Some thoughts about anonymity

It is good to read some responses, as otherwise it would be pointless to write this stuff. One theme in the responses has been the suggestion that our motivation is "anti-supermarket". For myself I have no stronger feelings about supermarkets than I have about filling stations, television, motorways or other normal attributes of life, and being "anti-supermarket" makes no more sense to me that being "anti-television". It is more a matter of when, where, how much and whether other desirable activities cease. The issue for me is therefore part of a larger question of what is good for the local economy and quality of life. I do think that a very large presence of out-of-town retail outlets would not be best for a small town like ours as the disadvantages seem to outweigh the advantages. Others may feel that the impact upon the town is a price worth paying. That is a completely reasonable view, and one worth debating in terms of a number of predictable consequences - benefits and disadvantages.
But I am unsure that this is the best medium for understanding each other's point of view. Anonymity is necessary where someone may feel that their views could cause them personal harm or discomfort, but here we are simply neighbours trying to work out what is best for the town. The tone of anonymous responses can be harsh and dismissive in ways that would not arise in an ordinary conversation. I can't be sure, but if we were to discuss these and other issues over a cup of tea or a beer, I should be surprised if we differed that much on most issues. So my suggestion is that we do just that. A number of us write on this blog, but this is Stephen (Frankel). I should be delighted if those who have responded would email or ring (07879-816020) to find a time to meet up either at my place or in town.