Row over harbour

In her final paragraph, she puts the blame for coastal erosion on vehicular traffic using Harbour Road. Traffic has nothing whatsoever to do with erosion, so why does she introduce this spurious argument?

She also introduces the lack of toilets into her argument for closing the road. There have never been toilets at the Spit as far as I am aware, so what has been happening over the years? Is it only motorists that might want this facility?

No! This is where the good lady gives the game away yet again – stop ALL access to the harbour which is why she also introduces the question of dog-fouling in her argument to close the car park.

One has to assume she speaks for all Harbour Rd residents when she suggests no-one wants a tarmac road and street-lighting. Is this so? As for likening Harbour Road to living in the M1 –this does amply demonstrate the lady’s ability to exaggerate. Clouds of dust would not affect her if there was a tarmac surface.

Mrs Bridger is most definitely discriminating against the infirm. Few people are really interested in her work with those needing prosthetic limbs, worthy an occupation though that might have been. Many disabled people are awarded their blue badge because they are unable to walk anything but short distances. It is not only the registered disabled she is penalising. How about those with various other inflictions that don’t qualify for blue badges.

It seems Mrs Bridger is keen to accept as much public money as she can get to preserve her home from erosion but deprive those from whom that money originates any consideration when it comes to benefiting from the facility for which she wants them to fork out!

There is a word which can be used to describe such an attitude.

Geoffrey King

Oaktree Close,

Nyetimber