The grass is greener from elevated viewing points
HERE'S a funny thing. You remember me moaning about the grass planned for the roof of the new bus shelters planned for Chatham?
Remember how I said the plan was potty because how would the grass be cut and who'd see it anyway?
Well, our leaders have had a change of mind.
Hallelujah. Saints be praised. Good grief.
Whoah there boys and girls. No celebration yet because now they're saying: "The station canopies will have a living green rock plant style roof creating an attractive view from high points such as Fort Amherst."
That's all right then.
Except it's not. It's just as barmy as the grass idea.
Apart from wondering what the hell "a living green rock plant style roof" is, I do wonder what they're thinking of when they say the view will be attractive from high points.
So that means if I want my breath to be taken away by the sight of our bus shelter canopies I need to be at Fort Amherst. Or on the Town Hall roof. Or the top of the Pentagon. Or on the Great Lines with a pair of binoculars.
No matter the overwhelming majority of us don't give a monkey's about bus shelter canopies – unless we're talking about keeping the rain off – it seems we're gonna get jolly attractive living thingies we won't be able to see anyway.
Gotta say this plan doesn't sit well with Morgan's war on waste.
MY old mate Raymond agrees with my complaint about the silly prices for food and drinks at the Historic Dockyard, although he says such scandalous prices are not reserved solely for the Dockyard.
Arriving way too early for the start of a walk in Kent's green and pleasant, he decided a quick pint would fill the time nicely.
He ambled into The Chequers in Loose Village and ordered a pint of Guinness. For which he was charged £3.40.
Even at regular lads' nights in London he reckons he hasn't been charged more than £3.10 for a pint of The Dark Stuff.
To add insult to injury it wasn't even served with a smile, although perhaps that's for the better because a smile with those prices would really have been extracting the urine.
SO I went to Hereford to watch those brave Gills boys in action – if you're interested catch our regular blog and matchday updates on www.thisiskent. co.uk – and borrowed blonde bird's sat-nav.
Dutch, Andy and myself didn't like the voiceover, so it was switched to simple.
Whether that means simple to understand or simple as in simpleton I know not, but it did produce several of those laugh out loud moments.
Within the first few yards voice was suggesting we polar bear left. Later we had to grizzly bear left and on approaching roundabouts were warned to beware of those rabbits, posts and things.
The thing told me not to go too fast on the motorways and at one stage, when we playing guess the year/artist/song on my 60s CDs it bloody well coughed.
It was as if it didn't like being ignored.
I'd like to say the Arthur Mullard style voice kept us amused for the full seven hours we were on the road. Unfortunately, the novelty wore off long before reaching destination.
Me? I prefer maps.
I AM grateful for the terse message sent me by Roy Evans. He pointed out my obvious stupidity thus: "Soccer," he said, "is not as you stated in the
News
on 12 August an American term. It is a 19th century English abbreviation of association football. Look it up.
I did and it is.
So thanks, Roy, for making me look like an idiot. You didn't need to really; I can do that for myself.
PS: I actually don't care if it's English or whatever. Only the poncey upper classes call it soccer. And the Yanks, of course. And some Strilians apparently.
To me and my English chums it's footy and always will be.
ONE would like to point out that alongside the Hereford football ground there was a car park. A long-stay car park which could take 600 vehicles.
It cost £1 for the whole day.
Nuff said.
By the way, we press types had tea in china cups, sandwiches and cakes at half-time.
Like we used to get at Priestfield, before the advent of Value biscuits and plastic beakers for boiling hot tea.
Fings really ain't what they used to be are they?











Comments