Readers also respond to the article regarding Bishopdale New World winning its battle to display alcohol on the ends of aisles
Glenis Shaw – I don’t think it makes any difference. I like it being sold in supermarkets, easier and cheaper. Wine consumption is not a problem to the majority of people.
Geoff Oscar O’Connell – I just wish Bishopdale New
World stocked more Monteith’s Pilsner.
Lynda Byrnes – The majority of people who shop in supermarkets are sensible, don’t let the few idiots ruin for the rest of us. We buy our alcohol and consume it sensibly with friends over meals. They don’t ban the caffeine drinks and other things that effect our teenagers, why make it hard to buy alcohol for consenting adults?
Sharren Wilson – If they have a licence to sell alcohol, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever where it is placed in the aisle.
Marilyn Tippet – Come on people it comes down to personal responsibility. Are you going to take away all my freedom of choice because some people can’t handle their drink or they are addicted to cigarettes, chocolate, Coca Cola, sugar, McDonald’s? Like I said personal responsibility
Audrey Leslie – Alcoholic products should not be sold in supermarkets. It’s always the ones who can least afford it that are tempted to purchase alcohol when they go into the supermarket for food. I once watched two young men looking in the meat section, actually picked up a meat package, then returned it to the freezer and purchased a carton of beers instead. Now that’s sad.
Ann Vernon – Alcohol is a dangerous drug. I personally think a separate discrete area is appropriate. In some supermarkets you have to walk through the alcohol section to access the shop. We normalise binge drinking in New Zealand and minimise the serious harm it causes. I try to limit this normalising alcohol use with my children. Having a different area does not penalise adults in any way. We no longer have cigarettes on display. Why not the same for alcohol?
Readers respond to a Nor’West News article regarding businesses on Cranford St worried Northern Arterial upgrades will force them to close
Conrad Fitz-Gerald – A bit naive to expect the city council to do something that actually helps local businesses and residents.
Maree Clayton – Less cars! More trains. No-brainier. Should have been a priority, immediately post-quake. South and north out of the city. Quicker, easy. Less cars on road, saving all round and less stress. Sadly, too many missed opportunities from a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats. Need an airport rail but alas we got a bloody archway.
Jan Driscoll – Heavens, there is a bike in the picture . . . a rare sight indeed. Cranford St is already a nightmare, especially around 3 to 6pm. And with heavy parking on both sides around the garage and shopping centre that will evidently be going and then a massive expensive housing development along there, you have got a disaster in the making. Feel really sorry for the businesses around the Innes Rd and Cranford St corner. Another example of top quality planning. Adding another lane to the Northern Arterial won’t fix it either. Get rail up and running.
Rob White – Well people have had at least 30 years to get used to this since it was first planned, and put off, and then off, and then back on again. The bigger problem is the city council actually agreeing to housing in the swamp on the other side of Cranford St.
Sylvia Oliver – It is so hard on businesses after seven years you would think things would improve but, no, they get worse all the time. One wonders why our city council and so-called Government cannot intervene to protect the small businesses. Makes me so angry.
Beverly Jackson – I live on Cranford St. They’ve given no consideration to the residents trying to get out of their driveways. It’s hard enough now.
Michelle Green – Traffic today was horrendous, I queued for ages on Cranford St bumper-to-bumper all way from Placemakers to Main North Rd.