[Closed] Swinley Jump Gully shut down

I can sort of see the point
Trouble was it was close to a blue trail so it got lots of passing traffic
But because it was not part of the official trail it got dug up and "improved.
If it were tucked way out of sight I dont think it would have been closed

What would be really great if it was replaced with a run of mini-doubles / table tops that were properly designed and available for practice.

It survived for years without an issue. The new trails brought too much traffic so statistically it's an accident hot spot. People will still crash, just normally it's spread out.

Plus it's a bit crap anyway, though I kind of liked it as it was something I could fly down with my limited jump skills and still get a little air. That's the weird thing though. You have to make an effort to badly crash there.

Why is it the responsibility of the landowner?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility. 🙁

You fall off, your problem.

Mind you, then we get into the debate about personal insurance vs the free NHS...

<lights touchpaper, retires>

Sad but not surprising.

For all those who want to "legalise" (not that its technically illegal) riding on footpaths take note. As soon as you kick the sleeping dog it will bite you.

Land owners, councils and any other group you can identify will want to distance themselves from liability - so make it legal you will end up making it sanitised.

It's been an accident hotspot long before the trail centre opened, that has just increased traffic. All the jumps are rollable and unchallenging on the easy line. They won't build any more jumps as this will just recreate the problem regardless of how well they are built as daytrippers and kiddies on BSOs will still ride, crash and sue.

Aiui trail team swinley had the nod to build some graded freeride runs on the hill opposite the jump gulley but other urgent maintenance and lack of resources has kept that on the back burner.

I pretty much stopped riding at Swinley after the official trails went up, and this just further highlights why.

Why is it the responsibility of the landowner?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

Go on then, I'll start.

Doesn't need to be their responsibility for them to want to stop people getting hurt.

I pretty much stopped riding at Swinley after the official trails went up, and this just further highlights why.

How? Because a trail you chose to not ride can now not be ridden? Because people get injured? Iz confused.

I remember that from the good old days (1997-2000)

who reports a crash?

Generally a landowner does not have responsibility for a natural feature but does for an improved one or one explicitly created even if they didn't create it. This doesn't apply to legal rights of way which are the responsibility of the local highways authority.

So if you fall off and injure yourself riding across a field then it's basically your responsibility but if you built a set of jumps and injured yourself then the landowner bears some of that responsibility.

Sad times. The jump gully taught me a lot. I've also met some good friends there.

To get there you have to ride the red though (for the newbies/in-experienced) so they've already tackled similar jumps before that so it's interesting that it accounts for 40% of accidents. I wonder if it's the fact that people push harder because everyone can see you riding the jumps along the whole stretch?

Old Swinley is still mostly all there and possible to avoid the new stuff and still keep to my old routes. Though did used to stop off at the gully for a few laps before heading elsewhere.

Though I do admit I rarely go there these days (other night being a rare exception but that was a fair bit of old school off-piste and quite fun in the dark 😀 ). That said, it's more that Surrey Hills, Tunnel Hill and various other places just offer way more for me than Swinley rather than the presence of the new trails.

Why is it the responsibility of the landowner?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

You fall off, your problem.

This would appear to be the common sense approach, but when riding at Swinley was allowed but informal Crown Estates found themselves being sued for damages by people who fell off (I think one pay out was in the region of £50k)

Thats why Swinley was trail-centerized. The trails are graded and there are big warning signs, so if you fall off it's your problem.

The alternative would have been to ban all riding there.

Doesn't need to be their responsibility for them to want to stop people getting hurt.

plus the massive cost to the air ambulance service.

Maybe they should build future jump areas next to hospital A&E departments, would save a lot of money?

To get there you have to ride the red though (for the newbies/in-experienced) so they've already tackled similar jumps before that

Whaaaat?

a) there's nothing like that on red and
b) you can get there on any number of fire-roads

Re the old riding - they probably don't care, but now they've told you not to do it so it's your problem. As un-improved trails, they weren't the landowners liability.

will they dig it out or just fence it off?

Most crashes i've seen or heard about have been on the berms. Riders over shooting the ends or the lips.
Shame as it was good little spot to session.
Trouble really is a lot of people watch others going down it and making it look quite easy, then they try and all goes wrong.

For all those who want to "legalise" (not that its technically illegal) riding on footpaths take note. As soon as you kick the sleeping dog it will bite you.

Land owners, councils and any other group you can identify will want to distance themselves from liability - so make it legal you will end up making it sanitised.

I know, just look at how the council have removed all those loose rocks off the rangers path on Snowdon

It's a nonsense argument, S30 of the '68 act specifically removes any duty to make bridleways suitable for bike use, the same would clearly apply to any relaxation of current footpath legislation.

It's about compliance with the occupiers Liability Act 1984. Where owners, occupiers of buildings/land have duty of care to visitors and uninvited guests. that's why trails are waymarked with clear signage about the difficulty and say things like for competent mtber's only wear a helmet/body armour use a good quality MTB (as appropriate for the trail) this is usually considered sufficient to cover off the duty under OLA 1984. as those trails do not appear to sanctioned or official in any way; they have been closed.

doesn't mean the local MTB community cannot lobby for official graded, marked and sign jump trails to be opened; but land owners are (rightly) nervous about this sort of thing.

You can get some decent air on Red 25, but you can get to Jump Gully well before you go near that.

As somebody mentioned before, there are step downs and doubles on blue if you look hard enough* so I think the comment about it just concentrating the incidents is valid.

I suspect they will fill it in with some spoil from all those giant pipes they have been laying.

*obviously, being the mincing old duffer I am, I have never looked

Unless they destroy/flatten the jumps, I think people will still attempt to ride them. They are hardly going to send police officers down to make sure people are abiding to the signs/fences.

I'm personally gutted about this. It's such a loss. It's sad to see that again it comes down to money/legal aspects as to why something that so many enjoy should be got rid of.

I know it's easy to say when you haven't had an accident, but I genuinely could never sue someone over an accident I had in the woods riding my bike. I just can't understand people that expect to be sponsored having had an accident in this way. It's a horrible culture that we have to live with.

Had to call 999 for pranged folk twice there. I think one was just unlucky, the second was an idiot. Mid, to late forties man, following his 13 year old son down the harder line. Saw him go vertically up, almost comically rotate, and then a scream followed by silence. He'd come down pretty hard on the small of his back, and couldn't get up.

His wife didn't drive, so couldn't come to get him. He was down from London for the day, so no way to get home short of an ambulance ride. Poor bastard, but he really should have respected the trail.

I'll miss the gully. It was a great option for when you didn't want to do a full Red lap, but wanted to mess about on the bike. I wish there was a way to keep it, and I hope we can either keep it, or get a decent alternative that's safer, or discourages people from having a go without paying heed to the consequences.

I wonder if there would be the same number of accidents if there was a mandatory drop at the beginning, like S2A at Aston Hill has? I reckon people look at the jumps, think it's rollable and either misjudge their entry speed, or completely get their technique wrong and crash. A drop off would hopefully act as a decent filter for those who've got no business attempting it? Experienced riders would probably not be inclined to sue if they came a cropper I reckon.

This would appear to be the common sense approach, but when riding at Swinley was allowed but informal Crown Estates found themselves being sued for damages by people who fell off (I think one pay out was in the region of £50k)

This. On what basis is someone able to sue them.

If this is the application of the law, then the law is an ass.

I genuinely could never sue someone over an accident I had in the woods riding my bike.

Hmm, what if there was a trail that looked decent but the landowner had decided to put a big blind gap in the middle?

That would be considered a silly thing to do, and invite accidents - no?

@dk I think you've hit on the issues, it's too accessible / well known and to get any air you have to try very hard / go nuts speed wise hence the crashes. The various bigger jumps / areas in the Surrey Hills are either hidden or more obviously "big" so people don't even attempt them.

Regarding litigation even if you don't sue your widow / wife / girlfriend / parents might do so.

What's happened in Swinley backs up my comments each time we discuss jumps built on we'll known trails in the Surrey Hills, they are tempting fate that the trail will be shut. Build jumps in out of the way areas or somewhere else or just take the time to find the existing hidden jump areas.

curiousyellow - Member
I wonder if there would be the same number of accidents if there was a mandatory drop at the beginning, like S2A at Aston Hill has?

The qualifier woodwork drop on Vicious Valley at BPW has had many OTB on it. Seen people do that myself as they just roll off the end. I've heard talk of it being filled in because of that.

Aston has had ladder rolls added to some of the big drops on S2A just in case of incidents, though does give me the balls to actually drop them now just knowing there's that safety net 😀 . The initial qualifier is still there and just about right size really to make people think. Again though, S2A I suspect is the most popular trail there so more accidents are probably logged on it. Was there the other week and many just session S2A all day and don't touch the rest.

Double whammy - first swegways and now this !

This sort of thing is becoming a joke, the person holding the handlebars should be held responsible for crashing not the landowner 🙄

That would be like me driving my car into the side of somebodys house then suing the homeowner for putting it there 😆 The sooner people are made accountable for their own actions & the culture of people suing because of their own stupidity/lack of common sense is stopped the better.

From what I've heard, CE insurance has taken an interest in Swinley since the unfortunate incident in which a guy lost his life. Now insurance aware of gully which they will class as high risk, they're going to put a stop to it.
They're not in a position to build the designated freeride area which had been planned, which would have the necessary disclaimers and qualifiers to cover them insurance wise.

Fingers crossed it gets resolved. The gully was a great place to work on skills in an easy and safe environment.

That would be like me driving my car into the side of somebodys house then suing the homeowner for putting it there

Hmm not quite. Imagine say, driving around a blind bend on an NSL rural B road and finding a traffic calming chicane in the middle of the road.

You might be justified in feeling aggreived that it was there because it's not expected. People would be crashing and falling over themselves to sue the council. The difference is that on MTB routes there's not really a commonly accepted set of expectations. We know what to do in these situations, but a lot of people wouldn't - see above examples. It's clearly happening.

I'm not sure if many judges would award damages to the guy who crashed in curiousyellow's post, but the insurance company has to be over-cautious, and the CE has to do what the insurance company says.

will they dig it out or just fence it off?

...or just erect a sign saying 'don't ride the jumps'? 🙄

They're caught between the devil and deep blue sea really. If they didn't collect data on accidents, they could be accused of not having proper oversight of activities on their land. But, having identified this as a 'blackspot', any failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk could be costly for them.

It will be interesting to see whether 'reasonable steps' include bulldozing the entire line or just putting a fence across the entrance and a sign telling folk not to ride it.

JEngledow - Member

will they dig it out or just fence it off?

...or just erect a sign saying 'don't ride the jumps'?

It's being flattened right now. Digger is already in there 🙁

It's being flattened right now. Digger is already in there

😥

EDIT: Just seen this pic on faceache:

[img] [/img]

I followed a dude through the jump gulley, he couldn't ride for toffee and crashed harder than I've ever seen in real life. He was out cold for 3 minutes and was clearly suffering for quite some time after. just because jumps are 'rollable' doesn't stop them from having potential for serious injury. He had a go pro on his bike too, would have made for traumatising viewing as he was making all sorts of noise.

Seems a shame to close the gulley though.

:O There's room for a pump track in there now...

This is a shame. I've had at least 2 inches of air on those jumps, several times.

Safety first.

Say it gets rebuilt - as it's clearly not the same set of jumps, and therefore has a clean slate in terms of accidents, can they just come back in and flatten it all again?

Regarding litigation even if you don't sue your [s]widow / wife / girlfriend / parents[/s] insurance company might do so.

e.g. if you someone claims on their life insurance (in the case of permanent disabilities and the like), critical illness cover, loss of earnings insurance, private medical insurance, or if your employer has you insured as a critical member of staff, etc. etc.

It is very very difficult for land / property owners to avoid liability for accidents on their land / premises, especially in civil cases, where it is often cheaper to negotiate a settlement than pay lawyers to prepare and defend a case in court.

I hope that digger driver had Strava running for posterity - last ever Jump Gully run...

I went down there on the Patriot most recently, gradually increasing my air until I realised I was clearing the jumps totally and landing on the flat. Fortunately I landed neatly but it could've gone wrong.. was working up to taking the angled lines with much more air potential.

coursemyhorse - Member
I know it's easy to say when you haven't had an accident, but I genuinely could never sue someone over an accident I had in the woods riding my bike. I just can't understand people that expect to be sponsored having had an accident in this way. It's a horrible culture that we have to live with.

then let me help you out. I stacked it on a small ladder drop, breaking my wrist (badly) this was in a small, built, bike park area. Several days in hospital, some time off work, extended time off the bike, I didnt consider for a moment suing/insurance/compensation, I rode it, i *****d it, my fault, my problem end of...
Anyone that does/would is a C*** of the highest order.

This is pretty common and the reason a lot of jump spots are closed down, and also one of the reasons that jumps spots are kept 'secret' a lot of the time.

Stevet1 - Member
This is pretty common and the reason a lot of jump spots are closed down, and also one of the reasons that jumps spots are kept 'secret' a lot of the time.

Which is why I can see things coming to a head in the Surrey Hills. It's got ridiculous with gaps, drops and jumps dug on every rideable bit of trail. Not knocking the fun and efforts, but they're so obvious and ambulances up there are also frequent someone's going to say no more.

Jeezus. That pic up there ^ is sad.. 😯

That gully taught me how to'jump'. By 'jump' I mean roll over B-line stuff in a totally mincing XC way, but nevertheless: I got AIRTIME! 😀

I can totally see how you [i]could[/i] mess yourself up at that spot - but you would have to be a complete numpty.

Bugger. 😐

The qualifier woodwork drop on Vicious Valley at BPW has had many OTB on it. Seen people do that myself as they just roll off the end. I've heard talk of it being filled in because of that.

It has been to some extent. I was up there Saturday, the drop in is 18" max now.

[img] ?oh=7fe9d3c4f8cb8db3d28e6950dc13a35b&oe=56951E3E[/img]

tbh, it ain't really much of a loss is it?

(About 4 pretty poor jumps in 50 yards of trail, never saw the attraction of it myself. First time i rode it, i got to the end wondering where the infamous "jumps gully" was.......... )

So their offer to discuss it over the phone was a bit pointless really

They could at least have put up a sign saying drop your seat before riding as that seemed to be a common factor in crashes of seen!

[url= http://www.theonion.com/article/fun-toy-banned-because-of-three-stupid-dead-kids-290 ]no comment at all on anyone who used or rode jump gully, but while we're on the subject, here's a potentially offensive (like a lot of things) bit on the consequences of potential for harm vs. enjoyment[/url]

I can see why it's been done but the logics flawed. 40% of accidents may well occur there but probably >>40% of the jumps, per use it was probably the safest bit of the woods.

I didnt consider for a moment suing/insurance/compensation, I rode it, i **d it, my fault, my problem end of..
Anyone that does/would is a C of the highest order.

You wouldn't but if you read the thread rather than coming in all guns blazing with your potty mouth you'd have noted its not the individuals suing its insurers, employers etc.

Got a mortgage, they'll sue to cover the life insurance.

Got a moderately important job, they'll have insurance against your time off, and they'll sue.

Jobless, on the dole, renting? Your landlords probably got insurance against you not being able to pay, they'll sue.

Basically unless you're a full time off grid spoon whitler, you're exactly the **** you seem to hate, you've just been lucky.

Boo. I liked the Jump Gulley, but I rode well within my limits in case I fell off in front of da youf.

+1 for it being too accessible to the masses - those without the experience or judgement to assess the risk properly.

When you look at your average driver and pedestrian you can see that a very large proportion of the population don't assess risk very well...

For as long as stuff like this is hard to find, it remains the preserve of those who want to do it - and by definition probably have some idea of the risk they're taking, or simply the correct technique to get it right. Make it accessible and the numpty masses pile in. Literally. We're seeing similar in my road club with a lot of newbies having no idea how to ride in a group. Or even on the road full stop sometimes!

What Swinley needs therefore is a proper built skills area so their liability is covered.

How do you get a properly built skills area sorted out?

I have about ten years of memories from this place. Absolutely devastated about what's happened!

If you have a fatal accident on your land there will be a lot of people interested in seeing what you have got in the way of health and safety, especially your insurance company and the HSE. You will then have to show your procedures, monitoring and actions to reduce the risks and accidents. If you see 40% of accidents in one place and it not and you made it then the obvious, to a non jump riding off road biker, is to get rid of it.

I don't like it at all, but we can still ride there. My kids love riding there and will miss the gully, but they like just going out riding anyway. If you owned some land and your insurers told you that they will not cover you unless you get rid of your biggest risk, what would you do, when trying to keep most of the people who visit happy?

I wouldn't worry too much. It'll be rebuilt again soon enough I would have thought. Whether it becomes a battle then of building and knocking down is a different matter.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of Swinley, and unless you're a local, don't understand the attraction, it's a flat trail....any local woodland offers the same thing. Just my opinion, i'm sure some people love it, and good on them, glad people are out their bikes.

You wouldn't but if you read the thread rather than coming in all guns blazing with your potty mouth you'd have noted its not the individuals suing its insurers, employers etc.

Not sure how you can come to that conclusion from reading this thread. We know Crown Estates were sued for significant sums. We don't know by whom.

it's a flat trail....any local woodland offers the same thing

As you state, it is a flat piece of land and with that in mind, I think they have done really, really well to create something interesting. Not sure about your local woods but mine don't have any berms or jumps and I cant manage 14 odd miles of pretty interesting^ riding.

^ Granted it is no Welsh mountain, but certainly entertaining for a 90 minute mess around every now and then - especially in winter when it drains very well.

I wouldn't worry too much. It'll be rebuilt again soon enough I would have thought. Whether it becomes a battle then of building and knocking down is a different matter.

No it won't, the site has been flattened, the 'gully' feature is no more. It's not somewhere where a 'secret' set of jumps cab be built over a period of time, it's right next to a fireroad, not hard for a ranger to keep an eye on. No proper dirt jumpers with the digging culture really use it, the local DJ community has their secret spots well away from CE land.

The reality is that the main guy who has built and nurtured the jumps over the last 15+ years is part of Trail Team Swinley who 'support' the CE's decision. This same person (and associated groups) has been largely responsible for all the interesting off-piste stuff in Swinley (Babymaker, Deerstalker, Babystalker etc), aside from him and some of the other locals no-one else really digs in Swinley - largely due to the fact that stuff there is liable to be removed as soon as it is found.

The Gully has always been a 'problem' for CE. I reckon that they let it had a stay of execution after the trail centre was built, but this was always on the cards. It's not just the insurance/liability issue, I'm sure a lot of valuable ranger time is spent attending accidents there, the air ambulance is pretty fed up of regular call outs, there is a litter problem etc.

The feature was fun and somewhat historic for locals. Unfortunately the fact is that Swinley is an easily accessible, family oriented trail centre, you can hire a bike or ride in from town. The Gully is easy to find with features that can easily catch the inexperienced off guard, when dry it is fast and concrete hard. It's easy for the unskilled/over-confident get in trouble at speed without really trying, and when you go down it's going to hurt - this was just happening too much for the CE to stomach.

Sad day, but we move on.

Not sure how you can come to that conclusion from reading this thread. We know Crown Estates were sued for significant sums. We don't know by whom.

And as if by magic today.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sean-tarala-12-year-old-boy-says-aunt-who-tried-to-sue-him-would-never-hurt-family-a6696386.html

nope but i work in HSE and its almost always the insurers (e.g. private medical, income protection, your home insurance) either bringing the case or making the payout conditional on you taking reasnoble steps to recover the losses. It could even be the HSE themselves taking you to court.

It is all about liability, not protecting people or reasonable decisions. The Young report in 2012 proposed changes to all sorts, insurers and lability claims included, to the benefit of us all. Sadly not really being followed through.

Someone in an office, who has never been biking, who is rewarded for keeping costs of claims down at all costs, for the profit of shareholders is calling the shots. No-one else will influence that decision, frustratingly.

Sad days. I remember blasting down there progressively faster on my full sus. Very very nearly had a big off when I finally timed the 'pop' right for the first time whilst going way too fast on that last roller, found myself quite a long way up and a long drop to flat. Can easily see how less skilled people (like me) get carried away there and hurt themselves.

They've gone the way of the LW jumps which claimed my scaphoid and collarbone 🙁

This thread is further evidence Swinley should build a skills area so people can practice. QECP are considering one. All most people need are a few drops and a table top much like @jedi's coaching setup.

@matt insurance costs are paid by all of us, the alternative is insurers don't cover these risks at all. Just seen the revised terms for my travel insurance and it excludes MTB on anything except Green and Blue trails and no "freeride" which I am sure an insurer would call any jumping

I really don't understand why everyone is getting so upset. The first time I went to swinley years ago I pedalled around asking for " the gulley". I found it and was somewhat disappointed with four rollable tables in a ditch. Haven't bothered going back since. I am no way a free ride expert but it really wasn't up to much. I understand people use it as progression to bigger things but if you just ride up to babymaker etc etc you would find tables berms etc etc that you can jump, roll over, ride slow/fast at your leisure.

I really don't understand why everyone is getting so upset

Me too, it's like someone has has their first born slain by Crown Estates.

I can't even bring myself to call it the jump gully, it's always been that crap. Swinley has always been a terrible place to ride, the loss of a piss poor effort to make middle aged wobblers think they are rad by casing a 3ft table is hardly worth the outcry it has seemingly generated.

Now they can look forward to riding round on polished construction aggregate instead.

We can't all be as rad as you, man. less of the judgements eh?

butterbean - the Jump Gully was well used and enjoyed by many, it's a shame that it no longer exists. No need to be so nasty. 😐

butterbean
middle aged wobblers think they are rad

Most of STW then

Butterbean has it right though, Swinley as it stands is properly crap.

It gets lots of use because it's in the chronically overcrowded South East...as said, the polished hard pack surface is awful, couldn't care less if it drains well in the winter....I went there years ago before it was a trail centre and had a great time exploring and riding tracks that looked well used and some that looked natural and hardly used....found some genuinely technical stuff too....it was a thoroughly enjoyable day.

Went there more recently and it was dire, it's more a place where people go to justify owning their bike as opposed to going because it's good....there are huge parts of the Surrey Hills that are so much better but require some effort which of course doesn't fit in with the painting by numbers cycling loads seem to want to do now....sad that people seem to actually desire a mindless signposted trudge through some flat woods....seriously even the MOD land around that area is better than Swinley itself.

Pointless 'path of least resistance' place it has become now, symptomatic of modern life and the South East in general I'm afraid.

sad that people seem to actually desire a mindless signposted trudge through some flat woods

What is far more sad than that, is someone judging someone else because they are somehow doing cycling "wrong" 🙄

Wrong?....no.
Crap?....yes.

There is better cycling around Swinley, look for it, that's all.

I've said it before but the fastest most impressive guy I've seen at Swinley was on a short travel carbon HT and he made everyone else look silly....the long travel, slack trail bikes being unloaded in the carpark all looked a bit crap and like overkill once I'd seen that....and that's what Swinley has become, somewhere to go for an hour of a weekend in order to justify owning that type of bike in the South....it fails miserably, nothing better than exploring new trails or woods, Swinley as a trail centre has lost that and that's the real shame, not that 'jump gully' has been demolished.

Judging others?....yep, happens all the time, everyone does it from appearance to speech to manners to hobbies etc....oh no I judged someone!

it fails miserably, nothing better than exploring new trails or woods,

because the existence of a way marked trail stops you from doing that does it?

I can see why people say Swinley is crap

I however ride it loads and I think it's an absolute hoot! and appreciate it.

Rather unpleasant attitudes on this thread. Hear the same sort of rubbish spouted about some of the official/older trails in the Surrey Hills like BKB and Telegraph Row: i don't ride them much now as theres other trails I [u]prefer[/u] but lots of folk still love riding them and i couldn't care less what bike they're riding 🙄

because the existence of a way marked trail stops you from doing that does it?

Not quite but last time I was there I did seem to spend an annoying amount of time looking for signposts, stage numbers etc and turning around to get back on 'the trail'....that's what way marking does, it makes you feel you should follow the route....particularly if you've been led to believe that something worthwhile is coming up....without signs everywhere people tend to go off and do their own thing, explore a bit more etc....I don't ride there anymore as a result, the number of users attracted to an area also tends to go up once something like Swinley becomes official and a trail centre and that's just not an enjoyable way to spend my time.

.that's what way marking does, it makes you feel you should follow the route....particularly if you've been led to believe that something worthwhile is coming up....without signs everywhere people tend to go off and do their own thing, explore a bit more etc....

Which is exactly why they build them... but like I said, does that actually [u]stop[/u] you from doing it?

I don't ride there anymore as a result, the number of users attracted to an area also tends to go up once something like Swinley becomes official and a trail centre and that's just not an enjoyable way to spend my time.

I find it much nicer shopping in my local Waitrose since they built an Asda down the road 😉

middle aged wobblers

It'll be your turn one day!

😆 😆 😆