Letters to the Editors
Christmas Grant
Dear Editors,
Once again it is time to remind all who consider themselves eligible for our Christmas grant that they should apply as soon as possible. As usual,the majority of these applications will come from our pensioners,particularly those who have to manage on the state pension,but if you are in particular need,or know of anybody who may be in difficulty,but is unlikely to apply on their own behalf,the Trustees will always be happy to consider requests for assistance.
Applications should be sent to me,or to any Trustee,and I stress that this assistance is available at all times,not merely at Christmas.
Register of Electors 2009/10
Dear Editors
Thank you to everyone who returned your Electoral Register Forms. To the 108 people who failed top return theirs, but very kindly filled them in when I called, thank you very much.
To the people who were abusive to me when I called - you are required by law to fill these forms in and return them on time. Failing to do so could result in affine.
Website History
Dear Editors,
Having seen the historical website for Swaffham Prior, I tried to email the author, Paul Chambers, but my email was returned.
Does anyone think that the ''Rico Gaysle" and later "? Gaysle" on the Shadworth Manor list of 1473 tenants could be a fore-runner of the later Gilson/ Gilsen/Gillson/Gillesonne s etc.?
The first one of my Gilsons that I can locate in Swaffham Prior is William Gilson. He was baptised there 11th March 1698 and married Dorothy Chambers in St Mary's Church S.P. on 11th November 1723.
The father of William was another William born about 1670. He married Dorothy Nicholas and I wondered if this couple were also from S.P.
Can you help me further? I try to get to the archives in Cambridge now and again, but can not visit often.
Thank you in anticipation.
Macmillan Coffee Morning 2009
Dear Editors,
Well this year we have surpassed all previous records and I am so grateful, as Macmillan Cancer Support will be too, along with its recipients. All the money raised from cake sales, raffle tickets and donations came to £641 - a truly amazing amount and I can't thank you enough for all that you did.
Our Village total actually comes to even more, believe it or not! As many of you will know my mother, Rhoda Goddard, died in August. She had asked for donations in lieu of flowers at her funeral to be made to Macmillan Cancer Support and added to the Coffee morning total. She had always thoroughly enjoyed that occasion. The final amount that I paid into the bank was £1,184 - yes that's one thousand, one hundred and eighty four pounds! I still can't quite believe it. Thank you ALL for your enormous generosity. Over the the sixteen years that we have had the Macmillan Coffee Morning in Swaffham Prior we have now raised just over £7,000. THANK YOU.
I wonder what we shall manage to raise next year! I look forward to seeing you all then.
Gay Bulleid Award
Dear Editors
The W.I. would like nominations please-by the end of November, if possible, for the annual Gay Bulleid Award that it presents each year ,around Christmas time.It is for any one you consider has been a particularly good friend and neighbour or has contributed a lot to our community.
If you have someone in mind, please contact Pat Cook or Margaret Joyce. Many thanks.
That Bridge
Dear Editors
In a letter to the Crier, Mr Soans (Property Manager, National Trust Wicken
Fen) takes issue with various parts of my report of the special meeting held by
the Parish Council to discuss the NT's plans for a bridge over Reach Lode.
The meeting had been called at short notice because the plans had become
available to the PC less than one month before they were due to be submitted to
the Planning Committee in Ely.
I would like to think that my report gave an accurate summary of the points of discussion and opinions of the Council (of which I am not a member), presented for the first time with the package of drawings and documentation relating to the NT's application. The presence of an NT representative (had the PC found the opportunity to invite one) may or may not have influenced the Council's opinion, which after lengthy discussion and detailed consideration was unanimously opposed to the plan. Had they then been available, the computer-generated graphics accompanying Mr Soans' letter to the Crier might have countered the impression of size given by the technical drawings available to the meeting, and saved me from an error of scale (yes, I was responsible for the quarter-mile estimate when I got a chance to look at the plans after the meeting - a regrettable lapse of reporter's ethics to include one's own opinion).
Now that the plans have been approved, the Councillors will eventually have the opportunity to assess for themselves the merits or otherwise of the project, but the purpose of that meeting was to comment at that time on the information provided in support of the NT's application, which is what they did.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Dear Editors,
It was with sad surprise that I read the letter from Chris Soans, NT Wicken Fen Property Manager, outlining the details of the proposed Reach Lode bridge (now agreed by E Cambs). Surprise: the bridge will be so much smaller than those who oppose it have been telling me. Sadness - because if the small but vehement opposition group on the PCC has had to exaggerate so much the dimensions and visual impact of the bridge to be convincing, I can only wonder at the state of local democracy.
What was it that they were really so afraid of? So it's not the size. And who believes local democracy can be served by telling us things that are not true? If the truth isn't enough, the argument is not worth making. So have they some other agenda not being discussed? Or were the actual dimensions not known in the first place, so imaginary ones were imagined, scary enough to be convincing? Ditto. Something else unspoken is the real issue.
I suppose there is a third possibility, that inaccurate details were provided from an unreliable source, but it would sadden me too if our representatives had thrown out to us figures as fact from an unverified third party, possibly with its own reasons to exaggerate. And Mr Soans points out that no-one invited a NT representative to the special PCC meeting to provide accurate data, but John Chalmers'account makes it appear planners were not interested in local opinion: "...but no-one was available from the applicants to answer questions or promote their case" . This must be misinformed at least...unless of course Chris Soans is less than accurate in his statement, in which case maybe nobody is telling us the whole truth.
Is this becoming confusing to you, reader? If so, it's not surprising. How on earth could you know what's going on if you couldn't tell who's being straight with you? Solution: Good decisions and good local outcomes can only come from clarity, accuracy, openness and honesty. Anything else is not really local democracy at all. I am really disheartened that the prism is distorted by which we can see and understand PCC decisions enacted on our behalf. The meeting I reported on earlier this summer was enjoyable to attend and write up; but it wasn't put on as entertainment. Local representation must be deeply grounded. Where we live is our community, held in trust for present and future generations. Bad decisions made on personal agendas can only diminish the quality of that future. To be disciplined so as not to be biased or scaremonger - the worst is always so convincing! - is a vital responsibility.
Also, can someone please tell Cllr Woollard in response to his Crier letter, there are no food shortages in this country. More decent food is thrown away annually than is produced in the fens. Tell him it is far easier and quicker to turn land to food production than to revert it to wildlife habitat. If in future there is a need, the land will still be there. But in total contrast, the wildlife in this country is diminshing at an alarming pace. When it is gone, it will really be gone. That is bald if dramatic fact. No scaremongering. It will not return, land or no land. It's called extinction. We owe it to future generations to try to save it, and that has to mean nature reserves like the Fen vision. If you object to saving our wildlife, ask yourself what kind of world you want to leave behind instead and why you want that. I've spoken to the people who work at Wicken Fen. They rolled their eyes in despair when I told them the kind of thing that is said round here. They won't evict anyone. They have no power to buy anything anyone doesn't want to sell; (I've said that before) nor is anywhere to be flooded. A mixed landscape is envisaged, because that is most 'natural'- ie the land has been shaped by man for thousands of years. It will involve farming, of course it will, they said, mostly livestock. Will Cllr Woollard also note there are very many like me here who would consider it a joy and a privilege to live in a regional nature reserve, and he is on the PCC to represent us, not fight us.
I wrote this once before too. Cambridgeshire's fen was once a forest. A forest. Just picture it.
Mark's Last Word on Magpies
Dear Editors,
It would have been my last word, I hope, on the subject of magpies and songbirds.(and I really do hope the collective sigh of relief will create a wind across this village to snuff the embers of the combustible edifices the bonfire folk have so enjoyed lighting on some of the most fantastic days this summer and autumn - I'm watching clouds of smoke roll across Lower End on a nice October evening) but since our esteemed Ed posts an undermining codicil to everything I write I'll have to draw the line more firmly.
Since our bird population numbers are not in stasis - ie remaining stable -
with the smaller species declining while the corvidae, the magpies and assorted
relatives, are on the increase, it would take Newton's calculus to assess
the impact of the rising arc of one aganst the declining arc of the other,
factoring in the other variables - weather, other predators, competition for
food, insect life proliferation arcs (anyone else see the ladybird plague up by
the coast this summer?). No disrespect to the folk at the British Trust for
Ornithology, but the patterns are not as simple as counting bird numbers.
I'd be surprised if even Stephen Hawking would be able to factor in those
uncertain and shifting variables against the rise of one and fall of the other
and be able to come up with a meaningful impact assessment.
I have always agreed with Caroline's original point. Larsen traps are bad. Shooting is less cruel, but it needs to happen more than it does, was my point in response. I'm still not clear whether she agrees or not. We'll be in angel pinhead dancing territory if we want to continue to argue about to what extent magpies make it harder for songbirds to survive; but the basics mechanics of Darwinian selection in operation on this planet mean they do. Nature is a harsh mother. In a few years we can probably have the same argument in the past tense and it'll have made no difference, if something more is not done. The bigger predatory birds which can legally be controlled are on the increase while the smaller protected birds are on the decline. The BTO could more usefully lobby for better predator management rather than just count how many less there are of one and how many more of the other. She edited this out last issue, so I'll try it one more time. I'm just going to ask, as Mary Poppins said - Feed the birds. (But I have no evidence that it will cost you tuppence a bag).
Ed's Last Word: The BTO's job is to provide unbiased information about birds and their habits, and this involves counting birds. It's the RSPB that does the lobbying, and based on BTO data, does indeed lobby about birds of prey: Help Stop Killing Them Now is what it says. Sitting ducks are fair game for anyone, though....