Readers' Contributions

Welcome to our new 'Readers' Contributions' page. If you have anything to say on any issues (within the bounds of propriety) then this is the page for you to share your views with our millions of readers.

The views, comments and articles forwarded and expressed by third parties on this and all other pages are not necessarily the views of the BBB, who accept no responsibility for any inaccuracies or misinformation inadvertently published.

Responses to any of the views expressed are cordially invited.

Read what a local reader thinks about the Council's 'unwise' purchase of the McKenzie Arms pub in Bamber Bridge.

I, and I believe many other Bamber Bridge residents heartily applaud the announcement made by the new leader of South Ribble Council, Councillor Paul Foster, with regards to the publication of the findings of the inquiry, ‘No matter what they say,’ as to why £520,000 of tax payers money was spent on purchasing and demolishing the McKenzie Arms public house in Bamber Bridge for the specific purpose of providing a primary entrance and exit from Station Road, the main thoroughfare through the town, to the Wren Green housing development, currently under construction on the site of the now demolished Wesley Street Mill.
His statement, recently published in the LP, suggests that there were factions abroad that would have preferred to keep these findings under wraps. Such an undemocratic decision would have come as no surprise to the many of us residents who believe that this whole enterprise has been handled very poorly by the public authorities elected to serve the best interests of the public.
Initially, the purchase of the McKenzie Arms as the primary route into the Wren Green estate was considered a costly but necessary enterprise. It was welcomed by councillors, road users and residents alike as a sound and sensible decision in an area of the town that even now is quite seriously congested at peak times, and this is before the impact of the increased traffic flow from this new estate has been factored in.
It was with heavy and incredulous hearts that we residents later learned that this seemingly logical plan had been discarded by the developers in favour of a single point entrance and exit, to and from a narrow side street that already suffers from near gridlock at certain times during the day. It appears to us that the only logical reason for this decision was that it presented the developer with more building land and not, as is often conveniently quoted, an insoluble land swap issue with the local primary school.
The questions on the lips of most Bamber Bridge residents is how has this been allowed to happen after an outlay of over half-a-million pounds of public funds for one specific purpose? How has the developer been allowed to reject this preferred route in favour of a more advantageous (for him) route into the estate? These, among other searching questions, we residents would like to think, would have formed the basis of those that would be put before the inquiry.
Despite their protestations that they have done nothing wrong, South Ribble Borough Council must accept some responsibility for the current unacceptable position. They tell us that legal issues (which are apparently secret) and the previously mentioned land swap concerns with the adjacent school, are the primary reasons that put the credible and sensible McKenzie route in doubt.
If this was the case then the purchase of the McKenzie Arms should never have been even considered until these issues had been resolved. Negotiations could then have been conducted with the purchase of the pub only taking place by a contracted obligation from the developer to use it as the prime route to and from the estate.
Not being privy to the questions that were asked at the enquiry, we, the residents, would like to think that among many others, the following list should have formed the basis of the enquiry and if not then the whole exercise becomes meaningless and only adds to the speculation of we the residents that the whole charade has been nothing more than a cover up job.   
1. As SRBC is a public body responsible for project expenditure, was the purchase of the McKenzie Arms fully researched as a viable proposition, with all safeguards in place to ensure that the project was achievable? Why were all potential legal issues, along with the land swap concerns not fully investigated and resolved before purchasing the site?                                                                                                                   2. Knowing that a considerable amount of public cash had been spent on a project with only one aim in view, why did SRBC not draw up a contractual agreement with the developers for the McKenzie Arms site to be the primary route into the development, despite any other route being also considered by either party?              3. When planning permission was sought by the developers to use Wesley Street as a possible route into the estate, why did SRBC not stipulate that because of public funds already committed to the purchase of the McKenzie Arms, then this request would only be considered as a secondary option and that the McKenzie site must always be considered as the primary route. Alternatively the developer should have been contracted to reimburse the council if they chose not to use the McKenzie Arms option.                                                                                                                                          4. Why were councillors not briefed by the SRBC Planning hierarchy before the Wesley Street option was voted on that a vote for Wesley Street would give the developer the choice of either option whilst discarding the other. As soon as Wesley Street received planning approval, the developer dropped the McKenzie option like a hot potato. We are aware that at least one councillor was not aware of this scenario when he voted for the Wesley Street option and he afterwards regretted this decision claiming ignorance of the potential outcome.
At the end of the day we believe that all authorities involved have been out manoeuvred and outwitted by the developers of Wren Green, who after leaving the area with their vast profits will leave the residents of Bamber Bridge to live with and endure the chaos that will inevitably result.
Yours sincerely,
A Local resident.

This letter from a South Ribble resident concerning the recent local elections raises an interesting point - Would anyone like to add to or question the merits of the issue raised?

Elections are supposed to be fair and democratic and truly representative of all who vote. If this is the case then how come that in the recent local council elections, in the whole of the South Ribble borough, 6,000  more people voted conservative than voted Labour and yet Labour finished up with more seats. This is surely a classic case of a flawed system that needs to be addressed. I accept that if change ever happens then whatever system is adopted will have its flaws and will not suit everybody, but surely the archaic 'First Past the Post' system is disenfranchising a large body of voters and probably fuelling voting apathy. Marginal seats always appear to be well contested as voters realize that their vote could make a difference. However, if you live in a constituency that is, and always has been, dominated by a particular party that you do not support, then there is a relutance to cast your vote on the premise that it is pretty pointless as your preferred candidate has no chance of being elected. Now what if there was a system that ensured that every vote cast in any election would be meaningful? - Well there is! It is called Proportional Representation (PR) and is practiced successfully in many countries round the world. In Europe alone, some form of PR is carried out in countries such as Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. So how does this system work? Well there is no one defined method as it depends on what type of election is being held. If you wanted to learn more about PR and how it is applied then there are a number of internet sites that will provide this information including the Electoral Reform society, which you can view on https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/. However, the most important factor with the PR system is in the knowledge that every vote counts and should be the carrot that ensures that every person who has a vote uses it in the knowledge that they are NOT a voice crying in the wilderness.

        ***********************************************************

This letter has been sent to us from a local reader, It's a long read but once you start, you will want to finish it. It is both illuminating and scary. We are so often told what will happen if we leave the EU, but not so much what will happen if we stay. Read it and then make your own conclusions!

We have also received an interesting response to the letter which is shown below.

OK so we’ve had the worst-case scenario for leaving the EU given to us by numerous outlets ranging from the Bank of England to the spoiled prepubescent acting momentum supporters and everyone else in-between.
So, I am now going to tell you the worst-case scenario of remaining in the EU based on actual known factors and figures, sourced from the public records of the UK Government, the EU Parliament, The Bank of England, the CBI, Migration watch, The Stock exchanges around the world, the IMF, and also the UN.
So those of you who think that this little rant is a tin hat moment by myself think again and go and fully research and cross reference what I am about to tell you and remember this is worst-case scenario that could happen unless I clearly point out where it will happen by either a date or other factor.

KNOWN OUTCOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES:

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or veto’s being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon treaty with no exceptions or veto’s.
3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
4: The London stock exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU stock exchange resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation. This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen the move is fully cancelled but if not and the UK remains a member it’s full steam ahead for the move.
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.
7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.
8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.
9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.
10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights
11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights
12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty
13: The UK loses control of its planning legislation
14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent
15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy
16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them
17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth
18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.; Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar ect
19: The UK loses control of its judicial system
20: The UK loses control of its international policy
21: The UK loses full control of its national policy
22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.
23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program
24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction
25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty
26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of 1.2bn pa and by 2.3bn pa by 2020

PROBABLE WORST-CASE OUTCOMES

1: The UK will become nothing more than a vassal protectorate state
2: With the continuation of freedom of movement, the population of the UK will continue to grow at a rate higher than pre-referendum level ranging between 400,000 to 675,000 per annum.
2.1; Which will result in not just wage suppression but even wage depression.
2.2; More than 500,000 new homes to be built annually (We are currently only managing 125,000)
2.3; House prices and rents will skyrocket annually by 23%
2.4; Class sizes in schools would have to increase by 50% if not even double
2.5; The NHS will become solely an emergency service of care provider as they would no longer be able to cope with the numbers of people needing care other than those of emergency.
2.6; GP’s will become triage centres
2.7; Public transport will become permit holders use only
2.8; Only those that did a serious crime namely murder will be given a custodial sentence
2.9; The Court system becomes fully overrun to the point extreme cases only being heard and the rest being given an automatic fine
2.10; Emergency services collapsing for not being able to cope with the scale of things
2.11; Social care becoming solely private social care for those who can afford it.
2.12; Homelessness to increase by over 28% annually
2.13; Unemployment to increase annually by 37%
2.14; The Benefit system to collapse fully to the point of the return of soup kitchens and even workhouse existence
2.15; Crime to increase by over 59% annually
2.16; Shanty towns to become the norm standard of housing
3: Because the UK would no longer be able to make its own trade deals, nor control its tariffs or quotas, Food prices would increase by over 25% and the cost of living would go up by over 39%
4: Because the UK would lose its oil and gas rights it would also lose the revenue from taxation on them, resulting in a loss of over 600 billion per year in taxation revenue
5: Because the UK will become a member state its percentage share of the vote on any new laws, regulations, treaties and everything else is at current member numbers 3.57% of the vote. That’s right folks the UK say in the EU if it was to remain a member is 3.57% total
Everything I have put thus far is just the very extreme tip of the iceberg that is ready to sink the UK if we remain a member of the EU.
Everything is verifiable by the sources I have already outlined above and is something the EU propaganda machine as well as our very own government are not telling you.
Remainers keep on bleating about that the people didn’t know all of the facts
If that’s the case then why are they failing to tell the people the downside or remaining a member of the EU?
ASK YOURSELVES THAT FACT AND FIND OUT THE TRUE HARD FACTS FOR YOURSELF

From a concerned reader of the BBB

The Response

As a reader of the BBB, I was surprised to read a letter from one of your readers regarding the EU and the calamities that would fall upon the UK if they were to remain inside the European Union. It stated that most of these issues are said to be clearly laid out in the Lisbon Treaty such as the UK losing it’s veto, The UK having to adopt the Euro by a certain year, all states becoming part of a federal Europe(no exceptions), The London Stock Exchange moving to Frankfurt by 2020 etc. The writer of this letter claims to have carried out considerable research before they came to these findings, when in fact a small amount of research would have found out that it is actually a pack of untruths (to be kind). This article is actually a well traveled piece that has been doing the rounds for a while now and is linked to the organization formally acquainted with that well known brick of the community, Tommy Robinson. I did take the time to read the Lisbon Treaty and it mentions none of the points made by your letter writer. A quick search of the Internet shows this letter and discusses its points, dismissing them as fake news which is very common at the moment as horrendous lies are told by all politicians to further their goals. if any of theses major points were true, would the prominent Brexiteers not be shouting them from the roof tops? The trouble with the whole Brexit debate is that lies have been routinely fed to the people making it very difficult to decide which course would be in the best interest of the country.
From another concerned BBB reader and local resident.

If you have any views on either of the above letters, the BBB will be more than happy to publish them. Who knows, between us we may even come up with a viable solution to this thorny issue!

        **************************************************************

The Great Brexit Debate - Where are we going?

     Can you imagine a turkey being elected to help promote Christmas? Well it’s no more ludicrous than expecting a confirmed ‘remainer’ to get the Brexit deal that the majority of ‘leavers’ had in mind when they voted to come out of the EU. The logical answer of course is to put a dedicated leaver in charge of what are undoubtedly tricky and complex negotiations.
     The politician best suited for this task is undoubtedly Boris Johnson. Now I realize he is not everybody’s ‘cup of tea’ but the one thing that the great British public could be certain of is a deal that won’t leave us still shackled to the EU, being nothing more than a vassal state to this fast-failing union, which is exactly what we would be if the chequers deal, as it stands, was to go through.
A disillusioned Brig Brexiteer.

Page 2c