Manchester-Canal Street Fence Update

[magpie patrick]

Dave sees things in black and white: so did my ex-wife. In the highly improbable event that I married Dave I would undoubtedly end up divorcing him too.

 

But I can see where he is coming from, and all those nuances that you say aren't there in print are there, if you have a deeper feeling for the subject and the character, and are prepared to read between the lines.

 

I now find myself in the unlikely position of having defended Dave and Phylis, but there you go.

 

What I can't defend though, is opportunistic point scoring, which is saying something you don't mean just to wind someone else up, and not in the interest of humour but in the interest of getting one over on them.

[tomsk]

Dave sees things in black and white: so did my ex-wife. In the highly improbable event that I married Dave I would undoubtedly end up divorcing him too.

 

But I can see where he is coming from, and all those nuances that you say aren't there in print are there, if you have a deeper feeling for the subject and the character, and are prepared to read between the lines.

 

I now find myself in the unlikely position of having defended Dave and Phylis, but there you go.

 

What I can't defend though, is opportunistic point scoring, which is saying something you don't mean just to wind someone else up, and not in the interest of humour but in the interest of getting one over on them.

 

 

Posted edited for personal abuse

 

LM

Edited October 13, 2009 by Lady Muck

[magpie patrick]

If the above is directed at me Patrick, you are a very long way from the truth. I am deeply confused at your assumption that I have no feeling for the subject and I am a little affronted that you take that view, but at least you do so in a pleasant and convivial manner. I am even more confused by your 'reading between the lines' statement, Dave is apparently a 40 year old Senior Manager, not a petulant schoolboy and so could at, least occasionally show a little respect for his fellow human beings opinions and beliefs. Are you are condoning Daves unacceptable treatment of other members and the less well educated? Dave is to my mind a self-important and ill-informed bigot. I don't understand your reference to Phylis, please elaborate.

 

Dear gawd, I wish I hadn't started this.

 

Tomsk, you have had a habit of firing as soon as you've read Dave's missives, that didn't make you the target, but I can see why you might have thought I was aiming at you. . Dave can be seen as objectionable, but no more so than half a dozen other members (and NO I'm not going to name them).

 

The comparison between Dave and Phylis was for Dave's benefit. He once asked if Phylis was paying for me to defend her (and no she wasn't, I've never met either of them nor had financial transactions with them). It was a gentle reminder that I was now standing up for him.

 

Reading Dave's posts he is blunt and laconic (if you can be both) I would often add words that he doesn't, but I've come to expect that, and work out what is probably meant. That's all

 

No I didn't have you in mind, I'm sorry if I offended you. I tend to respond in this fashion when there is a collective hammering going on, not one person

 

Pint of the real perry please

Edited October 12, 2009 by magpie patrick

[tomsk]

Dear gawd, I wish I hadn't started this.

 

Tomsk, you have had a habit of firing as soon as you've read Dave's missives, that didn't make you the target, but I can see why you might have thought I was aiming at you. . Dave is objectionable, but no more so than half a dozen other members (and NO I'm not going to name them).

 

The comparison between Dave and Phylis was for Dave's benefit. He once asked if Phylis was paying for me to defend her (and no she wasn't, I've never met either of them nor had financial transactions with them). It was a gentle reminder that I was now standing up for him.

 

Reading Dave's posts he is blunt and laconic (if you can be both) I would often add words that he doesn't, but I've come to expect that, and work out what is probably meant. That's all

 

No I didn't have you in mind, I'm sorry if I offended you. I tend to respond in this fashion when there is a collective hammering going on, not one person

 

Pint of the real perry please

 

 

A pleasure Patrick

[MartinClark]

And I agree, it is hardly the first time that Manchester City Council have been found guilty of numeric misjudgement, although at least it's them not BW

 

Erm... BW is apparently footing part of the bill.

[gaggle]

Sorry, I don't understand. I was merely disagreeing with your interpretation of Dave's remark.

 

 

I don't understand that, either. Who is about to feel a bit of Canal World justice? How and why? I've obviously not been paying enough attention or not read the right threads!

 

I was trying to point out that like yourself i thought others had took dave,s remark in the wrong way , but that should not stop dave getting some canal world justice ,just to have a pick on someone thread.

[adam1uk]

Back to the fence.

 

 

When we went through Manchester a couple of weeks ago, I thought the fence wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been expecting. It probably will stop people sitting on the wall and falling off backwards, but doesn't look high enough to stop horse boats. The next section wasn't yet up, but they'd left a gap in the guard fencing round the works so boaters could get over the wall. It wasn't clear whether the final fence would include a similar gap.

[mayalld]

I thought it was Dave's way of very firmly agreeing with Bill that the fence is "a huge waste of time & money".

 

Thanks Martin!

 

Clearly I should have peppered it with smilies.

 

Good job I'm on his ignore list then....

 

You aren't on my ignore list.

 

You are on my PM block list.

 

Well FWIW it was news to me, and I'm not sure why you have to be quite so 'caustic'.

 

If you have previous info. on this issue why not post it, we would love to see it, or post the link.

 

I can't see from any previous posts that the OP has been so disagreeable with you so why be so with them?? (happy to see links where they may have been though.) and I apologise in advance if they have been.

 

I am not being disagreeable with Bill, I am agreeing with him, but forgot that some people here;

• Don't do irony
  
• Are looking for an opportunity to have a pop at Dave
  

[Lady Muck]

Can we keep this thread ON TOPIC please? If we see any more threads that have descended into name calling, they wl be closed, or edited, or both.

 

Thanks

 

LM

[mayalld]

As at 8.45pm 12th Oct 2009 - The OP has 89 posts to their name and Dave has 3,597,

 

great welcome to the forum to a relative newcomer, we really need more members like Dave....

 

Bill has been here for a long time, he just doesn't post much.

 

It is also worth noting that I know Bill in RL, and if I have inadvertently offended him, he knows where to find me to claim a free pint of something as compensation.

[magpie patrick]

Back on topic, sort of. Has anyone noticed the unusual traffic controls to the left of the picture: the mind boggles

 

Or are they the next new thing after three wooden bollards at narrow locks

Edited October 13, 2009 by magpie patrick

[Naughty Cal]

I now find myself in the unlikely position of having defended Dave and Phylis, but there you go.

 

Cheers

 

Although for what its worth, this time i actually found daves remark rather funny. Maybe i am getting old

[Albatross]

Back on topic, sort of. Has anyone noticed the unusual traffic controls to the left of the picture: the mind boggles

 

Or are they the next new thing after three wooden bollards at narrow locks

do you mean the "ultomti bollok s"

[Guest]

Back to the fence.

 

 

 

When we went through Manchester a couple of weeks ago, I thought the fence wasn't nearly as bad as I'd been expecting. It probably will stop people sitting on the wall and falling off backwards, but doesn't look high enough to stop horse boats. The next section wasn't yet up, but they'd left a gap in the guard fencing round the works so boaters could get over the wall. It wasn't clear whether the final fence would include a similar gap.

 

Aesthetically it's hard to judge if it looks OK or not, clearly the design 'jars' with the old wall but they at least they had the good grace and sense not to affix it to the wall thus desecrating what is quite a nice piece of old stonework, think on balance it does look out of place but difficult to determine that once the decision had been taken how any design would not!

[Chertsey]

FWIW I didn't see anything nasty or sarcastic in Dave's comment and am amazed at the criticism it seems to have engendered. I don't know why so many people seem to have it in for one of the most articulate and well informed contributors to the forum... hang on, maybe that's the reason....

 

Back to the fence... it looks bloody awful and it's not going to stop people having fights and getting chucked in, is it. Just gives them further to fall and tips them head first.

[The Anonymous Bard]

I don't know if anyone else has reported progress(?) here on the new fence but I had a look at it today.

Most of the stainless steel posts are in place and about half the glass panelling. Each glass panel consists of two plates about 12mm total thickness stuck together.

 

 

 

 

I think the barriers have their up side too...

 

We once spent time on Canal Street one Saturday evening whilst waiting to go over to the airport to collect some friends... never been to Manchester in my life before and had to pick the nearby car park at random of all places to park up and explore.

 

Having met numerous transvestites, noticing that the "C" on the Canal Street signpost had been whitewashed out to leave the remainder and experiencing "Britain's First Lesbian Bar" (don't ask me how I got in but I never even realised for the first ten minutes... I only wanted to spend a penny before finally setting off for the airport but was confronted by two toilet doors, one with a ladies symbol on it and the other with, erm... a ladies symbol on it!) I can honestly say that I am that traumatised even to this day that I propose a third layer of 12mm glass in the barrier just to protect any other unsuspecting, weary boater from the same experience.

 

No prejudice meant of course, just came as a bit of a shock!

 

Vive diversification (just warn me first)!

Edited October 13, 2009 by The Anonymous Bard

[MartinClark]

Back to the fence... it looks bloody awful and it's not going to stop people having fights and getting chucked in, is it. Just gives them further to fall and tips them head first.

I was down there today, taking photos. I'll post some here when I get a chance.

 

The fence is not finished yet - there are metal spacer bars between the posts, which will eventually be replaced with the reinforced glass panels. So it won't look quite as bad as it looks at present, but it still ruins the historic appearance of the canalside.

 

One of the contractors told me that as soon as they removed the fencing around one section of work, a group of young men climbed up onto the wall on the outside of the new fence, and were trying to walk along the wall, holding onto the steel rail. So - how long before someone drowns as a result of the fence?

[Guest]

FWIW I didn't see anything nasty or sarcastic in Dave's comment and am amazed at the criticism it seems to have engendered. I don't know why so many people seem to have it in for one of the most articulate and well informed contributors to the forum... hang on, maybe that's the reason....

 

Back to the fence... it looks bloody awful and it's not going to stop people having fights and getting chucked in, is it. Just gives them further to fall and tips them head first.

 

I took post #34 as a request that we move on, so I have nothing further to add ref. the first part of your post.

 

Think you could be right on the second part.

[The Anonymous Bard]

I took post #34 as a request that we move on, so I have nothing further to add ref. the first part of your post.

 

Think you could be right on the second part.

 

 

Ditto the second part of that (sorry don't know about the first)... it would be awful untangling all those wigs from the prop!

[david and julie]

Back on topic, sort of. Has anyone noticed the unusual traffic controls to the left of the picture: the mind boggles

 

Or are they the next new thing after three wooden bollards at narrow locks

Manchester uses "automatic bollards" in some part-time pedestrianised areas to restrict vehicle access - certain vehicles are permitted and the bollards should drop as these approach. The sign in the piccy has had the wording changed into something which those who frequent the area may better understand

 

Only problem with the bollards is they have a habit of not working properly (vehicles ram them)or they're late - they're strong enough to partly lift an ambulance off the ground.

 

I've seen bollards in Canal St in the past but I didn't think they were the automatic type, that said, the council are currently trialing a pedestrian scheme around the gay village and it wouldn't suprise me if they've fitted them - in readiness for the end of the public consultation period.

 

You can see them in action on a video here.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...ng_at_bollards_

[Guest]

Manchester uses "automatic bollards" in some part-time pedestrianised areas to restrict vehicle access - certain vehicles are permitted and the bollards should drop as these approach. The sign in the piccy has had the wording changed into something which those who frequent the area may better understand

 

Only problem with the bollards is they have a habit of not working properly (vehicles ram them)or they're late - they're strong enough to partly lift an ambulance off the ground.

 

I've seen bollards in Canal St in the past but I didn't think they were the automatic type, that said, the council are currently trialing a pedestrian scheme around the gay village and it wouldn't suprise me if they've fitted them - in readiness for the end of the public consultation period.

 

You can see them in action on a video here.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...ng_at_bollards_

 

We had one of them fitted to our HQ car park entrance. After it came up underneath a colleagues brand new Renault Megane, punching a rather neat hole in her (plastic ) sump pan, emptying the contents of her sump all over the car park it was duly disabled.

[MartinClark]

While other people are talking a load of bollards, I'll get back onto topic properly!

 

Bill mentioned the gap between the new landing pontoon above Lock 86. Here is what he meant:

 

In my previous post I described how some parts of the fence have metal spacers between the posts. These will eventually be replaced by the glass panels. The whole of the fence in the top section of Canal Street has these metal spacers at present:

 

Only one third of the glass panels are currently in place (not half, as reported by others). These are on the central section of Canal Street. (The lower section of the street is still in the process of having the posts installed.)

 

The glass can reflect the ground, making the canal not very visible to the passer-by which, in my view, rather misses the point of the area being by the canal. This is the section where some men walked along the wall on the outside of the fence.

[adam1uk]

While other people are talking a load of bollards, I'll get back onto topic properly!

 

Bill mentioned the gap between the new landing pontoon above Lock 86. Here is what he meant:

 

We noticed this too, when we went along a couple of weeks ago. The new pontoons also all had signs on them, saying they weren't in use yet, so I assumed they'd be putting in something to bridge the gap. If they don't, surely it's only a matter of time before someone fails to jump what it actually quite a big gap. I particularly wouldn't want to make the jump onto the pontoon, knowing how wobbly they can be.

[Chertsey]

I took post #34 as a request that we move on, so I have nothing further to add ref. the first part of your post.

 

Think you could be right on the second part.

So you've unignored me then. Just testing. And I wanted to express my support for Dave.

 

I'm just glad I got the chance to see this last spring before all the messing about. Is it better in places like this IF a new barrier were needed, to make an attempt to fit it in with the surroundings, or is that worse than something that's full on unapologetically modern but totally out of keeping? Down where I live they've fenced off the old fishing quays with hardwood and polished stainless and it looks very wrong, even now its been there some years. It's like the whole thing is 'modern' (including all the blocks of identikit new flats) and the old bit is just a sort of peepshow.

Edited October 14, 2009 by WarriorWoman

[tomsk]

Progress is always a wrench for those stuck in the past, and more housing is desperately needed lest the cut get bunged up with those pesky liveaboards