I'm not really sure what the difficulties are. I note that Tweets fron JA on Friday evening sugested a possible meeting to resolve matters. I came in on Sunday and prepared a suitable and workable Plan B response which I sent at midday. Acknowledging there is no one in Council office on Sunday this did at least ensure something to consider was on a desk, somewhere.
As of 5.00pm yesterday I had not received an acknowledgement of my efforts and prompted confirmation of that my suggestion had been received.
It has been this morning with the comment 'there's a lot to consider.' Can't say I agree with that as it seemed straightforward to me.
GillliesS - people come on to these Forums with hidden agendas all the time and you may well be right.
Some suggestions that have been forwarded to me from members of the Runners Revolutionary Party (Social Media) include and Open Discussion Evening, perhaps on Radio Merseyside, a marathon protest run around the Town Hall during a lunch hour, several petitions and a suggestion that some members of the running community attend marathon meetings to see what really goes on.
Food for thought.
I do like the English language (English isn't my first language by the way).Something I have learnt is that when somebody says "There is a lot to consider", generally, it isn't a very good sign.
Another good sentence is:This is very interesting ....
DD - as I said as far as I'm concerned there isn't a lot to consider... if you understand what is being proposed!
I remember the old Mersey marathon used to pass the Liver Building. It was the 19 mile mark and after that it got hard.
The strange think about all this from the council is that they are complaining about vehicle access to the waterfront because of the road being used. If you could not get vehicle access how far would you have to walk ? About 200 yards and then you fall in the mersey.
Obviously no access does not apply to people and I would have thought that the businesses in the Albert dock, not to say Liverpool 1 amongst others would more than welcome the increased trade. I am not sure which business' would actually oppose.
it was with mixed emotions when i heard the marathon had been cancelled from the off it should have been panned better to avoid main roads after all those fat council men have to wait hours to get tp macdonalds kfc and other fat food shops along the route and our mayor bless him he couldnt run for a bus so why shuold he care after all good old joe sells off school playing fiellds to bulid houses on taking away parks and and open spaces and when mr rothwell brings an event like the marathon to lverpool the shopkeepers moan shame on you all liverpool one liverpool gone thanks to joe
Dave - appearances can be deceiving. Someone came into our office yesterday and suggested that the lunatics have taken over the asylum... it would be interesting to find out precisely who makes these decisions (and why).
It always seems to be someone else, never anyone we speak to.
Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
Well someone voted them in !
31% of the electorate apparently. 27 of the 30 seats went to Labour, hardly surprising in Liverpool. A 'no can do ', anti-business, anti-enterprise attitude I'm afraid. A great pity as with its history and sites of interest Liverpool could become one of the iconic marathons of the world.
Alan at what stage do you say "ok thats enough" it would appear you are able to comprimise but the council are not???
No idea. The ball is in the court of LCC. I've submitted a workable solution to the problem we have been left with and await any kind of response. Nothing yet despite the spin suggestions on Friday in the media that LCC would like to find a solution.
Doesn't seem to be any kind of urgency I'm afraid. Perhaps that's the game plan?
Looks like Joe Andersons 2 guys ( under a couple of different names ) are on the echo site defending the position and it does not look likely that it will change. If Joe Anderson himself wanted it to happen it would happen but without his direct intervention it is becoming to look like an unlikely I think. He did mention something about supporting grass root running in the article. I dont know what if anything that means but may be a different approach.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |