An open letter to Cllr Phil Filmer
November 30, 2007
RE: Churchgoers forced to pay for parking
Councillor Phil Filmer,
I believe that I am writing to you with the anger of every single churchgoer in Gillingham who has now discovered that they must pay an extortionate amount of money to park when attending Sunday services.
Although I personally am yet to drive, once I have passed my test, I will be among the number of people needing to park in Council car parks in order to attend Church services.
I am a full-time student. I have two Saturday jobs: one where I work once a fortnight, one where I only work on the Saturdays I am needed. If I manage to afford insurance, fuel and any unforeseen maintenance costs I will be doing well.
I would certainly struggle to manage the extra £50 per year I would be charged to worship God!
I am not alone. Many retired people and families with young children also attend Church every Sunday and will also be hit hard by these parking charges.
The reason for this letter is not just to protest, however. I am writing to propose a solution which would both benefit churchgoers and Churches, yet would not affect Council finances too much.
Medway Council could operate a “Churchgoers’ Parking Scheme” on Sundays, similar to residents-only parking schemes in place across the Medway Towns.
Churchgoer permits could be made available through participating Churches which would allow the use of the car parks near to their Church for free every Sunday.
The cost of such a scheme could be £15 per year and per car. Of this, £5 could go into a fund which would be split equally amongst all participating Churches each year.
I strongly request that you consider these suggestions, as they would be beneficial to the local Churches and would alleviate the burden on Churchgoers.
Yours hopefully,
Alan Collins
Leave a Comment
Posts
Comments
-
John M Ward: Yes, that's spot-on. This latest bid is the only way left to (re-)gain city
-
Alan W Collins: Tristan - in your rush to party politics you seem to have missed the entire
-
Tristan: Sorry; his bonus is not a contractual obligation despite the Tory Party spi
-
Alan W Collins: David - to the best of my belief (and I'm sure John Ward can correct any in
-
David Radlett: Not sure now which wombat was to blame for losing city status in the switch
Social
Read UsRSS Feed
Follow Uson Twitter
Find Uson Facebook
Alan W Collinson Linkedin
Alan W Collinson Picasa
Alan W Collinson Youtube
Awards
No Estuary Airport
13 Comments
The above letter was sent by email at 16:24 on November 30 (today).
It was written in response to two articles I read today in the local papers, one in which Canon John Saunders attacked the parking time limit and one in which Canon Alan Vousden attacked the parking charges.
In the Medway Messenger article, Cllr Chambers (who has also been emailed with the above letter) has said he would be willing to discuss making “reduced rate passes” available to members of congregations.
I must admit I wrote (and sent) the above letter before I read the Medway Messenger article, in which Canon Vousden suggested “for say £10- £15 a year, worshippers can park” in other councils.
Only time will tell if the Council will actually do anything about this.
Why should going to church be any different from going to the shops?
Should they though? Surely you are using a public car park so should pay the same rates as everyone else?
Would your idea be extended to Mosques, Temples, and etc?
There is a significant difference between going to Church and going to the shops: when you go to the shops, most of the time you are intending to spend money.
However, that is not the case when you go to Church and the last thing you want to have to do is pay an extortionate rate for parking – and then a £30 fine if the Church service overruns (paritcularly as most people in Church are rightly more concerned with worshipping than continuously cheking their watches).
It is also important to remember that a significant portion of the congregation of most Churches are elderly people or students – people who have more important things to spend their money on!
Sadly this is purely a case of the Council having to plug the hole in the finances originating from Government underfunding. However, there is no excuse for hitting the most vulnerable in society hard!
I disagree.
Why should non-religious people be excluded from not having to pay for parking?
Isn’t this decrimination against those who either have no religion, or don’t want to go to Church/Mosque/Temple etc.
I would suggest that the council wouldn’t need to do this if they hadn’t have wasted so much money on needless “road improvements” and awfully incorrect road signs (don’t get me started on that).
How nazi-esque! religion=free parking, Im not sure those who don’t believe in worshipping some supposed being would be happy about paying full price for parking. Who are you to judge and punish people for their beliefs?
And you’re bi-sexual, which just isn’t on.
Mmm, I can see your point Dan.
Either charge parking for all, or charge parking for none.
If you want to use the car park, pay for it. Everyone else does (irrespective of if you’re old young).
I think the issue here was about the change in parking regs there. If it had always been thus, it would be fine; but — as with anywhere else, be it shopping centre, entertainments complex or whatever — a sudden and significant change will have an impact.
Of course, the real point is that it has become necessary to impose additional fees and charges, and increase some, because of the severe (and extremely immoral) funding rigging from central Government.
This is now so well-documented (and I have a whole range of official documentation that shows it so very clearly) that anyone who was genuinely concerned about how anything such as this was going would, I feel certain, join with us in making formal representations to the relevant Minister, and possibly joining our upcoming delegation to Whitehall to seek a fairer funding settlement.
Is either of you up for that, perchance?
Fair enough then.
All I’m saying is that if you have to put the charges in then fine, just make everyone pay, whether they’re visiting the church or not.
I’d say that was a rather obvious and fair comment, rob.
No group is going to accept paying a fine which others simply do not, more conflict will arise there, than simply everyone having to pay the fine
over and out
Alan Collins,
The fact is that you are choosing to park in a car park, your reason for doing so is irrelevant in the context of whether you should have to pay to park there.
Moreover, any implication of religious people being more important than atheists is not only farcically discriminative, but is also riding against all you christians stand for. Jesus would probably park his donkey in the car park, pay for his ticket, and be damn glad to contribute to the society he has been nurtured in. Although his donkey crapping all over the car park wouldn’t go down well, would it Alan?
Rob, Dan and Steve o are missing the point.
It’s not a question of the religious being more important than the irreligious, or one of discrimination, but going to Church /is/ more important than shopping. The council should have a duty to provide for the religious needs of their constituents.
Would you suggest that sixth formers driving to school should pay for parking as do shoppers, if their school has no parking facilities? Would you suggest that residents in a local area ought to pay the same to park as people coming in to shop?
Yes, I would! Surely we should be all treated equally, irrespective of our religious beliefs.
This argument is irrelevant, now, seeing as how the Council has listened to its residents’ and their voices of reason, realised its duty of care to its residents and introduced a parking permit for Churchgoers.