Saintslass

Chris Parker, the despicable 'homeless' man who fraudulently claimed to have been helping people injured by the Manchester bomber but who in fact stole a young girl's phone (meaning her family could not contact her to see if she was ok) and stole a woman's bag and then went on a spend at McDonalds. Vile man. Hope he has a torrid time in prison.

People on here like to have a go at me for one reason or another, but my tendency towards scepticism when it comes to the motives of the human race are often validated, such as when this obnoxious individual not only steals a debit card from a seriously injured woman who is lying near her dying granddaughter but then proceeds to spend her money, sharing the card with another who also felt able to spend the injured woman's money. To top it off, the obnoxious individual then portrays himself as a hero and loads of money is raised for him by suckers. Thankfully he didn't see a penny of the money. Hopefully he will spend some time behind bars, not least for committing a criminal act against a severely injured woman who lay beside her dying granddaughter. What a hideous individual.

I've just finished reading Days Without End by Sebastian Barry. It was the Costa book of the year last year. I'm not sure what I thought of it really other than it's a bit of a traumatic read. I suppose it has a happy ending but I'm not totally sure! The writing style is different; it's first person colloquial Irish migrant to the US around the time of the civil war. I did find myself feeling very much inside the protagonist's head which was not always a place I wanted to be! It was one of those books that didn't really have a start, middle and end but could have just run on and on. As I say, I'm not sure what I thought of it.

I have just finished reading The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. It is one of the most moving books I have ever read and I would really recommend it - for adults and children.

The Montreal video was amazing! Whoever was filming it from the building opposite must have been astounded, especially when the gritter joined in.

The 'family of privilege' does a lot of work for the UK. The Queen is to entertain Trump next summer. For that alone she should be given extra dosh. You should move to Scotland. They've refused to pay their share towards the royal upkeep.

You do unless you want it to burn down or suffer flood damage. Which other royal residence suffered fire damage a few years back? The cost to the taxpayer of rebuilding was far bigger than it would have been had maintenance been undertaken appropriately. All old buildings cost money to keep safe and keep upright. The palace, like Windsor Castle and countless cathedrals and heaven knows what other heritage buildings we have in this country which encourage so many people to visit it, all cost large sums of money to maintain. This is just another of those costs which wouldn't have been so high had it not been neglected for so long, the responsibility of governments of all shades over the last 20 years.

Except the fabulously rich family you refer to doesn't actually own the townhouse of which you speak. If you lived in a house you didn't own would asking you to pay for wholesale vital safety repairs be justifiable? My guess is you wouldn't think so and I'd agree with you. Of course we can wait until it burns down and then spend gazillions more repairing it. But then it wouldn't be Buck House as we know it and the revenue it brings to the UK economy might not be the same as a result.

We at St Helens parkrun had a defib donated to us last year. I'm one of the marshals trained in its use although frankly it doesn't take much training to know how to use it as it gives instructions as it goes along. Given the community nature of parkrun I think a defib is a valuable resource (along with some trained first aiders of course) simply because people of all fitness levels and abilities take to the course so there is probably a higher chance of someone suffering ill effects.

Some hail here in St Helens but no snow. Apparently this time 35 years ago between one and two feet of snow fell all over the country.

At my parkrun the run director advises all runners before each run that children under 11 years have to run within touching distance of their accompanying adult, and all volunteers reinforce that in spite of some parents not liking it, otherwise they cannot participate as they would invalidate the insurance. Children over 11 years are allowed to run independently.

'The Company' wont pay because (a) the ethos of the parkrun was and still is that it is free at point of use and manned entirely by volunteers and (b ) how much do you think it would cost to fund 850 parkruns worldwide? A grant would never be sufficient because the monies it raised would come to an end and the council would still want money. Not only that but if the parkrun in Little Stoke provided money to the council then that sets a precedent and all councils would start doing the same thing. But that isn't what parkrun is about. As for your point about injury: one of the sponsors of Parkrun UK pays for insurance cover for all parkruns so your point does not apply.

I provided a link earlier in this thread to details lodged with Companies House on Parkrun UK.

Given that many of our participants are not runners - ie they consider parkrun as a way of getting fit rather than being out and about every day running their feet off - then although amusing it isn't really surprising they turn up in their cars. Even so, any congestion caused only lasts an hour or so and occurs at the quietest time on a Saturday morning.

Which organisation is that? Have you been chatting to the sponsors to find out how much they contribute? Have you found out how much it costs for 850 parkruns worldwide to provide ongoing signage, hi viz jackets, timing devices (for those who choose to register and have their run/jog/walk timed), insurance costs, website maintenance costs, start up costs? Pretty impressive research and powers of persuasion there if you have. Parkrun has no members. You still haven't grasped its concept have you?

Why should Parkrun be a charity?

Exactly.

Yet the council could not say how much damage 300 pairs of trainers for one hour a week does to tarmac (which is what most of the parkruns are run on). That would be because it was tree roots causing the damage but the council want parkrun to pay for the repairs. 300 pairs of trainers running once or twice over the same patch of tarmac would take decades to damage, if even then. There are no other maintenance charges as parkrun brings all its own kit, sets up, overseas, takes down and clears up all by itself, all work done by people like me - volunteers.

This is one of those very rare moments when me and the Gruniad agree: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/13/stoke-gifford-parkrun-council-condemned-charge-paula-radcliffe And also on the Guardian website, a piece from a fellow parkrun volunteer (useful for those who aren't familiar with the concept of parkrun): http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2016/apr/13/why-charging-for-parkrun-is-a-terrible-idea

Because it isn't a charity. Braying mob?! The council wasn't negotiating with anyone. They were imposing a charge. Given that parkrun is a free event then they have killed off the event. If St Helens Council do the same thing then the parkrun in St Helens will cease to be.

Well, the club I coached with must have had a special arrangement then because we weren't charged for using the pitches in one of the parks. Anyone can use them.

That parkrun has been going for years so my point still applies. The council should have advised the volunteers that there may be a charge for holding a parkrun at that park. The volunteers could then have looked elsewhere to hold the parkrun or not bothered at all. It isn't up to Parkrun to 'come back' with something. The principle of parkrun is that they offer free, inclusive fun runs to the whole community for the purpose of getting fit. Therefore it has nothing to offer. It is entirely dependent upon the council not charging. The sponsors supply the kit and insurance required to run the event which is undertaken entirely by volunteers.

Ah well, if they are a charging council then it's no surprise they want to charge the parkrunners too. Pity they didn't set out their stall when the parkrun was initially proposed. They could have saved 330 people some disappointment.

Ah. So all those other protesters we see protesting at stuff are all calm and collected, yes? No. Of course people were upset. That is what protesting is about: being upset at something.

Asking for contributions is one thing; saying you can't use a park for a specific purpose without a payment over and above your council tax payment is quite another. If councils are going to charge runners then they will need to start charging dog walkers, especially when they leave gifts behind on the pavements.