Concorde pilot who can't stand the noise of happy children bids to close down local playground that 'severely disrupts' his life
Seriously though, forget what the story is about, look at that headline and how it is worded. Newspapers used to impartially report the news. This article simply sets out to vilify a person and whip up the sheep in hatred against him.
They don't say that he finds noise disturbing, as many of us do, they say he 'cant stand the noise of happy children'. What an ogre!
They also play heavily on the fact that he used to drive a Concorde and those thing make a lot of noise. Not that that has anything to with the story, but hey ho.
So anyway. Why do I agree with this chap when everyone in the comments thinks he's a nasty, nasty man?
The local council spent £150,000 adding play equipment to the village recreation field in May last year, but Mr Price said the park was attracting children from outside the area who are too loud.He moved into a peaceful house that wasn't next to a playground, then the council built one.
The same thing happened to me.
This is what the view from my window looked like when I moved in:
And this is what they did to it:
We never asked for it and I wasn't the only one who complained. Some of the comments on the Daily Mail article suggest this chap had the opportunity to complain when the council consulted on the playground and he should now shut up. I complained to everyone I could think of when they proposed building the one outside my house. No one listened.
The local rag did an article on the story. The local councillors who commented were in favour of it. The residents who commented under the article were not. But the council have never bothered what the sheep think. They are unlikely to be any different in this chaps area.
And he has it a lot worse:
Fortunately for us we haven't had that much trouble, and it's only excessively noisy when you are sat outside in the summer listening to the snotty disease bags arguing over the swings. That monstrosity above must be a lot more noisy and intrusive than the one outside my house.
Anyway, enough about my story.
As a former chief pilot of Concorde, Roger Price knows a thing or two about deafening people.I really fail to see what this mans former employment has to do with this.
His supersonic airliner happily hit an ear-splitting 110 decibels on take-off and would often bring conversation to a standstill as it thundered overhead.
But the 67-year-old’s tolerance levels are clearly set a little lower when he’s in his own back yard.
With rich irony, he is trying to close down a local playground because the noise from excited children is too loud.
If people want to find something to talk about they can, but there’s no correlation. By that argument anyone who has ever climbed on an airplane is guilty of making noise.’Quite. But lots of people make noise for many and varied reasons. Lots of homes have to put up with various noises , whether they live near airports, churches, busy roads etc, it's all part of the things we put up with when choosing a home. It's when intrusive loud noises are added to the area without your consent, after you have moved in that you have a right to complain.
When the playground was built opposite my house, my argument wasn't solely about noise, I also considered it a waste of money and as there are no children living in my street I considered it to be a bad location, particularly when there is a huge area of waste land 400 metres up the road.
Councillors have been looking for something to build on that land for years. It's even been suggested that a football ground be built there. I don't see why they need to build just because a bit of land is undeveloped. If they really need to provide play areas for children (which they don't) they could have landscaped that area a bit and put the playground in one corner. It would have been out of everyones way and would have been better for the land.
She [Barrister for the defence] pointed to complaints from the residents which included that the park was ‘full of really fat women from Bracknell’ who could not control their children.It seems this chap has the same concerns, namely that the bulk of people using the park are from out of his area. Not only that, they are from the local jam but estate.
When I complained that there were no children in our street, the local councillor said they are short of space and have to build somewhere. That argument was lame enough, but check this out:
The residents were accused by barrister for the council Katie Helmore of not wanting ‘children from less affluent areas infiltrating their community’.And what is wrong with that I ask you? Did he move into a jam but estate to live among the chavs or did he buy a nice house among people he could relate to?
I'm sorry if I sound a little elitist here, or some such nonsense, but barrister Kate Helmore seems to think we should all have to live and mingle together in a perfect state of 'tolerance' and 'inclusion' no matter what.
This chap did not move into an area of chavs who cannot control their kids, by the sounds of it he moved into a quiet area of older folk where there are not many kids.
The council though, moved the chavs and the kids to him.
A lot of people in the comments seem to think he should shut up and accept the situation or move house.
Why should he do either? He found his home. It was the council who came in and ruined it. Why shouldn't he fight back?