The Bulletin
There is no question that the bulletin can be a good read when it sticks to impartial relevant topics. However, it regularly harrasses an elderly resident of Campden for wasting public money, despite more money being wasted on Planning objections by other busy bodies supported by this rag. It openly printed an irrelevant racist article as a response to a letter from an Asian council officer, and it regularly prints vile and nasty responses to other people’s letters if they go against the flow. Yes, if you were the kid in the playground who stood giggling, watching the bullies picking on people, I can see why this rag appeals.
Sorry, maybe I should not have said a normal resident as this is causing some confusion. I meant a true local person. Local people are born and bred here and are not retired from London or the shires. (Thats why Campden needs more OAP homes by the way). In response to Clive Thompson. Has he recently tried having a letter that doesn’t go along with the view of the bulletin echelon published? The letters chosen do not always represent the letters submitted, unless, of course, the Editor wants to denigrate and snigger at the contents.
And to The Beak – yes, sorry for the spelling error in my heading, I will report to your office at once.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Panida
Are you really the ’solicitor of the supreme court’in disguise??? Who else could possibly think this elderly resident is being harrassed by a council who has had to suffer her nonsense for so many years? She’s not the kid in the playground being picked on – she’s the bully stealing everyone’s sweets!!! Either that or you are not a ‘true local’ person, and are unaware of exactly what this ‘elderly resident’ has actually done in her retirement!
Oh Pammie you missed the point.
What I find interesting is that those who are so prominent in their condemnation of that Solicitor are the ones using similar nasty, time and money wasting tactics against two developers in the Town. A bit hypocritical!?
Oh Panida you are so naive! The elderly resident you mentioned was featured in the Neigbours From Hell TV programme, which incidentally did not find her/him/it innocent! The two developers you mentioned seem to be flouting the law with two fingers to everyone who has abided by building regulations over the years, making Campden the celebrated town it is. By their actions they will open the floodgates and if you want an example of a relaxation of planning rules, look at Littleworth. I do not know how long you have lived in Campden but Littleworth was built in the 1950s and won a design award. The Cotswold stone houses display a well built, designed and crafted workmanship and the generic whole was nicely balanced in itself and with surrounding green space. However the council has allowed the whole aescetic to be destroyed by odd extentions, car ports and other destructions to the infrastructure. This type of destruction would be in store for the rest of the town if the two developers were to be allowed to break the laws. It would also send your elderly resident friend into apoplexy as she/he/it has assumed the role of conservation expert and spokesperson for the town!
In my opinion the Bulletin’s role is to expose this creeping dumbing down of the environment and stand up against the bullies generally and quick buck humbug!
The Beak, I do not support any person who wastes public money or any developer who flouts planning laws. (I did not mentioned any specific developers?) It is clear from your reply that you support the bullying in this rag as it appears I am now a friend of this elderly resident and a supporter of the most bullied developer in Campden. Will I be next on the ducking stool of the bulletin now?.
You missed the point. You cannot have an opinion in this rag unless the editor likes it. Most of the planning objections have been upheld or will be upheld after lengthy and costly investigations. Where is the condemnation in this publication for the minority of people wasting public money on this folly? None, because it is a jolly good laugh to personally attack people rather than report objectively.
I have read with interest the various comments about The Bulletin, The Developers and The Solicitor and thought it was time to join in:-
To describe The Solicitor as an elderly resident of Chipping Campden, seems to be mitigating her bad behaviour on the grounds of age. Let’s hope that the same applies to any aspiring juvenile delinquents, when it’s their turn to make other people’s lives a very expensive misery.
It also seems that anyone who makes a legitimate planning objection is a ‘busy body’, supporter of ‘this rag’, who wastes more money than the misunderstood ‘elderly resident’. As I have only ever made one objection, to one development in all the years I have lived here – please clarify how that makes me a). a busybody and b) a money waster?
As far as the racist article was concerned, I didn’t like the fact that it was printed in the Bulletin, as in my opinion there is only one (unprintable) place for drivel like that, however, I believe it is a very sad reflection on the person who asked for it to be printed in the first place, not the Bulletin.
And lastly The Developers – forgive me if I’m wrong, (if indeed we are talking about the same people), I seem to think that they broke the planning laws. Apparently this is absolutely fine, BUT, as an opponent, I am labelled ‘a time and money wasting, nasty’ person. Call me naïve, but I find it hard to process the fact that I am being insulted for expressing my opposition to something that is ILLEGAL.
I’m guessing, despite its uniqueness, that Chipping Campden is still a democracy, but if anyone knows different please let me know.
CLF – Good points I stand corrected. It was mainly the racist response to the Council Solicitor that raised my blood pressure. The Bulletin seems to think it can print anything it wishes without any redress.
Thank you Panida. I know we can’t all agree on everything published in The Bulletin, or any other publication for that matter, but I am still glad we have people in this community who refuse to ‘lie down and play dead’.
In order to protect our heritage, it is imperative that we are able to have our say. Personally, I think this blog is a brilliant medium and am looking forward to some lively – if slightly contentious debates.
Although, thanks to The Beak, I am now very nervous about my spelling & grammar – I never liked school and spent many a happy hour playing truant, so I hope The Beak will be lenient if us mere mortals make the occasional error.
I read with great interest the ‘This Months Blog’ column in this months Bulletin. If this is not clear evidence how the editor of this rag alters and manipulates fact to satisfy his own ego, I don’t know what is. This is not a true representation of the blog. Items have been taken out and comments supporting the Bulletin added in. (check for yourself) Wake up people this is what is happening all the time.
I really do not have any interest in planning issues right or wrong, I just do not like the way items are reported. This rag likes to belittle people if they happen to speak up. Look at its juvenile taunt at me for instance.
Isn’t it interesting that an article published on this blog about the rag’s editor was withdrawn only days after appearing. I can only think that the Bulletin did not like its contents and had it withdrawn. It a pity this luxury does not apply to articles about other people published in the bulletin.
Sorry to disabuse you Panida, but I complained about the posting relating to the Bulletin’s Editor, as I thought it was homophobic, which may have been why it was withdrawn. It is one thing to object to his editorial skills, perceived bias, and all the other things he is accused of, but prejudice is unacceptable.
Whilst I don’t agree with absolutely everything that is published in the Bulletin, it is important to distance ourselves from personal dislikes. Yes he did taunt you in the last edition, but as a Blogger you have the luxury of remaining anonymous, therefore, presumably no harm has been done.
Whether you like the Bulletin or not, it certainly causes a stir and, more importantly, it highlights planning abuses, etc, which we can choose to act upon, whatever our stance is – isn’t this better than living in a ‘lie down and play dead’ society?
So it is ok to publish racist material in Chipping Campden but not homophobic material. Where is your benchmark? I believe it is all the same rubbish. Quote from a previous blogger “No PC nonsence here, say it as it is”
The blog is not anonymous, your email address, IP address and service provider are all listed??? Don’t kid yourself CLF – maybe you should complain about that too.
I have never said it is ok to publish racist material, as I am sure you must be aware from my previous posting. However, with blogs we can object to what we deem to be unsuitable material and have it removed. I would have to be a magician to have achieved that with the Bulletin.
As far as the comment ‘No PC nonsense here’ is concerned, I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say, as it doesn’t bear any relation to anything that I have said. There is a huge difference between ‘PC nonsense’ and the reality of prejudice, whether it be racist, homophobic or in any other guise. Sadly by taking political correctness too far, some people cannot/or do not want to separate the two things, hence the fact that the far right have used many of the worst examples of political correctness to support some of their more odious views.
You ask what my benchmark is, yet you misconstrue what I say – which is surely what you’re objecting to with the Bulletin – but seeing as you did ask, in an ideal world I would like to put an end to marginalisation.