Mustard wrote: slumpystones wrote:
Tonbridge and Malling council made a big deal about roadside flowers for deceased pedestrians, claiming it was unsightly, messy, smelly, and non-perishable. The same rule should apply, with a little commonsense.
And I bet that was popular!
Unpopular to the family and friends, but the path was strewn with flowers for months afterwards, making it slippery. Loads of old dears in Malling y'see, can't be paying out for hips and stuff. But they did let them have their way for a year or more before asking them [not telling] to please remove them, replacing them with a small stone base and a holder for flowers off the road and path.
Reply | with quote | Posted by slumpystones 27th June 2007ce 15:43 |
Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 25, 2007, 15:18)- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tiompan, Jun 25, 2007, 16:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Hob, Jun 25, 2007, 17:18)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 26, 2007, 11:26)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 26, 2007, 14:45)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 26, 2007, 23:14)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tomwatts, Jun 27, 2007, 14:57)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 27, 2007, 21:24)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (FourWinds, Jun 28, 2007, 05:51)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 28, 2007, 06:07)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (ocifant, Jun 28, 2007, 06:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tuesday, Jun 28, 2007, 08:41)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard, Jun 29, 2007, 18:04)
- New Code (nigelswift, Jun 28, 2007, 11:52)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 29, 2007, 15:27)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Vybik Jon, Sep 17, 2012, 14:26)
|
|