General Discussion

Those who haven't seen this weeks Gazette might not be aware that the Town Council are going to replace the lamppost banners along the Strand. Instead of explicitly advertising local events and tourist destinations, the new banners will consist of photos that will hopefully inspire the audience (local and visiting) to consider all that is great about Dawlish. The Council and the Town Centre Manager are encouraging members of the public to submit suitable photos. Presumably these will need to be digital and of a high definition so that they can be enlarged without losing any of their sharpness. 

Hopefully the selected photos will be more than the usual tired clichés such as Black Swans on the brook. Let's be artistic, colourful, positive, inspirational, thought-provoking, debate-provoking and perhaps even a little bit daring? Maybe NME could be approached to provide a contribution?  Teignmouth have their fantastic Eco sculpture trail, please can we also have something that makes people stop, view, interpret and discuss. Thanks for taking the time to read this. 

We are inviting people to send any photographs they think might be suitableto us. They have to be good resolution and in letterbox format if possible.  Some have been sent to us already.  Would be great to have a lot of photographs to choose from.

It is sad when people denigrate the black swan emblem of Dawlish. We are unique in having the black swan as an emblem so let us celebrate it on ONE banner perhaps. Yes let's be inspirational but not to the extent of alienating people such as happened with the dreadful proposal for the Woodlouse on the lawn last year! 

As a member of the working group I have not seen any photographs submitted so I have asked about the process for sharing submissions to ensure this is a fair and equitable process.

I said that I hoped that the submissions would be more than just Black Swans, not that they should be excluded! I certainly wasn't denigrating our emblem. Stop trying to pick a fight again please Margaret, it's already very tiresome and most unbecoming of a town councillor. As for the pavilion and what you call "alienation", it's still a fact that the survey results showed that more people who participated in the survey were in favour of the pavilion proposal than either of the other two options. And it certainly provoked discussion - which in my opinion all art should. Not everyone likes the same as each other, there will always be differences of opinion, which in a democracy is obviously how things should be, as long as those differences are aired civilly. Thank you. 

@Mrs C, read your own post, I rest my case as a resident of Dawlish! I am, along with two other conscientious councillors, in the process of analysing the results of the survey and your statement is not accurate, as well you know. I won't bore people by citing the figures again as they were widely publicised last August but, as we all know, the combined figure of those against the monstrosity and those who wanted no change far outweighed the few in favour of the woodlouse.

Margaret, you obviously interpret people's posts on here in a unique way. Just to confirm, yet again and for the final time, I didn't say that they should be excluded but that the photos should be more than just ones of swans. Thank you. 

Old ground but, sigh, what I wrote was that more were in favour of the proposed pavilion than of either of the two other options. And that, in my opinion, is hardly alienation. I'm not sure why you seem to be intimating that other councillors aren't conscientious, however I hope that your analysis reveals the rationale behind the thinking of those who wanted no change to the current monstrosity. I hope I'm not alone in looking forward to reading the results of your analysis, which I'm sure will be presented in a totally impartial manner. 

It will! 

Thanks for posting about it JC.  It would be good to see more constructive posts that concern Dawlish from our councillors, Michael Clayson is really the only one who makes any consistent effort.   

Well, we can tell the local elections are looming!

Yes, your paranoia seems to be leaping off the screen at us! 

Oh, give it a rest!

Michael Clayson has consistently kept residents informed for a long time on here and on other social media. If he stands at the next election and gets re-elected then I'm sure that will continue. 

Three agrees...........Michael, Bob and Mrjrcp? 

That's true JC. Now back to the thread.  Margaret, if you're in the working group has anyone reminded you that you need to turn up to a meeting to see the photos?  

PS one of those 'agrees' is mine.  I seriously doubt Michael Clayson and Robert Vickery are as paranoid about you as you clearly are about them 

You would be very surprised! And yes I did turn up at the meeting last Monday and JCs comments mirror BVs to a T! 

Well yours often mirror the rantings of a deluded egotist but I don't think you own the exclusivity!  

Time for bed Margaret, before you get even more tired and emotional.  Goodnight. 

At the  risk of repeating myself,  still nothing changes.

I will say though, speaking as an ex councillor elsewhere, Margaret  Swift does herself no  favours on this forum.

I can categorically assure you Margaret that I'm not Bob Vickery lol! I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't be in the slightest bit impressed at being thought of as me!  Whilst I've agreed with a lot of the stuff that he's posted on here, there are also a number of issues that I've disagreed - most publicly being the dogs on the beach thread that Margaret and Burneside, thanks to yet another misinteretation by them, turned into yet another unedifying public attack on a forum member. 

No matter which of my above comments Margaret is referring to (she failed to say), it's pleasing to know that great minds think alike lol...

By the way, if I'm Bob Vickery then I wouldn't be able to press Agree on my own post! I hope that Margaret and her conscientious councillors who are reviewing the pavilion survey results demonstrate more rational logic and interpretation of what people write than what Margaret does on here. 

@Margaret Swift at 11 minutes past midnight.  you say, "...and jc's comments mirror bv's to a t!"

I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have no idea who Judith Chalmers is, whether I have ever spoken to this person (could be a transgender identity even?) , and am certainly not in any form of communication with her.   That does not mean that I disagree with her/his comments.

I can also confirm, for the record, that Michael Clayson is not him/her.

I have used this site to give information on matters raised by correspondents, but have reluctantly decided that I will not continue.  I do not wish to be drawn into this argument.

Perhaps the town council could set up a citizens questions/councillors answers forum? To register questions, the name and address of the questioner must be given? Questioners must be registered on the election register (so that the likelilhood of made up posting names is considerably lowered because they can be checked?). Name (but not address) of questioner to be made public?

Even more appropriate with elections coming up in May?

Just a totally off the top of my head thought (which is why there are ? marks everywhere).  

I did NOT say you were BV!!! I said your comments mirrored his to a T, which they do! Talk about me misinterpreting comments.........

That was the clear intimation of your comment, otherwise why make it?

Margaret, why do you have such a chip on your shoulder about Robert Vickery and Michael Clayson that you go all out to attack them?  Do you have a personal grudge that we're not privy to? 

It never ceases to amaze me that Margaret Swift can turn even the most innocuous sounding subject into another session of "me, me, me, it's all about me".

You are a politician of the worst kind, you've forgotten that your are supposed to represent the views of ALL the people in the area you represent, taking all sides of the argument into account, and not just your own narrow view of the world. You weren't elected so that you could just indulge yourself in public mud slinging sessions with fellow politicians and members of the electorate of Dawlish. You do the town and yourself no credit with many of the postings you make. 

I happen to agree with the OP that the banners shouldn't be limited to photos of the black swans, nice as they are. Western Australia who use the image of a black swan on their flag also promote themselves with other images and it would be nice if Dawlish did the same. This is how I read the OP's comments as I'm sure others did too. 

 I'm sure we were all fascinated to know you're on the working group and that you're asking questions to make sure it's fair and equitable.   Or alternatively you could have just quietly and without fuss and "look and me" attitude, just quietly got on with the job. 

It would help if the OP could be consistent in her views.  Her first post describes the black swans as "tired cliches", and by post #2 appears to have completely changed her mind, and says she wasn't denigrating the emblem.  I don't view the term "tired cliches" as indicating she would welcome the black swans on a banner.

Uh oh,  here comes the cavalry.     

OP said  'Hopefully the selected photos will be more than the usual tired clichés such as Black Swans on the brook'.      

More than doesn't exclude them.  You and your sister  seem to struggle with the English language. 

It's a fair point.   Lovely as they are, Dawlish should have more to celebrate than just the swans.    

I see Mrs C's little fan club is gathering.

I suspect it's more to do with people getting fed up of your family's toxic posts Burneside. 

And another one has just turned up...

I stopped watching Eastenders and Coronation Street when I left for the USA in 1982. Now back in the UK since 2011 I still don't watch them. There is no need b/c the in fighting and back stabbing is all here on Dawlish.com. However it was getting somewhat boring reading about the "Land Grab " day in day out..... lol.

Another complete waste of a thread

Why don't you 2 fight it out on the lawn

To get back to the original purpose of the thread - if anyone has a good idea about an overall 'theme' so that perhaps the banners in sequence tell a story, or perhaps form, together, a single picture that would also be very welcome. We're open to ideas.

Two black swans facing each other. One has one end of a piece of weed in its mouth, the other swan has the other end.

Except that on closer inspection the weed isn't weed at all - it's a dangling in mid-air bit of mangled rail line which was, and is, the iconic picture of the rail line at Dawlish after last year's storms.

Combine black swans with iconic image of mangled rail line and what have we got?  

A new logo for Dawlish.

You're wasted on here Lynne.

Not my idea. Think it came originally from Mcjrpc.

I give it a 'plug' whenever I can because I think it is such an excellent concept.  

Nice idea. Put them in orange jackets as well. 

A great idea there Howard. Apart from the bit about the orange jackets...

Ha, you're very kind Lynn, thanks:)

How many banners will there be?   The swans could bookend them, the mangled rail could even be a motif linking them all, but as JC said, they need to be dynamic.   Is there anything historic about Dawlish that is not widely known to visitors - Dawlish being the main cultivator of Devon violets and the 'birthplace' of Nicholas Nickelby etc?  I love the line (now unthinkable!) attributed to the ingratiating Robert Ferrars in Sense and Sensibilty:

"it seemed rather surprising to him that anybody could live in Devonshire without living near Dawlish."

Perhaps he thought it a truth universally acknowledged?

I think there are 12 banners.  The closing date for submission of photograps is Monday 2nd February and the  whole group will look at all the photographs submitted on Tuesday 3rd February,  and the whole group will make the decision on what photograps will be used for the banners.  If you are not sending photographs, feel free to email to me any ideas and thoughts you have about the banners and I will take them to the meeting. (lindapetherick@gmail.com).  The more input from the community the better. 

Just a reminder that the lamp standards were installed to take banners, but they have to be limited to the brackets at the top of the standards, and this means that any image has to be vertical format/or portait if you prefer of 4:1, so it is a tall narrow strip image that is needed.  Bear in mind too that the brackets are towards the top of tall lamp standards and so any small detail is going to get lost from ground level.

It would be fun if someone can think of a theme that can link the images/designs from one end of the Strand to the other, so that they form a coherent story without words. 

Are there any notable writers/artists in Dawlish?  How about creating a modern day 'fairy story' incorporating past and present, fact and fiction, good and bad.   Self publish as a beautifully illustrated book, donate some to local primary schools, sell in local shops, put it in the museum and hope it's still around for generations to come, or at the very least as a memento of a memorable year.  Replicate the book illustrations on the banners. 

Red Arrows should be woven in somewhere. 

Thank you Webmaster for restoring my post that immediately precedes the reply from our conscientious councillor. x

@Mrs C, I haven't restored any posts so there is no need to thank me.

So Webmaster, do hidden posts automatically re-appear if enough people have pressed the Agree button to counteract the reports? The post I refer to was 100% definitely hidden. 

Also Webmaster, my post yesterday at 09:14 has been removed due to too many reports. However there were no reports on it. Any explanation as to why it's really been removed - there was certainly nothing controversial within the post. This is the post that is now hidden:

I'd come back to this thread as I wanted to see where a conscientious councillor promised us that the working party analysis of the pavilion survey would be objective rather than subjective. That promise was made on 24 Jan at 22:09. Sadly, it's context has been lost due to the arbitrary removal of posts that hadn't been reported by anyone. 

PS how is the banner competition coming along?

@Mrs C, If someone agrees or 'unreports' the post, the status is recalculated.

In response to your other question, a post must have been reported by users for it to have been hidden or removed, and you are incorrect that posts have been arbitrarily removed without anyone having reported them.

well in Mrs C defence it looks as if no matter what he/she posts certain people are pressing the report button, this smacks of conspiracy and censorship. Whatever happened to freedom of speech on here. I dont agree with all herhis posts but come on .......

@roberta, thanks for pointing that out and I will keep an eye on it.

Dig deeper Webmaster, looks like you're being played.   Maybe it'll turn into Dawlishgate.  Look what that did to Nixon.

Well if Mrs C wasn't such an offensive poster and didn't break the T&Cs so often, perhaps she would not get reported so much.

I think she's getting reported because a few of you don't like what she writes not because she's breaking the T&Cs.  Look back at how you speak to others and tell me that you're any more respectful.  You've done a fair bit of trolling yourself why do you think that's okay but she isn't?

It's a bit rich of you Emopitt to lecture others about trolling and respect when you yourself post examples such as this:

I think your nose must be too near your backside Burneside.  The meaning was quite clear to me and I'm guessing everyone else.

I wasn't excluding myself I was pointing out that Mrs C is no worse than you or anyone else who causes offence by their remarks.

I thought calling someone a homophobe for using the word queer in that context was a cynical and inflammatory troll.    I didn't report you though, I responded to you in kind. 

Report away Emopitt if you feel like that.  I intimated the poster was a homophobe because I believed their post to be of that nature.

I don't feel like it Burnside, I think it's better to debate than try to silence someone just because I don't like them or disagree with them. That's the point I was trying to make, not very well it would seem.  I'm not looking for an argument.

@webmaster - it's an intriguing thread that burnside's posted.  there are multiple posts by judith chalmers which have been removed even though they have up to 9 agrees on them.   that's quite a high number of agrees for this forum so none of this is making sense.

@Emopitt, thanks for pointing that out.