threegee

He's said that VAT won't go up - "at the budget" - but they've also said that there will be a spending review after the election. What sort of nonsense is that?! If they need a "spending review" why are they having a budget now? And, if you know what's going on in the economy - and after 13 years you bloody well should - why then do you need an extraordinary spending review? Catch 2010! The answer is that they can't NOT have a budget. That would speak volumes in itself. This is simply to maintain a sense of normality, and the steady-as-she-goes illusion. What it actually tells you is that the treasury IS considering a VAT rise, odds on to a nice round 20%. That's going to happen whoever wins the election. The other thing that's going to happen, but not happen just yet, is a tax on the banks. Gordon has screwed that one up by this International agreement thing - another GB attempt at have-your-cake-and-eat-it - so AD can't actually impose one yet. But he will try to queer the Tories pitch on this. Gordon wants a good old fashioned pre-election give away, and Alastair and he have had a tiny disagreement here. But this time Alastair wins because he can't be sacked, and he knows he's going to lose his job anyway - so what the hell! He's only thinking about his place in history. And, that dictates that he be seen a "responsible chancellor". Even though he has made one devastating mistake after another, he's probably kidding himself that history will concur with this self-delusion, and that this will yield the lucrative directorships that most any ex-Chancellor can count on. Thing is Mr D.: I wouldn't want to invest in any company who would be dumb enough to pay you to be on their board, and most of the small investors I know would likely feel the same. So you're going to have to rely on some little-known branch of the old boys network for a living from here on in. For his sake I hope the Edinburgh law biz is holding up during the recession. Don't you think that appearance is one of a rather expensive (aren't they all?) wise old big town solicitor Monsta? But, in this instance, one who knows b.all about economics! How long will it take? However long it takes to say "haven't I been a great Chancellor" without actually using the words "haven't I been a great Chancellor". Not too short and not too long - just sort of steady-as-she-goes. But, hey! Can't you just smell those green shoots of recovery - even if you can't see any green quite yet?

Another Candle In The Life of Brian! (Sounds like a good title for a film sequel) Happy Birthday

So do cows! But I didn't say they were those either! But getting increasingly obscure. I said people weren't using their brains, not that they didn't have any. And I was talking about the Bedlington electorate in general, as much as about this issue. No people can't! They have no right to tell me (or you) how we think! I correct you. You are wrong! No personal attack was made or even implied! It never even occurred to me that you'd doctored anything!

Not at all! Bully is your word, and those people who voted ARE using their brains BUT not in the wider interest. I'm not sure why 75% of the members reading the debate didn't vote - why I said for/against didn't tell us the full story. That's only shocking if you want to cherry pick then twist my remarks into something I never said - like saying people aren't using their brains implies they don't have any! And what is multiple voting Fourgee's perfectly neutral post (he actually supports your view!) down other than an attempt to manipulate the outcome? I'm content to go with the democratic consensus, even though it's a very small sample. But I happen to think that more people voting on the quality of posts - either up or down, will over time improve the quality of posts.

I don't think it was a failed experiment. What has happened is that the people who misuse positive rep have ganged up to see that there's no negative. They seem to think that because they misuse it other people will do too. Pretty juvenile! Only 25% of members who visited the thread voted. Just like Bedlington not enough people bothered to use their brains then vote for a logical improvement! So... the manipulators get a result in their self-interest, and not the wider interest. Maybe the next poll should have a "don't know" to separate the don't knows from the don't cares? Or - if we want to play petty politics - we can do what politicians do and keep on asking the same question in different ways until we get the answer we want - after which the public's decision becomes final!

The EU are right of course, and amateur economist AD once again totally wrong! Has he ever been right about anything, including his advice to GB about not going to the country at the only time he had any realistic chance? But if you go along with the myth that this is a "global problem", and the myth that the height of the post-millennium party is a normal state of affairs; then it's quite easy to kid yourself that the party going on isn't really the party going on, but a prudent period of pre-adjustment to lower levels of alcohol consumption. There's a very real chance that the markets will lose confidence in Sterling if this stupidity continues. It's a re-run of the "balance the books over the length of the economic cycle" crap. The length that was never defined, but where an end to the cycle was always just around the corner. Until that end became the "global" recession, and we had a whale of an excuse to throw all pretence of prudence to the wind. We're now told that there will be a spending review after the election. So a government which has been in power for thirteen years and asks us to believe that it is in full control of our affairs (except of course for this pesky "global problem" of our own gross overspend) needs a review of what it itself has been up to? Why can't this so-called review be carried out now, and we be told the true extent of the necessary cuts before election day? You can pretty well anticipate the Mandelsonian ducking and weaving that following this line of questioning will produce.

Yup, the Streetview generation! No one is going to catch this guy coming out of a neighbours when husband is at work! Even buys his hoodies on the Internet. http://www.shopwiki....sshatch+hoodies

I don't think this is one of those specifically "Bedlington things" that the LIke/Loate forum is for. It's a problem (or an overstated problem, depending on your point of view) just about anywhere, and particularly in a country with over 10 million dogs. It is could however be a community issue. In which case that's where it should go, together with the exact details of the places where it has been noted to be a significant problem. As a general discussion it would be best put in ToTT. I'm a bit like Monsta here and think that there must be a more organic solutions for organic things than permanently polluting plastic bags and pooper scoopers.

At least two of them are here, so go easy on them and the rest will discover that they don't need to keep their heads down, or hide behind heavily censored websites. I think the Internet means that those who don't engage - or worse, only pretend they engage - are a soon-to-be-extinct species. Go out and vote for those that engage, even if you don't agree with everything they say. And vote against those who hide behind spin-doctors and party dogma. That has to be the way to restore some sort of grass-roots democracy. But you need to understand that our local councillors only have limited powers, and very limited budgets. The recent changes were - as usual - the very minimum that those at the top of the power pyramid could get away with. This is our fault for putting up with this (and not seeing through it), and not those people who are putting themselves in the firing line of public disquiet. There was a time when our democracy was a lot more "robust", and there were public debates that weren't controlled by spin-doctors. But yes, the answer to your question is that it's OUR fault for letting things get into such a state.

http://www.dmm.org.uk/mindex.htm is the best on-line info. I did have access to a lot of the Doctor Pit records from way back in the 18th century, but fool me let them get out of my sight for some years! I've no idea who they were given to, or where they are now. BTW I'm sure we will collectively get you a precise answer to the Storey's Buildings one; but these things can take time - sometimes years!

It's all there in the news story Mons. Somebody took the trouble to write it; all you need to do is read it!

Yes, an the entire street would go to church all dressed up in their finest. There were no excuses, and anyone who didn't was looked on as far from normal, and probably destined for hellfire! But St C's wasn't the only church after their immortal souls, and soon we had the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Church of Christ (Baptists) on the Front Street to compete with the C of E - besides, of course, Roman Catholics at the top end. Likely a few more besides - I can't remember which sect the Coffin Chapel originally belonged to. No different really to any other mining, or indeed agricultural community, anywhere else in the Country. No, it had little to do with the run-down of industry and then the mines. For the most part it was simply changing social attitudes, particularly in later generations. I'm sure the abnormally high number of pubs got some of the blame. "Middle class" people would continue to go to church in fair numbers for another generation or two. I remember a vicar or someone connected with the church telling me the gallery was demolished because of maintenance costs. It seems it leaked like a sieve, and may have been quite drafty! I'd imagine that exposed way up on that rise, and on the North side of the building too, heating costs would be particularly high, and with falling congregations there was no need to suffer all these extra costs.

Ah Inn not Arms - my misread! That sign on the corner does look to say Anvil Inn, now that you mention it! So it's certainly not a a private house, but a very Public one. I still think that sign on what is now the main part of the Queens says something else though. My money is still on a two pubs into one. Or three if you include the prior Queens. Here's my estimate of where that Guidepost in the picture was give or take a meter or two (note that the pavement is a lot wider now): THE Guidepost or a guidepost? If the former it needs a blue plaque nailed to the road I think.

Wow, Cympil always seems to be able to come up with the shots! Here's something interesting: The only remaining point of reference here seems to be the now Queens Head, Guidepost. But look at it in the 2009 shot, and in the 1912 shot. Slightly different perspective, but it's obviously still the same building. Notice that those unusual twin windows are still there, but the top floor has been lopped off the former private house on the corner which they were part of. In fact it doesn't even seem to be called the Queens Head then. The bit of the sign we can see seems to say something like ...ASEN. Saracen? But you say it was called the Anvil Arms. Could that tall building be a separate pub and not a private house, and maybe the two pubs later made into a single one? Does not compute! I'd always wondered where THE Guidepost was, but it rather looks like the guy squatting on the left is sitting under it! Anyone know any different?

You missed the point Monsta - it's also a vote on the quality of the post, and whether it added anything to the argument or to the collective knowledge. Most people are consumers of info not facilitators. One click now and then is all you can hope for. They've had this drilled into them by the media, and arguably also by the learn-by-wrote education system. This was confirmed the other week by an e-mail from a Bedlington lady (who could have posted on the board to everyone) saying how nice it was to have a website that told her what was on and where. Was it worth writing back to tell her she'd completely missed the point of a community website, and indeed the point of the Internet as a whole? I fear she is by no means alone!

Somewhere near the Guidepost roundabout I think. May have been where the roundabout is today as quite a few buildings were demolished (at the previous crossroads) when it was built. Google Streetview Certainly I've heard of it and have likely been there in the distant past. This isn't very far from where my Grandfather's family lived, and established a stonemasons yard, when they moved to the area from Aberdeen in the 18th century. Someone help my memory here! Please let us have details of who these people were, and any scraps of background information you have. This will do a lot to help other people - maybe hundreds of years hence! What goes here gets recorded in lots of other places and, unlike paper records and stone inscriptions, is here for posterity! Now isn't that an alarming thought?

This is good! This is positive negativity! I can feel a "Are you listening to your customers, or are you a Dinosaur?" ...feature coming on. I've heard more or less the same about Asda-Tesco from Mrs threegee - so it must be true! Maybe Tesco is ahead of the game and is now in the process of fixing this? Library? Well... silly jobsworths I think. Here we are lobbying like hell to save their arses, and when we ask them to stick a couple of little Bedlington.co.uk flyers up by the computers we are told they "don't do that sort of thing"! If they aren't there for the very community that pays their wages what exactly are they there for? Maybe what we should be lobbying for is a change in management?

We could remedy this with http://nickersshop.bedlington.co.uk if there's a real demand for nickers delivered to your door today - in a plain brown package, of course!

Why it's there: The system was originally devised as a way to flag-up those quality posts that are worth spending a little time reading. Even the moderators don't have time to read everything. Through this it tends to encourage quality postings, and discourage slanging matches, where both parties generally get voted down - unless one party is grossly out of line. We often get the odd prat who emails something like "I'd join in if you removed some of the idiots" and by implication ran the thing more responsibly. Also implying that their opinion has far more weight than anyone else's (but they don't want to risk ther cosy prejudices being challenged). Of course if the moderator's cow-towed to them they most likely wouldn't, and probably have nothing worth saying anyway. But to those people the rep system illustrates that what's already there has stood the test of mass approval, and that it's they who are the odd ones out! Personally speaking: I broadly agree with Mr D. Except I try to apply the has it been helpful to anyone and has it made me think tests, before I apply the do I agree with it test. Two out of three generally gets it. On negative I suppose it has to be the opposite, though I'd immediately vote down anything abusive of someone else, especially when it was unprovoked by personal remarks. And finally: To sum it up I'd say that the rep system - although originally devised to flag what was worth spending time reading - sort of fully democratises the moderation process, and adds a bit of social pressure to ensure better behaviour (why I'm going to vote -rep stays). Because a lot of members know who a lot of members are there's very little for the moderators to do anyway. The only problem seems to be that not enough members are aware of it. Maybe a red button will make them use the green one too?

Unfortunately you are right! Formatting all over the place in Open Office! Can't we persuade them to put it out as a standard .PDF? A prior requirement to buy, or steal, a £300 proprietary software package can't be the best way to present the face of law & order! Someone needs to point out the Public Notices section to them too I think. The concept of "free" might take a little explaining.

The system is heavily weighed against small parties, and I think quite deliberately, to stop any new movements from getting off the ground. The arguments against PR are greatly overstated. The present system has disenfranchised large sections of the population for decades. I don't see anything wrong in drawing a government from across party boundaries either. No one party has a monopoly on good ideas. OK, so the PM loses a lot of his rights to act like a dictator that have simply been appropriated over the last fifty or so years, but that's all to the good. I also think that five years in power without any real answerability is too long these days. Probably the US has it about right at four years. But, how does a system reform itself when it's against the self-interest of those in power to reform? A looming revolution, or mass civil unrest, has been the only way that has worked in the past. All we are seeing at the moment is the worst examples of abuse by individuals being dealt with, and a bit of trimming of the rules. Instead of real reform the system is, as always, just doing the bare minimum to protect itself. There needs to be a way for ordinary individuals to bring about change to the system without the explicit approval of the system itself. Maybe a real people's chamber which can only deliberate on constitutional matters and heavily relies on IT for its mandate? Could be the best ever reason to ask their lordships to find somewhere else to have their afternoon nap!