19 November 2007
Breakthrough discovery could be cause of Hingham woes
It is well known that the delightful Autonomous Republic of Hingham, situated on most days between Watton and Norwich, is subject to severe time-space distortion.
That may be connected with its pioneering of an unusual form of democracy, which could be summed up as asking everyone what they want to do, and then not doing it. This was subsequently taken up by New Labour and various local councils, but it originated in what has become known as the Scout Hut Sale Scenario, which happened so long ago that nobody is interested any more, or if they are, no-one is going to do anything about it.
Now a shocking suggestion had been made by local expert Prof V A R Scheinlich - that Hingham contains within itself a basic element that breeds what he calls “confusion of the democratic process and occasional wormholes”.
He has named it fairlandium, after Fairland Green in Hingham, which is at the centre of the most recent controversy, involving both contorted democratic process and time-space distortion.
Two small areas of grass where the main Norwich-Watton road meets the Attleborough-Dereham road are used for random parking, which has not only done little for the grass but also created a hazard to emergency vehicles, in the view of most inhabitants (the word “most” being itself dangerous in this context).
So the town council produced a consultation document that suggested exchanging the two small bits of grassed area – created originally where tracks crossed the historic green, but now out on a pointless, tarmac-surrounded limb - for a bit of highway that would become part of the larger Green area. This transaction would involve provision of a proper, safer 18-bay car park.
That was eight years ago. The consultation paper was described by the county council as “an excellent example of village democracy”, which was asking for trouble.
The whole thing could then have gone forward, but a vociferous minority campaigned against the idea. As a result an inquiry was held over five days at a cost of £25,000 (to the county council). The inquiry gave the go-ahead for the original plan, and indeed the exchange of land ownership went through. But in the meantime a new town council had been elected, which didn’t like the plan. It voted 6-5 against it.
Of course it was too late: only the physical work remained to be done, with grass and tarmac suspended in a time-space wormhole. But the town council would not accept the fait accompli – and as a result the embarrassed county council has threatened to charge the town £25,000 for the cost of the original inquiry. What now? I would suggest taking a vote of the electorate, but I know where that sort of thing can lead. There would be lots of spoilt papers, and the response would be just short of the minimum required.
“I believe fairlandium is to blame,” said Prof Scheinlich. “It doesn’t seem to occur naturally anywhere else.”
He is currently trying to track down the source in the hope that it can be neutralised.
Surface meaning of new signs may be deceptive
Users of the A140 between Norwich and Long Stratton will know that a new road surface has been laid recently between Swainsthorpe and Newton Flotman.
It is now smooth, quiet – and slippery.
At least it is if you believe new signs that have been installed every few hundred yards, which show the familiar logo and the added explanation: “New road surface”.
A concerned reader wrote saying he would have thought “a newly laid surface should in fact be just the opposite to slippery”, which is a reasonable view.
But maybe the road is not slippery at all. He has an alternative explanation for the signs: “Could it be that a surplus of funds had to be used before the end of the tax year, so it was thought best to pay for dozens of new signs, just in case they got sued by some errant motorist who skids on a wet road?”
A far-fetched theory, you may think, but it is in line with the familiar ploy of putting 5mph signs out after you’ve put chippings on country roads – knowing that no-one on earth is going to go that slowly but it will give you a cast-iron defence in the event of bodywork damage. “Well, we did tell you…”
The same correspondent also has his suspicions about signs warning of approaching speed limits, which he thinks excessive.
He writes: “It occurs to me that if the speed limit was moved to the beginning of the warning zone, it would save a lot of signs. And by the time motorists react, they would be travelling slowly enough when they reach the point where the limit should really apply.”
So why not? He has a theory, and I have a reservation.
His theory is that Norfolk County Council is starting up a sign company. My reservation is that if you put his solution into effect, someone would plant a speed camera in the area before the limit was really needed.
Unlikely, I know. But possible.
Decision not to alarm flood victims applauded
The decision not to sound warning sirens at Walcott when the sea overtopped defences has been warmly applauded by the School of Penguins, Chess and Road Surfacing at the University of East Anglia.
Prof Ian “Sam” Aufmerksam, who is also the university’s emergency planning officer, said last night that resisting the appeal of the sirens on the grounds that they might alarm people was “humane and in the fine traditions of endangered species everywhere”.
He said research carried out by his department revealed that people would rather be extremely wet than alarmed. And if they were to be deprived of their homes, pets and in some cases their lives, they would rather this was done in a non-alarming way.
Prof Aufmerksam said he wanted to ban all kinds of burglar and car alarms, as well as warning notices of any sort. People were easily upset, he said. He had had to send several students for counselling when a “This Door is Alarmed” notice was put up in the lower common room.