Who are the people responsible for holding up the safety and streetscape works on Mill Road? We have now revealed the committee of the secretive 'Friends of Mill Road Bridge': battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/20/fri…

William Bannell (Gt Shelford) of the Friends of Mill Road Bridge thinks campaigning against the traffic is new. Those who live here know this has been an issue for 50 years, as we document, in one of our hundreds of corrections to his misleading polemic. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/12/a-b…

Do you know what the Friends are arguing in court? Their original grounds have all been scrapped. Since then, they've scrabbled around for any silly technicality they can. All these points of principle? - they've dropped all, accepting they have no case: battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/20/fri…

Bannell claims in his book that Mill Road traders weren't properly consulted and weren't a "key stakeholder". We have shown this is totally untrue. Traders even gave a presentation to a public meeting - which is still on YouTube. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/20/fri…

The Friends have sought to keep their legal advisor secret. Those misusing the courts should be accountable. We've revealed he is Daniel Fulton, of Fews Lane Consortium (a "consortium" of one person...). His/'their' views seem to show conflicted interest. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/20/fri…

Bannell casts local people campaigning to reduce Mill Road traffic as the "Forces of Woe". But he adopts a victim mentality throughout his book, despite ignoring fully democratic processes. "Forces of Woe" is pretty disrespectful to the many injured. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/25/bri…

The Friends are trying to reopen a debate that has already been resolved. They complain about people debating it, but then do things like run a petition that doesn't even get 1,000 people, or run a single-issue election campaign and get a miserable 10%. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/26/liv…

The Friends wasted court time trying to stop safety works by the bridge. They argued adding a pedestrian island to slow traffic would form part of a bus gate. Their lawyer embarrassingly had to concede it doesn't. The council can get on with this now. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/27/the…

Lead member of Friends of MRB, William Bannell, calls councillors "low-down breeds", saying they're "just in it for the money". He then complains people won't talk to him! It's this person from Shelford holding up safety improvements on our high street. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/16/7th…

The Friends think that "traffic divides people" is an "incredible" statement. If a busy road were put next to Bannell's house in Shelford, so he couldn't cross the road, he might pretty quickly understand what we have to put up with daily on Mill Road. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/17/imp…

Running to court whenever you lose a debate is a misuse of court time. When traffic was let back on Mill Road, pending full consultation, did anti-traffic people run to the court about the Chair's predisposition? No, they respected the democratic outcome. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/17/imp…

The Friends' case rests on opinions/claims made by councillors during the debate. But case law shows only the Officer Report's text counts. The Friends have not through their logic were this not the case: no council decision anywhere could be relied on. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/24/jud…

The Friends are complaining about the council's defence that a court should not undertake 'excessive forensic analysis'. The council is right, as case law shows. The big picture of the scheme, and the exemptions, are perfectly clear. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/24/jud…

The Friends have made claims about 5,000-signature petitions. They were far less than that, and were illicitly joined together, without asking permission of signatories. We show how some would clearly not consented to this. Their own petition got <1,000. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/12/a-b…

The Friends' claim that WhatsApp messages of Chair/VC make them predisposed. Yet very inconsistently, they don't criticise the previous Chair for the same. This is problematic because she was behind one of the petitions - and her vote swang the result. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/12/a-b…

Bannell's own bias pervades his book, though he doesn't realise. For instance, this table of people who applied to speak. People in favour of the traffic are cast as 'Concerned citizens'. Yet those living locally against it are 'Activists' / 'Lobbyists'. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/05/06/129…

Bannell claims that groups against the traffic 'coach' their members, which is not true. Yet he fails to criticise the pre-written template e-mails of those in favour of the traffic, never mind the disgraceful language used. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/05/06/129…

Bannell gave an intolerant speech to the Highways Committee, angrily claiming those people against traffic haven't backed up claims about traffic reduction. Yet they have. And it's a well-established matter, with research found easily via Google. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/05/06/129…

The Friends complain that an amendment seeking more data was not passed. Yet there was already masses - even an 18-month experiment, which showed no sustained traffic increase on surrounding roads. That amendment was just a classic delaying tactic. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/17/imp…

Bannell in fact seems completely unaware of that bog-standard opposition tactic. "Get more evidence" really means "Kick the can down the road again". It's used by councillors up and down the country. It's pretty naive of him not to know this. battleformillroadbridge.wordpress.com/2024/04/17/imp…