Picture Past October 24, 1969: Dead ducks and dog attacks
PUBLISHED: 16:00 26 October 2019
Weston Borough Council considered a scheme which would see an influx of elderly people move to the town.
The overspill scheme suggested by the Greater London Council would see a bungalow estate built in Worle for retires.
Though members of the council's housing committee agreed to the idea in principle, some were concerned what kind of effect an influx of elderly people would have on the town and in particular the effect that the aging population would have on welfare services.
Ald Grey said: "In other places the system is working very well, but our elderly people problem is so great that I don't think we could accept them into our welfare services."
Cllr D G Griggs said: "I am rather apprehensive about it.
"What worries me is adding a number of elderly to an already significant number of aged people in this borough."
"It seems to me that if we accept these people we shall be establishing ourselves as a resort for retired people.
"We already have somewhat of a reputation but it will be extending it."
n Two ducks from the moat in Bishop's Palace were taken to Weston to try to discover what caused the death of two other ducks there.
The ducks were brought to the RSPCA aviary in Weston where they were cleaned and examined before being returned to Wells.
RSPCA chief inspector George Faulkner said when he found the ducks they were contaminated with dirty water and were suffering from malnutrition.
He said: "Although there is probably something harmful in the water, there is also the danger of the ducks becoming trapped in the underground culverts of the moat."
n The owner of a brown boxer dog was in court after it bit through a man's shoe.
The suede shoe was held up at Axbridge Magistrates Court.
The owner of the shoe told the court he had been bitten by the dog while out for a walk with his labrador.
The dog had bitten through his shoe and he had needed stitches in a wound on his foot.
The boxer had been out on a walk with the defendants father at the time and had apparently been on a lead.
The defendant said: "I cannot see how I can keep him under any more control than I do at the moment."
He was ordered to keep the dog under control and pay costs of 8s 6d.