Forum Topic

Annie's andThames Road traffic scheme

I cannot understand why Lorraine Angliss is worried about the affect of the Thames Road traffic scheme on her restaurant.  Her customers can either leave Thames Road by the way they entered the area, or, if leaving but the other exit they will have, (should have) spent enough time eating there to avoid being caught by the ANPR timing system which is to be designed to catch rat runners.

Jonathan Bond ● 2326d65 Comments

I think the question as posed in the interview was misleading.

Michael Robinson ● 2326d

She clearly doesn't get it. SHE of all people should welcome the proposal. There is nothing worse than sitting outside at tables on the Thames Road pavement with passing (speeding) traffic.

Pippa Meldrum ● 2326d

Well, there is. Sitting on their dreadfully uncomfortable chairs that don't fit under tables properly etc.

Rob Reynolds ● 2326d

True.

Pippa Meldrum ● 2326d

I do hope they have spent the lock down retraining their staff.  Service was consistently both dreadful and eye-wateringly slow for at least 18 months before lock down.The sad thing about the traffic proposals is that it will mean my wife and friends move their monthly women's night out because they will be worried about being dropped off by a family member using the car when it is raining

Justin Stephenson ● 2325d

I'd love to know where the women live that they need dropping off when it rains - how on earth do people who don't have such luxuries manage? Not go out? And almost worse than the passing traffic is the huge 4x4s which park right outside such that sitting there all views of the sky is blocked. If I were her I'd be asking to get some more space somehow to have more outdoor tables. Now that would be nice.

Ruth Mayorcas ● 2325d

Several of the posters on here apparently did not like Annies.  Not a single word of praise at all, just negative moans!  Well I've been a customer since Annies first opened over 20 yrs ago.  I can't count the number of joyous and uproarious evenings and very merry lunches I've had - now I'm ancient, it's usually just two or three of us for lunch running into teatime.  It was not a place you visited in a rush and hurry, it was leisurely and relaxed, speedy service not a priority!  It was the most welcoming and easy drop in, a true local.  Thank you Lorraine and I sincerely hope you will be able to re-open when this lockdown ends.

Jennifer Selig ● 2325d

I agree, Jennifer, I have had some lovely meals there in a lovely setting including NYE.  My worry is that I usually get a cab to the dentist at SOTG to ensure I am in time for my appointment, but guess they are going to have to drop me by Kew Bridge in future?

Claire Moran ● 2325d

I agree, Jennifer, I have had some lovely meals there in a lovely setting including NYE.  My worry is that I usually get a cab to the dentist at SOTG to ensure I am in time for my appointment, but guess they are going to have to drop me by Kew Bridge in future?

Claire Moran ● 2325d

I'd assume your cab had a legitimate reason to use the road for Access to your dentist.

Peter Evans ● 2325d

I don't know, would it?

Claire Moran ● 2325d

Umbrellas?

Ken Munn ● 2325d

I’d have thought the pubs and restaurants would be delighted that instead of driving straight through Thames Road people would be required to stop for a while. Nor will it prevent home deliveries or registered taxis/cabs.  Literally only people driving straight past Annie’s.

Liz Hagerty ● 2325d

I agree but isn't it possible that a person running business for twenty years will have a better understanding of the likely impact of the changes than the rest of us?

Kevin Howard ● 2325d

Oh! they're coming out of the woodwork now. Annies' has had good reviews over the last ten years+ (excluding one from myself) and has generally been lauded as a good place to go. Suddenly the criticisms have started. Is this the bicycle brigade feeling brave enough to start or a much wider dissent?

Jeffrey Cope ● 2325d

I agree Jeffery. I know Lorraine well and she is passionate about her business. The nasty cowards are coming out about chairs, service etc She’s a lovely lady expressing her view. Stick to the point people.

Richard Kay ● 2325d

Other businesses in the area have reported that if they voice reservations about any of the measures being proposed there is an immediate stream of negative comments, not about their views but about their business from a small but very vocal minority. This has succeeded in discouraging some from saying publicly how worried they are about the changes planned.Annie's is a fantastic place to eat and a real asset to Thames Road but it looks like some people would believe that if traffic was reduced by closing all the places to eat and drink in the area this would represent success.

Anita Blake ● 2325d

Well said Anita.

Richard Kay ● 2325d

AnitaWell said and I share your views.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2325d

Why has Chiswick turned into a scary version of a police state, we loved it here when we first arrived to live, and now it is resembling one of the former countries in the Soviet bloc, with 'you can't do this and you can't do that' ruling the day, and Big Brother CCTV or ANPR catching you out? Has 1984 arrived in 2020?

Richard Bradford ● 2325d

Pay attention Richard - the whole UK is like that, not just W4. Country with the third highest number of CCTV cameras in relation to size of population, apparently. Smile please!

Ken Munn ● 2325d

..and when someone is attacked in the street or worse, I think on balance it's a good thing that the police can track down the perpetrators by using our extensive CCTV network.

Peter Evans ● 2325d

except they can't because no one bothers to check them, only used for fining the general populationMaybe bikes should incur £300 road tax to make for all the cars that are going to get banned then at least they would be contributing to all these road changes

Rahman Hyatt ● 2325d

except they can't because no one bothers to check them, only used for fining the general populationMaybe bikes should incur £300 road tax to make up for all the cars that are going to get banned then at least they would be contributing to all these road changes

Rahman Hyatt ● 2325d

Don't forget all the cars that pay no or very small amounts of vehicle tax if you want to go down that route ...

Andrew Jones ● 2325d

Once again, there is no such thing as 'road tax'. There is vehicle excise duty (VED) which is NOT spent on roads. Zero emissions vehicles, such as electric vehicles pay, no VED.

Ken Munn ● 2325d

What about the ones that pay no tax at all or are not insured or have no MOT? If the ANPR cameras were to have a notification for the police who would be made aware of a vehicle being driven illegally this would serve to reduce crime in the area and go some way to justifying their existence with local people.

Andrew OSullivan ● 2325d

Yes. Always provided, of course, that it was known where to find the vehicle and/or driver.

Ken Munn ● 2325d

rubbishVED, Petrol tax, Insurance Tax, Car parking permitsIf you ban all the cars where is the money going to from?The 100 million Hounslow are now spending on large plant pots and cctv cameras, came from somewhere or will come from somewhere one day when it has to be paid back.If they really wanted to ban cars they can just put petrol up to £3 per litre, that would reduce traffic (and revenue)It would have been better to furlough the whole of Hounslow council including all the public officials, (except the bin men) at least it would save what they have now decided to spend on traffic schemes that have will no bearing on the Covid infection rate.

Rahman Hyatt ● 2325d

"It would have been better to furlough the whole of Hounslow council.."Now there's an idea ! However, Sontarans don't take kindly to being furloughed - it interferes with their plans for world domination.

Richard Greenhough ● 2324d

'Always provided, of course, that it was known where to find the vehicle and/or driver.'On Thames Road perhaps?

David Parker ● 2324d

'The 100 million Hounslow are now spending on large plant pots and cctv cameras'£100 million. If only!

Ken Munn ● 2324d

The plant pots are same size as cars, so they could just left it as parking.

Rahman Hyatt ● 2324d

You have at least managed to win the most unpleasant post of the day!Maybe you are the sort of person who enjoys a 20 min walk in the rain to arrive cold and damp (umbrellas work but not so well in wind, never mind a really good downpour), most people do not enjoy that.  I also assume that you enjoy denigrating the elderly who are unable to do a 20 minutes walk. Plus if you were ever a customer of Annie's you would know about their fabulous cocktails.  It is a matter of good sense not to drive to the restaurant but to get someone to drive you to the restaurant and pick you up when finished.

Justin Stephenson ● 2324d

Jeremy Clarkson has a kindred spirit with this one.

Tony Smart ● 2324d

As I understand it Hounslow has received £1m and not £100m to fund the traffic schemes. I understabd Loraine's concerns - the measures for South Chiswick are complex and hard to explain.Simpler schemes that stop rat running are available. The principle Hounslow Council are following is "my toe nails need cutting so I will buy a shot gun and shoot myself in both feet."

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2324d

"As I understand it Hounslow has received £1m and not £100m to fund the traffic schemes."See article with break-down of figures released late last week. £140k for South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhoods.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/hounslow-gets-funding-for-traffic-schemes/"Simpler schemes that stop rat running are available."Yes, just putting in some planters instead of ANPR would be a lot cheaper, simpler and could mean more money to spend on other measures within the area.Is this what you were thinking of Sam?If not, please explain!

Michael Robinson ● 2324d

Make Grove Park resident access only - key points being Harvard Hill and Thames Road. Install signage. Report new restrictions to Google, Waze et al via Geo Data Upload. Periodically police manually and dish out some fines.Cheap, simple, effective.

Russell Pearson ● 2324d

Happy to oblige but first answer my question - do you reaLly think that the proposed measures combining most of the tricks in the traffic managers toy box are the simplest way of stopping rat running without causing huge inconvenience to many residents?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2324d

By the way Sam, I really hope your so-called "simpler" idea doesn't involve putting ANPR at every single entrance and exit and having every single car within the area registered.  That wouldn't be simple at all.There could be a case for wider use of the "time based" ANPR measure as proposed for SOTG/Thames Rd and doing this between major entrances and exits.  However there is no way that ANPR would be used for the roads with small volumes of local traffic, so that would mean closing Harvard Hill, Milnthorpe, Eastbourne and Park Rd, and maybe some others, with planters.There is no getting away from the fact that there isn't a "have cake and eat it" for people driving and the whole point of government guidelines is to make walking and cycling the easier options.

Michael Robinson ● 2324d

Sam, if you wanted to (I don't know whether you do or don't but that's not relevant to my question), how would you stop rat running?The aim (stopping rat running) is either achieved by blocking the routes physically, or providing an incentive (or deterrent) to stop the through traffic.Physical blocking is the cheaper and quicker solution to implement, but it would (I suggest) inconvenience those living in the neighbourhood more than a solution that allows (in some circumstances) traffic to pass.I'd be interested in your reply. It's not whether we should try to stop rat running, but if we did want to try and stop it, how do you think we should go about it?For the record, I don't live in the area, so although I have an interest in the outcome I know whatever happens will only potentially effect me to a miniscule degree. Personally (with my grasp of what I think is being proposed) I think that solely employing simpler measures (like fixed barriers, or one way systems to discourage through traffic) would inconvenience residents more than something more intelligent that controls entry/egress by transit time (working alongside barriers to traffic).

Andrew Jones ● 2324d

Sam, you were on the same call I was with the Hounslow engineer.  He was at pains to explain that everything was a balancing act between effectiveness and convenience.The simplest solution would be no ANPR, just block roads with planters.  That's what most other boroughs are doing with ANPR being reserved things like bus routes.You haven't mentioned what your "simpler" solution is.  Putting ANPR everywhere and having all cars registered isn't simple, as was explained.You also went to Waltham Forest so know there is inconvenience for people driving with these proposals.  That's the point. Driving should not be the easiest choice for short distances.  That is also government policy for providing funding for these schemes."a once in a generation opportunity to deliver a lasting transformative change in how we make short journeys in our towns and cities” as Grant Shapps MP has said.

Michael Robinson ● 2324d

I, and this probably the case for many others on this side of the A4, regularly visit Grove Park to Chiswick House, Grove Park Deli, Annie's and a good friend but I have to drive. And no I'm not going into the reasons why, other than health reasons.Will we be adversely affected in terms of access by car by the Liveable Neighbourhood scheme ?Btw what is the definition of a Liveable Neighbourhood ? No cars except for residents and their deliveries ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2323d

Loraine, with the plans as they are at the moment, there would be no change to visiting those places.The point of Liveable Neighbourhoods is to make it difficult or impossible to drive through without stopping and make walking and cycling the easiest choice for short journeys.  Every location can be accessed by car so that choice still remains to people who wish to drive.  That doesn't mean all journeys by car are as easy as possible.Another example is the closure of Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley Rd. No more traffic driving through the area westbound, streets are much quieter, everywhere is accessible by car, residents need to make a detour for some journeys by car.

Michael Robinson ● 2323d

What I don't think has been given a moments thought by the people who support and or instigated these changes is the uncertainty factor for traders.Goodness knows their trading position is uncertain enough without adding the extra layer.Some glib poster said pedestrianising road was good for trade which may well be true, I have seen it work for myself, but it by no means certain in all cases so extra worry has been added just when traders need it like a hole in the head.

Adrian Irving ● 2323d

Hi Loraine,As I understand it, I can't imagine that these proposals would make it more difficult for you to visit Chiswick House and Gardens or park in Park Road. People coming from the direction of Kew or Brentford would need to drive via Chiswick High Road and Sutton Court Road and wouldn't be able to drive through along Thames Road, but anyone on Thames Road would have no problems. Not much of a Liveable Neighbourhood if you can't have people visiting, and yes, some people genuinely need their cars to help them get around.

Andrew Jones ● 2323d

By the way Loraine, I don't claim to be an expert ... just read what you titled your post but I hope I've got what I wrote correct!

Andrew Jones ● 2323d

AdrianExactly I wouldn't want to take my business away from Grove Park Deli or Chiswick House Cafe due to somewhat unclear instructions of where we can or can't drive without penalty ? Tbh I'm still not clear...

Loraine Pemberton ● 2323d

There are no plans for pedestrianisation of streets in the South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood scheme.

Paul Campbell ● 2323d

As Michael has said for people driving from Chiswick north of the A4 Grove Park Deli and Chiswick House will remain accessible by car provided you are not planning to drive there via Hartington Road or via Thames Road from Kew Bridge. Sutton Court Road will continue to be your most direct way in and out without fear of penalty.  So great news that you can still visit your favourite places AND we don't have to have 1000s of commuters using our roads as a cut through. Also great to read that my local deli is popular with people who have all the shops of CHR, TGT and Devonshire Rd on their doorstep. They have added a fantastic range of fresh seasonal fruit and veg to their offering and it is manna from heaven for us Fauconberg Villagers who walk there.It will also be a great deal easier for non-villagers wishing to visit to drive along Fauconberg Road with so many vehicles taken away from it every day by the closure of Harvard Hill. A much quieter and more pleasant place to sit and enjoy a coffee and pastry from the deli. The orange and almond muffins are to die for by the way.

Paul Campbell ● 2323d

Paul I know.I have been in business for four decades so have some insight. Some changes I have seen work well others not so.My point is from the business owners view who I would have thought "experiments" are the last they need right now.Times are tough enough thank's.These should have waited until things are more settled.

Adrian Irving ● 2323d

"I really hope your so-called "simpler" idea doesn't involve putting ANPR at every single entrance and exit and having every single car within the area registered.  That wouldn't be simple at all."The proposed Council scheme will involve liberal use of ANPR's on three exits from the area and within the ward.The scheme favoured by many people who are emailing me would involve two extra cameras at Sutton Court Road / A4 and Harvard Hill and at least four fewer cameras within the ward. There would probably be no need for the barrier at Park Rd / Staveley Road because rat-running would be a thing of the past.  Anyone detected by any two of these cameras within half an hour would be sent a penalty notice. Almost all rat-runners would be caught. There would be absolutely NO need for residents to register their car registration numbers and no need for a complex bureaucracy to support it.The 8,000 plus vehicles a day entering the ward (in November) at Hartington Road would be reduced to a dribble. Some drivers would still divert to Burlington Lane but this would not save any journey time for them.Importantly no residents would be inconvenienced and the roads would become far more attractive for cyclists and pedestrians.Of course it would help if the proposed measures included any measures that would reduce traffic speeds. But of course they do not. The November traffic survey revealed as you well know that many simply ignore the 20 mph speed limit. We need a proper consultation NOW.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2323d

Sam - what you are proposing could easily be bypassed.Drivers would just go Staveley to Park, or maybe Milnthorpe or Eastbourne for a bit of variety and avoid cameras at Sutton Court Rd.  The diagonal filter at Staveley / Park is also intended to make it difficult for vehicles going that route.Instead of a diagonal filter at Staveley / Park, there could be planters to close off the junctions of Milnthorpe, Eastbourne and Park and the A4.  There isn't enough local traffic to justify ANPR on these roads.However eastbound along Staveley is the third highest flow of traffic in the area and your suggestion doesn't do anything about that, so the diagonal filter needs to stay.I agree that a time-based ANPR has the advantages of not needing administration of registrations but there isn't enough local traffic to justify ANPR for Harvard Hill either.  Just stick a planter there. The detour needed is hardly a big deal - it is shorter than the detour for residents of Stile Hall Gardens and Wellesley to get to  the S Circular.Also, can you explain what you mean by "proper consultation"?Are you referring to the 21 day consultation needed for a permanent change to roads using a Traffic Management Order? Or the 6 month consultation for a trial change to roads using an Experimental Traffic Order? Given the untried aspects of this scheme, it doesn't make any sense to do a consultation for a permanent change.  That approach provides no flexibility.An Experimental Traffic Order - which is what I believe is proposed - will mean a 6 month consultation based upon what actually happens.Surely the Stile Hall Gardens / Wellesley experience has taught you how useless consultations can be? They are just people arguing over opinions about what might happen.Far better to have real world evidence about what actually does happen.So what approach are you advocating? The process for a permanent change or the process for an experimental change? Other than emergency traffic orders, there aren't any other options.

Michael Robinson ● 2323d

Michael RobinsonYou starting to sound a bit shaky, as someone else has another plan other than yours and you 120 mates

Bernard Allen ● 2323d

Adrian this thread is about the South Chiswick LN.As far as experiments go I take a different view to you. I have half your time in business but I can tell you that none of my clients are going to wait for a vaccine before they make changes, scary as they may be, to adapt to the circumstances and work hard to position for a better future. Personally I do not see that as glib; I see it as essential to adapt to survive.The government has taken a view and has paved the way with new legislation for experimentation to help people move around more safely without using their cars wherever possible. I appreciate that you are responding to that in a different way to me and you are entitled to do so. I just really hope that the hospitality businesses get to take advantage of the extra space and the quieter streets with swift approval to get more covers on the street. That is one item for quick and early feedback during the six month consultation period for me.

Paul Campbell ● 2323d

Nope.  It is precisely because I'm not sure that all the proposed measures will work that I'm saying that the best approach is an Experimental Traffic Order.That means the measures can be changed based upon what actually happens rather than arguing about opinions, like this is.For example, will a diagonal filter stop lots of vehicles going down Staveley? Or will  they just detour via Burlington or Lawford, even though that is longer? I don't know. Only one way to find out and that is trialing it.There could be a solution ust using planters that could pretty well guarantee how traffic will flow (and many places would just do this and not bother with ANPR). But then watch people lose their shit about what that would mean for detours.Anyone who claims to have the perfect solution that will address everything within the available budget and won't mean any impact to residents is either a liar or doesn't have a clue.And that is why I'm trying to pin Sam down about what approach he is actually advocating.  If he is saying that this should be done using the process for permanent changes then that doesn't make any sense.  It doesn't give any flexibility to change things.He knows even less about what will happen than I do given it took me 30 seconds to point out the flaws with his "solution".

Michael Robinson ● 2323d

Lorraine is a savvy business woman who knows her onions And it’s effect btw which she is acutely aware of .......

Madeleine Hazard ● 2323d

Paul I know what the thread is about. I was taking a meander, making a wider point on how these "experiments" are for more settled times. BTW "More settled"does not mean after a vaccine has been found. I would have thought that obvious to most readers." scary as they may be"( the experiments) Your words not mine. Exactly my point. Traders and customers have enough to cope with at the moment without "scary" changes being imposed on them at very short notice.Wait until things are more settled seems sensible to me but,as you say, we disagree and these experiments are ploughing ahead regardless. T

Adrian Irving ● 2323d

I’m referring to the changes my clients are making which, in my view, are far more scary than the ones you are referring to. They are preparing for multiple waves of COVID-19 over the next two years and are having to rethink their business models. They are not anticipating a settling down in the near future and will likely be handling a no-deal Brexit during another wave and lockdown period.  Personally I think it is a little hysterical to describe as scary the replacement of a small number of parking spaces with more dedicated disabled parking spaces and more open access to loading bays. The streets that you are referring to will be better equipped to handle future waves of this virus. In my view of course.

Paul Campbell ● 2323d

Paul, you can't be a little hysterical anymore than you can be a little dead.What to can be is concerned in various degrees which is what I am.

Adrian Irving ● 2323d

True!

Paul Campbell ● 2323d

"And that is why I'm trying to pin Sam down about what approach he is actually advocating"A proper consultation - would be either of the ones that your have mentioned. What is not acceptable is the lack of effective consultation involved with this scheme. But you appear to believe that consultation is a bad idea anyway? How interesting. I agree that to make "my" scheme work acces to the A4 from Milnethorpe and Eastbourne would need to be closed. Hardly a major flaw to my proposals.My plan is sound and simple to explain. It stops rat-running and makes the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians.The junction barrier to be implemented on Staveley Road is an admission of failure by the council to control speeding on the area's roads in anyway shape or form. Painting 20 mph on all our roads without any effective enforcement measures has proved to be just a con trick.  As I said before what really sticks out in the council's proposals is the complete lack of any measures to "calm" speeding. 

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 2323d

"I just really hope that the hospitality businesses get to take advantage of the extra space and the quieter streets with swift approval to get more covers on the street. That is one item for quick and early feedback during the six month consultation period for me"I couldn't agree with you more, Paul. However these details are sorely lacking and the hospitality industry cannot wait six months for a consultation to yield results. At present it is demonstrable the only ones benefiting from immediate change are cyclists. With distancing required on pavements and cyclists still using them even with improved infrastructure dedicated for them it is clear pedestrians are not benefiting at all.Yesterday's announcement about re-opening on the 4th was disappointing. All I heard was changes in planning will come in the next few weeks. Not good enough. So as with others here, namely Adrian and Anita, there are enough challenges at present for traders so yet another is unwelcome. At present licensing officers have represented we will need a license and to follow the 28-day consultation protocol if we are allowed to operate "in full." Logic dictates since we will not be allowed to operate in full then these guidelines are null and void. Otherwise the line item calculation becomes spending full whack on something we cannot avail ourselves of in toto. Kind of like paying for a dozen eggs yet only getting four. The investment isn't worth it in terms of time nor return.We hear only about closing streets for cycling and distancing. We do not hear let alone see images of what that could mean for street dining. In this morning's New York Times there was an article on just that. Expedited licensing. No fees for any of it. Getting venues up and running ASAP, customers out to the extent they can be, distancing in place, some trade albeit reduced. The best for an impossible situation. And we can barely discern if that is on our horizon. It should be in place for July 4th. End of. Sorry, but your paltry mention of this issue sounds hollow. It should be front and center in all your arguments for safe, liveable neighborhood schemes. Especially now with never before seen challenges facing businesses. And yet it never is. Even pedestrian experience goes by the way side with you. Benches? Gardens? Street art? Cycling isn't the only way to improve a community. Yet it's all you ever speak of.

David Lesniak ● 2323d

"As I said before what really sticks out in the council's proposals is the complete lack of any measures to "calm" speeding."One obvious way to calm speeding is to put in traffic management schemes that make the area unattractive to the sort of drivers that feel the need for speed: traffic management like turning the area into a labyrinth that residents will understand and appreciate, but that rat-runners won't.

Ken Munn ● 2323d

Sam,It’s good that you would be happy with the 6 month consultation part of the experimental traffic process.The council can only make changes to the roads using the process for permanent or experimental traffic orders and both require consultation.  I think this is the third time I’ve told you this.To correct your statement, I believe consultation as part of the permanent process is a bad idea because that will only be people shouting opinions at each other and the process provides no flexibility for change. Consultation as part of the experimental process is a good idea because the actual impact can be monitored and measures changed based upon what is actually happening.The diagonal barrier on Staveley stops ratrunning to Park, Milnthorpe and Eastbourne avoiding Sutton Court Rd and also stops eastbound ratrunning along Staveley. Eastbound ratrunning along Staveley is the third highest traffic flow in the entire area and your idea wouldn’t address it even if access to the A4 was blocked at Milnthorpe, Eastbourne and Park (you didn’t mention Park).So your plan isn’t sound. I hope I’ve explained why.The point about speed calming was explained on the call we were on. I don’t know if you have forgotten or your post is just faux indignation for grandstanding purposes.  Speed humps need construction and current government funding is just for temporary measures. A requirement of experimental traffic orders is the measures must be capable of being removed.Permanent measures need additional funding and there won’t be additional funding without taking the first step.I can remember telling you 4 years ago that 20mph signs on Stile Hall Gardens  were a waste of time when I showed you the speed measurements.  Closing the street to through traffic appears to have been a pretty effective measure so far, although I don’t have measurements to prove it. Of course you opposed this closure. Hopefully you will have learned from this.

Michael Robinson ● 2323d