‘We’ve always invested ’ – operators of Hengistbury Head Noddy Train hit back over Bournemouth council claims

‘We’ve always invested ’ – operators of Hengistbury Head Noddy Train hit back over Bournemouth council claims

SPEAKING OUT: Land train mechanic Alan Barnard with a petition calling for the ‘Noddy’ service to be retained

PLAN: Mr Barnard and Joyce Faris

First published in News

THE operators of the Hengistbury Head land train, who have been given notice to quit after the summer, have refuted council claims they have not invested in the service.

Mechanic Alan Barnard, who has worked on the ‘Noddy trains’ for around 20 years, said thousands of pounds had been spent upgrading the trains and carriages and improving the service to passengers.

Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose.

The council said they had consistently asked 88-year-old owner Joyce Faris for a business plan but had not received anything from her.

But Alan said they had made improvements nearly every year. “We’ve shown them and told them over the years what we have done,” he said. “Last year we spent £25,000 on nine coaches and back in 2008 we spent probably about the same having six or seven closed carriages made.

“We’ve always invested – every single year we’ve added something major to keep it up to date.

“We know our trains are special and now we know that nearly 20,000 people agree with us.

“But the council will not listen.”

Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible and said it was ‘untrue’ that Mrs Faris had upgraded her equipment to match ever-increasing regulations.

Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.

“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said.

“As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”

Comments (167)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:19am Fri 21 Mar 14

xslee says...

Dear Cllr Coope,

if you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' then you clearly shouldn't be employed in a role that purports to represent the local community, as this is one of the most clueless and out of touch statements that has been made on the subject in recent weeks.

In business-speak you are 'not fit for purpose', and should probably go away quietly and don't open your mouth on the topic again...
Dear Cllr Coope, if you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' then you clearly shouldn't be employed in a role that purports to represent the local community, as this is one of the most clueless and out of touch statements that has been made on the subject in recent weeks. In business-speak you are 'not fit for purpose', and should probably go away quietly and don't open your mouth on the topic again... xslee
  • Score: 152

6:21am Fri 21 Mar 14

rusty james says...

“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said.

Unbelievable.

“As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”

Truly unbelievable. These pencil-necks are truly living in a bubble.
“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. Unbelievable. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” Truly unbelievable. These pencil-necks are truly living in a bubble. rusty james
  • Score: 122

6:30am Fri 21 Mar 14

Mike Oxbig says...

The land train is dead. Long live the land train.
The land train is dead. Long live the land train. Mike Oxbig
  • Score: -57

6:42am Fri 21 Mar 14

Huey says...

The current operators offer a great service, reliable for decades, at £0 cost to the taxpayer.
Will the council guarantee the same?
Even if they could I don't trust them as they are a bunch of meddling prats
The current operators offer a great service, reliable for decades, at £0 cost to the taxpayer. Will the council guarantee the same? Even if they could I don't trust them as they are a bunch of meddling prats Huey
  • Score: 123

6:53am Fri 21 Mar 14

billy bumble says...

Has it ever struck anyone that Town/City Councillors are unemployable in any other business concern?
Has it ever struck anyone that Town/City Councillors are unemployable in any other business concern? billy bumble
  • Score: 102

7:21am Fri 21 Mar 14

Lord Spring says...

Fuss

Let people think you are an idiot but never open your mouth and confirm it
Fuss Let people think you are an idiot but never open your mouth and confirm it Lord Spring
  • Score: 63

7:21am Fri 21 Mar 14

Lord Spring says...

Fuss

Let people think you are an idiot but never open your mouth and confirm it
Fuss Let people think you are an idiot but never open your mouth and confirm it Lord Spring
  • Score: 29

7:21am Fri 21 Mar 14

Controversial But True says...

Bournemouth Council clearly believe their own bull***t...!!!

Smear campaign time now? Where do we start with Bournemouth Council? IMAX? Reef? Dave Wells?
Bournemouth Council clearly believe their own bull***t...!!! Smear campaign time now? Where do we start with Bournemouth Council? IMAX? Reef? Dave Wells? Controversial But True
  • Score: 72

7:22am Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

If there were a vote .on what Should remain in place,The Noddy train or the council.I would look forward to the rattle of the train and not the prattle of the council.(is this a poem?)
If there were a vote .on what Should remain in place,The Noddy train or the council.I would look forward to the rattle of the train and not the prattle of the council.(is this a poem?) kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 71

7:25am Fri 21 Mar 14

Huey says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
If there were a vote .on what Should remain in place,The Noddy train or the council.I would look forward to the rattle of the train and not the prattle of the council.(is this a poem?)
I'd vote for noddy to run the council if he stood. He couldn't do a worse job.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: If there were a vote .on what Should remain in place,The Noddy train or the council.I would look forward to the rattle of the train and not the prattle of the council.(is this a poem?)[/p][/quote]I'd vote for noddy to run the council if he stood. He couldn't do a worse job. Huey
  • Score: 58

7:27am Fri 21 Mar 14

PineWalk player says...

The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks. PineWalk player
  • Score: 90

7:37am Fri 21 Mar 14

yousirmesirnosiryousirthankyousir says...

The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted! yousirmesirnosiryousirthankyousir
  • Score: -131

7:44am Fri 21 Mar 14

BIGTONE says...

Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.


Of course he will,otherwise they will sack him.
Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves. Of course he will,otherwise they will sack him. BIGTONE
  • Score: 59

7:48am Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Must say the mechanic is very front of house.Would make me want get on the equely attractive converted baggage truck.
Must say the mechanic is very front of house.Would make me want get on the equely attractive converted baggage truck. kalebmoledirt
  • Score: -38

7:53am Fri 21 Mar 14

rusty james says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too.

"What do we want?!"
"THE NODDY TRAIN!!!"
"When do we want it?!"
"Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too. "What do we want?!" "THE NODDY TRAIN!!!" "When do we want it?!" "Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm." rusty james
  • Score: 62

7:53am Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

billy bumble wrote:
Has it ever struck anyone that Town/City Councillors are unemployable in any other business concern?
A councillor is a charity for the unemployable.bit like a footballer plenty of money and perks for a few hours work
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: Has it ever struck anyone that Town/City Councillors are unemployable in any other business concern?[/p][/quote]A councillor is a charity for the unemployable.bit like a footballer plenty of money and perks for a few hours work kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 29

8:07am Fri 21 Mar 14

zigzags says...

As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”

I am a resident and I never heard a thing until I saw the story in The Echo last week! I do hope the councillor is telling the truth???
As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” I am a resident and I never heard a thing until I saw the story in The Echo last week! I do hope the councillor is telling the truth??? zigzags
  • Score: 66

8:11am Fri 21 Mar 14

politicaltrainspotter says...

Firstly, Councillor Coope.Who ? Never heard of him.Not much of an influence in the council so not to elect him in 2015 would not be a great loss.

As for Councillor Williams he has been told not to read the comments on the Daily Echo forum as it is too upsetting.Remember this is the man who when a younger person was selected to be a prospective councillor in front of him 'threw his toys out of the pram' big style.
So they even had the arrogance to not include the Economy and Tourism panel in which a long serving and distinguished councillor chairs.Watch it Councillor Chapman you'll be next to be deselected like Councillor Goldbart.Remember that enlist puesdo tories like former Labour Activist and supporter, Don Mcqueen who has decided to stand as a prospective conservative councillor in the effort that the blue team wins.With the reds he only got 235 votes in Moordown.
Anyway, keep the pressure up.Email your ward councillors as the tories have got a squeeky backsides long before this blew up and some are reliant on being councillors as if they were voted out some would be on Job Seekers Allowance as they have no other income.
Firstly, Councillor Coope.Who ? Never heard of him.Not much of an influence in the council so not to elect him in 2015 would not be a great loss. As for Councillor Williams he has been told not to read the comments on the Daily Echo forum as it is too upsetting.Remember this is the man who when a younger person was selected to be a prospective councillor in front of him 'threw his toys out of the pram' big style. So they even had the arrogance to not include the Economy and Tourism panel in which a long serving and distinguished councillor chairs.Watch it Councillor Chapman you'll be next to be deselected like Councillor Goldbart.Remember that enlist puesdo tories like former Labour Activist and supporter, Don Mcqueen who has decided to stand as a prospective conservative councillor in the effort that the blue team wins.With the reds he only got 235 votes in Moordown. Anyway, keep the pressure up.Email your ward councillors as the tories have got a squeeky backsides long before this blew up and some are reliant on being councillors as if they were voted out some would be on Job Seekers Allowance as they have no other income. politicaltrainspotter
  • Score: 37

8:19am Fri 21 Mar 14

Phixer says...

"... councillor Eddie Coope has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”

A council spokesperson recently stated that the decision had not and did not go out for consultation.

One of you is lying - and I'll lay a bet of which one it is.
"... councillor Eddie Coope has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” A council spokesperson recently stated that the decision had not and did not go out for consultation. One of you is lying - and I'll lay a bet of which one it is. Phixer
  • Score: 67

8:21am Fri 21 Mar 14

Phixer says...

"Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible and said it was ‘untrue’ that Mrs Faris had upgraded her equipment to match ever-increasing regulations."

Are you calling Mrs Faris a liar? Would those regulations, or some of them, be specific to Beasley Borough Council?
"Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible and said it was ‘untrue’ that Mrs Faris had upgraded her equipment to match ever-increasing regulations." Are you calling Mrs Faris a liar? Would those regulations, or some of them, be specific to Beasley Borough Council? Phixer
  • Score: 42

8:24am Fri 21 Mar 14

Redgolfer says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
Whateveryournameis, use your brain if you have any after that statement, what bit do you not get, the bit that because of the length that the proposed new train has to travel, the fact that because it goes on the public highway with all the upgrades to the train and driver that it entails, how can it produce the timetable that the existing train uses ''as and when'', it is the new unservice that will not be ''fit for purpose''.
What about the fact that a lot of work will have to be done to accommodate the new service not only turning round but passing each other as the old trains do on a site of protected land that is Hengistbury Head, so nearly 50,000 people are wrong and you are right, if it was honest as the ward councillors have implied then who did they consult with, who gave the go ahead, if you think that it is such a worthwhile scheme then put your name to it, the response will be deafening.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]Whateveryournameis, use your brain if you have any after that statement, what bit do you not get, the bit that because of the length that the proposed new train has to travel, the fact that because it goes on the public highway with all the upgrades to the train and driver that it entails, how can it produce the timetable that the existing train uses ''as and when'', it is the new unservice that will not be ''fit for purpose''. What about the fact that a lot of work will have to be done to accommodate the new service not only turning round but passing each other as the old trains do on a site of protected land that is Hengistbury Head, so nearly 50,000 people are wrong and you are right, if it was honest as the ward councillors have implied then who did they consult with, who gave the go ahead, if you think that it is such a worthwhile scheme then put your name to it, the response will be deafening. Redgolfer
  • Score: 35

8:48am Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetBorn79 says...

1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated.

2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition.

3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process.

4. Locals should welcome a change
1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated. 2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition. 3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process. 4. Locals should welcome a change DorsetBorn79
  • Score: -72

8:49am Fri 21 Mar 14

George Bowling says...

This seems to typify the mass bureaucracy that is prevalent in councils. Not sure why a business plan is needed to run a train back and forward. I don't think Mrs Faris was looking to expand the business. It just needs a maintanence plan to ensure it is safe.

Still bureaucracy keeps council staff in jobs!
This seems to typify the mass bureaucracy that is prevalent in councils. Not sure why a business plan is needed to run a train back and forward. I don't think Mrs Faris was looking to expand the business. It just needs a maintanence plan to ensure it is safe. Still bureaucracy keeps council staff in jobs! George Bowling
  • Score: 35

9:10am Fri 21 Mar 14

xslee says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated.

2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition.

3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process.

4. Locals should welcome a change
1. They are fit for puprose as they have been running for 45 years with a very satisfied clientele.
2. The current operators RUN A SERVICE for their customers - the only people with a sense of entitlement are their customers, who want them to carry on running the service.
3. There is no contract - if the council take over then that's it - until they royally screw up a la IMAX and changes are made.
4. Locals don't welcome a change - get over it.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: 1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated. 2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition. 3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process. 4. Locals should welcome a change[/p][/quote]1. They are fit for puprose as they have been running for 45 years with a very satisfied clientele. 2. The current operators RUN A SERVICE for their customers - the only people with a sense of entitlement are their customers, who want them to carry on running the service. 3. There is no contract - if the council take over then that's it - until they royally screw up a la IMAX and changes are made. 4. Locals don't welcome a change - get over it. xslee
  • Score: 55

9:11am Fri 21 Mar 14

Joy Dean says...

https://you.38degree
s.org.uk/petitions/s
ave-the-current-heng
istbury-head-land-tr
ain-service
19,815 signatures
https://you.38degree s.org.uk/petitions/s ave-the-current-heng istbury-head-land-tr ain-service 19,815 signatures Joy Dean
  • Score: 19

9:23am Fri 21 Mar 14

Justme8 says...

Why don't they leave the noddy train as is as the general public seem happy to keep the existing arrangement (and the public are the ones who pay to use the service). People want to keep the train as it is a little part of history for The area. Why doesn't the council look at providing a train from Boscombe gardens to the beaches of Southbourne and even Sandbanks to keep the beach visitors happy which can all connect up with the existing beach train stops along the prom.
Why don't they leave the noddy train as is as the general public seem happy to keep the existing arrangement (and the public are the ones who pay to use the service). People want to keep the train as it is a little part of history for The area. Why doesn't the council look at providing a train from Boscombe gardens to the beaches of Southbourne and even Sandbanks to keep the beach visitors happy which can all connect up with the existing beach train stops along the prom. Justme8
  • Score: 27

9:33am Fri 21 Mar 14

jinglebell says...

So Cllr. Eddie Coope, doesn't know what the fuss is about and also says that in regard to B'mth Council's decision, that they have consulted and updated everyone on this and "...everyone seemed happy with it"
More than 20,000 people say you have NOT consulted and they are NOT happy yet still the Council trail out glib statements from their insular world.
So Cllr. Eddie Coope, doesn't know what the fuss is about and also says that in regard to B'mth Council's decision, that they have consulted and updated everyone on this and "...everyone seemed happy with it" More than 20,000 people say you have NOT consulted and they are NOT happy yet still the Council trail out glib statements from their insular world. jinglebell
  • Score: 36

9:33am Fri 21 Mar 14

yousirmesirnosiryousirthankyousir says...

rusty james wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous

irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too.

"What do we want?!"
"THE NODDY TRAIN!!!"
"When do we want it?!"
"Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."
A large proportion of people in the area welcome change.....I for one. Bring on change....when do we want it NOW!
[quote][p][bold]rusty james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too. "What do we want?!" "THE NODDY TRAIN!!!" "When do we want it?!" "Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."[/p][/quote]A large proportion of people in the area welcome change.....I for one. Bring on change....when do we want it NOW! yousirmesirnosiryousirthankyousir
  • Score: -51

9:34am Fri 21 Mar 14

jinglebell says...

What this also shows is that the people DO NOT TRUST B'mth Council one iota.
What this also shows is that the people DO NOT TRUST B'mth Council one iota. jinglebell
  • Score: 44

9:38am Fri 21 Mar 14

TheDistrict says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
You sir, an idiot...............
............
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]You sir, an idiot............... ............ TheDistrict
  • Score: 40

9:40am Fri 21 Mar 14

skydriver says...

More and more we keep seeing and reading what the people what, and that is to keep the train as it is. The council only wish to take control as all they see is a profit for them , so they can top up the finances after such a huge tumble from the IMAX and surf reef fiasco. So back to the drawing board and ripe up the council proposal and leave it as it is. That's want the people want, after all we pay you, not the other way round.
Just who do these pompous people think they are, councillors that's all
Or are they taking a leaf out of the North Korean leaders book.......!!
More and more we keep seeing and reading what the people what, and that is to keep the train as it is. The council only wish to take control as all they see is a profit for them , so they can top up the finances after such a huge tumble from the IMAX and surf reef fiasco. So back to the drawing board and ripe up the council proposal and leave it as it is. That's want the people want, after all we pay you, not the other way round. Just who do these pompous people think they are, councillors that's all Or are they taking a leaf out of the North Korean leaders book.......!! skydriver
  • Score: 34

9:47am Fri 21 Mar 14

TheDistrict says...

Two Councillors and a Council Parks Manager have all stated consultations have taken place, yet in the beginning this was denounced. This just shows that the Beesley Borough Council are liars when it comes to ensuring something becomes theirs to make a bit of cash. If they firmly believe that they have won this, then why are they scared of the public. Put it to the public like Poole did with the Travellers proposed site at Marsh End. Of course they will not, because they know that the Land Train would in no doubt at all stay with the Faris family and friends. Go on Williams, Coope and Rowland, give it a go, lets see the real truth.
Two Councillors and a Council Parks Manager have all stated consultations have taken place, yet in the beginning this was denounced. This just shows that the Beesley Borough Council are liars when it comes to ensuring something becomes theirs to make a bit of cash. If they firmly believe that they have won this, then why are they scared of the public. Put it to the public like Poole did with the Travellers proposed site at Marsh End. Of course they will not, because they know that the Land Train would in no doubt at all stay with the Faris family and friends. Go on Williams, Coope and Rowland, give it a go, lets see the real truth. TheDistrict
  • Score: 36

9:48am Fri 21 Mar 14

Steveo123 says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
Thats the way we like it you clown......!!
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]Thats the way we like it you clown......!! Steveo123
  • Score: 28

9:53am Fri 21 Mar 14

Ms daisy says...

Mr Rowland you talk utter rubbish 'duty bound, to give best experience really, well over 20,000 locals agree the best experience is to leave the existing train and as for Cllr Coope doent know what the fuss is about are you for real its obvious to anyone that you havent got a clue. One has to question your the role of local councillor.
Mr Rowland you talk utter rubbish 'duty bound, to give best experience really, well over 20,000 locals agree the best experience is to leave the existing train and as for Cllr Coope doent know what the fuss is about are you for real its obvious to anyone that you havent got a clue. One has to question your the role of local councillor. Ms daisy
  • Score: 30

9:54am Fri 21 Mar 14

skydriver says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
rusty james wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous


irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too.

"What do we want?!"
"THE NODDY TRAIN!!!"
"When do we want it?!"
"Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."
A large proportion of people in the area welcome change.....I for one. Bring on change....when do we want it NOW!
The only shabby thing here is you sign in name , and maybe your views.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too. "What do we want?!" "THE NODDY TRAIN!!!" "When do we want it?!" "Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."[/p][/quote]A large proportion of people in the area welcome change.....I for one. Bring on change....when do we want it NOW![/p][/quote]The only shabby thing here is you sign in name , and maybe your views. skydriver
  • Score: 14

9:59am Fri 21 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

So, the council has massive opposition to their proposals, so the response was always going to be the same. A smear campaign against the current operator.

If the owners truly have spent time and money on improving the train with regard to modern regulations, I suggest they sue the councillors making these statements for defamation.
So, the council has massive opposition to their proposals, so the response was always going to be the same. A smear campaign against the current operator. If the owners truly have spent time and money on improving the train with regard to modern regulations, I suggest they sue the councillors making these statements for defamation. speedy231278
  • Score: 22

10:03am Fri 21 Mar 14

Ms daisy says...

Someone should hold a demonstration or march to the council offices, the more I read the more I feel locals are being betrayed by the local council.
My family and myself would participate as they seem to be ignoring the petition.
Someone should hold a demonstration or march to the council offices, the more I read the more I feel locals are being betrayed by the local council. My family and myself would participate as they seem to be ignoring the petition. Ms daisy
  • Score: 33

10:16am Fri 21 Mar 14

Born in Bmth says...

Steveo123 wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous

irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
Thats the way we like it you clown......!!
Yep that's the whole point! Character, nostalgia, family business, unique to us, so yes that's how we like it! Leave it alone!
[quote][p][bold]Steveo123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]Thats the way we like it you clown......!![/p][/quote]Yep that's the whole point! Character, nostalgia, family business, unique to us, so yes that's how we like it! Leave it alone! Born in Bmth
  • Score: 30

10:19am Fri 21 Mar 14

Chip in says...

If Michael Rowland has time to review the Noddy train service what of his other associated plans and achievements?

Was he also duty bound to review off season promenade access? Have we seen the last of the green netting? On the many fine days off season, can less able residents and tourists who ordinarily find many parts of the promenade impenetrable look forward to “the best experience”? If not, the priorities are wrong.

As an aside, some council staff should think about their repeated use of tired platitudes – proper business-minded people are never so condescending.
If Michael Rowland has time to review the Noddy train service what of his other associated plans and achievements? Was he also duty bound to review off season promenade access? Have we seen the last of the green netting? On the many fine days off season, can less able residents and tourists who ordinarily find many parts of the promenade impenetrable look forward to “the best experience”? If not, the priorities are wrong. As an aside, some council staff should think about their repeated use of tired platitudes – proper business-minded people are never so condescending. Chip in
  • Score: 19

10:25am Fri 21 Mar 14

jaffajoe says...

One of the current council run land trains has advertising for peppa pig world, except on the back carriage they have covered up the word "peppa" with the number plate....so it now advertises "pig world"!! Well done Bournemouth council !
One of the current council run land trains has advertising for peppa pig world, except on the back carriage they have covered up the word "peppa" with the number plate....so it now advertises "pig world"!! Well done Bournemouth council ! jaffajoe
  • Score: 28

10:29am Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

speedy231278 wrote:
So, the council has massive opposition to their proposals, so the response was always going to be the same. A smear campaign against the current operator.

If the owners truly have spent time and money on improving the train with regard to modern regulations, I suggest they sue the councillors making these statements for defamation.
As soon as opposition to the council's scheme appeared a smear campaign against Mrs Faris was inevitable. That is always their tactic when challenged, pathetic really.

As has been stated before Mrs Faris would have invested even more on the trains than she has if the council had played fair and offered more than an annual contract in return. Noone is going to invest heavily in a project that might be taken away from them in 12mths, as it has been!

Coope is my councillor. I emailed him about this but of course have had no reply.As a local resident, I have not been consulted at any time about this. I didn't vote for him btw! I'm seriously considering standing as an independent next time round though southbourne's elderly residents are very much stuck in their ways.

It's all smoke and mirrors with the council. When caught out they're like petulant children. They're a disgrace!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: So, the council has massive opposition to their proposals, so the response was always going to be the same. A smear campaign against the current operator. If the owners truly have spent time and money on improving the train with regard to modern regulations, I suggest they sue the councillors making these statements for defamation.[/p][/quote]As soon as opposition to the council's scheme appeared a smear campaign against Mrs Faris was inevitable. That is always their tactic when challenged, pathetic really. As has been stated before Mrs Faris would have invested even more on the trains than she has if the council had played fair and offered more than an annual contract in return. Noone is going to invest heavily in a project that might be taken away from them in 12mths, as it has been! Coope is my councillor. I emailed him about this but of course have had no reply.As a local resident, I have not been consulted at any time about this. I didn't vote for him btw! I'm seriously considering standing as an independent next time round though southbourne's elderly residents are very much stuck in their ways. It's all smoke and mirrors with the council. When caught out they're like petulant children. They're a disgrace! eyesropen
  • Score: 36

10:29am Fri 21 Mar 14

Gonetothebeach says...

In this report Bournemouth's Parks Manager is quoted as suggesting that the existing service may not be compliant with current regulations - presumably with health, safety and disability requirements. If this is the case then the council should clearly say so and be able to show that they gave the operator notice to improve the service prior to giving notice that the contract would not be renewed. If this has happened - case closed as far as the existing noddy train is concerned. Perhaps this is why one of their drivers is speaking on behalf of the noddy train rather than the owner.
What stands out for me, though, is Bournemouth's dreadful handling of communications with the media and the public - officers and councillors alike. How many more people in the council are going to pile in with comments? So shoddy and unprofessional and with each new comment exacerbating the situation. Get your act together!
In this report Bournemouth's Parks Manager is quoted as suggesting that the existing service may not be compliant with current regulations - presumably with health, safety and disability requirements. If this is the case then the council should clearly say so and be able to show that they gave the operator notice to improve the service prior to giving notice that the contract would not be renewed. If this has happened - case closed as far as the existing noddy train is concerned. Perhaps this is why one of their drivers is speaking on behalf of the noddy train rather than the owner. What stands out for me, though, is Bournemouth's dreadful handling of communications with the media and the public - officers and councillors alike. How many more people in the council are going to pile in with comments? So shoddy and unprofessional and with each new comment exacerbating the situation. Get your act together! Gonetothebeach
  • Score: 24

10:33am Fri 21 Mar 14

uberbloke says...

Probably not going to be a popular view but here's what I get from reading the article...I wonder if there has been a massive miscommunication and misunderstanding of what is required...

Just from the article it is clear that the land train has been showing what they **have** spent (invoices etc) showing how they **have** funded the land train; what the council are asking for is a business plan, what you are **going** to spend, how you are **going** to fund it...

The two are completely different after all as every advert says past performance is no guarentee of future performance and your investment may go down as well as up.
Probably not going to be a popular view but here's what I get from reading the article...I wonder if there has been a massive miscommunication and misunderstanding of what is required... Just from the article it is clear that the land train has been showing what they **have** spent (invoices etc) showing how they **have** funded the land train; what the council are asking for is a business plan, what you are **going** to spend, how you are **going** to fund it... The two are completely different after all as every advert says past performance is no guarentee of future performance and your investment may go down as well as up. uberbloke
  • Score: 1

11:02am Fri 21 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

uberbloke wrote:
Probably not going to be a popular view but here's what I get from reading the article...I wonder if there has been a massive miscommunication and misunderstanding of what is required...

Just from the article it is clear that the land train has been showing what they **have** spent (invoices etc) showing how they **have** funded the land train; what the council are asking for is a business plan, what you are **going** to spend, how you are **going** to fund it...

The two are completely different after all as every advert says past performance is no guarentee of future performance and your investment may go down as well as up.
It's been going for 45 years, so surely that says something about the people who run it? How long did the IMAX last? How long did the surf reef work for? What happened to a load of new food waste bins? Before the council criticises people about how then run things or plan things, I suggest they sort their own house out!
[quote][p][bold]uberbloke[/bold] wrote: Probably not going to be a popular view but here's what I get from reading the article...I wonder if there has been a massive miscommunication and misunderstanding of what is required... Just from the article it is clear that the land train has been showing what they **have** spent (invoices etc) showing how they **have** funded the land train; what the council are asking for is a business plan, what you are **going** to spend, how you are **going** to fund it... The two are completely different after all as every advert says past performance is no guarentee of future performance and your investment may go down as well as up.[/p][/quote]It's been going for 45 years, so surely that says something about the people who run it? How long did the IMAX last? How long did the surf reef work for? What happened to a load of new food waste bins? Before the council criticises people about how then run things or plan things, I suggest they sort their own house out! speedy231278
  • Score: 32

11:04am Fri 21 Mar 14

BmthNewshound says...

Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible ...... If thats the case they should listen to public opinion and leave the noddy train as it is.
.
Beesley is showing that there are no levels to which he will not sink to get his own way. Instead of listening to the people he is paid to represent he is using council tax money to stage a smear campaign against an 88 year old woman - you can't sink much lower than that.
.
I only hope that the voters of East Southbourne and Tuckton remember Eddie Coopes betrayal. Another weak yellow bellied councillor under Beesleys thumb.
Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible ...... If thats the case they should listen to public opinion and leave the noddy train as it is. . Beesley is showing that there are no levels to which he will not sink to get his own way. Instead of listening to the people he is paid to represent he is using council tax money to stage a smear campaign against an 88 year old woman - you can't sink much lower than that. . I only hope that the voters of East Southbourne and Tuckton remember Eddie Coopes betrayal. Another weak yellow bellied councillor under Beesleys thumb. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 31

11:18am Fri 21 Mar 14

greenhouse says...

WHO IS LYING?
1) Councillor Eddie Coope has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it."

2) But a spokesman for Bournemouth council confirmed there was no opportunity for anyone to question the decision, which has not been the subject of any public consultation or discussion.
It is not even a key cabinet member decision, which means there is no mechanism for any councillor to call it in and get it scrutinised.
Even members of the council’s economy and tourism scrutiny panel were unaware of the decision until they read about it in the Echo.
3) Cllr Bob Chapman, who chairs the panel, confirmed it was not something that had been brought to the attention of panel members.
WHO IS LYING? 1) Councillor Eddie Coope has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it." 2) But a spokesman for Bournemouth council confirmed there was no opportunity for anyone to question the decision, which has not been the subject of any public consultation or discussion. It is not even a key cabinet member decision, which means there is no mechanism for any councillor to call it in and get it scrutinised. Even members of the council’s economy and tourism scrutiny panel were unaware of the decision until they read about it in the Echo. 3) Cllr Bob Chapman, who chairs the panel, confirmed it was not something that had been brought to the attention of panel members. greenhouse
  • Score: 21

11:20am Fri 21 Mar 14

jazzy jenkins says...

What a load of **** these councils talk
What a load of **** these councils talk jazzy jenkins
  • Score: 14

11:42am Fri 21 Mar 14

SimonJB says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
You sir are a total MORON!!
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]You sir are a total MORON!! SimonJB
  • Score: 12

11:45am Fri 21 Mar 14

eaststandman says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated.

2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition.

3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process.

4. Locals should welcome a change
Obviously you're not a local. Because if you were, you would want to keep it.

Go home.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: 1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated. 2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition. 3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process. 4. Locals should welcome a change[/p][/quote]Obviously you're not a local. Because if you were, you would want to keep it. Go home. eaststandman
  • Score: 14

11:48am Fri 21 Mar 14

Bournemouth Rocks! says...

How many people live in the Bournemouth/Poole/Ch
ristchurch area?

And how many people have signed the petition?
How many people live in the Bournemouth/Poole/Ch ristchurch area? And how many people have signed the petition? Bournemouth Rocks!
  • Score: -21

11:50am Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

"Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose."

The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike.

I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.
"Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose." The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike. I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter. eyesropen
  • Score: 22

11:51am Fri 21 Mar 14

eaststandman says...

Ms daisy wrote:
Someone should hold a demonstration or march to the council offices, the more I read the more I feel locals are being betrayed by the local council.
My family and myself would participate as they seem to be ignoring the petition.
The only way is really to get down to the council offices en mass and hook these monkeys out physically, ala Ukraine.
[quote][p][bold]Ms daisy[/bold] wrote: Someone should hold a demonstration or march to the council offices, the more I read the more I feel locals are being betrayed by the local council. My family and myself would participate as they seem to be ignoring the petition.[/p][/quote]The only way is really to get down to the council offices en mass and hook these monkeys out physically, ala Ukraine. eaststandman
  • Score: 9

11:55am Fri 21 Mar 14

BarrHumbug says...

Can someone explain to me what the current arrangement with this is? Is this a wholly private enterprise, is it a council tender that they pay the train operator to provide or does the train operator pay the council to be allowed to provide the service?
Can someone explain to me what the current arrangement with this is? Is this a wholly private enterprise, is it a council tender that they pay the train operator to provide or does the train operator pay the council to be allowed to provide the service? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 1

12:01pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
I would put money on this being one of the parks managers. 'These people' is the sort of derogatory term they use. If not it's definitely a Councillor. Whichever, they are in a small minority and need to remember who they are employed/ elected to serve.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]I would put money on this being one of the parks managers. 'These people' is the sort of derogatory term they use. If not it's definitely a Councillor. Whichever, they are in a small minority and need to remember who they are employed/ elected to serve. eyesropen
  • Score: 8

12:06pm Fri 21 Mar 14

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
Fuss

Let people think you are an idiot but never open your mouth and confirm it
Thanks for that,anyway all this talk of rebelling by not paying the council tax,storming the council offices and holding protest marches is all hot air as usual from the moaning masses.Why not put on a Spring Panto in support of this cause,now I know my last attempt fell flat but that was mainly due to the masses of applicants to play grumpy and dopey and hardly any for happy but im sure we could think of a theme that would show that Bournemouth residents are behind the Noddy Train.I did consider The Billy Goats Gruff but of course there would be a deluge of applicants for the trolls under the bridge so I have shelved that idea so how about it mlud and fellow commenters suggestions for a panto theme and we will see what we can do
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: Fuss Let people think you are an idiot but never open your mouth and confirm it[/p][/quote]Thanks for that,anyway all this talk of rebelling by not paying the council tax,storming the council offices and holding protest marches is all hot air as usual from the moaning masses.Why not put on a Spring Panto in support of this cause,now I know my last attempt fell flat but that was mainly due to the masses of applicants to play grumpy and dopey and hardly any for happy but im sure we could think of a theme that would show that Bournemouth residents are behind the Noddy Train.I did consider The Billy Goats Gruff but of course there would be a deluge of applicants for the trolls under the bridge so I have shelved that idea so how about it mlud and fellow commenters suggestions for a panto theme and we will see what we can do retry69
  • Score: -18

12:10pm Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetBorn79 says...

xslee and eaststandman

My post simply raises the facts of the case.

Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case.

This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator:
If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together.

Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.
xslee and eaststandman My post simply raises the facts of the case. Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case. This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator: If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together. Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life. DorsetBorn79
  • Score: 1

12:22pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Understated says...

please engage your brain before you speak about that which you know nothing about, Councillor.
please engage your brain before you speak about that which you know nothing about, Councillor. Understated
  • Score: 10

12:37pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Kiki1973 says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated.

2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition.

3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process.

4. Locals should welcome a change
I absolutely agree with you. The issue here seems to be that this is an easy avenue to kick the council by all of the armchair anarchists on these boards.

I would also expect a lot more down votes if I were you, much as I will get. People are very old fashioned here, and this lot are like a dog with a toffee over this. The practical issues you raise make perfect sense if you aren't being swept up in the mob mentality.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: 1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated. 2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition. 3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process. 4. Locals should welcome a change[/p][/quote]I absolutely agree with you. The issue here seems to be that this is an easy avenue to kick the council by all of the armchair anarchists on these boards. I would also expect a lot more down votes if I were you, much as I will get. People are very old fashioned here, and this lot are like a dog with a toffee over this. The practical issues you raise make perfect sense if you aren't being swept up in the mob mentality. Kiki1973
  • Score: -21

12:40pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Kiki1973 says...

And furthermore, if the current operators had actually wanted to keep the service (which they have said they were prepared to give up, that they knew this was coming), why didn't they submit the business proposal as required?
And furthermore, if the current operators had actually wanted to keep the service (which they have said they were prepared to give up, that they knew this was coming), why didn't they submit the business proposal as required? Kiki1973
  • Score: -18

12:41pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
xslee and eaststandman

My post simply raises the facts of the case.

Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case.

This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator:
If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together.

Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.
We all know that isn't true. What you are right about is that this has not come out of nowhere. The council have been desperate to get rid of the noddy train and take over the route for some time. They tried to push Mrs Faris into giving up to avoid controversy and when that didn't work they had to resort to not renewing her measly annual contract.

What questions is she supposed to have failed to answer? Please enlighten us. You seem to know a lot about the Council's actions so maybe you can explain why they refused to offer Mrs Faris more than an annual contract, which would have given her the confidence to invest long term in the service. As stated by someone else, a business plan is irrelevant to this. It would bear some relevance to a long term contract.

People are naturally angry at the Council's complete dismissal of their electorate's wishes and failure to answer our questions. Anyone sticking their head over the parapet as a council apologist without any facts to back up their statements is rightly or wrongly asking for trouble quite frankly. Your original post does not, as you claim, state any facts. The service has been run successfully and safely for 45 years, and currently has a rigorous maintenance programme FACT. There is absolutely no good reason to replace this successful and popular local business.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: xslee and eaststandman My post simply raises the facts of the case. Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case. This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator: If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together. Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.[/p][/quote]We all know that isn't true. What you are right about is that this has not come out of nowhere. The council have been desperate to get rid of the noddy train and take over the route for some time. They tried to push Mrs Faris into giving up to avoid controversy and when that didn't work they had to resort to not renewing her measly annual contract. What questions is she supposed to have failed to answer? Please enlighten us. You seem to know a lot about the Council's actions so maybe you can explain why they refused to offer Mrs Faris more than an annual contract, which would have given her the confidence to invest long term in the service. As stated by someone else, a business plan is irrelevant to this. It would bear some relevance to a long term contract. People are naturally angry at the Council's complete dismissal of their electorate's wishes and failure to answer our questions. Anyone sticking their head over the parapet as a council apologist without any facts to back up their statements is rightly or wrongly asking for trouble quite frankly. Your original post does not, as you claim, state any facts. The service has been run successfully and safely for 45 years, and currently has a rigorous maintenance programme FACT. There is absolutely no good reason to replace this successful and popular local business. eyesropen
  • Score: 23

12:44pm Fri 21 Mar 14

retry69 says...

Kiki1973 wrote:
DorsetBorn79 wrote:
1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated.

2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition.

3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process.

4. Locals should welcome a change
I absolutely agree with you. The issue here seems to be that this is an easy avenue to kick the council by all of the armchair anarchists on these boards.

I would also expect a lot more down votes if I were you, much as I will get. People are very old fashioned here, and this lot are like a dog with a toffee over this. The practical issues you raise make perfect sense if you aren't being swept up in the mob mentality.
Do not underestimate how many people are in agreement with you both and certainly do not take any notice of those thumbs after all they are really only for sucking by the usual suspects.
[quote][p][bold]Kiki1973[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: 1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated. 2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition. 3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process. 4. Locals should welcome a change[/p][/quote]I absolutely agree with you. The issue here seems to be that this is an easy avenue to kick the council by all of the armchair anarchists on these boards. I would also expect a lot more down votes if I were you, much as I will get. People are very old fashioned here, and this lot are like a dog with a toffee over this. The practical issues you raise make perfect sense if you aren't being swept up in the mob mentality.[/p][/quote]Do not underestimate how many people are in agreement with you both and certainly do not take any notice of those thumbs after all they are really only for sucking by the usual suspects. retry69
  • Score: -18

12:48pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

Bournemouth Rocks! wrote:
How many people live in the Bournemouth/Poole/Ch

ristchurch area?

And how many people have signed the petition?
Not everyone who lives in the boroughs visits hengistbury head regularly, if at all. Just as well otherwise you wouldn't be able to move up there. Compared to most petitions on local causes the response to this is astounding. Hopefully the council's demise at the next election will be equally astounding.
[quote][p][bold]Bournemouth Rocks![/bold] wrote: How many people live in the Bournemouth/Poole/Ch ristchurch area? And how many people have signed the petition?[/p][/quote]Not everyone who lives in the boroughs visits hengistbury head regularly, if at all. Just as well otherwise you wouldn't be able to move up there. Compared to most petitions on local causes the response to this is astounding. Hopefully the council's demise at the next election will be equally astounding. eyesropen
  • Score: 14

12:49pm Fri 21 Mar 14

esquisquirrel says...

So where can I found Bournemouth Council's business plan for the Hengistbury Head service? I can see their Q&A (in which they admit, and I quote, "with the reduction in the number of journeys across the Head the fuel and emissions will be lower than the current service", but nothing on expected revenue, running costs, profits and so forth.
So where can I found Bournemouth Council's business plan for the Hengistbury Head service? I can see their Q&A (in which they admit, and I quote, "with the reduction in the number of journeys across the Head the fuel and emissions will be lower than the current service", but nothing on expected revenue, running costs, profits and so forth. esquisquirrel
  • Score: 11

12:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
[quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying! Archiebean
  • Score: 7

1:01pm Fri 21 Mar 14

retry69 says...

Archiebean wrote:
PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying![/p][/quote]20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid. retry69
  • Score: -15

1:13pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Rich© says...

Eddie Coope ex Christchurch Mayor said “I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,”

rather flippant comment !
Eddie Coope ex Christchurch Mayor said “I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” rather flippant comment ! Rich©
  • Score: 15

1:15pm Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetBorn79 says...

At the end of the day they are transporting members of the public.
It is a licensed service.
To provide the service compliance with relevant local and national legislation is required.

As far as I have read the problem has come about as the current operator has refused to supply some very basic items such as a business development plan.
Sounds silly but if its required to continue operating and they wanted the service to continue, then they would have just complied with the requirements and got on with it.

Every business these days has to be prepared to make changes to stay in business.
At the end of the day they are transporting members of the public. It is a licensed service. To provide the service compliance with relevant local and national legislation is required. As far as I have read the problem has come about as the current operator has refused to supply some very basic items such as a business development plan. Sounds silly but if its required to continue operating and they wanted the service to continue, then they would have just complied with the requirements and got on with it. Every business these days has to be prepared to make changes to stay in business. DorsetBorn79
  • Score: -14

1:36pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Imaginos says...

Am I incorrect in believing that the claimed Conservative ethos is to cut red tape and act as enablers small businesses wherever they may occur? It strikes me that Bournemouth Borough Council - a Tory mob - are indulging operating entirely contrary to their own supposed political principles.

I'm sure it'll be a great success though. After all, Mrs Faris only has a paltry 45 years of experience running a business to her name. Bournemouth Borough Council have been lauded internationally for their excellent seafront management, most notably exemplified by the iMax and Surf Reef.
Am I incorrect in believing that the claimed Conservative ethos is to cut red tape and act as enablers small businesses wherever they may occur? It strikes me that Bournemouth Borough Council - a Tory mob - are indulging operating entirely contrary to their own supposed political principles. I'm sure it'll be a great success though. After all, Mrs Faris only has a paltry 45 years of experience running a business to her name. Bournemouth Borough Council have been lauded internationally for their excellent seafront management, most notably exemplified by the iMax and Surf Reef. Imaginos
  • Score: 16

1:55pm Fri 21 Mar 14

BarrHumbug says...

Judging by some of the parents and kids i've seen traveling on the train they could do with the exercise, not bigger carriages!
Judging by some of the parents and kids i've seen traveling on the train they could do with the exercise, not bigger carriages! BarrHumbug
  • Score: -4

2:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
Plus the council have promised a 365 day service ,don't know how we have manage without that for all these years
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]Plus the council have promised a 365 day service ,don't know how we have manage without that for all these years kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 3

2:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

yousirmesirnosiryousirthankyousir says...

All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it! yousirmesirnosiryousirthankyousir
  • Score: -21

2:13pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

retry69 wrote:
Archiebean wrote:
PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.
I don't think the people who have taken the trouble to protest about the loss of a service that they love and value would quite see it this way. As someone else commented, as a percentage of local people who regularly use the area and even allowing for those pesky visitors( councillor's intermation, not mine) 20% of the population I would suggest is a reasonable percentage for Bournemouth council to reconsider their plans and their management of this protest.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying![/p][/quote]20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.[/p][/quote]I don't think the people who have taken the trouble to protest about the loss of a service that they love and value would quite see it this way. As someone else commented, as a percentage of local people who regularly use the area and even allowing for those pesky visitors( councillor's intermation, not mine) 20% of the population I would suggest is a reasonable percentage for Bournemouth council to reconsider their plans and their management of this protest. Archiebean
  • Score: 6

2:36pm Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

I'm with the one that accepts my bus pass.Just hope they stop at the lavs in between the many trips I will take
I'm with the one that accepts my bus pass.Just hope they stop at the lavs in between the many trips I will take kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

skydriver says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
Your the one doing the moaning , yes you the upcoming silver surfer
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]Your the one doing the moaning , yes you the upcoming silver surfer skydriver
  • Score: 8

2:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

Kiki1973 wrote:
And furthermore, if the current operators had actually wanted to keep the service (which they have said they were prepared to give up, that they knew this was coming), why didn't they submit the business proposal as required?
I suggest you don't take everything the council says as gospel. 20000 'armchair anarchists' eh. Really?!
[quote][p][bold]Kiki1973[/bold] wrote: And furthermore, if the current operators had actually wanted to keep the service (which they have said they were prepared to give up, that they knew this was coming), why didn't they submit the business proposal as required?[/p][/quote]I suggest you don't take everything the council says as gospel. 20000 'armchair anarchists' eh. Really?! eyesropen
  • Score: 8

2:51pm Fri 21 Mar 14

skydriver says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
No support here suggest you give up and run along home
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]No support here suggest you give up and run along home skydriver
  • Score: 9

2:52pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jonnyboyrgv says...

Dear Cllr Coope,

If you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' How are you fit to be employed in a role that represents the local community and its residents? Do you actually live in your ward and know what the Noddy Train is? This is an unbelievable statement from someone in your position on par with your next one unfortunately.. “As ward councilors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” I’m a Bournemouth Resident and in no way, shape or form have we been kept up to date by you or the Council, the proposals were kept very well hidden by everyone until the current Operator opened the public’s eyes to them.

There are two things that are clearly in need of an upgrade, please take a bow Cllr Coupe and Bournemouth Borough Council. An election or online petition would not necessarily be needed to prove the evident support this would garner as it’s very clear how strong the public opinion is regarding this.
Dear Cllr Coope, If you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' How are you fit to be employed in a role that represents the local community and its residents? Do you actually live in your ward and know what the Noddy Train is? This is an unbelievable statement from someone in your position on par with your next one unfortunately.. “As ward councilors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” I’m a Bournemouth Resident and in no way, shape or form have we been kept up to date by you or the Council, the proposals were kept very well hidden by everyone until the current Operator opened the public’s eyes to them. There are two things that are clearly in need of an upgrade, please take a bow Cllr Coupe and Bournemouth Borough Council. An election or online petition would not necessarily be needed to prove the evident support this would garner as it’s very clear how strong the public opinion is regarding this. jonnyboyrgv
  • Score: 15

2:58pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
Wrong again you numpty. For the record I am only just 40. Look at the dozens of comments on the council FB page - most of their photos suggest you are talking rubbish once again. Hope you're not commenting in council time!
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]Wrong again you numpty. For the record I am only just 40. Look at the dozens of comments on the council FB page - most of their photos suggest you are talking rubbish once again. Hope you're not commenting in council time! eyesropen
  • Score: 15

2:59pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
Ooh what a wonderfully ageist comment..well-done! I'm not quite a 'silver surfer' and amazingly all my brain cells are still working reasonably well. I'd better let my son and daughter know that their opinions are clearly not valid given that they are still in their teens/early twenties......
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]Ooh what a wonderfully ageist comment..well-done! I'm not quite a 'silver surfer' and amazingly all my brain cells are still working reasonably well. I'd better let my son and daughter know that their opinions are clearly not valid given that they are still in their teens/early twenties...... Archiebean
  • Score: 10

3:06pm Fri 21 Mar 14

speedy231278 says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
At the end of the day they are transporting members of the public.
It is a licensed service.
To provide the service compliance with relevant local and national legislation is required.

As far as I have read the problem has come about as the current operator has refused to supply some very basic items such as a business development plan.
Sounds silly but if its required to continue operating and they wanted the service to continue, then they would have just complied with the requirements and got on with it.

Every business these days has to be prepared to make changes to stay in business.
How can you realistically come up with a business development plan when the person granting the lease only does so on an annual basis? And on a basis of having managed to run the service and turn a profit for 40-odd years, I think a business plan seems to be pretty irrelevant!
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: At the end of the day they are transporting members of the public. It is a licensed service. To provide the service compliance with relevant local and national legislation is required. As far as I have read the problem has come about as the current operator has refused to supply some very basic items such as a business development plan. Sounds silly but if its required to continue operating and they wanted the service to continue, then they would have just complied with the requirements and got on with it. Every business these days has to be prepared to make changes to stay in business.[/p][/quote]How can you realistically come up with a business development plan when the person granting the lease only does so on an annual basis? And on a basis of having managed to run the service and turn a profit for 40-odd years, I think a business plan seems to be pretty irrelevant! speedy231278
  • Score: 14

3:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Listentothepublic says...

Dear Councillor Coope

Further to your comments that you do not know what the fuss is about re the Hengistbury Land train, may I suggest that you listen to the general public who put you on the Council.

My husband & I have lived in Broadway, Southbourne for 35 years and we had certainly not heard of any consultation regarding giving notice to the owners of the Hengistbury Land train until it was announced by the Bournemouth Echo.

If Bournemouth Council are proposing to put a similar train to the one that goes along the promenade at the moment, we would not be inclined to use it as this experience does not hold any interest for us.

Mrs Faris and her team have done a sterling job over the past 45 years and we do not believe that Bournemouth Council can do any better. We note that fares will be frozen for the first year – then what? No doubt, they will be increased on a very regular basis after that. Mrs Faris and her team offer an excellent service which is good value for money and which shows with the petitions now being signed.

So, no, Mr Coope, we do not want a squeaky clean land train which you can go on in many towns in the United Kingdom and in Europe – let us have the unique existing trains and allow Mrs Faris to judge whether she can make her living with them.

Bournemouth Council have not consulted with local people and should be ashamed of saying that they are not prepared to re-consider their decision.

As a Council infamous for making expensive faux-pas in recent years, we hope that this will not be another one to be added to this long list.
Dear Councillor Coope Further to your comments that you do not know what the fuss is about re the Hengistbury Land train, may I suggest that you listen to the general public who put you on the Council. My husband & I have lived in Broadway, Southbourne for 35 years and we had certainly not heard of any consultation regarding giving notice to the owners of the Hengistbury Land train until it was announced by the Bournemouth Echo. If Bournemouth Council are proposing to put a similar train to the one that goes along the promenade at the moment, we would not be inclined to use it as this experience does not hold any interest for us. Mrs Faris and her team have done a sterling job over the past 45 years and we do not believe that Bournemouth Council can do any better. We note that fares will be frozen for the first year – then what? No doubt, they will be increased on a very regular basis after that. Mrs Faris and her team offer an excellent service which is good value for money and which shows with the petitions now being signed. So, no, Mr Coope, we do not want a squeaky clean land train which you can go on in many towns in the United Kingdom and in Europe – let us have the unique existing trains and allow Mrs Faris to judge whether she can make her living with them. Bournemouth Council have not consulted with local people and should be ashamed of saying that they are not prepared to re-consider their decision. As a Council infamous for making expensive faux-pas in recent years, we hope that this will not be another one to be added to this long list. Listentothepublic
  • Score: 23

4:10pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Buddles says...

Why do they (the owners of the Noddy Train) have to supply a "business plan"?

They are not asking the Council for a business loan.
The current business model works well and has done so for 45 years.
Mrs Faris has consistently ploughed what profits she has made back into the Noddy Train service.
Why do they (the owners of the Noddy Train) have to supply a "business plan"? They are not asking the Council for a business loan. The current business model works well and has done so for 45 years. Mrs Faris has consistently ploughed what profits she has made back into the Noddy Train service. Buddles
  • Score: 12

4:19pm Fri 21 Mar 14

oversixty says...

"Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible"

Well you certainly don't do that on your other 9 Local Nature Reserves Mr Rowland!!
How often do you visit them, by the way?
"Michael Rowland, Bournemouth council parks manager, said they were ‘duty-bound’ to give residents and visitors the best experience possible" Well you certainly don't do that on your other 9 Local Nature Reserves Mr Rowland!! How often do you visit them, by the way? oversixty
  • Score: 8

4:34pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Glashen says...

Listentothepublic wrote:
Dear Councillor Coope

Further to your comments that you do not know what the fuss is about re the Hengistbury Land train, may I suggest that you listen to the general public who put you on the Council.

My husband & I have lived in Broadway, Southbourne for 35 years and we had certainly not heard of any consultation regarding giving notice to the owners of the Hengistbury Land train until it was announced by the Bournemouth Echo.

If Bournemouth Council are proposing to put a similar train to the one that goes along the promenade at the moment, we would not be inclined to use it as this experience does not hold any interest for us.

Mrs Faris and her team have done a sterling job over the past 45 years and we do not believe that Bournemouth Council can do any better. We note that fares will be frozen for the first year – then what? No doubt, they will be increased on a very regular basis after that. Mrs Faris and her team offer an excellent service which is good value for money and which shows with the petitions now being signed.

So, no, Mr Coope, we do not want a squeaky clean land train which you can go on in many towns in the United Kingdom and in Europe – let us have the unique existing trains and allow Mrs Faris to judge whether she can make her living with them.

Bournemouth Council have not consulted with local people and should be ashamed of saying that they are not prepared to re-consider their decision.

As a Council infamous for making expensive faux-pas in recent years, we hope that this will not be another one to be added to this long list.
On the subject of consultation which was initially claimed by the council as unnecessary and is now being claimed by some councillors to have happened, This is a quote from the original story
=
"Steve Barratt, chair of the Mudeford Beach Hut Association, said it was an “ill thought-out decision” that had been made without any consultation of the people who use the service."
=
If they didn't consult the Mudeford Beach Hut Association you wonder who they did speak to.
[quote][p][bold]Listentothepublic[/bold] wrote: Dear Councillor Coope Further to your comments that you do not know what the fuss is about re the Hengistbury Land train, may I suggest that you listen to the general public who put you on the Council. My husband & I have lived in Broadway, Southbourne for 35 years and we had certainly not heard of any consultation regarding giving notice to the owners of the Hengistbury Land train until it was announced by the Bournemouth Echo. If Bournemouth Council are proposing to put a similar train to the one that goes along the promenade at the moment, we would not be inclined to use it as this experience does not hold any interest for us. Mrs Faris and her team have done a sterling job over the past 45 years and we do not believe that Bournemouth Council can do any better. We note that fares will be frozen for the first year – then what? No doubt, they will be increased on a very regular basis after that. Mrs Faris and her team offer an excellent service which is good value for money and which shows with the petitions now being signed. So, no, Mr Coope, we do not want a squeaky clean land train which you can go on in many towns in the United Kingdom and in Europe – let us have the unique existing trains and allow Mrs Faris to judge whether she can make her living with them. Bournemouth Council have not consulted with local people and should be ashamed of saying that they are not prepared to re-consider their decision. As a Council infamous for making expensive faux-pas in recent years, we hope that this will not be another one to be added to this long list.[/p][/quote]On the subject of consultation which was initially claimed by the council as unnecessary and is now being claimed by some councillors to have happened, This is a quote from the original story = "Steve Barratt, chair of the Mudeford Beach Hut Association, said it was an “ill thought-out decision” that had been made without any consultation of the people who use the service." = If they didn't consult the Mudeford Beach Hut Association you wonder who they did speak to. Glashen
  • Score: 11

4:40pm Fri 21 Mar 14

shoppingnoodles says...

I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit.

The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc.

I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out.

By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness!
I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit. The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc. I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out. By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness! shoppingnoodles
  • Score: 15

4:41pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jonnyboyrgv says...

I wonder if Councillor Coope would be brave enough to discuss why he said ''I don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' and how and when they conveyed his quote to Bournemouth that “As Ward Councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”

How about at his Ward Surgery on the 29th March? Or on 26th April? Is Tuckton Library a big enough venue?

Surgery Times
Ward Surgery's are held on the last Saturday of each month at Tuckton Library at 10:30a.m
I wonder if Councillor Coope would be brave enough to discuss why he said ''I don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' and how and when they conveyed his quote to Bournemouth that “As Ward Councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” How about at his Ward Surgery on the 29th March? Or on 26th April? Is Tuckton Library a big enough venue? Surgery Times Ward Surgery's are held on the last Saturday of each month at Tuckton Library at 10:30a.m jonnyboyrgv
  • Score: 12

4:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jazzy jenkins says...

Controversial But True wrote:
Bournemouth Council clearly believe their own bull***t...!!!

Smear campaign time now? Where do we start with Bournemouth Council? IMAX? Reef? Dave Wells?
& pods
[quote][p][bold]Controversial But True[/bold] wrote: Bournemouth Council clearly believe their own bull***t...!!! Smear campaign time now? Where do we start with Bournemouth Council? IMAX? Reef? Dave Wells?[/p][/quote]& pods jazzy jenkins
  • Score: 7

5:14pm Fri 21 Mar 14

DorsetBorn79 says...

Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No.

But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so.

Disaster waiting to happen.

If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.
Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No. But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so. Disaster waiting to happen. If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple. DorsetBorn79
  • Score: -8

5:32pm Fri 21 Mar 14

TWERLY says...

So the council claim that the current owner Joyce Faris has not submitted a business plan - well - Where is the Councils business plan then complete with estimated usage, costing, profit predictions etc etc afterall it is public money that they may be about to squander so they must be accountable or this as others have said another surf reef, I-Max etc etc and why have the council not explained why this proposal not in the sea front development and more to the point WHY ARE THE ECHO REPORTERS NOT GETTING OFF THEIR A***SES AND INVESTIGATING THIS after all it IS in the public interest!
So the council claim that the current owner Joyce Faris has not submitted a business plan - well - Where is the Councils business plan then complete with estimated usage, costing, profit predictions etc etc afterall it is public money that they may be about to squander so they must be accountable or this as others have said another surf reef, I-Max etc etc and why have the council not explained why this proposal not in the sea front development and more to the point WHY ARE THE ECHO REPORTERS NOT GETTING OFF THEIR A***SES AND INVESTIGATING THIS after all it IS in the public interest! TWERLY
  • Score: 12

5:38pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Phixer says...

TWERLY wrote:
So the council claim that the current owner Joyce Faris has not submitted a business plan - well - Where is the Councils business plan then complete with estimated usage, costing, profit predictions etc etc afterall it is public money that they may be about to squander so they must be accountable or this as others have said another surf reef, I-Max etc etc and why have the council not explained why this proposal not in the sea front development and more to the point WHY ARE THE ECHO REPORTERS NOT GETTING OFF THEIR A***SES AND INVESTIGATING THIS after all it IS in the public interest!
They don't want to give up their seats in The Print Room - not on a Friday afternoon.
[quote][p][bold]TWERLY[/bold] wrote: So the council claim that the current owner Joyce Faris has not submitted a business plan - well - Where is the Councils business plan then complete with estimated usage, costing, profit predictions etc etc afterall it is public money that they may be about to squander so they must be accountable or this as others have said another surf reef, I-Max etc etc and why have the council not explained why this proposal not in the sea front development and more to the point WHY ARE THE ECHO REPORTERS NOT GETTING OFF THEIR A***SES AND INVESTIGATING THIS after all it IS in the public interest![/p][/quote]They don't want to give up their seats in The Print Room - not on a Friday afternoon. Phixer
  • Score: 5

5:46pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Phixer says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No.

But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so.

Disaster waiting to happen.

If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.
Whilst your comments may be reasonable, you are not comparing like-for-like.

The land train runs on a restricted right of way and no faster than a cyclists. The dangers therefore are not the same. The safety record of the last +40 years has proven that.

Without being able to check, I presume that the land train complies with an annual MOT?
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No. But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so. Disaster waiting to happen. If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.[/p][/quote]Whilst your comments may be reasonable, you are not comparing like-for-like. The land train runs on a restricted right of way and no faster than a cyclists. The dangers therefore are not the same. The safety record of the last +40 years has proven that. Without being able to check, I presume that the land train complies with an annual MOT? Phixer
  • Score: 5

5:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

localopinion says...

The old style Noddy Train should reverse takeover the Prom Puffer...the Council LEASE it and (like the public Library) that is soooooooooo expensive and the equivalent to buying IBM instead of Apple Macintosh...
after the period when they were too expensive I have been told to say.

People are pointing out how family friendly Joyce's trains are by virtue her price/cost ratio and overheads base cannot be beaten.. I know....one winter they had the drivers sticking labels on jars..a third world task and wage, but it kept the train going and was a solution one tricky year only thank heavens. Now, as to human resources....Mr Alan Barnard the Noddy train
mechanic guy spends very little on suits but loads on the train. which he regards as more important. You know where you are with this outfit.

I have never been annoyed with the trains in 45 years and I used to drive them.(msbnews.co.uk.
.Hengistbury head Times...Summer 2002

http://www.msbnews.c
o.uk/archives/hht2p1
.html

It is the Hengistbury head Noddy train that should be prom puffing if anyone, Someone please draw up a business plan to show what the Council cost with LEASED trains and administrative/contr
actual support.
I forget the cost but it will be massive. The Joyce led Noddy train could under this invigorating argument kick the Dotto train into touch and save the Bournemouth taxpayer and the customers shed loads.

And it would be a People's train redolent of Julie Christie and Doctor Zhivago...oops, I do get carried away...

But it will need an aggressive stance foreign to the Noddy train..always leading but only over familiar territory. That would even suit the Council on Best value considerations and to be fair to them they did try to nudge Joyce into a more aggressive business plan. They both were poorly advised to
assume no movement by either to develop a successful revenue stream
with the vision the Council has adopted.

I can only see this possibility because I an and have been for decades an ex driver with no sensitivity to the feelings of those life would overtake..

But I am open to a prom puffer combined service if the best train for the job
can supplant a boring corporate borrowing. Just to send a message to Councils that Best Value means best value, and their chicanery and manoeuvrings to get what they think they like and know may not stand up to real public challenge based on scrutiny, openness and transparency.

Whe I was interviewed for a master's degree in 1979 I was interviewed by the existing students. I was offered a place. When I was interviewed by a
legend in a Welsh University, but for a lesser degree. he declined . The principles of openness and so on require more than one person to make a decision. I love the idea elsewhere BEATNIK FLY has for a Community Right to Challenge bid. Brilliant. That surely reflects the struggle and the joy that Kathleen Foly wrote about half a century ago . The train offers the joy of the headland, but represents the struggle with each beat of its engine. And all of this is peacetime. Imagine the air in World War One.

But check out this link
http://www.msbnews.c
o.uk/archives/hht2p1
.html
It is about the spirit of the place a hundred years ago.

Let us strip the veneer from this story, Politicians are actually responsive when they see they have erred. To have a train from a sanctuary reach into the heart of Bournemouth is better than a Weltanschauungskrieg locomotive
steamroll its way with 200,000 passengers plus..they have not told us how many...to outside the hut I sold to a nice lady with triplets. They deserve the fuse, the choke, the chicane, the valve, that is the Noddy train that leaves the beach as it finds it....and takes it's passengers away every 15 minutes.
I studied the impact of a footbridge bridge to the beach at the Run

http://www.msbnews.c
o.uk/archives/chc1p1
.html

I was threatened with death. Yet a Councillor suggested a motorcar drive in the 30's for cars when the Council acquired hengistbury head.

I fin dthe position of the hengistbury head sCouncil appointed officials conspicuous by their absence from debate. Come on folks, ignore the yoke
you feel and comment, influence and contribute...I know you know this
is contrary to your usual reasons and achievements, but you remain silent.

Comment has to come from you, anonymously round robin you know the
sciore. You need not consider a Council job as a submissive lifeline for your job. There are families making their needs known and frankly that need the best advice...think of what you said about fencing off areas. Otherwise you are of no use as we move into the future, over the aspirations of Councillors
also trained to follow the lead of people I know not to be leaders.

Oh, and does anyone remember the Prom Puffer being driven around town by a crazy driver decades ago...or a Health and Safety enquiry over carriage movements in their "garage". Or the massive shed they built for it to make room for those Hemingway poser pods at Boscombe Pier that did not sell for ages on the prom that was two stories high?

Councils have to have a massive apparatus to hide facts or wave about claims when things go wrong. Joyce has quietly stolen the silver linings
of the business of train driving satisfying generations of customers without the spin . She is the real deal. Within her measured leadership she just needs to have the cheek to challenge the Council over what they were prepared to settle for. The role under competitive tendering with Bournemouth Council degraded with her annual repeat licence treatment into acquiescence , but proving a business case is now more important after the dust has settled and everyone has had their say and heard the to and fro of it. Dragon's Den was never my favourite programme, but what used to impress stem was people having a track record. The Council bought one with the Prom Puffer off the shelf. That is like trying to fit an Ugly Sister into Cinderella's slipper. (apologies to monarchprogramming.c
om)
The old style Noddy Train should reverse takeover the Prom Puffer...the Council LEASE it and (like the public Library) that is soooooooooo expensive and the equivalent to buying IBM instead of Apple Macintosh... after the period when they were too expensive I have been told to say. People are pointing out how family friendly Joyce's trains are by virtue her price/cost ratio and overheads base cannot be beaten.. I know....one winter they had the drivers sticking labels on jars..a third world task and wage, but it kept the train going and was a solution one tricky year only thank heavens. Now, as to human resources....Mr Alan Barnard the Noddy train mechanic guy spends very little on suits but loads on the train. which he regards as more important. You know where you are with this outfit. I have never been annoyed with the trains in 45 years and I used to drive them.(msbnews.co.uk. .Hengistbury head Times...Summer 2002 http://www.msbnews.c o.uk/archives/hht2p1 .html It is the Hengistbury head Noddy train that should be prom puffing if anyone, Someone please draw up a business plan to show what the Council cost with LEASED trains and administrative/contr actual support. I forget the cost but it will be massive. The Joyce led Noddy train could under this invigorating argument kick the Dotto train into touch and save the Bournemouth taxpayer and the customers shed loads. And it would be a People's train redolent of Julie Christie and Doctor Zhivago...oops, I do get carried away... But it will need an aggressive stance foreign to the Noddy train..always leading but only over familiar territory. That would even suit the Council on Best value considerations and to be fair to them they did try to nudge Joyce into a more aggressive business plan. They both were poorly advised to assume no movement by either to develop a successful revenue stream with the vision the Council has adopted. I can only see this possibility because I an and have been for decades an ex driver with no sensitivity to the feelings of those life would overtake.. But I am open to a prom puffer combined service if the best train for the job can supplant a boring corporate borrowing. Just to send a message to Councils that Best Value means best value, and their chicanery and manoeuvrings to get what they think they like and know may not stand up to real public challenge based on scrutiny, openness and transparency. Whe I was interviewed for a master's degree in 1979 I was interviewed by the existing students. I was offered a place. When I was interviewed by a legend in a Welsh University, but for a lesser degree. he declined . The principles of openness and so on require more than one person to make a decision. I love the idea elsewhere BEATNIK FLY has for a Community Right to Challenge bid. Brilliant. That surely reflects the struggle and the joy that Kathleen Foly wrote about half a century ago . The train offers the joy of the headland, but represents the struggle with each beat of its engine. And all of this is peacetime. Imagine the air in World War One. But check out this link http://www.msbnews.c o.uk/archives/hht2p1 .html It is about the spirit of the place a hundred years ago. Let us strip the veneer from this story, Politicians are actually responsive when they see they have erred. To have a train from a sanctuary reach into the heart of Bournemouth is better than a Weltanschauungskrieg locomotive steamroll its way with 200,000 passengers plus..they have not told us how many...to outside the hut I sold to a nice lady with triplets. They deserve the fuse, the choke, the chicane, the valve, that is the Noddy train that leaves the beach as it finds it....and takes it's passengers away every 15 minutes. I studied the impact of a footbridge bridge to the beach at the Run http://www.msbnews.c o.uk/archives/chc1p1 .html I was threatened with death. Yet a Councillor suggested a motorcar drive in the 30's for cars when the Council acquired hengistbury head. I fin dthe position of the hengistbury head sCouncil appointed officials conspicuous by their absence from debate. Come on folks, ignore the yoke you feel and comment, influence and contribute...I know you know this is contrary to your usual reasons and achievements, but you remain silent. Comment has to come from you, anonymously round robin you know the sciore. You need not consider a Council job as a submissive lifeline for your job. There are families making their needs known and frankly that need the best advice...think of what you said about fencing off areas. Otherwise you are of no use as we move into the future, over the aspirations of Councillors also trained to follow the lead of people I know not to be leaders. Oh, and does anyone remember the Prom Puffer being driven around town by a crazy driver decades ago...or a Health and Safety enquiry over carriage movements in their "garage". Or the massive shed they built for it to make room for those Hemingway poser pods at Boscombe Pier that did not sell for ages on the prom that was two stories high? Councils have to have a massive apparatus to hide facts or wave about claims when things go wrong. Joyce has quietly stolen the silver linings of the business of train driving satisfying generations of customers without the spin . She is the real deal. Within her measured leadership she just needs to have the cheek to challenge the Council over what they were prepared to settle for. The role under competitive tendering with Bournemouth Council degraded with her annual repeat licence treatment into acquiescence , but proving a business case is now more important after the dust has settled and everyone has had their say and heard the to and fro of it. Dragon's Den was never my favourite programme, but what used to impress stem was people having a track record. The Council bought one with the Prom Puffer off the shelf. That is like trying to fit an Ugly Sister into Cinderella's slipper. (apologies to monarchprogramming.c om) localopinion
  • Score: 4

5:56pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No.

But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so.

Disaster waiting to happen.

If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.
You make some serious allegations there. Care to back them up? By the way do you realise that you are also accusing the council ot negligence since they safety check the trains themselves. Mrs. Faris has more integrity in her little finger than all of the council officers put together. Your smear campaign smacks of desperation and the more baseless accusations you and your mates at the council throw out the more foolish you make yourselves look.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No. But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so. Disaster waiting to happen. If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.[/p][/quote]You make some serious allegations there. Care to back them up? By the way do you realise that you are also accusing the council ot negligence since they safety check the trains themselves. Mrs. Faris has more integrity in her little finger than all of the council officers put together. Your smear campaign smacks of desperation and the more baseless accusations you and your mates at the council throw out the more foolish you make yourselves look. eyesropen
  • Score: 15

5:56pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Phixer says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Can someone explain to me what the current arrangement with this is? Is this a wholly private enterprise, is it a council tender that they pay the train operator to provide or does the train operator pay the council to be allowed to provide the service?
Don't hold your breathe waiting for the Echo to deal with the questions that they should have been asking at the beginning.

Despite recent chest-thumping, the Echo doesn't do investigative journalism.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Can someone explain to me what the current arrangement with this is? Is this a wholly private enterprise, is it a council tender that they pay the train operator to provide or does the train operator pay the council to be allowed to provide the service?[/p][/quote]Don't hold your breathe waiting for the Echo to deal with the questions that they should have been asking at the beginning. Despite recent chest-thumping, the Echo doesn't do investigative journalism. Phixer
  • Score: 4

5:58pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Lucky Rich says...

It would be very interesting to see the new train time tables for the whole new route including the stopping & passing points & even how they will deliver a better & quicker service at the present old noddy train route .
It would be very interesting to see the new train time tables for the whole new route including the stopping & passing points & even how they will deliver a better & quicker service at the present old noddy train route . Lucky Rich
  • Score: 8

6:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

localopinion says...

eyesropen wrote:
"Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose."

The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike.

I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.
I was a researcher and I used to drive the train and therefore I claim more than I should in a world of differing views. This writer, "eyesropen", seems to be a hero of having local opinions. And sharing them . And asking questions.
And a hero of the discreet. No rudeness, signs of knowing what is really going on.Is there an award for the most diplomatic and yet effective contributor?
The above example makes me happy that the question we all ask I am told..the greatest contemporary question...is "Why isn;t everyone like me".
Here you have your answer. To move the questions on to a solution when others hold the power, we need to be different, but share in the politeness of democracy...like a Noddy Train getting to its destination amongst walkers, cyclists, dogs, children, people who hate the train and people who love it, but doing it with style. Not the style of a sharp suited Councillor Beesley
knowing that is an aid to what he wants to do, but the style of the mechanic Alan Barnard who has never held a piece of metal or used a hand tool to bend something to his will, as needed by his boss Joyce Faris, with anything other than the necessary argument to persuade the raw material to serve mankind. Ooops, It is the hyperthymia.
[quote][p][bold]eyesropen[/bold] wrote: "Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose." The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike. I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.[/p][/quote]I was a researcher and I used to drive the train and therefore I claim more than I should in a world of differing views. This writer, "eyesropen", seems to be a hero of having local opinions. And sharing them . And asking questions. And a hero of the discreet. No rudeness, signs of knowing what is really going on.Is there an award for the most diplomatic and yet effective contributor? The above example makes me happy that the question we all ask I am told..the greatest contemporary question...is "Why isn;t everyone like me". Here you have your answer. To move the questions on to a solution when others hold the power, we need to be different, but share in the politeness of democracy...like a Noddy Train getting to its destination amongst walkers, cyclists, dogs, children, people who hate the train and people who love it, but doing it with style. Not the style of a sharp suited Councillor Beesley knowing that is an aid to what he wants to do, but the style of the mechanic Alan Barnard who has never held a piece of metal or used a hand tool to bend something to his will, as needed by his boss Joyce Faris, with anything other than the necessary argument to persuade the raw material to serve mankind. Ooops, It is the hyperthymia. localopinion
  • Score: 4

6:21pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

Phixer wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Can someone explain to me what the current arrangement with this is? Is this a wholly private enterprise, is it a council tender that they pay the train operator to provide or does the train operator pay the council to be allowed to provide the service?
Don't hold your breathe waiting for the Echo to deal with the questions that they should have been asking at the beginning.

Despite recent chest-thumping, the Echo doesn't do investigative journalism.
BarrHumbug Mrs Faris has (had!) an annual lease to run the train service.

Of far more interest, if the echo care to investigate, are the details of the council's plans for their service. Surely they must have a plan.Otherwise how did they come up with their projected figures? Why so secretive about the details? I take it they have surveyed the route, turning circle etc to cost any necessary works to accommodate their trains??
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Can someone explain to me what the current arrangement with this is? Is this a wholly private enterprise, is it a council tender that they pay the train operator to provide or does the train operator pay the council to be allowed to provide the service?[/p][/quote]Don't hold your breathe waiting for the Echo to deal with the questions that they should have been asking at the beginning. Despite recent chest-thumping, the Echo doesn't do investigative journalism.[/p][/quote]BarrHumbug Mrs Faris has (had!) an annual lease to run the train service. Of far more interest, if the echo care to investigate, are the details of the council's plans for their service. Surely they must have a plan.Otherwise how did they come up with their projected figures? Why so secretive about the details? I take it they have surveyed the route, turning circle etc to cost any necessary works to accommodate their trains?? eyesropen
  • Score: 8

6:42pm Fri 21 Mar 14

AnastasiaB says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
You are definitely a Council Employee. It won't be a new updated service it will be the tired old train from the seafront looking tackier than ever in the natural surrounds of the Head.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]You are definitely a Council Employee. It won't be a new updated service it will be the tired old train from the seafront looking tackier than ever in the natural surrounds of the Head. AnastasiaB
  • Score: 2

6:42pm Fri 21 Mar 14

AnastasiaB says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
You are definitely a Council Employee. It won't be a new updated service it will be the tired old train from the seafront looking tackier than ever in the natural surrounds of the Head.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]You are definitely a Council Employee. It won't be a new updated service it will be the tired old train from the seafront looking tackier than ever in the natural surrounds of the Head. AnastasiaB
  • Score: 4

6:48pm Fri 21 Mar 14

PineWalk player says...

Archiebean wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Archiebean wrote:
PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.
I don't think the people who have taken the trouble to protest about the loss of a service that they love and value would quite see it this way. As someone else commented, as a percentage of local people who regularly use the area and even allowing for those pesky visitors( councillor's intermation, not mine) 20% of the population I would suggest is a reasonable percentage for Bournemouth council to reconsider their plans and their management of this protest.
The point I tried to make is that the council are running this with an unfair advantage over the current suppliers. I feel this is wrong as I suspect we are subsidising it, as opposed to the current suppliers who have to stand on their own two feet and probably pay a licence fee to the council for the privilege. Therefore I support the campaign to leave the noddy train alone. Sorry if this was not clear in my first post.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying![/p][/quote]20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.[/p][/quote]I don't think the people who have taken the trouble to protest about the loss of a service that they love and value would quite see it this way. As someone else commented, as a percentage of local people who regularly use the area and even allowing for those pesky visitors( councillor's intermation, not mine) 20% of the population I would suggest is a reasonable percentage for Bournemouth council to reconsider their plans and their management of this protest.[/p][/quote]The point I tried to make is that the council are running this with an unfair advantage over the current suppliers. I feel this is wrong as I suspect we are subsidising it, as opposed to the current suppliers who have to stand on their own two feet and probably pay a licence fee to the council for the privilege. Therefore I support the campaign to leave the noddy train alone. Sorry if this was not clear in my first post. PineWalk player
  • Score: 7

6:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

AnastasiaB says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
rusty james wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous


irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too.

"What do we want?!"
"THE NODDY TRAIN!!!"
"When do we want it?!"
"Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."
A large proportion of people in the area welcome change.....I for one. Bring on change....when do we want it NOW!
Change for the Worse like the rest of the town.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rusty james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]I suppose you're quite happy when interesting, individual shops and businesses make way for Tesco metro's too. "What do we want?!" "THE NODDY TRAIN!!!" "When do we want it?!" "Oh, in about twenty minutes and if it's full we'll happily wait for the next one because it's all part of the charm."[/p][/quote]A large proportion of people in the area welcome change.....I for one. Bring on change....when do we want it NOW![/p][/quote]Change for the Worse like the rest of the town. AnastasiaB
  • Score: 4

6:54pm Fri 21 Mar 14

pete woodley says...

localopinion wrote:
eyesropen wrote:
"Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose."

The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike.

I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.
I was a researcher and I used to drive the train and therefore I claim more than I should in a world of differing views. This writer, "eyesropen", seems to be a hero of having local opinions. And sharing them . And asking questions.
And a hero of the discreet. No rudeness, signs of knowing what is really going on.Is there an award for the most diplomatic and yet effective contributor?
The above example makes me happy that the question we all ask I am told..the greatest contemporary question...is "Why isn;t everyone like me".
Here you have your answer. To move the questions on to a solution when others hold the power, we need to be different, but share in the politeness of democracy...like a Noddy Train getting to its destination amongst walkers, cyclists, dogs, children, people who hate the train and people who love it, but doing it with style. Not the style of a sharp suited Councillor Beesley
knowing that is an aid to what he wants to do, but the style of the mechanic Alan Barnard who has never held a piece of metal or used a hand tool to bend something to his will, as needed by his boss Joyce Faris, with anything other than the necessary argument to persuade the raw material to serve mankind. Ooops, It is the hyperthymia.
Why would anyone hate the train ?.
[quote][p][bold]localopinion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eyesropen[/bold] wrote: "Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose." The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike. I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.[/p][/quote]I was a researcher and I used to drive the train and therefore I claim more than I should in a world of differing views. This writer, "eyesropen", seems to be a hero of having local opinions. And sharing them . And asking questions. And a hero of the discreet. No rudeness, signs of knowing what is really going on.Is there an award for the most diplomatic and yet effective contributor? The above example makes me happy that the question we all ask I am told..the greatest contemporary question...is "Why isn;t everyone like me". Here you have your answer. To move the questions on to a solution when others hold the power, we need to be different, but share in the politeness of democracy...like a Noddy Train getting to its destination amongst walkers, cyclists, dogs, children, people who hate the train and people who love it, but doing it with style. Not the style of a sharp suited Councillor Beesley knowing that is an aid to what he wants to do, but the style of the mechanic Alan Barnard who has never held a piece of metal or used a hand tool to bend something to his will, as needed by his boss Joyce Faris, with anything other than the necessary argument to persuade the raw material to serve mankind. Ooops, It is the hyperthymia.[/p][/quote]Why would anyone hate the train ?. pete woodley
  • Score: 7

7:05pm Fri 21 Mar 14

agp1337 says...

retry69 wrote:
Archiebean wrote:
PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.
Not entirely valid. It's about 20% of the population WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO LOG ON AND SIGN THE PETITION, or find a paper version. That is a high proportion. Shows the strength of thought here.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying![/p][/quote]20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.[/p][/quote]Not entirely valid. It's about 20% of the population WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO LOG ON AND SIGN THE PETITION, or find a paper version. That is a high proportion. Shows the strength of thought here. agp1337
  • Score: 9

7:17pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

PineWalk player wrote:
Archiebean wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Archiebean wrote:
PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.
I don't think the people who have taken the trouble to protest about the loss of a service that they love and value would quite see it this way. As someone else commented, as a percentage of local people who regularly use the area and even allowing for those pesky visitors( councillor's intermation, not mine) 20% of the population I would suggest is a reasonable percentage for Bournemouth council to reconsider their plans and their management of this protest.
The point I tried to make is that the council are running this with an unfair advantage over the current suppliers. I feel this is wrong as I suspect we are subsidising it, as opposed to the current suppliers who have to stand on their own two feet and probably pay a licence fee to the council for the privilege. Therefore I support the campaign to leave the noddy train alone. Sorry if this was not clear in my first post.
No problem : ) Good to know we're coming from a similar viewpoint as are so many others.
[quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying![/p][/quote]20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.[/p][/quote]I don't think the people who have taken the trouble to protest about the loss of a service that they love and value would quite see it this way. As someone else commented, as a percentage of local people who regularly use the area and even allowing for those pesky visitors( councillor's intermation, not mine) 20% of the population I would suggest is a reasonable percentage for Bournemouth council to reconsider their plans and their management of this protest.[/p][/quote]The point I tried to make is that the council are running this with an unfair advantage over the current suppliers. I feel this is wrong as I suspect we are subsidising it, as opposed to the current suppliers who have to stand on their own two feet and probably pay a licence fee to the council for the privilege. Therefore I support the campaign to leave the noddy train alone. Sorry if this was not clear in my first post.[/p][/quote]No problem : ) Good to know we're coming from a similar viewpoint as are so many others. Archiebean
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Fri 21 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

pete woodley wrote:
localopinion wrote:
eyesropen wrote:
"Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose."

The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike.

I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.
I was a researcher and I used to drive the train and therefore I claim more than I should in a world of differing views. This writer, "eyesropen", seems to be a hero of having local opinions. And sharing them . And asking questions.
And a hero of the discreet. No rudeness, signs of knowing what is really going on.Is there an award for the most diplomatic and yet effective contributor?
The above example makes me happy that the question we all ask I am told..the greatest contemporary question...is "Why isn;t everyone like me".
Here you have your answer. To move the questions on to a solution when others hold the power, we need to be different, but share in the politeness of democracy...like a Noddy Train getting to its destination amongst walkers, cyclists, dogs, children, people who hate the train and people who love it, but doing it with style. Not the style of a sharp suited Councillor Beesley
knowing that is an aid to what he wants to do, but the style of the mechanic Alan Barnard who has never held a piece of metal or used a hand tool to bend something to his will, as needed by his boss Joyce Faris, with anything other than the necessary argument to persuade the raw material to serve mankind. Ooops, It is the hyperthymia.
Why would anyone hate the train ?.
I tried, but not very good with dingbat.but sure you know what your on about
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]localopinion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eyesropen[/bold] wrote: "Bournemouth council claims it is necessary to take the service in-house to enable improvements to be made and ensure the service is fit for purpose." The council's own mechanics carry out safety checks on the train each year. Any faults found must be repaired and rechecked before being passed as safe. Therefore mechanically the trains are fit for purpose. The public outcry itself testifies that the service itself is fit for purpose. The design of the train is ideal for the narrow lane that it travels down. The council officers/ councillor responsible for this decision clearly have never looked very closely at the trains as they keep bleating on about a lack of disability access, which is not the case. Let's not forget the other services they carry out; manning the gate to allow access between 9 & 5 for traders and other permit holders and their landrover service taking goods down to the sandspit. We have heard no news as to how these services will be replaced. Have the council not done a business plan? After 45 years the current service has evolved into something that is entirely fit for purpose, satisfying the needs of visitors, residents and traders alike. I have heard, but cannot verify, that Christchurch Council, who are also affected by this decision as managers of Mudeford Sandspit were also not consulted. Can someone from either council please let us know the truth of the matter.[/p][/quote]I was a researcher and I used to drive the train and therefore I claim more than I should in a world of differing views. This writer, "eyesropen", seems to be a hero of having local opinions. And sharing them . And asking questions. And a hero of the discreet. No rudeness, signs of knowing what is really going on.Is there an award for the most diplomatic and yet effective contributor? The above example makes me happy that the question we all ask I am told..the greatest contemporary question...is "Why isn;t everyone like me". Here you have your answer. To move the questions on to a solution when others hold the power, we need to be different, but share in the politeness of democracy...like a Noddy Train getting to its destination amongst walkers, cyclists, dogs, children, people who hate the train and people who love it, but doing it with style. Not the style of a sharp suited Councillor Beesley knowing that is an aid to what he wants to do, but the style of the mechanic Alan Barnard who has never held a piece of metal or used a hand tool to bend something to his will, as needed by his boss Joyce Faris, with anything other than the necessary argument to persuade the raw material to serve mankind. Ooops, It is the hyperthymia.[/p][/quote]Why would anyone hate the train ?.[/p][/quote]I tried, but not very good with dingbat.but sure you know what your on about kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 2

7:40pm Fri 21 Mar 14

mumble says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No.

But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so.

Disaster waiting to happen.

If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.
Disaster waiting to happen ?, Hasn't happened in 45 years, not even a minor accident as far as I am aware, so a 'disaster' is probably pretty unlikely now eh.
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: Would you get on on a dated bus operated by a company refusing to comply with the most basic of national and local legislation? No. But you are prepared to get on the noddy bus, take your kids and pay a premium to do so. Disaster waiting to happen. If the company operating the service for the last 20 years had actually been doing what they are telling everyone they have, then there wouldn't be a problem. Simple.[/p][/quote]Disaster waiting to happen ?, Hasn't happened in 45 years, not even a minor accident as far as I am aware, so a 'disaster' is probably pretty unlikely now eh. mumble
  • Score: 7

8:09pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Born in Bmth says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
Mm wonder if you also thought that about the Pier Approach swimming baths? Did you want a modern up to date building there?
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]Mm wonder if you also thought that about the Pier Approach swimming baths? Did you want a modern up to date building there? Born in Bmth
  • Score: 5

8:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

4stands says...

Just because its called a Noddy train everybody gets precious a train is a train Noddy or not a Noddy for goodness sake
Just because its called a Noddy train everybody gets precious a train is a train Noddy or not a Noddy for goodness sake 4stands
  • Score: -9

8:44pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

retry69 wrote:
Kiki1973 wrote:
DorsetBorn79 wrote:
1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated.

2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition.

3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process.

4. Locals should welcome a change
I absolutely agree with you. The issue here seems to be that this is an easy avenue to kick the council by all of the armchair anarchists on these boards.

I would also expect a lot more down votes if I were you, much as I will get. People are very old fashioned here, and this lot are like a dog with a toffee over this. The practical issues you raise make perfect sense if you aren't being swept up in the mob mentality.
Do not underestimate how many people are in agreement with you both and certainly do not take any notice of those thumbs after all they are really only for sucking by the usual suspects.
Oh it would be so easy to go into a rant and a rave over this post and supporting comment but I won't because strangely enough I'm not,as I suspect most of those who have signed this petition, a raving anarchist. We are however local residents who genuinely love and respect the natural beauty of Hengistbury Head and the service that has been so loyally and reliably provided for the past 47 years. I will instead answer each point reasonably.
1. Yes the coaches are dated and old and wonderfully unique. I would be extremely surprised if Bournemouth council had been tendering a service that hadn't been safety checked. This would have made them negligent.
2. The late Mr. Farris and the present Mrs Farris and company have LOYALLY run this service for the last 47 years with an excellent track record that 20,000 support and want to maintain. Is this the way Bmth council treat loyalty?
3. What a wonderful way to waste taxpayers money that would be. You must be an expert!
4. Why, if the service being provided is already excellent?

The subsequent comment quite frankly says more than I could possibly hope to to. It sums up everything that is wrong in any council anywhere. Arrogance, complacency and a complete abuse of power. Ever an optimist I believe that all councillors are not like this. I hope and trust that there are enough reputable councillors out there who will listen to such an outpouring of support and be prepared to stand up for a significant percentage of Bournemouth's population
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kiki1973[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: 1. The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated. 2. The current operators obviously feel entitled to run the service, they have had a fair chance over the last 20 years with NO competition. 3. Let the council run the service for a year, when the contract is up for tender again the current operator will have ample opportunity to apply through due and proper process. 4. Locals should welcome a change[/p][/quote]I absolutely agree with you. The issue here seems to be that this is an easy avenue to kick the council by all of the armchair anarchists on these boards. I would also expect a lot more down votes if I were you, much as I will get. People are very old fashioned here, and this lot are like a dog with a toffee over this. The practical issues you raise make perfect sense if you aren't being swept up in the mob mentality.[/p][/quote]Do not underestimate how many people are in agreement with you both and certainly do not take any notice of those thumbs after all they are really only for sucking by the usual suspects.[/p][/quote]Oh it would be so easy to go into a rant and a rave over this post and supporting comment but I won't because strangely enough I'm not,as I suspect most of those who have signed this petition, a raving anarchist. We are however local residents who genuinely love and respect the natural beauty of Hengistbury Head and the service that has been so loyally and reliably provided for the past 47 years. I will instead answer each point reasonably. 1. Yes the coaches are dated and old and wonderfully unique. I would be extremely surprised if Bournemouth council had been tendering a service that hadn't been safety checked. This would have made them negligent. 2. The late Mr. Farris and the present Mrs Farris and company have LOYALLY run this service for the last 47 years with an excellent track record that 20,000 support and want to maintain. Is this the way Bmth council treat loyalty? 3. What a wonderful way to waste taxpayers money that would be. You must be an expert! 4. Why, if the service being provided is already excellent? The subsequent comment quite frankly says more than I could possibly hope to to. It sums up everything that is wrong in any council anywhere. Arrogance, complacency and a complete abuse of power. Ever an optimist I believe that all councillors are not like this. I hope and trust that there are enough reputable councillors out there who will listen to such an outpouring of support and be prepared to stand up for a significant percentage of Bournemouth's population Archiebean
  • Score: 6

8:57pm Fri 21 Mar 14

essexmanclone says...

I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions?

The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk!

If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies?
That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy.

Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town.

If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)
I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions? The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk! If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies? That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy. Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town. If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;) essexmanclone
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Fri 21 Mar 14

BEAD1974 says...

xslee wrote:
Dear Cllr Coope,

if you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' then you clearly shouldn't be employed in a role that purports to represent the local community, as this is one of the most clueless and out of touch statements that has been made on the subject in recent weeks.

In business-speak you are 'not fit for purpose', and should probably go away quietly and don't open your mouth on the topic again...
I really couldn't agree more. Completely out of touch. I think that some of our council need to remember who put them there and who they are meant to serve. Or are they just there to bully their way to some self defined greater good?
[quote][p][bold]xslee[/bold] wrote: Dear Cllr Coope, if you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' then you clearly shouldn't be employed in a role that purports to represent the local community, as this is one of the most clueless and out of touch statements that has been made on the subject in recent weeks. In business-speak you are 'not fit for purpose', and should probably go away quietly and don't open your mouth on the topic again...[/p][/quote]I really couldn't agree more. Completely out of touch. I think that some of our council need to remember who put them there and who they are meant to serve. Or are they just there to bully their way to some self defined greater good? BEAD1974
  • Score: 6

9:26pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Joy Dean says...

agp1337 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
Archiebean wrote:
PineWalk player wrote:
The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying!
20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.
Not entirely valid. It's about 20% of the population WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO LOG ON AND SIGN THE PETITION, or find a paper version. That is a high proportion. Shows the strength of thought here.
20,000 signatures
https://you.38degree
s.org.uk/petitions/s
ave-the-current-heng
istbury-head-land-tr
ain-service
[quote][p][bold]agp1337[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: The seafront land train service was put out to tender a few years back. I and a few others looked at this closely and could not see any way in which it could be a viable concern,due to the ridiculous demands of the council. The tender was withdrawn after no suitable bids were placed. So local business people can't make it pay yet the council can. With their track record I suggest this service is being subsidised from our council tax. The current operators are not allowed to play on a level field. A few days ago we were told this decision was made by a couple of officers, now we have councillors claiming a consultation process. This stinks.[/p][/quote]Obviously you are entitled to your opinion but there are nearly 20,000 people who disagree with you. Just saying![/p][/quote]20.000 out of 100+ thousand . Just saying! All meaningless figures im afraid.[/p][/quote]Not entirely valid. It's about 20% of the population WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO LOG ON AND SIGN THE PETITION, or find a paper version. That is a high proportion. Shows the strength of thought here.[/p][/quote]20,000 signatures https://you.38degree s.org.uk/petitions/s ave-the-current-heng istbury-head-land-tr ain-service Joy Dean
  • Score: -3

9:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

eyesropen says...

essexmanclone wrote:
I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions?

The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk!

If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies?
That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy.

Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town.

If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)
You might have a point except that Mrs Faris is more in control of her faculties than many people half her age. She did respond to the council's requests, by asking to negotiate a longer contract to make it worthwhile investing greater amounts in the business. She has several children and I'd be surprised if the future of the business was not in hand. So I do beg to differ, but your question is fair since you do not know the lady. If the council wanted guaranteed continuity they would not have insisted on offering the proprietor only an annual contract for all these years.
[quote][p][bold]essexmanclone[/bold] wrote: I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions? The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk! If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies? That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy. Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town. If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)[/p][/quote]You might have a point except that Mrs Faris is more in control of her faculties than many people half her age. She did respond to the council's requests, by asking to negotiate a longer contract to make it worthwhile investing greater amounts in the business. She has several children and I'd be surprised if the future of the business was not in hand. So I do beg to differ, but your question is fair since you do not know the lady. If the council wanted guaranteed continuity they would not have insisted on offering the proprietor only an annual contract for all these years. eyesropen
  • Score: 5

10:53pm Fri 21 Mar 14

afcb-mark says...

The council thought they could pull a fast one here, a bit like taking candy from a baby, but 20,000 locals so far aren't simply going to give in without a fight. For 45 years this train has been successfully run by Joyce Farris, so back off council, leave her alone and let her continue with what she loves. Just how low can they stoop, picking on an 88 years old lady. Vultures the lot of them.
The council thought they could pull a fast one here, a bit like taking candy from a baby, but 20,000 locals so far aren't simply going to give in without a fight. For 45 years this train has been successfully run by Joyce Farris, so back off council, leave her alone and let her continue with what she loves. Just how low can they stoop, picking on an 88 years old lady. Vultures the lot of them. afcb-mark
  • Score: 8

10:56pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Kiki1973 says...

Buddles wrote:
Why do they (the owners of the Noddy Train) have to supply a "business plan"?

They are not asking the Council for a business loan.
The current business model works well and has done so for 45 years.
Mrs Faris has consistently ploughed what profits she has made back into the Noddy Train service.
Because they run a BUSINESS.
[quote][p][bold]Buddles[/bold] wrote: Why do they (the owners of the Noddy Train) have to supply a "business plan"? They are not asking the Council for a business loan. The current business model works well and has done so for 45 years. Mrs Faris has consistently ploughed what profits she has made back into the Noddy Train service.[/p][/quote]Because they run a BUSINESS. Kiki1973
  • Score: -1

11:39pm Fri 21 Mar 14

essexmanclone says...

eyesropen wrote:
essexmanclone wrote:
I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions?

The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk!

If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies?
That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy.

Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town.

If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)
You might have a point except that Mrs Faris is more in control of her faculties than many people half her age. She did respond to the council's requests, by asking to negotiate a longer contract to make it worthwhile investing greater amounts in the business. She has several children and I'd be surprised if the future of the business was not in hand. So I do beg to differ, but your question is fair since you do not know the lady. If the council wanted guaranteed continuity they would not have insisted on offering the proprietor only an annual contract for all these years.
But one does not know why only an annual contract was issued 'for all these years', what ever that time span is. I know people are angry, but it worries me that it is assumed a council's decisions on contract lengths is always with an ulterior motive.

The daily Mail ran a piece http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2583441/Historic-sea
side-Noddy-train-run
-family-46-years-AXE
D-council-trains-rou
te.html

There the owner comments on profits or lack of. Because of that I an not as sure as some, that the sons will want to take over the reins.
[quote][p][bold]eyesropen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essexmanclone[/bold] wrote: I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions? The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk! If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies? That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy. Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town. If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)[/p][/quote]You might have a point except that Mrs Faris is more in control of her faculties than many people half her age. She did respond to the council's requests, by asking to negotiate a longer contract to make it worthwhile investing greater amounts in the business. She has several children and I'd be surprised if the future of the business was not in hand. So I do beg to differ, but your question is fair since you do not know the lady. If the council wanted guaranteed continuity they would not have insisted on offering the proprietor only an annual contract for all these years.[/p][/quote]But one does not know why only an annual contract was issued 'for all these years', what ever that time span is. I know people are angry, but it worries me that it is assumed a council's decisions on contract lengths is always with an ulterior motive. The daily Mail ran a piece http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2583441/Historic-sea side-Noddy-train-run -family-46-years-AXE D-council-trains-rou te.html There the owner comments on profits or lack of. Because of that I an not as sure as some, that the sons will want to take over the reins. essexmanclone
  • Score: 0

12:23am Sat 22 Mar 14

HRH of Boscombe says...

Well done Alan.
.
If the council had done the same work it would somehow run into millions (of our money).
.
The BBC talk about value for money blah, blah, blah but just look at their recent projects. How many people wanted the IMAX and look what happened. Surf Reef...?
.
Everything this council touches end in disaster and ends up costing us a fortune!

.
Not will Bournemouth council steal a family's business and heritage but when they fail as always we'll have to pick up the tab.
Well done Alan. . If the council had done the same work it would somehow run into millions (of our money). . The BBC talk about value for money blah, blah, blah but just look at their recent projects. How many people wanted the IMAX and look what happened. Surf Reef...? . Everything this council touches end in disaster and ends up costing us a fortune! . Not will Bournemouth council steal a family's business and heritage but when they fail as always we'll have to pick up the tab. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 2

12:38am Sat 22 Mar 14

the amazon returns again says...

This is now nationwide news, big petition, backed by many thousands of locals but because of this we all know this Low Life council will dig their heels in even more to get what they want, THESE IDIOTS ARE VOTED IN TO REPRESENT THE LOCAL PEOPLE, DO WHATS RIGHT HERE BOURNEMOUTH COUNCIL AND LET THIS LADY CARRY ON. .
This is now nationwide news, big petition, backed by many thousands of locals but because of this we all know this Low Life council will dig their heels in even more to get what they want, THESE IDIOTS ARE VOTED IN TO REPRESENT THE LOCAL PEOPLE, DO WHATS RIGHT HERE BOURNEMOUTH COUNCIL AND LET THIS LADY CARRY ON. . the amazon returns again
  • Score: 5

12:41am Sat 22 Mar 14

the amazon returns again says...

All residents of East Southbourne and Tuckton please vote this clown Eddie Coope out of office at the next council elections
All residents of East Southbourne and Tuckton please vote this clown Eddie Coope out of office at the next council elections the amazon returns again
  • Score: 6

2:20am Sat 22 Mar 14

Wageslave says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth. Wageslave
  • Score: 4

6:27am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
@yousirmesirnosiryou
sirthankyousir

Was your comment was just an attempt to wind people up, or do you really believe in what you have said,
whichever it is you really are a d..ick.
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]@yousirmesirnosiryou sirthankyousir Was your comment was just an attempt to wind people up, or do you really believe in what you have said, whichever it is you really are a d..ick. WTFRUON
  • Score: 2

6:38am Sat 22 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

If the council get it .it'll be full of pensioners traveling on bus passes eating cheese sandwiches and in need of the toilet.stick with the shabby chic.And forget the subsidies that that council win throw at it.they couldn't run a bath much less a high Tec Noddy train
If the council get it .it'll be full of pensioners traveling on bus passes eating cheese sandwiches and in need of the toilet.stick with the shabby chic.And forget the subsidies that that council win throw at it.they couldn't run a bath much less a high Tec Noddy train kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

6:47am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
1. "The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated".

I think the fact that the train goes back and forth many times a day makes it very fit for purpose, do you think any council train will offer anything more than a shiny paint job.
What questions do you think should be asked that would satisfy you as to its fitness for purpose.
How about these.
1. Does it perform in the way it is supposed to.
Answer 1. That would be a yes.
2.Do people use it .
Answer 2.That would be a yes...
I suppose you might be on to something if the answers to the above 2 questions were unarguably no ,but they are not.
bye bye
DorsetBorn79 wrote: 1. "The vehicle and its coaches are old and dated. questionable if the are fit for purpose. raises serious questions about the entire operation and if it is being responsibly operated". I think the fact that the train goes back and forth many times a day makes it very fit for purpose, do you think any council train will offer anything more than a shiny paint job. What questions do you think should be asked that would satisfy you as to its fitness for purpose. How about these. 1. Does it perform in the way it is supposed to. Answer 1. That would be a yes. 2.Do people use it . Answer 2.That would be a yes... I suppose you might be on to something if the answers to the above 2 questions were unarguably no ,but they are not. bye bye WTFRUON
  • Score: 4

6:50am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
billy bumble wrote:
Has it ever struck anyone that Town/City Councillors are unemployable in any other business concern?
A councillor is a charity for the unemployable.bit like a footballer plenty of money and perks for a few hours work
And as a rule complete and utter w..ankers
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: Has it ever struck anyone that Town/City Councillors are unemployable in any other business concern?[/p][/quote]A councillor is a charity for the unemployable.bit like a footballer plenty of money and perks for a few hours work[/p][/quote]And as a rule complete and utter w..ankers WTFRUON
  • Score: 0

7:11am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

essexmanclone wrote:
eyesropen wrote:
essexmanclone wrote:
I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions?

The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk!

If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies?
That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy.

Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town.

If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)
You might have a point except that Mrs Faris is more in control of her faculties than many people half her age. She did respond to the council's requests, by asking to negotiate a longer contract to make it worthwhile investing greater amounts in the business. She has several children and I'd be surprised if the future of the business was not in hand. So I do beg to differ, but your question is fair since you do not know the lady. If the council wanted guaranteed continuity they would not have insisted on offering the proprietor only an annual contract for all these years.
But one does not know why only an annual contract was issued 'for all these years', what ever that time span is. I know people are angry, but it worries me that it is assumed a council's decisions on contract lengths is always with an ulterior motive.

The daily Mail ran a piece http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2583441/Historic-sea

side-Noddy-train-run

-family-46-years-AXE

D-council-trains-rou

te.html

There the owner comments on profits or lack of. Because of that I an not as sure as some, that the sons will want to take over the reins.
If it was reported in the daily then it must be true

"but it worries me that it is assumed a council's decisions on contract lengths is always with an ulterior motive"
what should worry you is that most decisions made by councils in these ere parts generally do have ulterior motives. A quick history lesson surf reef promoted by a council near here. An astounding pr exercise that would of had people believing that once completed would attract surfers from all over Europe etc etc blah blah. Thing was though they sold the majority of the only viable parking spaces that existed anywhere near the surf reef,and to add to that the height restrictive barrier would stop even a lil ol
V dubya with surf board on top from using the parking that does remain.
[quote][p][bold]essexmanclone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eyesropen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essexmanclone[/bold] wrote: I am fond of the land train and it has brought enjoyment to my grandkids, when they visit. Yes, it has been well looked after, and presumably conforms to current regulations. But what might be upcoming on safety, advisability act regulations, emissions? The owner is 88, and good on her for keeping the train going. Nonetheless that is getting on. At such an age unfortunate things do happen to folk! If she is a sole proprietor, what happens if she loses her faculties, even dies? That she does not respond to the council's requests, might that be a sign of some lack in her abilities? If either unfortunate event comes to pass, I ask myself whether any appointed legal representative would wish to take on responsibility for Noddy. Perhaps the council wants to ensure guaranteed continuity, and, of course the image they think is right for the town. If you beg to differ, that's OK by me. ;)[/p][/quote]You might have a point except that Mrs Faris is more in control of her faculties than many people half her age. She did respond to the council's requests, by asking to negotiate a longer contract to make it worthwhile investing greater amounts in the business. She has several children and I'd be surprised if the future of the business was not in hand. So I do beg to differ, but your question is fair since you do not know the lady. If the council wanted guaranteed continuity they would not have insisted on offering the proprietor only an annual contract for all these years.[/p][/quote]But one does not know why only an annual contract was issued 'for all these years', what ever that time span is. I know people are angry, but it worries me that it is assumed a council's decisions on contract lengths is always with an ulterior motive. The daily Mail ran a piece http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2583441/Historic-sea side-Noddy-train-run -family-46-years-AXE D-council-trains-rou te.html There the owner comments on profits or lack of. Because of that I an not as sure as some, that the sons will want to take over the reins.[/p][/quote]If it was reported in the daily then it must be true "but it worries me that it is assumed a council's decisions on contract lengths is always with an ulterior motive" what should worry you is that most decisions made by councils in these ere parts generally do have ulterior motives. A quick history lesson surf reef promoted by a council near here. An astounding pr exercise that would of had people believing that once completed would attract surfers from all over Europe etc etc blah blah. Thing was though they sold the majority of the only viable parking spaces that existed anywhere near the [cough] surf reef,and to add to that the height restrictive barrier would stop even a lil ol V dubya with surf board on top from using the parking that does remain. WTFRUON
  • Score: 0

7:30am Sat 22 Mar 14

PineWalk player says...

shoppingnoodles wrote:
I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit.

The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc.

I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out.

By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness!
Couldn't agree more as I said in an earlier post. The main beach land train went out to tender a few years ago and no local businesses considered it worth tendering for. This was due to ridiculous demands made by the council, including having to have an attendant on each train as well as a driver. The beach train must be subsidized by our council tax. It simply just doesn't add up. The council are trying to recoup somof their losses by adding this service. We will end up with less trains and a local business that has served us well in such a unique and quaint way lost to a council **** up.
[quote][p][bold]shoppingnoodles[/bold] wrote: I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit. The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc. I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out. By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness![/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more as I said in an earlier post. The main beach land train went out to tender a few years ago and no local businesses considered it worth tendering for. This was due to ridiculous demands made by the council, including having to have an attendant on each train as well as a driver. The beach train must be subsidized by our council tax. It simply just doesn't add up. The council are trying to recoup somof their losses by adding this service. We will end up with less trains and a local business that has served us well in such a unique and quaint way lost to a council **** up. PineWalk player
  • Score: 0

7:31am Sat 22 Mar 14

PineWalk player says...

shoppingnoodles wrote:
I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit.

The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc.

I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out.

By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness!
Couldn't agree more as I said in an earlier post. The main beach land train went out to tender a few years ago and no local businesses considered it worth tendering for. This was due to ridiculous demands made by the council, including having to have an attendant on each train as well as a driver. The beach train must be subsidized by our council tax. It simply just doesn't add up. The council are trying to recoup somof their losses by adding this service. We will end up with less trains and a local business that has served us well in such a unique and quaint way lost to a council **** up.
[quote][p][bold]shoppingnoodles[/bold] wrote: I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit. The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc. I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out. By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness![/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more as I said in an earlier post. The main beach land train went out to tender a few years ago and no local businesses considered it worth tendering for. This was due to ridiculous demands made by the council, including having to have an attendant on each train as well as a driver. The beach train must be subsidized by our council tax. It simply just doesn't add up. The council are trying to recoup somof their losses by adding this service. We will end up with less trains and a local business that has served us well in such a unique and quaint way lost to a council **** up. PineWalk player
  • Score: 4

8:00am Sat 22 Mar 14

beej22 says...

I wonder how many people and this arrogant man asked because he now knows 20,000 people Don't agree.........
I wonder how many people and this arrogant man asked because he now knows 20,000 people Don't agree......... beej22
  • Score: 4

9:25am Sat 22 Mar 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Just to change the subject has Eddie Mitchell's greasy spoon in Poole park still got the decking and plastic grass planted on public land
Just to change the subject has Eddie Mitchell's greasy spoon in Poole park still got the decking and plastic grass planted on public land kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

9:28am Sat 22 Mar 14

gwynedddragon says...

I read in the article that most people in Christchurch/Tuckton etc are happy with the plans, so says their councillor. 20,000+ people so far have made that point mute I would say. These 20,000+ will remember this apparent lack of respect for customer and public opinion at the next elections. So sad I don't live there anymore, I would be involved in everything that was started against this disgusting decision.
I read in the article that most people in Christchurch/Tuckton etc are happy with the plans, so says their councillor. 20,000+ people so far have made that point mute I would say. These 20,000+ will remember this apparent lack of respect for customer and public opinion at the next elections. So sad I don't live there anymore, I would be involved in everything that was started against this disgusting decision. gwynedddragon
  • Score: 2

9:28am Sat 22 Mar 14

localopinion says...

PineWalk player wrote:
shoppingnoodles wrote:
I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit.

The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc.

I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out.

By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness!
Couldn't agree more as I said in an earlier post. The main beach land train went out to tender a few years ago and no local businesses considered it worth tendering for. This was due to ridiculous demands made by the council, including having to have an attendant on each train as well as a driver. The beach train must be subsidized by our council tax. It simply just doesn't add up. The council are trying to recoup somof their losses by adding this service. We will end up with less trains and a local business that has served us well in such a unique and quaint way lost to a council **** up.
I think the Government when they permitted trains to run on public roads made several conditions apply. The Chief of Police fort he County had to be in favour, they had to show lights (Port Out Starboard Home Mudeford Village Gin swilling residents complained a mile away when Joyce followed though she did not have to on a private road) . I think they may have advised or asked that the driver had a "guard" . The Noddy Train of course on a private road was one man operated and if a guard was ever named they were sent down to the beach about 4pm on a bank holiday to keep the que in line and sell tickets to sped up the turnaround. Mty father an ex policeman and deputy headmaster said that my contemporary driver now local solicitor Steve Matthews...a real gentleman then....did the job superbly with just the right tract and diplomacy where the line wavered from best practice. Do I think a Guard is necessary/ Well it is best practice. But we found turning the train around with passengers already holding tickets sped up the wait, was theoretically fairer than the usual honour system and improved apparent safety at the terminus, The driver of a vehicle is responsible for his vehicle ..even, Simon Kershaw, when it hits a stationary train admittedly stealing some space for the sake of time, with no driver in it....ooops. that still galls me.... 45 happy years remember. A driver wholly responsible for his vehicle is perhaps safer than the psychological empty air bag of a conductor? This should be a matter for the licence conditions. But I have driven thousands of journeys with out a conductor and I think, and I have examples from drivers riding shotgun in their lunch hour..we were fans of the train paid or not....where a conductor might take away some of the responsibility that only needs to be vested in a driver? Discuss....
A community run Noddy train needs this sort of debate, A Council run train
hides behind leases, lawyers and public money to defend whatever is the
situation. You tell me which works best..please?
[quote][p][bold]PineWalk player[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shoppingnoodles[/bold] wrote: I emailed Cllr Lawrence 3 times questioning the figures being confidently bandied about by the council, as to the revenue expected to be generated by the new scheme, said to be £45k. He has finally passed on my queries to a council officer, as he was utterly unable to explain from where this figure came. I had previously received another email from the Council stating £45k again, with no explanation if this is net or gross profit. The figures simply do not add up in my opinion. I did a very quick Google search for some facts (apologies if hence they are approximate) and around a million people visit the head each year. Many are walkers and cyclists, so do not use the train. An adult single Noddy train journey costs £1.20s, child 60p. Lets assume that all of the journeys are made by adults; £45k divided by £1.20 = 37500 journeys. The average UK PSV driver earns approx £19k and they probably need to employ at least 2. Another 31667 journeys. Almost 70000 journeys before we consider any other costs. Almost 200 journeys a day 364 days of the year before the driver's pensions, benefits and employers NI contributions. There will be insurance, maintenance, H&S checks, fuel, ticketing, signage, the cost of the trains, depreciation etc etc. I just don't think that the figures add up and I seem to have seen mathematics like this before.... when they built the surf reef. I think this will end up costing the taxpayer big time. Time for transparency, honesty and the Freedom Of Information act to be invoked, so that the truth about this finally comes out. By the way, who is going to organise the march on the Town Hall then? I'm thinking up my placard in readiness![/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more as I said in an earlier post. The main beach land train went out to tender a few years ago and no local businesses considered it worth tendering for. This was due to ridiculous demands made by the council, including having to have an attendant on each train as well as a driver. The beach train must be subsidized by our council tax. It simply just doesn't add up. The council are trying to recoup somof their losses by adding this service. We will end up with less trains and a local business that has served us well in such a unique and quaint way lost to a council **** up.[/p][/quote]I think the Government when they permitted trains to run on public roads made several conditions apply. The Chief of Police fort he County had to be in favour, they had to show lights (Port Out Starboard Home Mudeford Village Gin swilling residents complained a mile away when Joyce followed though she did not have to on a private road) . I think they may have advised or asked that the driver had a "guard" . The Noddy Train of course on a private road was one man operated and if a guard was ever named they were sent down to the beach about 4pm on a bank holiday to keep the que in line and sell tickets to sped up the turnaround. Mty father an ex policeman and deputy headmaster said that my contemporary driver now local solicitor Steve Matthews...a real gentleman then....did the job superbly with just the right tract and diplomacy where the line wavered from best practice. Do I think a Guard is necessary/ Well it is best practice. But we found turning the train around with passengers already holding tickets sped up the wait, was theoretically fairer than the usual honour system and improved apparent safety at the terminus, The driver of a vehicle is responsible for his vehicle ..even, Simon Kershaw, when it hits a stationary train admittedly stealing some space for the sake of time, with no driver in it....ooops. that still galls me.... 45 happy years remember. A driver wholly responsible for his vehicle is perhaps safer than the psychological empty air bag of a conductor? This should be a matter for the licence conditions. But I have driven thousands of journeys with out a conductor and I think, and I have examples from drivers riding shotgun in their lunch hour..we were fans of the train paid or not....where a conductor might take away some of the responsibility that only needs to be vested in a driver? Discuss.... A community run Noddy train needs this sort of debate, A Council run train hides behind leases, lawyers and public money to defend whatever is the situation. You tell me which works best..please? localopinion
  • Score: 0

9:31am Sat 22 Mar 14

camvalley says...

xslee wrote:
Dear Cllr Coope, if you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' then you clearly shouldn't be employed in a role that purports to represent the local community, as this is one of the most clueless and out of touch statements that has been made on the subject in recent weeks. In business-speak you are 'not fit for purpose', and should probably go away quietly and don't open your mouth on the topic again...
Totally agree sir, its about time residents voted with a protest vote in next election and get these people out
[quote][p][bold]xslee[/bold] wrote: Dear Cllr Coope, if you truly ''don’t know really what all the fuss is about'' then you clearly shouldn't be employed in a role that purports to represent the local community, as this is one of the most clueless and out of touch statements that has been made on the subject in recent weeks. In business-speak you are 'not fit for purpose', and should probably go away quietly and don't open your mouth on the topic again...[/p][/quote]Totally agree sir, its about time residents voted with a protest vote in next election and get these people out camvalley
  • Score: 2

9:38am Sat 22 Mar 14

camvalley says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
Trot on stupid person
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]Trot on stupid person camvalley
  • Score: 4

9:46am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

Wageslave wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous

irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.
I am 51 and have never used it but see no reason to change it, what reason is there to change it.
Heres a thought when the majority of councilors mps etc put themselves up for election they will all without exception promise the earth to all who will listen as long as they get yer x in their box.

"We all welcome change unless your over 55" what a complete.and utter load of b..ollox that statement is as well you know. look at the state change has got the planet into. If you feel t need to talk s..hite im sure other outlets exist.
[quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.[/p][/quote]I am 51 and have never used it but see no reason to change it, what reason is there to change it. Heres a thought when the majority of councilors mps etc put themselves up for election they will all without exception promise the earth to all who will listen as long as they get yer x in their box. "We all welcome change unless your over 55" what a complete.and utter load of b..ollox that statement is as well you know. look at the state change has got the planet into. If you feel t need to talk s..hite im sure other outlets exist. WTFRUON
  • Score: 2

10:03am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

jinglebell wrote:
What this also shows is that the people DO NOT TRUST B'mth Council one iota.
With very good reason....
[quote][p][bold]jinglebell[/bold] wrote: What this also shows is that the people DO NOT TRUST B'mth Council one iota.[/p][/quote]With very good reason.... WTFRUON
  • Score: 1

10:25am Sat 22 Mar 14

rusty james says...

There's a Facebook group appeared, ' Save the noddy train'. Someone cleverer than me can provide a link. Suggest folk join and use it as a means to organise any banner waving type stuff.
There's a Facebook group appeared, ' Save the noddy train'. Someone cleverer than me can provide a link. Suggest folk join and use it as a means to organise any banner waving type stuff. rusty james
  • Score: 4

10:44am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

Have just emailed bournemouth council this...

Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
Will wait an see what comes back from them
Have just emailed bournemouth council this... Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. Will wait an see what comes back from them WTFRUON
  • Score: 3

10:47am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

gwynedddragon wrote:
I read in the article that most people in Christchurch/Tuckton etc are happy with the plans, so says their councillor. 20,000+ people so far have made that point mute I would say. These 20,000+ will remember this apparent lack of respect for customer and public opinion at the next elections. So sad I don't live there anymore, I would be involved in everything that was started against this disgusting decision.
Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
[quote][p][bold]gwynedddragon[/bold] wrote: I read in the article that most people in Christchurch/Tuckton etc are happy with the plans, so says their councillor. 20,000+ people so far have made that point mute I would say. These 20,000+ will remember this apparent lack of respect for customer and public opinion at the next elections. So sad I don't live there anymore, I would be involved in everything that was started against this disgusting decision.[/p][/quote]Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. WTFRUON
  • Score: 2

10:48am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

beej22 wrote:
I wonder how many people and this arrogant man asked because he now knows 20,000 people Don't agree.........
Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
[quote][p][bold]beej22[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many people and this arrogant man asked because he now knows 20,000 people Don't agree.........[/p][/quote]Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. WTFRUON
  • Score: 1

10:50am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

WTFRUON wrote:
Wageslave wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous


irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.
I am 51 and have never used it but see no reason to change it, what reason is there to change it.
Heres a thought when the majority of councilors mps etc put themselves up for election they will all without exception promise the earth to all who will listen as long as they get yer x in their box.

"We all welcome change unless your over 55" what a complete.and utter load of b..ollox that statement is as well you know. look at the state change has got the planet into. If you feel t need to talk s..hite im sure other outlets exist.
Have just sent his

Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
[quote][p][bold]WTFRUON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.[/p][/quote]I am 51 and have never used it but see no reason to change it, what reason is there to change it. Heres a thought when the majority of councilors mps etc put themselves up for election they will all without exception promise the earth to all who will listen as long as they get yer x in their box. "We all welcome change unless your over 55" what a complete.and utter load of b..ollox that statement is as well you know. look at the state change has got the planet into. If you feel t need to talk s..hite im sure other outlets exist.[/p][/quote]Have just sent his Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. WTFRUON
  • Score: -1

10:51am Sat 22 Mar 14

new2it says...

Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents
were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.
Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie. new2it
  • Score: 0

10:51am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

WTFRUON wrote:
Wageslave wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous


irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.
I am 51 and have never used it but see no reason to change it, what reason is there to change it.
Heres a thought when the majority of councilors mps etc put themselves up for election they will all without exception promise the earth to all who will listen as long as they get yer x in their box.

"We all welcome change unless your over 55" what a complete.and utter load of b..ollox that statement is as well you know. look at the state change has got the planet into. If you feel t need to talk s..hite im sure other outlets exist.
Have just sent this.
Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
[quote][p][bold]WTFRUON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]There are a lot over 55s who urgently want change--- a change of council in Bournemouth.[/p][/quote]I am 51 and have never used it but see no reason to change it, what reason is there to change it. Heres a thought when the majority of councilors mps etc put themselves up for election they will all without exception promise the earth to all who will listen as long as they get yer x in their box. "We all welcome change unless your over 55" what a complete.and utter load of b..ollox that statement is as well you know. look at the state change has got the planet into. If you feel t need to talk s..hite im sure other outlets exist.[/p][/quote]Have just sent this. Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. WTFRUON
  • Score: 1

10:52am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

new2it wrote:
Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents
were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.
Have just sent this.
Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
[quote][p][bold]new2it[/bold] wrote: Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.[/p][/quote]Have just sent this. Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. WTFRUON
  • Score: 2

10:57am Sat 22 Mar 14

new2it says...

BTW I suppose I am what could be described as a "Silver Surfer" but now in my 70s I'm pretty sure I still have all my faculties, despite what some may think. I would be more than happy to join in a protest or demonstration. Bring it on, got my banner ready.
BTW I suppose I am what could be described as a "Silver Surfer" but now in my 70s I'm pretty sure I still have all my faculties, despite what some may think. I would be more than happy to join in a protest or demonstration. Bring it on, got my banner ready. new2it
  • Score: 3

10:59am Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

new2it wrote:
Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents
were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.
Have just sent this.

Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
[quote][p][bold]new2it[/bold] wrote: Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.[/p][/quote]Have just sent this. Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information. WTFRUON
  • Score: 8

11:01am Sat 22 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

Reading through all the comments I think I'm beginning to get a feel of the situation. Inevitably BBC need to prove that they are working towards rules and regulations around disability access and health and safety. Perhaps legally there are some things that need to be addressed. In their wisdom they have decided it would be far easier to offer the tender to the promenade land train company who already tick all the boxes, making life so much easier for them rather than work with and support the small independent company that has provided such an excellent loyal service for so many years. In making this decision in my opinion they have failed to consider the following
1. The impact of the larger, modern trains on a very natural environment.
2. The practicalities of running larger trains through a relatively narrow walkway and the turn around at mudeford spit...there must be health and safety concerns around this as well environmental ones
3. The inevitable reduction of service because of the practicalities and contract agreement.
4. No immediate forthcoming solutions to provision of the additional services that the current train provides eg. luggage/bikes/gates etc.
5. Perhaps the most important of all...the loss of a unique, quirky, much loved dedicated service that has loyally served people of all ages and abilities in a way that only human compassion can do. Unfortunately modern services for all the ticking of the right boxes are less able to do.

Presumably a new tender has been discussed, maybe even signed with the new provider which would explain why the councillors involved are so defensive. They must know that given the strength of public opinion they should have explored all options including proactively working with Mrs. Farris and supporting an extended contract for further investment. In effect it would seem that the councillors involved in this decision have pushed Mrs. Farris rather than looking at ways of supporting a much loved, well used, well run dedicated service. That is why we, a large percentage of those that you represent are frustrated at the way things are dealt with.
If there is still a chance that this decision can be reconsidered I would urge you to do so and find a way to support Mrs Farris and her dedicated team to carry on providing such a first-class service.
Reading through all the comments I think I'm beginning to get a feel of the situation. Inevitably BBC need to prove that they are working towards rules and regulations around disability access and health and safety. Perhaps legally there are some things that need to be addressed. In their wisdom they have decided it would be far easier to offer the tender to the promenade land train company who already tick all the boxes, making life so much easier for them rather than work with and support the small independent company that has provided such an excellent loyal service for so many years. In making this decision in my opinion they have failed to consider the following 1. The impact of the larger, modern trains on a very natural environment. 2. The practicalities of running larger trains through a relatively narrow walkway and the turn around at mudeford spit...there must be health and safety concerns around this as well environmental ones 3. The inevitable reduction of service because of the practicalities and contract agreement. 4. No immediate forthcoming solutions to provision of the additional services that the current train provides eg. luggage/bikes/gates etc. 5. Perhaps the most important of all...the loss of a unique, quirky, much loved dedicated service that has loyally served people of all ages and abilities in a way that only human compassion can do. Unfortunately modern services for all the ticking of the right boxes are less able to do. Presumably a new tender has been discussed, maybe even signed with the new provider which would explain why the councillors involved are so defensive. They must know that given the strength of public opinion they should have explored all options including proactively working with Mrs. Farris and supporting an extended contract for further investment. In effect it would seem that the councillors involved in this decision have pushed Mrs. Farris rather than looking at ways of supporting a much loved, well used, well run dedicated service. That is why we, a large percentage of those that you represent are frustrated at the way things are dealt with. If there is still a chance that this decision can be reconsidered I would urge you to do so and find a way to support Mrs Farris and her dedicated team to carry on providing such a first-class service. Archiebean
  • Score: 8

11:01am Sat 22 Mar 14

Rally says...

Shakespeare wrote: Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.
Bournemouth's utterly inept councillors would do well to heed these words of wisdom, and leave the Noddy Train alone.
It's owners have been running a sterling service more than 40 years. If the Council gets its grubby little paws on it, it'll be a miracle if it runs a sterling service for a month.
Shakespeare wrote: Striving to better, oft we mar what's well. Bournemouth's utterly inept councillors would do well to heed these words of wisdom, and leave the Noddy Train alone. It's owners have been running a sterling service more than 40 years. If the Council gets its grubby little paws on it, it'll be a miracle if it runs a sterling service for a month. Rally
  • Score: 8

11:15am Sat 22 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
xslee and eaststandman

My post simply raises the facts of the case.

Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case.

This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator:
If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together.

Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.
I think the question that people are asking is how much support Mrs. Farris and her team were given. It feels that a decision( ill made in my opinion) was made to go with a new provider and they have in effect been ousted out in high handed manner!
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: xslee and eaststandman My post simply raises the facts of the case. Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case. This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator: If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together. Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.[/p][/quote]I think the question that people are asking is how much support Mrs. Farris and her team were given. It feels that a decision( ill made in my opinion) was made to go with a new provider and they have in effect been ousted out in high handed manner! Archiebean
  • Score: 2

11:29am Sat 22 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
xslee and eaststandman

My post simply raises the facts of the case.

Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case.

This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator:
If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together.

Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.
I think the question that people are asking is how much support Mrs. Farris and her team were given. It feels that a decision( ill made in my opinion) was made to go with a new provider and they have in effect been ousted out in high handed manner!
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: xslee and eaststandman My post simply raises the facts of the case. Your angry and degenerative messages just demonstrate the lack of satisfactory answers relating to this case. This hasn't just come 'out of know where' for the current operator: If the current operator had provided satisfactory answers in the first place they could have avoided this situation all together. Not at all relevant (as Chris Evans has demonstrated) but I am a proud local, I've got a birth certificate to prove it and I've lived here my entire life.[/p][/quote]I think the question that people are asking is how much support Mrs. Farris and her team were given. It feels that a decision( ill made in my opinion) was made to go with a new provider and they have in effect been ousted out in high handed manner! Archiebean
  • Score: 2

12:52pm Sat 22 Mar 14

localopinion says...

WTFRUON wrote:
new2it wrote:
Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents
were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.
Have just sent this.

Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
FOI....great but the FOI expect you to follow their rules, they have a website for that.
Little known is a provision for the investigative imperative that crops up now and then if there is something regally amiss. Once a year I remember reading anyone in the borough..a voter probably but that should be relaxed really, can attend the town hall and see any and all contractual records and correspondence within reason. Of course what you get will be what they give you and it may be sanitised. That TV comedian activist Mark somebody would get an insider to leak a document, he would make it clear he had such and therefore expect the full caboodle. Worth checking.
I have the time but you need to be focused and aware before you decide what to ask for. You will also need to know what committees have what responsibilities, that working parties and sub committees might try and claim exemption and anyway, have you ever been to a cabinet meeting...Ask Councillor West who maintains the edifice by chipping away at it and having none who will help him I suspect anxious to keep their job. There is no wildlife so tame or tight lipped as a Bournemouth Council official. They never started out that way, and the system protects those who know it,
(often for good reasons of confidentiality or proportionality that protected me and others in my career) but the words monopoly and knowledge always rankle with someone who hates railway lines especially if they serve not the public but their servants. Expect the law of reasoned inertia to kick in now with anyone who knows anything, and that spills into the lives who wants anything from those who do. And those who might thereby have profited It is so sad to see. So go for an FOI Act disclosure but find out what you want to know first so you know where to dig. And of course you are wasting everyone's time if you have not laboured through every public record or agenda, minute or report first. Human resources..you have a ward councillor or two...they might help but some are part of the problem. When looking at planning applications I used to see rich and powerful people doing the same. A lowly fact checking exercise.Once a Mr Greed who was an octogenarian had a company wanting to take over the entire Bournemouth Pier hinterland for a massive development. Councillor Filer I think remembered him from years before and remembered and respected his previous reputation. The great man allowed himself to be questioned at length and including his plans if he died. But he had a very savvy solicitor as his spokesman who unveiled a speaking platform at the place for public representations and boy had this guy done his homework. In the end the Council decided not to bet on Mr Greed and his massive financing and buying out all the existing stakeholders. At the other end of the spectrum can you remember Greg Howe who got a licence for an American style Druive in Cinema he put up as proof of concept at Boscombe Pier.? It worked after a fashion, but none of the Councillors really knew him. He moved on , the guy with the Xmas tree through his house...but Councillors never know wh too back, except when in doubt trust themselves. Ignorance of that or anything costs. Stupidity Costs. Not heeding a warning costs. Here is a new one, far more toxic... about.me/timoxylene.
barbabutanol
[quote][p][bold]WTFRUON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]new2it[/bold] wrote: Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.[/p][/quote]Have just sent this. Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.[/p][/quote]FOI....great but the FOI expect you to follow their rules, they have a website for that. Little known is a provision for the investigative imperative that crops up now and then if there is something regally amiss. Once a year I remember reading anyone in the borough..a voter probably but that should be relaxed really, can attend the town hall and see any and all contractual records and correspondence within reason. Of course what you get will be what they give you and it may be sanitised. That TV comedian activist Mark somebody would get an insider to leak a document, he would make it clear he had such and therefore expect the full caboodle. Worth checking. I have the time but you need to be focused and aware before you decide what to ask for. You will also need to know what committees have what responsibilities, that working parties and sub committees might try and claim exemption and anyway, have you ever been to a cabinet meeting...Ask Councillor West who maintains the edifice by chipping away at it and having none who will help him I suspect anxious to keep their job. There is no wildlife so tame or tight lipped as a Bournemouth Council official. They never started out that way, and the system protects those who know it, (often for good reasons of confidentiality or proportionality that protected me and others in my career) but the words monopoly and knowledge always rankle with someone who hates railway lines especially if they serve not the public but their servants. Expect the law of reasoned inertia to kick in now with anyone who knows anything, and that spills into the lives who wants anything from those who do. And those who might thereby have profited It is so sad to see. So go for an FOI Act disclosure but find out what you want to know first so you know where to dig. And of course you are wasting everyone's time if you have not laboured through every public record or agenda, minute or report first. Human resources..you have a ward councillor or two...they might help but some are part of the problem. When looking at planning applications I used to see rich and powerful people doing the same. A lowly fact checking exercise.Once a Mr Greed who was an octogenarian had a company wanting to take over the entire Bournemouth Pier hinterland for a massive development. Councillor Filer I think remembered him from years before and remembered and respected his previous reputation. The great man allowed himself to be questioned at length and including his plans if he died. But he had a very savvy solicitor as his spokesman who unveiled a speaking platform at the place for public representations and boy had this guy done his homework. In the end the Council decided not to bet on Mr Greed and his massive financing and buying out all the existing stakeholders. At the other end of the spectrum can you remember Greg Howe who got a licence for an American style Druive in Cinema he put up as proof of concept at Boscombe Pier.? It worked after a fashion, but none of the Councillors really knew him. He moved on , the guy with the Xmas tree through his house...but Councillors never know wh too back, except when in doubt trust themselves. Ignorance of that or anything costs. Stupidity Costs. Not heeding a warning costs. Here is a new one, far more toxic... about.me/timoxylene. barbabutanol localopinion
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Marshall69 says...

Cllr Coope.
What a joke - you should be ashamed of that quote.
Go see him at his next surgery, where he'll no doubt be explaining the details of how he consulted the local community.
Cllr Coope. What a joke - you should be ashamed of that quote. Go see him at his next surgery, where he'll no doubt be explaining the details of how he consulted the local community. Marshall69
  • Score: 1

1:51pm Sat 22 Mar 14

jonnyboyrgv says...

This proposal will ultimately destroy a site of special scientific interest, which is what Hengistbury Head is classified as, fact! Increasing the number of visitors roaming over the headland in itself is a very bad idea. It is a fragile area, think protected animal and vegetation, protected dunes and grasses on the spit, cliff erosion, there are already numerous areas that have been fenced off to protect them from people, like the Double Dykes for example, fact!
Without doubt the majority of people who have posted on here, the Bournemouth Council Website and the thousands who have signed the online and written petition are clearly against the Council proposal to take over the current land train service, Fact! Dramatically increasing the numbers who visit the Head will mean more areas fenced off, channeling more people walking on to the train route leading to a bigger demand for even more land trains, fact. There are limited facilities at the Head, the beach is not like Bournemouth pier, fact. There is no room to build more facilities that a bigger train service and increased passengers would demand, fact. Hengistbury Head has remained largely as untouched and beautiful as it is because of the lack of space to develop more services without building on the headland, fact. This is a stunning and fragile site of natural beauty that Bournemouth Council seem intent on destroying by ferrying more people to it, fact. Protect the headland, protect the current Land Train and this site will retain its natural beauty for generations to come. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or environmentalist to see how the Council's proposal will affect this area. The Council's inability to see the bigger picture will be their downfall, fact.
This proposal will ultimately destroy a site of special scientific interest, which is what Hengistbury Head is classified as, fact! Increasing the number of visitors roaming over the headland in itself is a very bad idea. It is a fragile area, think protected animal and vegetation, protected dunes and grasses on the spit, cliff erosion, there are already numerous areas that have been fenced off to protect them from people, like the Double Dykes for example, fact! Without doubt the majority of people who have posted on here, the Bournemouth Council Website and the thousands who have signed the online and written petition are clearly against the Council proposal to take over the current land train service, Fact! Dramatically increasing the numbers who visit the Head will mean more areas fenced off, channeling more people walking on to the train route leading to a bigger demand for even more land trains, fact. There are limited facilities at the Head, the beach is not like Bournemouth pier, fact. There is no room to build more facilities that a bigger train service and increased passengers would demand, fact. Hengistbury Head has remained largely as untouched and beautiful as it is because of the lack of space to develop more services without building on the headland, fact. This is a stunning and fragile site of natural beauty that Bournemouth Council seem intent on destroying by ferrying more people to it, fact. Protect the headland, protect the current Land Train and this site will retain its natural beauty for generations to come. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or environmentalist to see how the Council's proposal will affect this area. The Council's inability to see the bigger picture will be their downfall, fact. jonnyboyrgv
  • Score: 8

2:47pm Sat 22 Mar 14

oversixty says...

jonnyboyrgv wrote:
This proposal will ultimately destroy a site of special scientific interest, which is what Hengistbury Head is classified as, fact! Increasing the number of visitors roaming over the headland in itself is a very bad idea. It is a fragile area, think protected animal and vegetation, protected dunes and grasses on the spit, cliff erosion, there are already numerous areas that have been fenced off to protect them from people, like the Double Dykes for example, fact!
Without doubt the majority of people who have posted on here, the Bournemouth Council Website and the thousands who have signed the online and written petition are clearly against the Council proposal to take over the current land train service, Fact! Dramatically increasing the numbers who visit the Head will mean more areas fenced off, channeling more people walking on to the train route leading to a bigger demand for even more land trains, fact. There are limited facilities at the Head, the beach is not like Bournemouth pier, fact. There is no room to build more facilities that a bigger train service and increased passengers would demand, fact. Hengistbury Head has remained largely as untouched and beautiful as it is because of the lack of space to develop more services without building on the headland, fact. This is a stunning and fragile site of natural beauty that Bournemouth Council seem intent on destroying by ferrying more people to it, fact. Protect the headland, protect the current Land Train and this site will retain its natural beauty for generations to come. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or environmentalist to see how the Council's proposal will affect this area. The Council's inability to see the bigger picture will be their downfall, fact.
Well said!
They have the same attitude to the managing of their other nature reserves as well!None of the others make money , so they are even less maintained!
They need to be made accountable to us the taxpayers but they live in their own bubble where they must not be questioned !
[quote][p][bold]jonnyboyrgv[/bold] wrote: This proposal will ultimately destroy a site of special scientific interest, which is what Hengistbury Head is classified as, fact! Increasing the number of visitors roaming over the headland in itself is a very bad idea. It is a fragile area, think protected animal and vegetation, protected dunes and grasses on the spit, cliff erosion, there are already numerous areas that have been fenced off to protect them from people, like the Double Dykes for example, fact! Without doubt the majority of people who have posted on here, the Bournemouth Council Website and the thousands who have signed the online and written petition are clearly against the Council proposal to take over the current land train service, Fact! Dramatically increasing the numbers who visit the Head will mean more areas fenced off, channeling more people walking on to the train route leading to a bigger demand for even more land trains, fact. There are limited facilities at the Head, the beach is not like Bournemouth pier, fact. There is no room to build more facilities that a bigger train service and increased passengers would demand, fact. Hengistbury Head has remained largely as untouched and beautiful as it is because of the lack of space to develop more services without building on the headland, fact. This is a stunning and fragile site of natural beauty that Bournemouth Council seem intent on destroying by ferrying more people to it, fact. Protect the headland, protect the current Land Train and this site will retain its natural beauty for generations to come. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or environmentalist to see how the Council's proposal will affect this area. The Council's inability to see the bigger picture will be their downfall, fact.[/p][/quote]Well said! They have the same attitude to the managing of their other nature reserves as well!None of the others make money , so they are even less maintained! They need to be made accountable to us the taxpayers but they live in their own bubble where they must not be questioned ! oversixty
  • Score: 5

3:10pm Sat 22 Mar 14

essexmanclone says...

I'll leave the arguments now, having other things to do.
But in case any one just might be interested, here is a link to the current regulations that cover land trains.
http://www.dft.gov.u
k/vca/additional/fil
es/vehicle-special-o
rders/vso-guidance-n
otes/land-train-guid
ance-from-vca.pdf
I'll leave the arguments now, having other things to do. But in case any one just might be interested, here is a link to the current regulations that cover land trains. http://www.dft.gov.u k/vca/additional/fil es/vehicle-special-o rders/vso-guidance-n otes/land-train-guid ance-from-vca.pdf essexmanclone
  • Score: 2

6:51pm Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

localopinion wrote:
WTFRUON wrote:
new2it wrote:
Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents
were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.
Have just sent this.

Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train.

I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.
FOI....great but the FOI expect you to follow their rules, they have a website for that.
Little known is a provision for the investigative imperative that crops up now and then if there is something regally amiss. Once a year I remember reading anyone in the borough..a voter probably but that should be relaxed really, can attend the town hall and see any and all contractual records and correspondence within reason. Of course what you get will be what they give you and it may be sanitised. That TV comedian activist Mark somebody would get an insider to leak a document, he would make it clear he had such and therefore expect the full caboodle. Worth checking.
I have the time but you need to be focused and aware before you decide what to ask for. You will also need to know what committees have what responsibilities, that working parties and sub committees might try and claim exemption and anyway, have you ever been to a cabinet meeting...Ask Councillor West who maintains the edifice by chipping away at it and having none who will help him I suspect anxious to keep their job. There is no wildlife so tame or tight lipped as a Bournemouth Council official. They never started out that way, and the system protects those who know it,
(often for good reasons of confidentiality or proportionality that protected me and others in my career) but the words monopoly and knowledge always rankle with someone who hates railway lines especially if they serve not the public but their servants. Expect the law of reasoned inertia to kick in now with anyone who knows anything, and that spills into the lives who wants anything from those who do. And those who might thereby have profited It is so sad to see. So go for an FOI Act disclosure but find out what you want to know first so you know where to dig. And of course you are wasting everyone's time if you have not laboured through every public record or agenda, minute or report first. Human resources..you have a ward councillor or two...they might help but some are part of the problem. When looking at planning applications I used to see rich and powerful people doing the same. A lowly fact checking exercise.Once a Mr Greed who was an octogenarian had a company wanting to take over the entire Bournemouth Pier hinterland for a massive development. Councillor Filer I think remembered him from years before and remembered and respected his previous reputation. The great man allowed himself to be questioned at length and including his plans if he died. But he had a very savvy solicitor as his spokesman who unveiled a speaking platform at the place for public representations and boy had this guy done his homework. In the end the Council decided not to bet on Mr Greed and his massive financing and buying out all the existing stakeholders. At the other end of the spectrum can you remember Greg Howe who got a licence for an American style Druive in Cinema he put up as proof of concept at Boscombe Pier.? It worked after a fashion, but none of the Councillors really knew him. He moved on , the guy with the Xmas tree through his house...but Councillors never know wh too back, except when in doubt trust themselves. Ignorance of that or anything costs. Stupidity Costs. Not heeding a warning costs. Here is a new one, far more toxic... about.me/timoxylene.

barbabutanol
The simple question asked will receive a simple reply which is all that is required at this present time.

" Ignorance of that or anything costs. Stupidity Costs. Not heeding a warning costs. Here is a new one, far more toxic... about.me/timoxylene. barbabutanol"

Sorry but your post made little sense to me I checked out about.me/timoxylene. barbabutanol" WTFRUON.
[quote][p][bold]localopinion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WTFRUON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]new2it[/bold] wrote: Would Cllr Coope provide the proof that local residents were informed of this decision? I would suggest it is one big lie.[/p][/quote]Have just sent this. Hello I am making a request under the Freedom of Information Act. please could you provide all/any documentation regarding all / any consultations carried out concerning the replacement of the Hengistbury Head land train service, commonly known as the noddy train. I am happy to receive this information by email or by the regular postal service, I am also happy to pay any reasonable cost incurred by the council for obtaining and relaying to me the requested information.[/p][/quote]FOI....great but the FOI expect you to follow their rules, they have a website for that. Little known is a provision for the investigative imperative that crops up now and then if there is something regally amiss. Once a year I remember reading anyone in the borough..a voter probably but that should be relaxed really, can attend the town hall and see any and all contractual records and correspondence within reason. Of course what you get will be what they give you and it may be sanitised. That TV comedian activist Mark somebody would get an insider to leak a document, he would make it clear he had such and therefore expect the full caboodle. Worth checking. I have the time but you need to be focused and aware before you decide what to ask for. You will also need to know what committees have what responsibilities, that working parties and sub committees might try and claim exemption and anyway, have you ever been to a cabinet meeting...Ask Councillor West who maintains the edifice by chipping away at it and having none who will help him I suspect anxious to keep their job. There is no wildlife so tame or tight lipped as a Bournemouth Council official. They never started out that way, and the system protects those who know it, (often for good reasons of confidentiality or proportionality that protected me and others in my career) but the words monopoly and knowledge always rankle with someone who hates railway lines especially if they serve not the public but their servants. Expect the law of reasoned inertia to kick in now with anyone who knows anything, and that spills into the lives who wants anything from those who do. And those who might thereby have profited It is so sad to see. So go for an FOI Act disclosure but find out what you want to know first so you know where to dig. And of course you are wasting everyone's time if you have not laboured through every public record or agenda, minute or report first. Human resources..you have a ward councillor or two...they might help but some are part of the problem. When looking at planning applications I used to see rich and powerful people doing the same. A lowly fact checking exercise.Once a Mr Greed who was an octogenarian had a company wanting to take over the entire Bournemouth Pier hinterland for a massive development. Councillor Filer I think remembered him from years before and remembered and respected his previous reputation. The great man allowed himself to be questioned at length and including his plans if he died. But he had a very savvy solicitor as his spokesman who unveiled a speaking platform at the place for public representations and boy had this guy done his homework. In the end the Council decided not to bet on Mr Greed and his massive financing and buying out all the existing stakeholders. At the other end of the spectrum can you remember Greg Howe who got a licence for an American style Druive in Cinema he put up as proof of concept at Boscombe Pier.? It worked after a fashion, but none of the Councillors really knew him. He moved on , the guy with the Xmas tree through his house...but Councillors never know wh too back, except when in doubt trust themselves. Ignorance of that or anything costs. Stupidity Costs. Not heeding a warning costs. Here is a new one, far more toxic... about.me/timoxylene. barbabutanol[/p][/quote]The simple question asked will receive a simple reply which is all that is required at this present time. " Ignorance of that or anything costs. Stupidity Costs. Not heeding a warning costs. Here is a new one, far more toxic... about.me/timoxylene. barbabutanol" Sorry but your post made little sense to me I checked out about.me/timoxylene. barbabutanol" WTFRUON. WTFRUON
  • Score: -1

7:48pm Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

yousirmesirnosiryous
irthankyousir
wrote:
The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted!
WTFRUON
[quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: The train looks like a liability it's shabby and it's with out doubt time to move on. The quicker the new service starts the better. These people have been complacent and now it's time for a new modern up to date service.......it's no good after the horse has bolted![/p][/quote]WTFRUON WTFRUON
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Sat 22 Mar 14

WTFRUON says...

camvalley wrote:
yousirmesirnosiryous

irthankyousir
wrote:
All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it!
Trot on stupid person
@camvalley I like that one.
[quote][p][bold]camvalley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yousirmesirnosiryous irthankyousir[/bold] wrote: All silver surfers with nothing better to do than moan! These people have been elected so therefore they decide.... if you don't agree don't vote for them. We all welcome change unless your over 55. Roll on the new Service.....I bet you'll all use it![/p][/quote]Trot on stupid person[/p][/quote]@camvalley I like that one. WTFRUON
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Sun 23 Mar 14

neilf2006 says...

Whatever one thinks of the the triviality or otherwise of this saga, its very clear that elected representatives are not being truthful at all. Is there not some legal mechanism (other than not being elected) that can be used to ensure that they are punished for this very obvious deceit? I would like to remain impartial but having witnessed the surf reef farce, and been one of those applauding on day one of the imax demolition, I have to side with the many here who would dearly like to make a public protest. Pretty awful mixture of fumbled facts, lies and clearly botched attempts to cover up what I imagine is a nice little earner for someone when the proposed "in-house" train service is outsourced?
Whatever one thinks of the the triviality or otherwise of this saga, its very clear that elected representatives are not being truthful at all. Is there not some legal mechanism (other than not being elected) that can be used to ensure that they are punished for this very obvious deceit? I would like to remain impartial but having witnessed the surf reef farce, and been one of those applauding on day one of the imax demolition, I have to side with the many here who would dearly like to make a public protest. Pretty awful mixture of fumbled facts, lies and clearly botched attempts to cover up what I imagine is a nice little earner for someone when the proposed "in-house" train service is outsourced? neilf2006
  • Score: 0

5:48am Mon 24 Mar 14

ShuttleX says...

Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.

“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said.

“As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”


It really is time your retired Mr Coope. I live in your ward, as obviously do my neighbours, and none of us heard about this story till it was printed in the Echo. It was kept very very quiet within the Council too. So obviously "everyone" is NOT happy about it. I have spoken to around 30 of my neighbours and not one of them are happy with what the Council have done. I have noticed the last few times I've spoken to you, that you do seem to be in a different world from the rest of us. I am sure the blue rinse brigade will vote you back in again, the poor dears not knowing any better. But if you love Bournemouth as much as you say you do, then may be you can do us a favour and not stand at the next election Let somebody with a few more active brain cells do the job. Somebody who actually gets out and about in the ward and talks to people. Your ward contains more than the tea and cake lot that you normally talk to. Some of us actually work for a living. You seem to think the whole ward is nothing but elderly retired people. The only time residents see you is either at your very short surgeries, or when you are wanting their vote. To be fair, I suppose that is true of most allowances grabbing, non working, totally deaf Councillors. Hopefully in the next election, the other parties will put some effort into getting votes, instead of just going through the motions. Don't just put posters up and hope, but get out there and knock on doors. Answer peoples questions. Get yourselves known. I don't mind my local Councillor having different opinions then myself, but I do mind when they lie to me, as seems to be the case in this ward. I will vote for any party who is not a Conservative, which is quite ironic as I have been a Conservative all my life. Going by the people I talk to locally, this train story will cost you a number of votes Mr Coope. I will make a point of reminding local voters just before the election. I will point out also, just how little you do for your ward. Not just you, the other two as well. Your, "I'm comfortable on the gravy train, so s0d the lot of you" attitude won't wash forever.
Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves. “I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” It really is time your retired Mr Coope. I live in your ward, as obviously do my neighbours, and none of us heard about this story till it was printed in the Echo. It was kept very very quiet within the Council too. So obviously "everyone" is NOT happy about it. I have spoken to around 30 of my neighbours and not one of them are happy with what the Council have done. I have noticed the last few times I've spoken to you, that you do seem to be in a different world from the rest of us. I am sure the blue rinse brigade will vote you back in again, the poor dears not knowing any better. But if you love Bournemouth as much as you say you do, then may be you can do us a favour and not stand at the next election Let somebody with a few more active brain cells do the job. Somebody who actually gets out and about in the ward and talks to people. Your ward contains more than the tea and cake lot that you normally talk to. Some of us actually work for a living. You seem to think the whole ward is nothing but elderly retired people. The only time residents see you is either at your very short surgeries, or when you are wanting their vote. To be fair, I suppose that is true of most allowances grabbing, non working, totally deaf Councillors. Hopefully in the next election, the other parties will put some effort into getting votes, instead of just going through the motions. Don't just put posters up and hope, but get out there and knock on doors. Answer peoples questions. Get yourselves known. I don't mind my local Councillor having different opinions then myself, but I do mind when they lie to me, as seems to be the case in this ward. I will vote for any party who is not a Conservative, which is quite ironic as I have been a Conservative all my life. Going by the people I talk to locally, this train story will cost you a number of votes Mr Coope. I will make a point of reminding local voters just before the election. I will point out also, just how little you do for your ward. Not just you, the other two as well. Your, "I'm comfortable on the gravy train, so s0d the lot of you" attitude won't wash forever. ShuttleX
  • Score: 8

11:54am Mon 24 Mar 14

DorsetBorn79 says...

It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area.

I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service.

I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals?
It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area. I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service. I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals? DorsetBorn79
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Mon 24 Mar 14

neilf2006 says...

I assume this is a joke Dorsetborn79 ????................
........


DorsetBorn79 says...

It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area.

I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service.

I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals?
I assume this is a joke Dorsetborn79 ????................ ........ DorsetBorn79 says... It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area. I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service. I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals? neilf2006
  • Score: -2

4:09pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Bournefre says...

So what is the plan then? Since 88-year-old owner Joyce Faris has run the land train for the last 46 years is she supposed to be able to run it for the next 46 years? Obviously that isn't going to happen but has anyone considered what will happen then? According to Mrs Farris there isn't enough money to be made to run it as anything other than a hobby so it's not as if another private operator will want to take it on, then either the council will end up taking it on anyway or the service will be scrapped altogether.

My only real problem with the situation is the way Mrs Farris seems to have been 'booted out' of the project her and her husband created and managed from the start - it may have been more diplomatic for the council to have worked with her in updating the service so it could live on in his memory after her death.
So what is the plan then? Since 88-year-old owner Joyce Faris has run the land train for the last 46 years is she supposed to be able to run it for the next 46 years? Obviously that isn't going to happen but has anyone considered what will happen then? According to Mrs Farris there isn't enough money to be made to run it as anything other than a hobby so it's not as if another private operator will want to take it on, then either the council will end up taking it on anyway or the service will be scrapped altogether. My only real problem with the situation is the way Mrs Farris seems to have been 'booted out' of the project her and her husband created and managed from the start - it may have been more diplomatic for the council to have worked with her in updating the service so it could live on in his memory after her death. Bournefre
  • Score: 2

4:27pm Mon 24 Mar 14

new2it says...

ShuttleX wrote:
Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves.

“I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said.

“As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.”


It really is time your retired Mr Coope. I live in your ward, as obviously do my neighbours, and none of us heard about this story till it was printed in the Echo. It was kept very very quiet within the Council too. So obviously "everyone" is NOT happy about it. I have spoken to around 30 of my neighbours and not one of them are happy with what the Council have done. I have noticed the last few times I've spoken to you, that you do seem to be in a different world from the rest of us. I am sure the blue rinse brigade will vote you back in again, the poor dears not knowing any better. But if you love Bournemouth as much as you say you do, then may be you can do us a favour and not stand at the next election Let somebody with a few more active brain cells do the job. Somebody who actually gets out and about in the ward and talks to people. Your ward contains more than the tea and cake lot that you normally talk to. Some of us actually work for a living. You seem to think the whole ward is nothing but elderly retired people. The only time residents see you is either at your very short surgeries, or when you are wanting their vote. To be fair, I suppose that is true of most allowances grabbing, non working, totally deaf Councillors. Hopefully in the next election, the other parties will put some effort into getting votes, instead of just going through the motions. Don't just put posters up and hope, but get out there and knock on doors. Answer peoples questions. Get yourselves known. I don't mind my local Councillor having different opinions then myself, but I do mind when they lie to me, as seems to be the case in this ward. I will vote for any party who is not a Conservative, which is quite ironic as I have been a Conservative all my life. Going by the people I talk to locally, this train story will cost you a number of votes Mr Coope. I will make a point of reminding local voters just before the election. I will point out also, just how little you do for your ward. Not just you, the other two as well. Your, "I'm comfortable on the gravy train, so s0d the lot of you" attitude won't wash forever.
I agree with everything you say, except at the age of 73 I guess I would be classed as one of your "Blue rinse Brigade" a poor dear who knows nothing better. Very insulting. You may find it hard to believe but most of us have managed to retain our full faculties. Hope you do when you become one of the "Blue rinse Brigade" Just a thought.
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile, East Southbourne and Tuckton councillor Eddie Coope, who represents Hengistbury Head, has backed the council’s decision to run the service themselves. “I don’t know really what all the fuss is about,” he said. “As ward councillors we have been consulted on this, we have kept residents updated and everyone seemed happy with it.” It really is time your retired Mr Coope. I live in your ward, as obviously do my neighbours, and none of us heard about this story till it was printed in the Echo. It was kept very very quiet within the Council too. So obviously "everyone" is NOT happy about it. I have spoken to around 30 of my neighbours and not one of them are happy with what the Council have done. I have noticed the last few times I've spoken to you, that you do seem to be in a different world from the rest of us. I am sure the blue rinse brigade will vote you back in again, the poor dears not knowing any better. But if you love Bournemouth as much as you say you do, then may be you can do us a favour and not stand at the next election Let somebody with a few more active brain cells do the job. Somebody who actually gets out and about in the ward and talks to people. Your ward contains more than the tea and cake lot that you normally talk to. Some of us actually work for a living. You seem to think the whole ward is nothing but elderly retired people. The only time residents see you is either at your very short surgeries, or when you are wanting their vote. To be fair, I suppose that is true of most allowances grabbing, non working, totally deaf Councillors. Hopefully in the next election, the other parties will put some effort into getting votes, instead of just going through the motions. Don't just put posters up and hope, but get out there and knock on doors. Answer peoples questions. Get yourselves known. I don't mind my local Councillor having different opinions then myself, but I do mind when they lie to me, as seems to be the case in this ward. I will vote for any party who is not a Conservative, which is quite ironic as I have been a Conservative all my life. Going by the people I talk to locally, this train story will cost you a number of votes Mr Coope. I will make a point of reminding local voters just before the election. I will point out also, just how little you do for your ward. Not just you, the other two as well. Your, "I'm comfortable on the gravy train, so s0d the lot of you" attitude won't wash forever.[/p][/quote]I agree with everything you say, except at the age of 73 I guess I would be classed as one of your "Blue rinse Brigade" a poor dear who knows nothing better. Very insulting. You may find it hard to believe but most of us have managed to retain our full faculties. Hope you do when you become one of the "Blue rinse Brigade" Just a thought. new2it
  • Score: 1

6:06pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Kiki1973 says...

DorsetBorn79 wrote:
It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area.

I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service.

I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals?
Couldn't agree more!
[quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area. I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service. I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals?[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more! Kiki1973
  • Score: -5

10:15pm Mon 24 Mar 14

rusty james says...

Except history shows us that this council of bungling muppets couldn't run a doughnut stall.
Except history shows us that this council of bungling muppets couldn't run a doughnut stall. rusty james
  • Score: 6

12:13am Tue 25 Mar 14

Archiebean says...

Kiki1973 wrote:
DorsetBorn79 wrote:
It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area.

I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service.

I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals?
Couldn't agree more!
Except certainly from the comments on here and the huge response to the petition there is a significant percentage of the population of Bournemouth and probably an even higher percentage of those who regularly visit hengistbury head who are very happy with the service already being provided and for all sorts of reasons would like it to remain as it is. In other parts of the country a unique traditional service such as this would be something that is cared for and cherished as part of local heritage rather than being replaced by a sanitised land train of the style that can found just about anywhere.
What we would like Bournemouth council to do is to take notice of this strength of feeling and proactively work wth Mrs. Farris and her dedicated team to make necessary regulatory improvements and offer them a fair contract that reflects the additional investment.
Do I think they will do this? Probably not, partly because I suspect this deal has already been done and dusted and partly because BBC do have reputation for not listening to public opinion and being prepared to sometimes they may just have got what they are proposing for the people of Bournemouth wrong. I would be so delighted if they proved me wrong!
[quote][p][bold]Kiki1973[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DorsetBorn79[/bold] wrote: It is fantastic to see a borough council being proactive, investing and doing something positive for the area. I think we will be pleasantly surprised with the council run service. I wonder how the prices will compare to the current service and what the level of staffing will be like, perhaps creating some employment for the locals?[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more![/p][/quote]Except certainly from the comments on here and the huge response to the petition there is a significant percentage of the population of Bournemouth and probably an even higher percentage of those who regularly visit hengistbury head who are very happy with the service already being provided and for all sorts of reasons would like it to remain as it is. In other parts of the country a unique traditional service such as this would be something that is cared for and cherished as part of local heritage rather than being replaced by a sanitised land train of the style that can found just about anywhere. What we would like Bournemouth council to do is to take notice of this strength of feeling and proactively work wth Mrs. Farris and her dedicated team to make necessary regulatory improvements and offer them a fair contract that reflects the additional investment. Do I think they will do this? Probably not, partly because I suspect this deal has already been done and dusted and partly because BBC do have reputation for not listening to public opinion and being prepared to sometimes they may just have got what they are proposing for the people of Bournemouth wrong. I would be so delighted if they proved me wrong! Archiebean
  • Score: 2

10:21am Sat 29 Mar 14

zephglad says...

Fact: each year Council representatives visit Hengistbury Head to renew the licence with Mrs Faris. In the first week of January her suicidal 36 year old grandson went missing from his home in Southbourne. There was massive publicity in this newspaper and the rest of the media. Search and rescue teams scoured the area. After four weeks of agony for the family his body was finally retrieved on a beach at Southsea. He had been in the water for a month. A day or two after that terrible discovery the Council came to see Mrs Faris. They asked her how she was and she replied, "Not good," and explained about her grandson's death, the news of which had been widely reported in this newspaper. They disregarded the fact that she was in a state of shock and went ahead with the meeting in which they presented her with the fact that a decision had been made not to renew the licence for the train. Did she agree?! How can someone 'agree' to a fait accompli?!
She meekly 'agreed'. How cruel of the Council to treat a woman of her age (or anybody recently bereaved by suicide) like that.
Fact: each year Council representatives visit Hengistbury Head to renew the licence with Mrs Faris. In the first week of January her suicidal 36 year old grandson went missing from his home in Southbourne. There was massive publicity in this newspaper and the rest of the media. Search and rescue teams scoured the area. After four weeks of agony for the family his body was finally retrieved on a beach at Southsea. He had been in the water for a month. A day or two after that terrible discovery the Council came to see Mrs Faris. They asked her how she was and she replied, "Not good," and explained about her grandson's death, the news of which had been widely reported in this newspaper. They disregarded the fact that she was in a state of shock and went ahead with the meeting in which they presented her with the fact that a decision had been made not to renew the licence for the train. Did she agree?! How can someone 'agree' to a fait accompli?! She meekly 'agreed'. How cruel of the Council to treat a woman of her age (or anybody recently bereaved by suicide) like that. zephglad
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree