Jump to content

Steve Parish

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Steve Parish last won the day on February 23 2016

Steve Parish had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Steve Parish's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. I think you may be confusing the Sunday School building with the industrial school, which is still there. The Council had refused permission for any redevelopment of the Cabinet Works which did not retain the tower though I became in favour of demolition several years ago as I thought the risk to the public outweighed the remote chance of any viable scheme to retain the buildings. None of the buildings was a designated "listed building" (so powers to compel the owner to do anything were limited). It was only with the vandalism and deterioration of the tower (a distinct lean at high level as the steel work of the tank corroded into the masonry) that any chance of saving it disappeared. Personally, and given the evident aesthetic doubts about the tower when it was first built (1906), I think it's not a bad thing that the town clock is now once again the most prominent feature on the skyline in the conservation area. On the "local list", it's entirely optional for a council to maintain such a list - many councils don't because it causes confusion between a "designated heritage asset" (on the national list) and an "undesignated heritage asset" (e.g. one on a local list but it can include any building that may have local interest not worth national designation). Undesignated heritage assets have much less protection than those on the national list. I think the only buildings on the national list that we've lost in Warrington in the last 30 years are the old villa opposite the Kings Head (next to Greenwoods), and the Bay Horse, demolished "by mistake" (at least that's what the magistrates believed when they fined the developers a mere £16,000).
  2. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/removal-liverpool-bus-lanes-journeys-7977836 The whole point of bus lanes is to allow buses to beat queues - but the other traffic merges at traffic lights and gets through the next junction at much the same time, so buses gain hugely but individual cars are delayed only slightly. Opposition comes from car drivers who don't see why it's to their benefit to improve bus journey times and get more cars off the road so their journey is quicker anyway. The Liverpool report showed that in many cases journey times for buses and cars had increased.
  3. Anyone know when the first Warrington transporter bridge was dismantled? (Or at least remember how far back it wasn't there!)
  4. Here we go again with the leftys blaming the employers again. I can tell you from 19 years of running my own business Steve that many employees DO take the p**s when it comes to shirking. When we set up our company, we set it up to be a company we would like to work for ourselves. Brand new vans, all workwear provided, all tools provided, when working out of town, we paid for hotels, food and a couple of drinks for the lads. We paid full pay if lads were off sick, we gave them fuel cards and a float so they never had to be out of pocket waiting for expenses to be paid back.... with a few exceptions, all of our employees came from Warrington; from Bewsey, Orford and Dallam. Our offices were in Bewsey, we contributed locally, we contract hired our vans from a Warrington company. We bought our uniforms from VC on Lovely Lane, any supplier we could use from Warrington we did.... we couldn't do any more for the local economy and local businesses.... and how were we repaid? lads calling in (supposedly) sick on a Friday and Monday after nights in the cheap beer pubs in town sanctioned by your councils lax licensing laws. We gave the warnings of taking the mickey but no one listened. We were losing an average of a whole month for two men per month in sickness claims; because they knew they wouldn't lose any money and end up on SSP. So in the end we stopped the paid sickness.... and guess what, sickness levels suddenly dropped to a few days a month across the whole workforce!! Then you have business rates, fuel charges and heaven help you if you happened to be a few days late paying your tax/NI or VAT payments... HMRC are down on the small businesses like a ton of bricks. We were late (by one day each time) in filing our VAT returns and paying the VAT we owed; 10% surcharge was instantly applied and we had to pay it there and then. Big businesses in the town have probably paid less over the 19 years than we have. Every quarter for 19 years we have paid VAT, never had a refund, never had a tax refund. There are all sorts of incentives for businesses to employ people, but at the end of the day, sometimes it's just too costly to employ people... the average salary for me and my business partner is less than £25k a year and we have had one bonus of £5k each about 10 years ago, but we have had companies go bust on a Friday owing us in excess of £40k and then they open up again on Monday morning and we get nothing, we don't even get the option to give them a good kicking... My car is 10 years old.... my business partner doesn't even have a car So next time, when you start blaming bosses for exploiting the poor downtrodden worker and applying your lefty principles of how bosses use their workforce like slaves, it may benefit you to actually speak to local small businesses for once I'm baffled, Baz, baffled. There are employers, and there are employers. There's Sir Philip Green, and there's you. In a business where margins are low, and directors are not taking salaries many times the average pay in their company, what would actually be wrong with paying the "living wage" if the difference between that and what the business could sustain could be claimed back (either in reduced tax or rates)?
  5. In an ideal world.... but see how employers complain (and exaggerate how many jobs will be lost by increasing minimum wage). I warm to the idea that every employee should be paid the living wage (the proper one, not Osborne's version) - and if the employers can't afford it, the employer should be the one to claim benefit (i.e. show the accounts, show the business is on the margin, and check for directors paying themselves too much).
  6. Don't watch the TV programmes then. They (and the Tory papers) find bad and untypical cases just to annoy you! Most benefits go not to the unemployed but on in-work benefits. And your NI contributions were paying for the last generation of pensioners who didn't live 20 years after retirement. I'm talking about (like those articles) who's going to pay for the pensions of people living way past their actuarial deadline... That's the problem, really. Why is the welfare state (and the NHS) in crisis? Because we're all living longer. Why are we living longer? Because of the welfare state and the NHS.
  7. I'm sure you're right. But (as the SNP made clear in Scotland, where they voted Remain) we may need more immigration. The economic forecasts for the North West say that if the economy grows, then there will be a shortfall of people to do the jobs. And if no-one fills the jobs, then we have an ageing population sustained by fewer people in work and paying taxes. In short, immigrants are paying the taxes that pay for pensions. http://www.maturetimes.co.uk/whos-going-pay/ http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20759/economics/fiscal-impact-of-immigration/ Of course, feel free to ignore the experts.
  8. If you're going to play silly games ... Your last post implied that only "total" control of immigration would meet the requirements. That might meet your requirements but other than leaving the EU, I repeat, "What requirements"? I know what the requirements were of a Remain vote - the status quo. Suppose the eventual deal is leave the EU but stay in the single market, with freedom of movement within the EU, and pay the EU for the privilege without having any say in future EU policy - that would satisfy my requirements and would clearly fulfil the requirement of the question on the ballot paper. Just because the Leave campaign made all sorts of (false) promises doesn't make any of them requirements.
  9. What requirements? Nothing on the ballot paper about requirements.
  10. We saw our favourite Irish comic at the Edinburgh Fringe and he was just baffled by Brexit. "We voted the wrong way, realised what we'd done, and just did it again" (with added expletives). And pointed out that their referendum was under EU rules about truthful claims - and the UK had opted out of the EU rules on referenda! Then came up with a host of illustrations where the UK does things different from the rest of the EU (so the idea that we were "controlled" was nonsense). Most of his act is more domestic stuff! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIEHv9CBPsI At a stage near you, 18 Sept: http://www.epsteinliverpool.co.uk/whats-on/jarlath-regan---arseways.aspx
  11. Breaking news... outline application received 1,200 homes, a new local centre, employment uses, land for a primary school, open space, sports pitches with ancillary facilities, means of access and supporting infrastructure. I'm not commenting in case I end up on plans committee when it's decided, but the legal judgment will obviously be central to the officers' recommendation.
  12. Sorry but I'm not changing the subject onto the whole business of the "invest to save" schemes like Bridge Street where we look for a commercial return - and I did provide an answer weeks ago on the cost of the offices, from published committee papers (even if there is now some reluctance to put a firm figure on it prior to going to tender). Re funding, the only Conservation Area Regeneration scheme I know about is the Scottish one. I'd had a conversation a long time ago with English Heritage re funding but understood repairing an unlisted building in private hands was not going to attract any grant. HLF schemes might offer a glimmer (especially with the relatively recent industrial heritage emphasis) but it's still in private hands and it has to be a non-profit organisation making the running. That could be a council, but resources are stretched and I wouldn't want to commit officers' time to trying to make it happen (not now). If all of you who want to save the Cabinet Works had formed a Friends of the Cabinet Works years ago, something might have been done (I might have joined). And if HLF had to choose an industrial heritage project in Warrington, then frankly I would not want to have them try and save the Cabinet Works if that meant prejudicing the chance of funding for the Transporter Bridge.
  13. We do seem to be going over old ground. Baths and grammar school were not listed and therefore little chance of getting grants for restoration. I'm not quite sure how to answer the last question. The only building I'd like to see bulldozed is New Town House (and think even that could be reclad to look good).
  14. Do you ever have the feeling that someone isn't quite listening to what you're saying?
  15. Well, there you go - spot the difference with the Cabinet Works! No hammerbeam roof for a start. https://twitter.com/PlaceFirstLtd/status/709431394934595585/photo/1 Similarity: "The building has been vandalised and allowed to deteriorate " (from one of the urban explorer sites) NB the baths were in control of the local council - Tameside not Manchester - but it sounds from the Evening News report that a developer acquired them and did nothing (see Manchester Fire Station as another example). Difference: "The £3m project is being funded in part by Tameside council and the English Regional Development Fund. PlaceFirst is working in partnership with the council on a Stage 2 Heritage Lottery Funding bid." It's a much finer building than the Cabinet Works, is listed, so got lottery funding for restoration - and that of course should be the European Regional Development Fund - so that's EU money helped save it. They are funding sources just not available for the Cabinet Works.
  • Create New...