence?


As part of a blizzard of populist (and in many cases welcome) announcements, the wonderful Eric Pickles has call on councils to cut down on street clutter:

"Our streets are losing their English character. We are being overrun by scruffy signs, bossy bollards, patchwork paving and railed-off roads - wasting taxpayers' money that could be better spent on fixing potholes or keeping council tax down. We need to 'cut the clutter'.

"Too many overly cautious town hall officials are citing safety regulations as the reason for cluttering up our streets with an obstacle course when the truth is very little is dictated by law. Common sense tells us uncluttered streets have a fresher, freer, authentic feel, which are safer and easier to maintain."


All very good and very welcome but please note this:

Ludlow traders who have been asked to remove pavement billboards today revealed they could launch a legal challenge to the move, claiming it could lead to their businesses closing.


Right. And Mr. Pickles’ well meaning announcement simply adds more to the Councils’ campaigns again harmless and innocent signing by traders. In Ludlow it seems to be a nice little earner. Here’s one trader (who runs a very nice little cook shop):

“They’ve sent letters to some businesses asking them to remove A-boards voluntarily, but then they will remove them, charge us £10 a day for storage and may destroy them after 28 days, so it’s voluntary, but with a gun to your head.”

We can expect council officers to use Eric’s good intentions (targeted at the proliferation of council installed signs) as a further justification for stopping the use of A-boards. And as ever there will be an anonymous ‘local resident’ to raise ‘concerns’ with the Council justifying their actions!
....

Friday, 13 August 2010

Bingley Show, old laws and the real reason for getting the show moved

****

Not sure whether to laugh or cry about this.

"Following a request from a member of the public Bradford Council uncovered an old act of Parliament – S44 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890 – which states that the local authority may on such days as they think fit close the park for any agricultural, horticultural show...provided that no such park or pleasure ground shall be closed on Sundays."

Another part of the act known as – S76(1) of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 – does give the local authority certain powers to set apart any such part of a park for the purposes of recreation and exclude public from the part set apart. Unfortunately this only applies to a part of the park and not the whole or majority of the park which is necessitated by Bingley Show."

As Bingley Show charge admission and use the whole of the park they are effectively excluding public. If Bradford Council were to continue to let Bingley show use Myrtle Park on a Sunday it would mean that the council would be operating beyond their powers. Bingley Show have thus been asked to book another day."


To start with this is the 21st Century. And Bingley Show takes place once each year – that’s right folks, just one Sunday out of the 52 available. But what I find most surprising is that “a member of the public” has gone to the bother of finding out about this dusty law and then telling the Council about it. Why? Does it really matter?

Or are they – without success – trying to stop this event from taking place?

....

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Wednesday Whimsy: good neighbour or busybody?

The Old Sunday School, Wilsden - shows how Parish Councils can help get stuff done



Busybody n.; pl. Busybodies One who officiously concerns himself or herself with the affairs of others; a meddling person.

Driving along Laneside from Harecroft into Wilsden, I was taken by the sight of Jack Clapham trudging up the hill from his house towards a neighbour’s carrying what appeared to be a weeks worth of shopping. It wouldn’t surprise me that Jack – or his wife Freida – care enough about neighbours to get their shopping for them. After all he puts up a poster for me!

I know of others who do similar – not as members of some occult society and not with any purpose other than to do the right thing. And this is a good thing – sadly pushed aside by left-wing folk who seem to see volunteering as some kind of threat to the employment of “public sector workers

But I’m not here to have a moan about the public sector but to ask a different question. A question about privacy and about the busybody – a question made more interesting by Harrow Council’s decision to employ a vast army of busybodies to check up on “the neighbourhood”.

Now Jack Clapham’s not a busybody – he just likes to help his neighbour – but some folk who get involved in “community groups” and Parish Councils end up with busybody-ish tendencies! Let me explain.

It’s none of my business if Mr Jones across the village wants to extend his house, build a new garage or put up a nine foot high fence. It's certainly none of my business if he wishes to pave his front garden and park a couple of vans on it. I might assist a neighbour of Mr Jones who wishes to object – but that’s helping out. The matter remains none of my business. For some who, given the chance to criticise the design of someone’s proposed dormer or the siting of their garden shed, leap at the chance even though it is none of their business. That is being a busybody.

It shouldn’t bother me that the local farmer has set up a brewery in his outbuildings (in fact I think this a good thing) and I don’t give a toss whether it does or doesn’t comply with this or that regulation. But some care not that our farmer is bothering nobody. His brewery is not a proper use in the Green Belt and must be stopped. And does he have the right licenses? That is being a busybody.

By all means go on a Parish Council, join the Community Association, set up a neighbourhood watch or run a community clean up. These are good neighbourly things to do. But please keep your neb out from other’s business when it doesn’t concern you. And don’t be a busybody.