Visitors So Far

  Please make a small donation to help keep the site going 

I am now a community reporter for  the Crewe Guardian see my column here

Polish cars

A lot has been said about the rights and wrongs of the Polish immigrants but In the West End of Crewe were we have more than our fair share of Polish I noticed that none of their BMW’s Audi’s etc have any tax. Most of the owners of these cars have been here for months and work and live in the area. I got Cllr Brian Silvester to ask the police what the situation is and the reply from the police may shock you.

Reply from the police

Re Polish cars, this is a complex area but to summarise if a polish national is here as a visitor (includes those here working) they can drive for 12 months without any requirement for UK documentation. If they go back home for a few weeks when they come back the 12 month starts again.

If a polish national becomes a UK resident and is eligible to vote etc then they must comply with our legislation, including obtaining a UK licence and any relevant documentation for a vehicle ie tax, mot etc

hope this helps regards

Paul Broadhurst A/Insp, Crewe NPU  Tel 01244 613315

 It appears from this that if they go home on holiday every year they can get  away with having no Tax, MOT insurance for ever. This mean their cars may not be road worthy by our standards and if they hit you cant trace them as they are not on the DVLA and if they do stop they have no insurance anyway. No wonder they are all driving BMW’s if they want to come over here and get our state benefits then they should be complying with our laws and paying our taxes. It makes me wonder what other quirks of the law apply to the polish? What do you think?

Dane Housing now have there own page as there is so many problems with them click here

Dane Housing Conglton Ltd
Shepherds Mill
Worrall St
Conglton
CW12 1D1

On Sept 1st I took my German Shepherd Max to the Vets clinic on HighTown as he was having problems with his eye . The vet looked at the worst eye and said he is blind in that eye there is nothing can be done I recommend removing the eye cost £560. He only tested the eye by flicking his hand to see if he could see, he didn't carry out and other tests. The other eye he looked at in more detail and said it was conjunctivitis and gave him some drops. We were both worried and upset by a 3 year old dog loosing his sight

A few weeks later after the treatment the second eye went like the first and started to haze over. We thought he was going to loose both his eyes. We decided to take him to another vet and discussed if we would have to have him put down. The other vet said as soon as we walked in its Pannus  and gave him some eye drops containing Cyclosporine. Details on Pannuss are
at http://www.workingdogs.com/doc0087.htm. He spent 15 mins looking at the eye and also asked another vet to check it as well.


In just over a week the bad eye the vet said remove is nearly back to normal with most of the greyed over eye now clear and the dog can clearly see with the eye as he will follow your finger. The other eye is almost perfect.

This leaves us with some searching questions. Is the first vet totally incompetent and can we report him to a professional body and get him struck off. An internet search of dogs eye problems shows there is only a few conditions that effect dogs eyes and Pannus is very common in GS 3-5 ears old

Or is it the case that he is out to make money out of people by performing operations that aren’t needed?

Can you imagine the upset and distress this has caused the family worrying about the dog.? If the eye doesn’t 100% heal up it may be negligence on the vets behalf as the correct treatment was not given a month ago.  The vet has admitted he was in error but claims it would have been tested further before the eye was removed. If he had given the dog the correct treatment on day one the second eye may not have become infected. The delay in getting the correct treatment may mean the dogs eyes may never be 100%. There is also the extra cost of treatment as it may have only taken 2 visit to the vet if it was treated early but because of the delay more treatment is needed.

I believe the first vet was negligent not because he got it wrong but because he made no effort to ensure his diagnosis was correct. He made no real effort to examine the eye if he had he may have saved a lot of suffering to the dog and distress to the family. Even though the vet admits he got it wrong they wont pay for the extra treatment but have put it in the hands of their insurance company