Diana Mond
Where is the alleged corruption in this example, and also (whilst we’re at it) in the examples in the other thread? You keep throwing around the word “corruption”, yet continually fail to state where the corruption is. @page { margin: 2cm } p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120% }
Not at all Calmari, it’s a factual remark.
“A wide range of Dawlish interest groups”? Aren’t most of these dominated by retirees with loads of time on their hands? Hopefully they’ll also decide to include representatives of local schools, children’s groups, and other local majority interest groups.
They call it “attention seeking”...
So you’re not the only retired police officer down here then Purrrrfect?! My post is relevant, in my opinion. The idea of all signage being torn down is ridiculous, in my opinion.
A few examples: Dog owners would allow their dogs to shit all over the beach. Idiots would feed chips to seagulls. Unknowings would feed white bread to ducks, be it near to nesting swans or not. Morons would park on double yellow lines or claim that they didn’t realise they had to pay and display. People with children wouldn’t find the mini playpark at the Manor.
I’m sorry. You asked for any information and I provided some.
Majorp. Where’s the evidence of corruption in the planning examples you gave?
Here’s some information: Lane Configuration : Lane 1 is gained from the entry sliproad. Lane 2 continues ahead. Lane 3 continues ahead. Lane 1 exits and does not return. Lane 2 continues ahead. Lane 3 continues ahead. Then further along: Lane 1 splits to create a new lane. Lane 2 continues ahead.
I’ve just read today’s Gazette. I find it intriguing that Ms Foden (strange how articles almost always fail to mention that she’s a pseudo-independent town councillor) states in one breath that the original consultation failed to represent the views of enough Dawlish residents, yet her petition was apparently signed by only a few more (7-ish% of the Dawlish population??). It’s a pity that ...
