On 6 Nov 2007 at 9:09am MR and MRS Smith wrote:
The Lewes Borough were this best that I have seen them in a long time. They were without a doubt the loudest and the bloke with the crackers on a pole is a mad man. the nose did not stop well done!
On 6 Nov 2007 at 9:11am MR and MRS Smith wrote:
Sorry still hung over
On 7 Nov 2007 at 10:08am Lewesianne wrote:
Yes, I thought the man with the crackers on the pole was a mad man too - but wasn't he brilliant. They all were. You certainly knew The Borough were coming!!
On 7 Nov 2007 at 1:46pm lopster wrote:
watched Borough (and Commerciaql Square) at the memorial - Borough really rocked as they left to return to the bottleneck - brilliant use of Rookies - there display was awesome too - have always rated Commercial's aerials but this year I think Borough had the edge - why is it over so soon, Bonfire crept up and has gone this year - possibl;y 'cos its ben so mild - great night thanks to all the Bonfire Boys and Girls once again - keep up the good work!
On 8 Nov 2007 at 3:42pm P Parrot wrote:
Borough are the only society fighting to keep bonfire tradition going well done Borough Bonfire Boys & Girls.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 3:51pm FA wrote:
Why are they...why is Borough better....or worse, than any other society.
What is it about bonfire night in Lewes that turns nearly every bonfire society member into cliquey snobs
On 8 Nov 2007 at 4:08pm P Parrot wrote:
Its call friendly rivalry
On 8 Nov 2007 at 5:37pm CROSS wrote:
Well it may be a case of my clan is better than your clan, but all that I can say is that I watched all the society's on the night and the Lewes Borough were the loudest and most exciting.They are not the biggest by far but the cliffe were very tepid and slow.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 6:23pm me wrote:
P Parrot you are talking absolute rubbish. I'm not getting into a "my tab is bigger than your tab" argument but i disagree that borough are the only society fighting to keep bonfire traditions alive. Whatever happened at the bottom of school hill will undeniably create more friction for bonfire societies and the authorities in the future. Not really very usefull in protecting a tradition. more ammo for the police is what it looks like to me whoever was right or wrong.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 7:04pm Avidfan wrote:
If you type 'Lewes Bonfire Anarchy' into YouTube you will see our President lying in the gutter with four pigs on his back. All this for the crime of asking the filth to move the crowd so we could get through.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 7:23pm Lewesianne wrote:
And..........He is laying face down on a torch which is obviously causing him great distress but the police (who are aware of the torch underneath him) do nothing to remove it for quite some time. It takes a member of the public to eventually remove it. An act of cruelty, I feel.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 7:29pm FA wrote:
And that is exactly the kind of post that gets people's backs up Avidfan.
You really ought to do the job of a policeman (or woman) and just see what it's like to be threatened, spat at and told your family will die on a daily basis.
For some reason, joining up to a bonfire society turns people into aggressive, cliquey, rude tw@ts who act more like Millwall supporters than people in a bonfire procession
On 8 Nov 2007 at 7:55pm Avidfan wrote:
You speak from experience then, cu nt.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 8:09pm FA wrote:
yep...fraid so.
On 8 Nov 2007 at 8:49pm Double Yellow Line wrote:
Worryingly i find myself in full agreement with FA.
A load of middle class snobs who instead of boasting about the size of their yachts and wife swopping get all macho once a year, dress up as cowboys and indians and argue about who's got the biggest banger. It's pathetic.
And wasn't that tw*t who was arrested the same one who called the firefighters who died idiots?
He sounds a nice piece of work. They should lock him up and throw away the key
On 9 Nov 2007 at 1:47am walter wrote:
I watched youtube and feel there is a rather large exaggeration on the part of Avidfan I feel, I'd say you probably have some history with the "pigs" huh!
On 9 Nov 2007 at 7:27am FA wrote:
So not only does joining a bonfire society turn people into cliquey snobs but it also turns Avidfan blind.
HE WAS ARRESTED FOR ASSULTING A POLICE OFFICER
Amaizing how you see what you want to see...innit....should've gone to specsavers pal !!!
On 9 Nov 2007 at 7:37am The Tooth Fairy wrote:
What an amazing transformation by fa. Not two weeks ago she wanted to knock out the lights of a bonfire boy because Nevill procession was three mins. late. Now she is a fine upholder of the law. It just goes to show, they'll let any old riiff raff be community support officer these days.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 7:43am Fa wrote:
Well thank you tooth fairy. I'll pass on your comments to a PCSO when i see one....LMFAO ;-D
On 9 Nov 2007 at 7:53am The Tooth Fairy wrote:
You're Andy Ash, aren't you.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:04am me wrote:
Exactly what prove do you have of that FA Were you there. I doubt it after reading many of your previous unknowledgable posts about bonfire societies. i agree that you see what you wan't to see in that video.
As for your comments about middle class cliquey snobs, you know nothing. If you keep repeating these inaccurate comments regarding society members people might just look upon it as jealosy. Get left out a lot did we? Nobody wan't you in their gang when you were young ?
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:09am FA wrote:
And what makes you come to that conclusion fairy
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:10am FA wrote:
Awwww....you've found me out detective
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:16am FA wrote:
Maybe i should add "sensitive" cliquey snobs.
And whilst you're talking about "unknowledgeable" things.....the word you're looking for is "PROOF" in your first sentance.
Tish tish...."thick" sensitive, cliquey snobs.
Gosh this is fun
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:27am The Tooth Fairy wrote:
That was humour dear, lost on your sort.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:31am Fa wrote:
So....what's exactly so humerous about calling me Andy Ash ?. I didn't really fall about the place whilst having raptures of maniacal laughter.....and what sort exactly am i ?
This is jolly good fun innit
On 9 Nov 2007 at 9:19am FA wrote:
It's gone very quiet over there....SHhhhhhhhh
On 9 Nov 2007 at 9:38am Avidfan wrote:
I didn't know 'ASSULTING' was an offence (or even a word). I presume you mean 'assaulting'. Now if this is true, you would assume that this is quite a serious offence and plod would bring the full force of the law down on him. Odd then that he was released without charge.
I saw the incident along with many others and it was no more than a heated debate. But when you're dealing with a police force comprised of socially inadequate tits dressed in para military uniforms what do you expect?
On 9 Nov 2007 at 3:07pm me wrote:
Yawn. Sorry did you say something? your negative perception is quite dull. I nodded of for a minute.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 4:35pm cliffebimbo wrote:
"HE WAS ARRESTED FOR ASSULTING A POLICE OFFICER
Amaizing how you see what you want to see...innit....should've gone to specsavers pal !!!"
I suppose you saw what happened then did you FA? Its amazing cos the YouTube clip only shows the arrest. If you were at the scene perhaps you should go to the police and volunteer your services as a witness. Other than that, perhaps you should not believe everything that you read in the paper.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 5:37pm Impartial Observer wrote:
I dont think the 'stupid' remark was made about the people who died, rather the people who sent them in too close to video a burning building that was known to be full of explosives !! And not only does he have to live with that hanging over him, but he also lost his home and his business all on the same day. Cant see really what reason you can find in that for locking him up and throwing away the key. If your home was on fire and a fireman died trying to put it out, I am sure you would not expect to be locked up.
As for the incident on bonfire night, I have heard that it was the police who committed the assault, but I wasnt there so I cant say. It is true that from the video you cannot tell anything as no assault takes place in it, only a rather heavy handed arrest. I can however speak from personal experience of wrongful arrest that the police dont always tell the truth about what happens either, and make situations out of nothing.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 8:48pm cliffebimbo wrote:
Well said Impartial Observer. FA and Double Yellow Line, can I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself about things (and people) you know nothing about. Also, don't believe everything you read in the paper.
On 9 Nov 2007 at 11:13pm The Super K wrote:
FA your really a pr1ck, The president of Borough was informing the police of the parade route, something the police on the night had no idea of. I known this cause I was at the bottom of school hill when South street came down and needed to turn into Friars Walk, Only they couldn't cause the police had aloud the crowd to watch round ALL 3 OF THE EXITS FROM SCHOOL HILL. I can only assume what happened like your self. Having spoken to serveral over officious police my self that night including the 7 that turned up to arrest a 14 year old for letting of a banger, and one who insisted I stood on the kerb outside the Brewers cause she could see cliff coming up to the Courts. I would think the police person was being a moron.
I only hope the witnesses come forward and the police who are known to want to ban Lewes Bonfire night, get put in their places.
I find it disgusting that the police brought in for LBN can't help the public cause they don't know where anything is. Lewes isn't a big town and these people are surposed to be intelligent well balanced individuals, that couldn't tell people where TESCOs is from BOOTS!.
Rant Over
On 10 Nov 2007 at 7:08am Lewesianne wrote:
Well said Imperial Observer. The 'stupid' remark, I'm sure, was a comment made about the ACT of entering such a hazzardous situation, not a personal slur against the firefighters who died.
The nature of the disaster was violent due to the content of the factory whereas, if the family business had been farming sheep or growing vegetables, something more gentle, then people would have more empathy. But people are all to keen to wag their finger and say 'serves him right for running such a dangerous business'. BUT isn't it easy how we all forget that most of the fantastic displays in this area are down to this business supplying these fireworks, which we have enjoyed so much. The fire fighters and their families, must have always had it in the back of their minds, the huge risks their jobs carried and ofcourse, we all feel extremely sorry for what has happened but I expect that the Winters too, are suffering with regret. This family have been burdened enough, so lay off a bit.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 7:11am Lewesianne wrote:
Well said Imperial Observer. The 'stupid' remark, I'm sure, was a comment made about the ACT of entering such a hazzardous situation, not a personal slur against the firefighters who died.
The nature of the disaster was violent due to the content of the factory whereas, if the family business had been farming sheep or growing vegetables, something more gentle, then people would have more empathy. But people are all to keen to wag their finger and say 'serves him right for running such a dangerous business'. BUT isn't it easy how we all forget that most of the fantastic displays in this area are down to this business supplying these fireworks, which we have enjoyed so much. The fire fighters and their families, must have always had it in the back of their minds, the huge risks their jobs carried and ofcourse, we all feel extremely sorry for what has happened but I expect that the Winters too, are suffering with regret. This family have been burdened enough, so lay off a bit.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 7:22am Lewesianne wrote:
I know, why can't we just all get on. We all know that our own societies are the bestest and the biggest as a member of the oldest, I respect the importance of showing, not only patriotism to my own society, but an understanding that other societies and it's members, feel the same. Members know that really but it only seems to be the public, or non-members who think there is serious rivalry. However, if there are members who have serious issues with showing friendly rivalry, perhaps they should not be members, if the can't handle it and get all fired up.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 7:25am Lewesianne wrote:
Ugh....my spelling is awful this morning!
On 10 Nov 2007 at 7:42am Lewesianne wrote:
Imagine this........You spend months preparing for the night, only to be told on the night by some overzealous policeman, that you can't march back up school hill. Oh no, ...instead, you have to march along the backstreets where no-one goes. All the man wanted was to lead his procession up the glorious route of school hill but that glory was taken away. Me...I would have jumped on the policeman, nicked his hat and frisbied it, bound an gagged him and stuffed him in a hedge, if I'd been told I couldn't go along the planned route. It's like telling the Cliffe to re-route along the Phoenis Causeway and that they're not allowed to march along the Cliffe High Street.
As for me attacking the policeman, I'm just a girlie so would have probably been slammed face down, still with my lighted torch burning away underneath me.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 8:41am me wrote:
letting the cracker barrell rip behind the fuzz as he was getting arrested wasn't a good plan. It's not usually let go at this point. It will only encourage less savoury members of society to attend thinking they can get away with anything. The video on you tube should really be removed because it's a terrible advert for bonfire. Don't like the idea personally but for the greater good i think it would be wise. It's a real shame that the whole situation wasn't caught on film. I bet the fuzz have it on film. They used to have a police camera crew on the roof of boots.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 10:45am The Super K wrote:
Yes look at jean charles de menezes perhaps Mr Winter should be happy he was only arrested! After all I expect he was carring and explosive or two.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 8:48pm Double Yellow Line wrote:
Yeah the man was so full of regret that he tries to start building up his business as quickly as possible with no thought of the fire fighters relatives and has a punch up with the police.
Like I said what a lovely fella. Still I expect he loves his mum.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 9:16pm cliffebimbo wrote:
You mindless pr*ck! This man has started building up his business NEARLY A YEAR after the incident. He and his family are living in mobile homes as their home was burnt to the ground, with ALL of their belongings. Nothing has been proven about what happened at his depot and until there is any evidence to prove he was at fault I would keep your big fat mouth shut. He will regret what happened for the rest of his life. He did not tell the firemen to go in there so leave him alone.
Oh and he is a nice man and his mum loves him. I bet yours can't say the same for you.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 9:36pm Double Yellow Line wrote:
Ooh touchy.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 10:01pm The Super K wrote:
What would you rather he just live off the dole for the rest of his life? Not being able to support his family?
The fire at the factory was an accident, he didn't wipe his own business out. The fact that firemen got killed was tragic, I have alot of friends in the fire brigade and it was a shame, but you can't blame a man for wanting to get his life back to normal after what was for him as well a very difficult time.
And before you pass judgement on what happened in the town I would wait until all the facts are known, remember we innocent until proven guilty.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 10:09pm Double Yellow Line wrote:
He could try a business that does not involve explosives for a start.
Accident or not if the man had one ounce of decency the very last thing he would do is go back to the same line of business.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 10:23pm Smiler wrote:
Why? He didn't kill those fire fighters.
That's like saying all the companies in the twin towers should go and do something else. It holds no water at all.
The firefighters died doing what they were trained to do and to do the job they must have accepted the risks involved.
I feel very deeply for the families and friends of these very brave men and my deepest simpathies go out to them but it's not the business proprietors fault that they died.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 10:30pm Double Yellow Line wrote:
The companies in the twin towers were not manufacturing explosives. The explosion in the twin towers was not caused by what was made there. The twin towers were destroyed in an act of terrorism. Therefore your argument is not relevant.
The fire and explosion at the factory were a direct result of what was stored and made there, there was no outside influence.
I stand by my original argument if this man had any moral courage whatsoever he would walk away from explosives forever.
On 10 Nov 2007 at 11:34pm SHS wrote:
Just seen this thread. As a Lewes resident but not a bonfire society member (yet), I have to say that many businesses carry the risk of explosion and fire - wherever gas cylinders are used, for example. What we should remember however is that Lewes is probably the biggest consumer of fireworks out of all towns and cities in the UK and in this age of 'localisation' it is great to have an independent business on our doorstep, run by a local chap (is that right?), supplying these fireworks. It's bloody hard work starting and building any business and those that do it deserve support from the local community (there's next to none from the government).
On 11 Nov 2007 at 2:52am LOPSTER wrote:
well said DYM - and by your logic all motor manufacturers should stop making cars and grind flour as soon as one of their branded vehicles takes a life, oh yes and aircraft manufacturers - and knife-smiths (or whatever they're called)
On 11 Nov 2007 at 11:10am CROSS wrote:
D.Y.L You really have no concept of the real world have you. Well let me teach you one thing they made money in the twin towers, so your original argument has no moral high ground in fact your preconceptional idea of what you make or do, makes your life is so far off the mark that just by you being allowed on this site shows how wrong you are.