It is reported in the media that Britain’s waterways could be about to witness a major revival �“ one, interestingly enough, in line with British nationalist proposals first “floated” at least two decades ago. The combination of lengthening traffic jams, rising fuel prices and pollution reduction pressures are awakening interest in the possibility of transporting bulk goods by barge along Britain’s extensive network of canals and other waterways. Apparently shipping and barge companies have received more inquiries about the possibility of transporting freight by water in the past 18 months than they have had in 20 years. Indeed, some companies that have traditionally used roads are now appointing managers to mastermind their expansion on to water.

To show just how seriously some companies are treating the proposal, Eddie Stobart, possibly the country’s biggest road-haulage firm, has invested in a port on the Manchester Ship Canal and plans, it is claimed, to expand its waterways routes. According to a company spokesperson: “It might seem odd that one of the goals of Britain’s biggest branded truck company is to get trucks off the road, but that is exactly what we are trying to do. It seems ironic that we are now looking to revive more traditional modes of transport, but new pressures such as congestion, rising fuel prices and the environment mean the old methods are becoming viable again.”

In addition, it is further claimed that several major companies, including a number of the supermarket cartels, have already switched thousands of tons of freight on to ships and barges. And, as unlikely as it may seem, the international courier firm DHL is said to be looking to move urgent mail from central London to Heathrow by speedboat to avoid road congestion in the capital.

As regular visitors to this site will know, Land & People are rightfully critical of the supermarket cartels �“ particularly in respect of their relationship with our farming community and the adverse impact they have on our High Streets �“ however the decision by Tesco to transport its New World wine by sea and water, to its bottling plant at Irlam on the Manchester Ship Canal, deserves credit. The scheme, which involves three journeys a week to transport an estimated 600,000 litres of wine along a 40-mile stretch of the canal from Liverpool to Manchester, takes 50 lorries off the roads each week. So successful has this initiative been that we now learn that they plan to expand the scheme, saving an estimated 3,500 lorry movements by the end of the year.

Yet despite the benefits of utilising Britain’s waterways in this way, industry experts complain further development is being frustrated by a lack of planning and imagination by the Government, local authorities and British Waterways! One would have imagined that the Labour EU regime at Westminster would be absolutely delighted at the possibility of getting so many polluting lorry-loads off our roads.

As an example of Government indifference we learn that a proposal to build a commercial wharf at Staines, just a few miles from Heathrow, to enable cargo to be transferred down the Thames from Tilbury docks or the proposed Thames Gateway port, thus saving tens of thousands of lorry journeys around the M25, has not been pursued by Labour’s Environment Agency. The plan would have enabled bulk cargoes to have been transfered from barges at Staines and then shipped as rail freight to Wales or the Westcountry �“ taking a huge burden off our roads.

The problem for British Waterways appears to be that it sees itself as a “heritage and leisure organisation” �“ not a water-borne freight handling concern. Land & People suggests that they need to revaluate their role �“ perhaps modelling themselves on their “continental cousins” in countries such as Holland and Belgium, where the conveyance of bulk freight is at least as important as the leisure industry.

A central plank of British National Party transport policy involves the redevelopment of our national rail and waterways networks for the express purpose of taking as much freight off our roads as possible �“ not only is this good from an environmental standpoint, but �“ more often than not �“ it makes good commercial sense as well!

Council orders pensioners to clean up graffiti or face £1,000 fines

So says an article in today’s ‘Telegraph‘ newspaper.   This really is local authority officialdom gone mad.  Let’s hope common sense prevails.  Or that some good Samaritans get together and deal with the problem gratis!  Britain’s pensioners should not be treated in this way!

Pensioners whose homes were vandalised with graffiti have been threatened with fines of up to £1,000 if they do not have it cleaned up.

Elderly residents were already upset after the vandals sprayed paint over the wooden fences separating their homes from a path running behind their back gardens.

But highways staff in Prestwich near Manchester sent them stern warning letters giving them 21 days to remove the graffiti or face court under local authority planning rules.

If convicted they could face a maximum fine of £1,000.

Opposition councillors have condemned the warning letters which locals said “scared the wits” out of the elderly residents and were usually only reserved for developers and large landowners.

Councillor Vic D’Albert, a local liberal democrat who is representing the group, said: “This is one of the most shocking instances I have seen as a councillor.

“An elderly woman who passed this letter onto me was extremely distressed in case she should be fined or somehow forced to clean the mess up herself at great cost to herself.

“She was virtually in tears - you can imagine the distress it causes a woman living on her own to get a letter saying you are not maintaining your property properly.

“It’s no way to treat people, especially our senior citizens. The council should put more effort into finding ways of supporting people who are victims rather that threatening to punish them further.

“Its all a big mess and no-one knows what is happening. The way the council has spoken to people and the way they have hit the victims, instead of the vandals, is not right.”

Councillor Wayne Campbell, Bury’s Labour leader, said: “It is a disgrace. There are plenty of council buildings covered in graffiti - perhaps they should start closer to home before targeting victims of crime.”

Conservative run Bury Metropolitan borough council sent out a number of letters which quoted a law that is used against major landowners who continually refuse to clean up their land.

At least three pensioners receiving the letters are aged over 70 and, in some cases, they are physically unable to remove the graffiti. The council which cited section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act, also sent letters to a British Legion centre and a church.

One of the pensioners, who do not wish to be named, said: “They should clean up their own problems instead of having a go at us. Why don’t they clean their property such as lamp posts, instead of getting someone else to clean someone else’s crime up.

“It should be the vandals that should be cleaning it up, not the pensioners.”

Local politicians and residents association condemned the heavy-handedness of the council.

Carran O’Grady, the co-ordinator of Prestwich Area Partnership, which has special kits available to help clean graffiti said the council should work with residents rather than threaten them.

“That would be a better way to approach it rather than scaring the wits out of people,” she said.

A Bury Council spokesman apologised for the scare tactics but said the graffiti still had to be cleaned.

“If people want to have a better quality of life, they must take responsibility for their community,” he said.

MP’s calling for us, the British people, to be ‘given rights’ should make us very suspicious, very suspicious indeed.

For a start no Briton needs to be ‘protected’ by some sort of new ‘UK Human Rights Law’. Each and every one of us already have all the human rights we will ever need. They are already enshrined in our ‘Common Law’, in ‘Magna Carta’, and in the ‘Bill of Rights’. In essence the British way is for everything to be permitted, unless proscribed by Law.

We certainly don’t want to go down the continental path of everything being denied unless allowed by ‘Law’. And make no mistake about it, this is the path that these, oh so concerned MP’s want to take us down.

One really does have to wonder whether these MP’s have ever read or even understood the very real and inalienable Constitution of Britain? For to utter such nonsense these self appointed ‘champions of the people’ are either ignorant or treacherous, and quite possibly both!

MPs calls for UK Bill of Rights
Sunday, 10 Aug 2008

The UK needs a Bill of Human Rights to protect its citizens, a group of MPs has said.

The joint committee on human rights argues the government should introduce a Bill that goes beyond the Human Rights Act and would “give lasting effect to the values which are considered fundamental by the people of the United Kingdom”.

The committee suggests the Bill should include traditional rights including that of a trial by jury and the right not to be subjected to intrusive surveillance without safeguards but also more recently recognised rights such as equality.

Andrew Dismore MP, chair of the committee said: “We want to see a Bill of Rights that would set the bar for the universal standards to which everyone is entitled, and fills the gaps in the protection of more vulnerable people such as the elderly, children or people with learning disabilities.

“It should not be some sort of ‘charter for correct behaviour’ that would see rights as a reward for fulfilling social responsibilities - rather it should be aspirational, setting out a shared vision for the future of our society.”

The committee also said that there is a strong case for including the right to a healthy and sustainable environment in the Bill and detailed rights for children and other vulnerable groups.

It should be binding on private persons or bodies performing a public function, as was originally intended by the Human Rights Act, which would enable many vulnerable people to rely on their human rights against their service provider, even if they are private, the group added.