nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Enniscorthy

Southsider1

I had to wait around for an hour in Enniscorthy today for an appointment so decided to sit down by the river opposite the Bus Stop. I was so sad to see the state of the place. The rubbish strewn around, the seats too dirty to sit on. Such a shame with it being such a pleasant spot to sit and have a sambo at lunchtime. Does the council not send cleaners down there?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

EverythingGood

PhilOssophy wrote: »

People are right to complain. Elected representatives are either totally out of touch with what is wrong in the town, or are just looking for some vanity project rather than sorting out the real issues in the town.
I can tell you 1 thing - I never once in my life stood at the bottom of Slaney Street or at the swimming pool and bemoaned "wouldn't it be great if there was a bridge across there".

I never once stood on Turret Rocks and said "I'd love a cable car to the castle from here".

I have however complained about the footbridge down the prom, the awful job on pedestrianising Rafter Street, the fact that the Market Square is just a hang-out for layabouts, the fact that I can never get a taxi home from the town so don't even bother going out in the town, the amount of rubbish around the town, the fact that there is hardly a decent shop in the town because of high rates, etc, etc.

These are the issues that need to be fixed, because they affect peoples daily lives. Instead of nonsensical cable cars and un-needed footbridges.

Do these people even live in the town and are they aware of the issues, or do they just land in for a meeting with their latest hair-brained idea?

Totally agree - but there is a lot of people who complain when they council do nothing, they complain when the council do something.. A lot of remedial work to make every day life better is needed in the town, the empty and run down buildings needs to be addressed, rates need to be reviewed etc but reaching for the stars on another project shouldn't be discounted - the council should be encouraged to do all these things at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.

EverythingGood

paulaa wrote: »

Are we not entitled to our opinions ? I'd rather be a "moaner" than not give a damn what happens to the town like a lot of people.

Not sure where I stated people aren't entitled to an opinion.

jpb1974

"They aren't mutually exclusive."

Nope, but likelihood is there isn't money for everything so best focus it wisely on things that make more sense and have long term benefits.

For example, if you were to believe the cable car venture we're true (I'm taking it with a pinch of salt myself) ... 30 million euro... Lord almighty, St. Patrick's had to fight tooth and nail to get their new school built.

paulaa

EverythingGood wrote: »

Not sure where I stated people aren't entitled to an opinion.

You implied it by dismissing those of us who are concerned, "moaners" .

PhilOssophy

jpb1974 wrote: »

"They aren't mutually exclusive."

Nope, but likelihood is there isn't money for everything so best focus it wisely on things that make more sense and have long term benefits.

For example, if you were to believe the cable car venture we're true (I'm taking it with a pinch of salt myself) ... 30 million euro... Lord almighty, St. Patrick's had to fight tooth and nail to get their new school built.

^^^ this. I would love to think we would reach a point where 30m could be spent on a cable car, but I think the money would be better spent (or saved) by reducing rates, helping new shops in the town, providing better every day facilities and getting a decent taxi service functional in the town.
I am sure if I rang Tom Enright wanting to talk about the cable car idea, he would gladly talk to me. If I rang him about the decrepit state of the town or the broken facilities which blight it, I am sure he'd be too busy.....

Initiatives get kudos on here when they are good ones, e.g. the grant for painting shops, etc. I want to see more of that and things that will help the town look and feel better.

There is absolutely no point having a pedestrian bridge to Templeshannon unless there is a massive urban renewal plan for the area which we are missing. There is not 1 thing bar a few pubs to attract people over there.

kneemos

If there's to be a cable car it should go to Vinegar Hill surely?

There might be some stonking great pig ugly pylons,but that doesn't seem to matter.

PhilOssophy

DOUGAL WE ARE NOT GETTING A CABLE CAR.
Anyway, back to Enniscorthy.

westsidestory

Enniscorthy ever recover from the Cracked Dwyers gang dominance of the late 70s into the 80s?

Uncle Pierre

Have to say I don't see the need for a pedestrian footbridge myself, and the cable car idea seems like real pie in the sky stuff.

Will comment however that it does seem to be the case that in general, there's a lot more negativity than positivity in this particular thread. Example is if you look at the comments on Facebook under the story about the cable car idea - many of them are along the lines of "why spend money on that? We need the flood defences first". And nobody saying in reply that no, the flood defences would be all wrong too. Yet there seems to be nothing but negativity on here about it.

jpb1974

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Yet there seems to be nothing but negativity on here about it.

One person had a very strong view about it, a few others questioned why dredging wouldn't work and people like myself questioned the visual impact and long term maintenance plan.

Is it negativity because it differs with your opinion?

jpb1974

So when the people of The Shannon came together and refused the one way traffic proposal... this was negativity???

Uncle Pierre

It's not negativity because it differs from my opinion. As I think I said at the time, I don't hold any strong views either one way or the other.

It's negativity because one person is outright opposed to it, others are seriously questioning key aspects of it, and nobody was posting any hint of support for it at all.

So, there's no positivity, and very little of what could at best be considered neutrality. Even those who might be in favour of it in principle, or of some aspects of it, were only posting about what they see as the negative elements of it.

Overall then, that's negativity. My own view doesn't come into it, particularly since I don't really have one. My main reason for posting about it and asking questions about it were to try understand where the negativity comes from, about something that's obviously so badly needed and that most seem to be strongly in favour of.

jpb1974

So, if you're against a proposal you're negative, it's only positive if you agree with it, that's what your saying?

Strange view...

Uncle Pierre

jpb1974 wrote: »

So when the people of The Shannon came together and refused the one way traffic proposal... this was negativity???

Post above was in response to your first one. This one is in response to your question quoted above.

What we're discussing here is negativity (or otherwise) on this thread. I didn't see lots of people from The Shannon on here, posting about their opposition to that particular proposal. But yes, if they had done, that would have been further negativity here towards a Council action or proposal.

It doesn't necessarily follow that negativity towards a Council action or proposal is always wrong. I've expressed negativity towards the pedestrian footbridge and cable car proposals myself. But overall, I think it's accurate to say that there's a lot more negativity expressed in this thread than positivity.

In GAA terms, there are lots of hurlers on the ditch.

jpb1974

Having an opinion, being able to rationalise it and suggesting alternatives is not negativity. Even the people most strongly opposed to the flood defence proposal have done this multiple times over the years.

Uncle Pierre

jpb1974 wrote: »

So, if you're against a proposal you're negative, it's only positive if you agree with it, that's what your saying?

Strange view...

No, it's ordinary English.

If you're against a proposal, then by definition, you have a negative view of it.

Likewise, if you support a proposal, you have a positive view of it.

Positive and negative doesn't mean right and wrong. Sometimes it may be right to hold a negative view, and it follows that in those cases, it would be wrong to hold a positive view. Do I really have to explain this to you?

And again, I think it's fair and accurate enough to say that there are more negative views expressed here than positive about Council proposals and actions.

Uncle Pierre

jpb1974 wrote: »

Having an opinion, being able to rationalise it and suggesting alternatives is not negativity. Even the people most strongly opposed to the flood defence proposal have done this multiple times over the years.

Ding dong..... :rolleyes:

Again, if you're against a proposal, then expressing your opinion is expressing negativity towards that proposal, no matter how rational your opinion may be, or how good your alternatives might be.

Honestly, this is dictionary stuff. Look it up if you don't believe me.

jpb1974

Will comment however that it does seem to be the case that in general, there's a lot more negativity than positivity in this particular thread.

So.. what purpose does this comment serve ^^^

Some people agree with stuff, some people don't... welcome to boards... society... life as we know it.

Yet there seems to be nothing but negativity on here about it.

And, so what?

Uncle Pierre

jpb1974 wrote: »

So.. what purpose does this comment serve ^^^

Some people agree with stuff, some people don't... welcome to boards... society... life as we know it.

The purpose it had is it was a comment in response to some earlier comments about the same thing.

You're welcome to Boards too. That's how it works.

Goodnight!

jpb1974

Will comment however that it does seem to be the case that in general, there's a lot more negativity than positivity in this particular thread. Example is if you look at the comments on Facebook under the story about the cable car idea - many of them are along the lines of "why spend money on that? We need the flood defences first". And nobody saying in reply that no, the flood defences would be all wrong too. Yet there seems to be nothing but negativity on here about it.

Again.. I'll ask you what was your point, that people here share different views to people on Facebook? Is that something of great importance? What are you trying to say that is of any value here?

Rothko

jpb1974 wrote: »

Again.. I'll ask you what was your point, that people here share different views to people on Facebook? Is that something of great importance? What are you trying to say that is of any value here?

Why are you getting so worked up about it?

jpb1974

Rothko wrote: »

Why are you getting so worked up about it?

LOL... I'm at home and I'm in great form.

A more poignant question would be why does it matter to you, given you've never posted on this thread before now

jpb1974

Let me elaborate...

This notion of "dictionary stuff", sorry but I don't agree... the context was spinned to suit.

I work in I.T. and frequently work with others to come up with solutions to complex problems. We all share opinions and ideas and we often disagree in an effort to finding the best solution possible. At no point would I ever consider a work colleague negative if they disagreed with my opinion/proposal, rationalized why and came up with an alternative... that's positive. Some of our best efforts have come from such process, blending ideas, compromising... or sometime scrapping everything and going back to the drawing board and starting over when we realize we're heading down the wrong path. Give me a work colleague that challenges me over one that couldn't care less any day.

Personally I feel that we get these passive aggressive posts on here discussing how "negative" people are... when the same supposedly "negative" people have rationalized their opinion and offered alternatives.

Rothko

jpb1974 wrote: »

LOL... I'm at home and I'm in great form.

A more poignant question would be why does it matter to you, given you've never posted on this thread before now

Just seems odd that you'd give such a strong reaction to what that poster said. If anything it backs up his point.

Also, I don't see why my post count in here is in anyway relevant either.

jpb1974

Rothko wrote: »

Just seems odd that you'd give such a strong reaction to what that poster said. If anything it backs up his point.

Also, I don't see why my post count in here is in anyway relevant either.

LOL.. I can't even believe I bothered replying to you, I must be in a good humour

Uncle Pierre

I'm back here again tonight after all, despite how I earlier said goodnight. Couldn't sleep.

jpb1974 wrote: »

A more poignant question would be why does it matter to you, given you've never posted on this thread before now

I don't see how either of those questions would be any more "poignant" than the other. Perhaps you mean pertinent?

Are we back to having to talk about the dictionary?

jpb1974

Nope, the question was asked with an element of regret knowing I was getting myself into one of those stupid situations where I'm having to justify myself to someone who has never contributed a thing to the thread... thus poignant

Uncle Pierre

Ah sure, while we're at it.....

jpb1974 wrote: »

At no point would I ever consider a work colleague negative if they disagreed with my opinion/proposal, rationalized why and came up with an alternative... that's positive.

If your colleague disagreed with your opinion, they would be expressing negativity toward it while they state their own opinion. All very well if they then make the positive step of rationalising why and coming up with an alternative, but they've still expressed negativity towards your original idea. Are you getting this yet?

Personally I feel that we get these passive aggressive posts on here discussing how "negative" people are... when the same supposedly "negative" people have rationalized their opinion and offered alternatives.

There's a difference between saying a person is negative by nature, and saying a person has expressed negativity. Are we getting there now?

jpb1974

Let me jump to the point... I believe you were being passive aggressive with your original post.

Uncle Pierre

jpb1974 wrote: »

Nope, the question was asked with an element of regret knowing I was getting myself into one of those stupid situations where I'm having to justify myself to someone who has never contributed a thing to the thread... thus poignant

Gosh, you must be waiting up for me!

Ah well, in those circumstances, your question was certainly more poignant than the other one. Glad we agree on something.