Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 11:28am Tue 8 Jan 08
No mention of course about how much this highly valuable land was sold for... there's no need for us to know such trivial details!
[quote]However, the rapid escalation of land prices in the Ruchill area has put the development beyond the price range of most of the housing associations.[/quote]
Well of course it would, that's why Ruchill Community Council first started fighting for the right to have a very modest 54 social houses built on the huge site. However, once again the usual machinations of Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council and big business have combined to [bold]deny Glasgow citizens of one of their basic rights[/bold]: a place to live.
This is a very sad day for Glasgow and that sadness is multiplied by the hopeless resignation contained in the comments of the esteemed MP.
No mention of course about how much this highly valuable land was sold for... there's no need for us to know such trivial details!
However, the rapid escalation of land prices in the Ruchill area has put the development beyond the price range of most of the housing associations.
Well of course it would, that's why Ruchill Community Council first started fighting for the right to have a very modest 54 social houses built on the huge site. However, once again the usual machinations of Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council and big business have combined to
deny Glasgow citizens of one of their basic rights: a place to live.
This is a very sad day for Glasgow and that sadness is multiplied by the hopeless resignation contained in the comments of the esteemed MP.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:30am Tue 8 Jan 08
Even if there was social housing on that site, where would people shop? The local Off licence on Mayfield Street?
Nothing else in the area unless you want to eat mush from Lidl in Possil and there's about a 20-30 minute trek to the tacky Maryhill Shopping Centre where you can buy your weekly shopping as well as bags of smack as the keystone cops sit across the road in their warm comfort zone with their tea and doughnuts!
This site will be for the exclusive use of car owners only, its not as if there's any buses on Bilsland Drive excpet the one that does the tour of the neighbouring schemes.
This project I don't believe will have any impact on other neighbouring areas. Its just another private housing scheme much lie all the rest, but its good that they are keeping a few buildings, unless some glue sniffing pyromaniac comes in and decides the fate of the remaining structures.
Regeneration (or should I say, the demolition of one scheme to put another in its place) has provided nothing new or anything of an advantage for the benefit of those who live in the area.
The area is a long standing joke, much like the whole north of the city in general.
To the fans of Purcell - [italic]Welcome to the real but hidden Glasgow he doesn't want you to know about![/italic]
Even if there was social housing on that site, where would people shop? The local Off licence on Mayfield Street?
Nothing else in the area unless you want to eat mush from Lidl in Possil and there's about a 20-30 minute trek to the tacky Maryhill Shopping Centre where you can buy your weekly shopping as well as bags of smack as the keystone cops sit across the road in their warm comfort zone with their tea and doughnuts!
This site will be for the exclusive use of car owners only, its not as if there's any buses on Bilsland Drive excpet the one that does the tour of the neighbouring schemes.
This project I don't believe will have any impact on other neighbouring areas. Its just another private housing scheme much lie all the rest, but its good that they are keeping a few buildings, unless some glue sniffing pyromaniac comes in and decides the fate of the remaining structures.
Regeneration (or should I say, the demolition of one scheme to put another in its place) has provided nothing new or anything of an advantage for the benefit of those who live in the area.
The area is a long standing joke, much like the whole north of the city in general.
To the fans of Purcell -
Welcome to the real but hidden Glasgow he doesn't want you to know about! Posted by: david on 11:49am Tue 8 Jan 08
Watch the security on this "development" be nonexistant so that the junks and neds can move in and burn the place down. Saving the developers the hassle of restoring the unsafe buildings and allowing them to squeeze and extra 50 odd houses on a site where a clock tower once stood.
Doubt Ill see this comment printed in the paper...
Watch the security on this "development" be nonexistant so that the junks and neds can move in and burn the place down. Saving the developers the hassle of restoring the unsafe buildings and allowing them to squeeze and extra 50 odd houses on a site where a clock tower once stood.
Doubt Ill see this comment printed in the paper...
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 12:20pm Tue 8 Jan 08
I agree with David, this building with just be left to crumble..
I remember several listed buildings in grangemouth being burnt down...
its a shame!
I agree with David, this building with just be left to crumble..
I remember several listed buildings in grangemouth being burnt down...
its a shame!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 12:49pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote:
I agree with David, this building with just be left to crumble.. I remember several listed buildings in grangemouth being burnt down... its a shame![/quote] Happens all to often Sally.
Its totally strange because we have tourists coming to our city and asking about historic sites and places of our so-called great industrial past.
I could give you a laugh by kicking off with the heritage sites in Springburn, for which there are none, the face of "Modern Britain" would never allow for such history and culture to remain, especially in what was a sweatshop like Glasgow - the workhorse of their long gone empire.
Drink, Drugs and housing schemes are the norm now - so the tourists who come to these places and see cardboard houses with junkies in tracksuits makes you want to cringe, especially if its family of people who worked and lived in the city, and moved to another part of the world back in the 50's & 60's.
I'm sure these people go back to their own countries and tell stories of the deprivation and destruction that has gone on here, nothing to show for our past, Springburn had a museum and the council closed it down, even if all it had was a couple of artefacts they could be bothered to save when the area got slaughtered. Springburn is nothing like its former identity, schemes are the way forward, how dare communities and ordinary people thrive, they need crushed and eradicated from Society - you can't help that this is what bothe the Tories and more recently, New Labour had on their agenda when they were plotting the "best" way forward for the future of Glasgow and its citizens.
What does Purcell and his brigade have to say about that, or is it just about cosmopolitan cafe's, award winning restaurants and shiny glass office blocks. Who cares what the rest of the place thinks, that is those who live in the areas that are excluded from all this new vibrancy they keep going on about, most of which is printed in this paper.
Very dodgy indeed!
aunt sally wrote:
I agree with David, this building with just be left to crumble.. I remember several listed buildings in grangemouth being burnt down... its a shame!
Happens all to often Sally.
Its totally strange because we have tourists coming to our city and asking about historic sites and places of our so-called great industrial past.
I could give you a laugh by kicking off with the heritage sites in Springburn, for which there are none, the face of "Modern Britain" would never allow for such history and culture to remain, especially in what was a sweatshop like Glasgow - the workhorse of their long gone empire.
Drink, Drugs and housing schemes are the norm now - so the tourists who come to these places and see cardboard houses with junkies in tracksuits makes you want to cringe, especially if its family of people who worked and lived in the city, and moved to another part of the world back in the 50's & 60's.
I'm sure these people go back to their own countries and tell stories of the deprivation and destruction that has gone on here, nothing to show for our past, Springburn had a museum and the council closed it down, even if all it had was a couple of artefacts they could be bothered to save when the area got slaughtered. Springburn is nothing like its former identity, schemes are the way forward, how dare communities and ordinary people thrive, they need crushed and eradicated from Society - you can't help that this is what bothe the Tories and more recently, New Labour had on their agenda when they were plotting the "best" way forward for the future of Glasgow and its citizens.
What does Purcell and his brigade have to say about that, or is it just about cosmopolitan cafe's, award winning restaurants and shiny glass office blocks. Who cares what the rest of the place thinks, that is those who live in the areas that are excluded from all this new vibrancy they keep going on about, most of which is printed in this paper.
Very dodgy indeed!
Posted by: Stewie Griffin, Glasgow on 1:24pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote: I agree with David, this building with just be left to crumble.. I remember several listed buildings in grangemouth being burnt down... its a shame![/quote] Happens all to often Sally. Its totally strange because we have tourists coming to our city and asking about historic sites and places of our so-called great industrial past. I could give you a laugh by kicking off with the heritage sites in Springburn, for which there are none, the face of "Modern Britain" would never allow for such history and culture to remain, especially in what was a sweatshop like Glasgow - the workhorse of their long gone empire. Drink, Drugs and housing schemes are the norm now - so the tourists who come to these places and see cardboard houses with junkies in tracksuits makes you want to cringe, especially if its family of people who worked and lived in the city, and moved to another part of the world back in the 50's & 60's. I'm sure these people go back to their own countries and tell stories of the deprivation and destruction that has gone on here, nothing to show for our past, Springburn had a museum and the council closed it down, even if all it had was a couple of artefacts they could be bothered to save when the area got slaughtered. Springburn is nothing like its former identity, schemes are the way forward, how dare communities and ordinary people thrive, they need crushed and eradicated from Society - you can't help that this is what bothe the Tories and more recently, New Labour had on their agenda when they were plotting the "best" way forward for the future of Glasgow and its citizens. What does Purcell and his brigade have to say about that, or is it just about cosmopolitan cafe's, award winning restaurants and shiny glass office blocks. Who cares what the rest of the place thinks, that is those who live in the areas that are excluded from all this new vibrancy they keep going on about, most of which is printed in this paper. Very dodgy indeed![/quote] I live in one of the areas deemded to be included the new vibrancy. It's called the new motorway extension which will cut through the community and make the place a dump. Thanks Stevie. And you know where you can stick your commonwealth games too.
The Missing City wrote:
aunt sally wrote: I agree with David, this building with just be left to crumble.. I remember several listed buildings in grangemouth being burnt down... its a shame!
Happens all to often Sally. Its totally strange because we have tourists coming to our city and asking about historic sites and places of our so-called great industrial past. I could give you a laugh by kicking off with the heritage sites in Springburn, for which there are none, the face of "Modern Britain" would never allow for such history and culture to remain, especially in what was a sweatshop like Glasgow - the workhorse of their long gone empire. Drink, Drugs and housing schemes are the norm now - so the tourists who come to these places and see cardboard houses with junkies in tracksuits makes you want to cringe, especially if its family of people who worked and lived in the city, and moved to another part of the world back in the 50's & 60's. I'm sure these people go back to their own countries and tell stories of the deprivation and destruction that has gone on here, nothing to show for our past, Springburn had a museum and the council closed it down, even if all it had was a couple of artefacts they could be bothered to save when the area got slaughtered. Springburn is nothing like its former identity, schemes are the way forward, how dare communities and ordinary people thrive, they need crushed and eradicated from Society - you can't help that this is what bothe the Tories and more recently, New Labour had on their agenda when they were plotting the "best" way forward for the future of Glasgow and its citizens. What does Purcell and his brigade have to say about that, or is it just about cosmopolitan cafe's, award winning restaurants and shiny glass office blocks. Who cares what the rest of the place thinks, that is those who live in the areas that are excluded from all this new vibrancy they keep going on about, most of which is printed in this paper. Very dodgy indeed!
I live in one of the areas deemded to be included the new vibrancy. It's called the new motorway extension which will cut through the community and make the place a dump. Thanks Stevie. And you know where you can stick your commonwealth games too.
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 1:56pm Tue 8 Jan 08
lolzzaaa !!
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 2:42pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote]What does Purcell and his brigade have to say about that, or is it just about cosmopolitan cafe's, award winning restaurants and shiny glass office blocks....[/quote]
Totally agree with your comments TMC. You do too much credit to Purcell though: he is just a rather uninspiring puppet being controlled by small and big business alike, who want to destroy our existing communities and replace them with their a sterile corporate vision, where they profit from people's misery. Of course Purcell gains also, because he gets his mugshot in the ET regularly telling us about this new vision, while all around us we see the real effects of the social catastrophe in this city, which would make Thatcher proud!
What does Purcell and his brigade have to say about that, or is it just about cosmopolitan cafe's, award winning restaurants and shiny glass office blocks....
Totally agree with your comments TMC. You do too much credit to Purcell though: he is just a rather uninspiring puppet being controlled by small and big business alike, who want to destroy our existing communities and replace them with their a sterile corporate vision, where they profit from people's misery. Of course Purcell gains also, because he gets his mugshot in the ET regularly telling us about this new vision, while all around us we see the real effects of the social catastrophe in this city, which would make Thatcher proud!
Posted by: WeeT, Glasgow on 3:05pm Tue 8 Jan 08
This must be why first bus 59 is about to start operating to Ruchill. Has a deal been done somewhere else?
This must be why first bus 59 is about to start operating to Ruchill. Has a deal been done somewhere else?
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 3:52pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]WeeT[/bold] wrote:
This must be why first bus 59 is about to start operating to Ruchill. Has a deal been done somewhere else?[/quote] Aye T - I forgot about that wee 30 minute bus service that starts at the end of January, mind you, do you think the bus service will be there when the houses are up and running considering that all or most will have cars?
There used to be a number of buses running through Ruchill about 15 years ago such as the 18 and the 57, however, this is now the age of deprivation and cutbacks are all the rage except if you have a car.
Nothing anybody can do about it, ordinary people are bound and gagged unless they go on the radge, or simply don't give a toss, like some people have done over recent years.
WeeT wrote:
This must be why first bus 59 is about to start operating to Ruchill. Has a deal been done somewhere else?
Aye T - I forgot about that wee 30 minute bus service that starts at the end of January, mind you, do you think the bus service will be there when the houses are up and running considering that all or most will have cars?
There used to be a number of buses running through Ruchill about 15 years ago such as the 18 and the 57, however, this is now the age of deprivation and cutbacks are all the rage except if you have a car.
Nothing anybody can do about it, ordinary people are bound and gagged unless they go on the radge, or simply don't give a toss, like some people have done over recent years.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 3:54pm Tue 8 Jan 08
And is the 59 not being subsidised with a route development grant from the Scottish Government or through funding by SPT?
Normally subsidies are limited and last only for about a year or two, so if this is the case, what happens after that?
And is the 59 not being subsidised with a route development grant from the Scottish Government or through funding by SPT?
Normally subsidies are limited and last only for about a year or two, so if this is the case, what happens after that?
Posted by: Ian, Glasgow on 4:04pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Yawn yawn.... Same old posters, posting the same old negative comments...
Yawn yawn.... Same old posters, posting the same old negative comments...
Posted by: david on 4:08pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Ian[/bold] wrote:
Yawn yawn.... Same old posters, posting the same old negative comments...[/quote] Positive or negetive comment?
[bold]
YOU DECIDE![/bold]
Ian wrote:
Yawn yawn.... Same old posters, posting the same old negative comments...
Positive or negetive comment?
YOU DECIDE! Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 4:17pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[bold]Well said, David!!![/bold]
Posted by: ex labour voter, glasgow on 4:26pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP, had supported the calls for an element of social housing on the site but said she welcomed progress on the site.
She said: "No-one wants the site to remain derelict and I would have wanted social housing here but land prices in part have prevented that happening.
"But I still hope more land can be unlocked for further social housing developments."
Well hen why has GCC been sitting on this land for the past 20 years, could it have something to do with having the law changed so labour GCC could sell the land to a private developer and in return the developers will include a primary school as part of the shady deals that have now become part of the labour GCC normal practice.
Does she now want to steal parts of ruchill park and the golf course then sell the land to private developers to build houses for rent and make even more profits for their developer feinds, not a typo,
Be aware, very aware of what come out of the sleaze and corruption labour party members mouths.
Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP, had supported the calls for an element of social housing on the site but said she welcomed progress on the site.
She said: "No-one wants the site to remain derelict and I would have wanted social housing here but land prices in part have prevented that happening.
"But I still hope more land can be unlocked for further social housing developments."
Well hen why has GCC been sitting on this land for the past 20 years, could it have something to do with having the law changed so labour GCC could sell the land to a private developer and in return the developers will include a primary school as part of the shady deals that have now become part of the labour GCC normal practice.
Does she now want to steal parts of ruchill park and the golf course then sell the land to private developers to build houses for rent and make even more profits for their developer feinds, not a typo,
Be aware, very aware of what come out of the sleaze and corruption labour party members mouths.
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 4:26pm Tue 8 Jan 08
do a poll !!
A poll never lies, no never !!
do a poll !!
A poll never lies, no never !!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 4:32pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]ex labour voter[/bold] wrote:
Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP, had supported the calls for an element of social housing on the site but said she welcomed progress on the site. She said: "No-one wants the site to remain derelict and I would have wanted social housing here but land prices in part have prevented that happening. "But I still hope more land can be unlocked for further social housing developments." Well hen why has GCC been sitting on this land for the past 20 years, could it have something to do with having the law changed so labour GCC could sell the land to a private developer and in return the developers will include a primary school as part of the shady deals that have now become part of the labour GCC normal practice. Does she now want to steal parts of ruchill park and the golf course then sell the land to private developers to build houses for rent and make even more profits for their developer feinds, not a typo, Be aware, very aware of what come out of the sleaze and corruption labour party members mouths. [/quote] Feckin spot on, like most areas in Glasgow, they have sat derelict for as much as 40 years and Glasgow Corporation / District & City Councils done nothing, private investment was the way forward - Those were in fact the wrods of Pat Lally in 1985 - I was only 11
Ian you are so ignorant, I would say you were Thatcher's secret lovechild
[bold]YOU GEEK![/bold]
ex labour voter wrote:
Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP, had supported the calls for an element of social housing on the site but said she welcomed progress on the site. She said: "No-one wants the site to remain derelict and I would have wanted social housing here but land prices in part have prevented that happening. "But I still hope more land can be unlocked for further social housing developments." Well hen why has GCC been sitting on this land for the past 20 years, could it have something to do with having the law changed so labour GCC could sell the land to a private developer and in return the developers will include a primary school as part of the shady deals that have now become part of the labour GCC normal practice. Does she now want to steal parts of ruchill park and the golf course then sell the land to private developers to build houses for rent and make even more profits for their developer feinds, not a typo, Be aware, very aware of what come out of the sleaze and corruption labour party members mouths.
Feckin spot on, like most areas in Glasgow, they have sat derelict for as much as 40 years and Glasgow Corporation / District & City Councils done nothing, private investment was the way forward - Those were in fact the wrods of Pat Lally in 1985 - I was only 11
Ian you are so ignorant, I would say you were Thatcher's secret lovechild
YOU GEEK! Posted by: ex labour voter, glasgow on 4:41pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Ian you are so ignorant, I would say you were Thatcher's secret lovechild
YOU GEEK! Well said missing city.
Anyone out there know were wendy whoosh is hiding
Ian you are so ignorant, I would say you were Thatcher's secret lovechild
YOU GEEK! Well said missing city.
Anyone out there know were wendy whoosh is hiding
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 4:46pm Tue 8 Jan 08
ex labour voter,
The Council didn't own the site. Scottish Enterprise Glasgow did.
ex labour voter,
The Council didn't own the site. Scottish Enterprise Glasgow did.
Posted by: ex labour voter, glasgow on 4:48pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
ex labour voter, The Council didn't own the site. Scottish Enterprise Glasgow did.[/quote] Did they really , and how much did it cost them and how much did they sell it for.
Brad wrote:
ex labour voter, The Council didn't own the site. Scottish Enterprise Glasgow did.
Did they really , and how much did it cost them and how much did they sell it for.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 4:52pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Yes, I think they did. Do you know different?
I don't know what it cost them or sold for. Why not ask them?
Yes, I think they did. Do you know different?
I don't know what it cost them or sold for. Why not ask them?
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 4:53pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]ex labour voter[/bold] wrote:
Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP, had supported the calls for an element of social housing on the site but said she welcomed progress on the site.
She said: "No-one wants the site to remain derelict and I would have wanted social housing here but land prices in part have prevented that happening.
"But I still hope more land can be unlocked for further social housing developments."
Well hen why has GCC been sitting on this land for the past 20 years, could it have something to do with having the law changed so labour GCC could sell the land to a private developer and in return the developers will include a primary school as part of the shady deals that have now become part of the labour GCC normal practice.
Does she now want to steal parts of ruchill park and the golf course then sell the land to private developers to build houses for rent and make even more profits for their developer feinds, not a typo,
Be aware, very aware of what come out of the sleaze and corruption labour party members mouths.
[/quote] If you go to Ann McKechin's home page you'll see [bold]Labour's smoke and mirrors style[/bold] in full effect. On her home page you'll see a big red 'Save our Post Offices' banner, but of course Labour initiated the destruction of this unique social lifeline in our communities and Labour continues to wield the axe (just so that a few of their chosen business buddies can make obscene profits).
Now of course - despite the big red banner - [bold]Ms McKechin failed to turn up for a Commons debate last month on Post Office closures[/bold] in Glasgow... but that's the rub... they'll stick up a nice wee red banner on a web page, but when it comes to actually taking action to help communities then you can forget about them, just as they have forgot about us!
ex labour voter wrote:
Ann McKechin, Glasgow North MP, had supported the calls for an element of social housing on the site but said she welcomed progress on the site.
She said: "No-one wants the site to remain derelict and I would have wanted social housing here but land prices in part have prevented that happening.
"But I still hope more land can be unlocked for further social housing developments."
Well hen why has GCC been sitting on this land for the past 20 years, could it have something to do with having the law changed so labour GCC could sell the land to a private developer and in return the developers will include a primary school as part of the shady deals that have now become part of the labour GCC normal practice.
Does she now want to steal parts of ruchill park and the golf course then sell the land to private developers to build houses for rent and make even more profits for their developer feinds, not a typo,
Be aware, very aware of what come out of the sleaze and corruption labour party members mouths.
If you go to Ann McKechin's home page you'll see
Labour's smoke and mirrors style in full effect. On her home page you'll see a big red 'Save our Post Offices' banner, but of course Labour initiated the destruction of this unique social lifeline in our communities and Labour continues to wield the axe (just so that a few of their chosen business buddies can make obscene profits).
Now of course - despite the big red banner -
Ms McKechin failed to turn up for a Commons debate last month on Post Office closures in Glasgow... but that's the rub... they'll stick up a nice wee red banner on a web page, but when it comes to actually taking action to help communities then you can forget about them, just as they have forgot about us!
Posted by: marty, Glasgow on 4:56pm Tue 8 Jan 08
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz.
As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings:
[quote]The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.[/quote] What are you whittering on about?!
And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway..
The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets!
PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz.
As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings:
The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
What are you whittering on about?!
And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway..
The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets!
PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
Posted by: marty, Glasgow on 4:59pm Tue 8 Jan 08
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz.
As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings:
[quote]The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.[/quote] What are you whittering on about?!
And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway..
The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets!
PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz.
As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings:
The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
What are you whittering on about?!
And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway..
The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets!
PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:00pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Marty, you're upsetting a lot of people with these comments... I'll bet you're not one of the "real people" of Glasgow.
"expired crumpled all-day bus tickets" LOL!
Marty, you're upsetting a lot of people with these comments... I'll bet you're not one of the "real people" of Glasgow.
"expired crumpled all-day bus tickets" LOL!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:02pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]ex labour voter[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote: ex labour voter, The Council didn't own the site. Scottish Enterprise Glasgow did.[/quote] Did they really , and how much did it cost them and how much did they sell it for. [/quote] Remember Brad - a government quango was (and probably still is in operation here - so how much of your Poll Tax / Council Tax money did it take for this site to be in the control of what was formely The then Scottish Development Agency - I'm sure it was that long ago that GGHB sold the land before it was passed to SE - anyway, that's trivial, the fact of the matter is that land which was once public is being sold to the private sector for stuff that won't be used by the public or they certainly have no share in it.
All the while, the council takes this money and cabn't devise a few projects of their own, as it seems more lucrative to sell to private hands.
Soon, Glasgow may be sold off to everybody else in the world, and where does that leave the orinary people who the council wish had never existed?
Homeless and on the Streets perhaps? - Deprivation at its most penultimate level? - Never mind Escape from New York eh?
I forsee a multitude of social disasters to counteract the one's that have been witnessed in recent years.
Violence and crime I suspect will increase as a further revolt unless there is radical change to the lives of ordinary people - I'm just fed up listening as to how a brand new cardboard plot changes the life of people - that is pure bullsh1t - seen it at first hand, they build new schemes in Easterhouse, gangs are still rife, people still not able to get work - drugs still a plenty - so who's kidding who with the PR ****?
[bold]Ian - you're still a geek![/bold]
ex labour voter wrote:
Brad wrote: ex labour voter, The Council didn't own the site. Scottish Enterprise Glasgow did.
Did they really , and how much did it cost them and how much did they sell it for.
Remember Brad - a government quango was (and probably still is in operation here - so how much of your Poll Tax / Council Tax money did it take for this site to be in the control of what was formely The then Scottish Development Agency - I'm sure it was that long ago that GGHB sold the land before it was passed to SE - anyway, that's trivial, the fact of the matter is that land which was once public is being sold to the private sector for stuff that won't be used by the public or they certainly have no share in it.
All the while, the council takes this money and cabn't devise a few projects of their own, as it seems more lucrative to sell to private hands.
Soon, Glasgow may be sold off to everybody else in the world, and where does that leave the orinary people who the council wish had never existed?
Homeless and on the Streets perhaps? - Deprivation at its most penultimate level? - Never mind Escape from New York eh?
I forsee a multitude of social disasters to counteract the one's that have been witnessed in recent years.
Violence and crime I suspect will increase as a further revolt unless there is radical change to the lives of ordinary people - I'm just fed up listening as to how a brand new cardboard plot changes the life of people - that is pure bullsh1t - seen it at first hand, they build new schemes in Easterhouse, gangs are still rife, people still not able to get work - drugs still a plenty - so who's kidding who with the PR ****?
Ian - you're still a geek! Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 5:02pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]marty[/bold] wrote:
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz. As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings: [quote]The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.[/quote] What are you whittering on about?! And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway.. The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets! PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.[/quote] Omgzzz
The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
This is soo not gonna happen !! it will be burnt down !!
or they will prob say there are some diseases in the building and its unfit for people to live in !!
Im getting the marshmallows and tatties ready for a nice wee roasting !!
marty wrote:
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz. As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings: The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
What are you whittering on about?! And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway.. The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets! PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
Omgzzz
The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
This is soo not gonna happen !! it will be burnt down !!
or they will prob say there are some diseases in the building and its unfit for people to live in !!
Im getting the marshmallows and tatties ready for a nice wee roasting !!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:10pm Tue 8 Jan 08
That's quite a rant, TMC@5.02pm, but I'll pick you up on one point that was relevant to the story: you said "Glasgow may be sold off to everybody else in the world, and where does that leave the or[d]inary people"?
This site - once the hooses are built - will be sold off to the people who will live in them. I'm assuming they'll be fairly run-of-the-mill folks (superstars and aristocracy probably won't be living in the estate).
Maybe you think that people who aspire to owning their own home (and most homes are owner-occupied) aren't "ordinary" but it doesn't seem so weird to me.
What's happening here is that a derelict site owned by an unaccountable quango is going to provide homes and be owned by individuals and families, probably mostly local folk. That seems a pretty reasonable outcome (although I'd have liked to see some social housing element too - maybe we can agree on that?).
That's quite a rant, TMC@5.02pm, but I'll pick you up on one point that was relevant to the story: you said "Glasgow may be sold off to everybody else in the world, and where does that leave the orinary people"?
This site - once the hooses are built - will be sold off to the people who will live in them. I'm assuming they'll be fairly run-of-the-mill folks (superstars and aristocracy probably won't be living in the estate).
Maybe you think that people who aspire to owning their own home (and most homes are owner-occupied) aren't "ordinary" but it doesn't seem so weird to me.
What's happening here is that a derelict site owned by an unaccountable quango is going to provide homes and be owned by individuals and families, probably mostly local folk. That seems a pretty reasonable outcome (although I'd have liked to see some social housing element too - maybe we can agree on that?).
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:10pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[bold]Marty[/bold] wrote:
[quote]The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets![/quote]
[bold]The G Man[/bold] [italic]aka[/italic] [bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
This guy Marty must be on smack, it was his pals in politics that he seems to love that caused these tramps as he would put it to beat a path about the damp grey depressing streets with their crumpled all day bus tickets
Either that he's just crawled out from a cave
[italic]For he has spoken[/italic] - [bold]Marty is The Son of STIG![/bold]
Marty wrote:
The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets!
The G Man aka The Missing City wrote:
This guy Marty must be on smack, it was his pals in politics that he seems to love that caused these tramps as he would put it to beat a path about the damp grey depressing streets with their crumpled all day bus tickets
Either that he's just crawled out from a cave
For he has spoken -
Marty is The Son of STIG! Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 5:10pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Marty, you do know that posting twice doesn't help a lame point, it just makes it look twice as lame. ;)
Marty, you do know that posting twice doesn't help a lame point, it just makes it look twice as lame. ;)
Posted by: Maryhill Bill, Wyndford on 5:12pm Tue 8 Jan 08
How do you all know the land is owned by GCC? It could be owned by one of the NHS Trusts or even lasgow University.
How do you all know the land is owned by GCC? It could be owned by one of the NHS Trusts or even lasgow University.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:13pm Tue 8 Jan 08
...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils!
I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity!
...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils!
I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity!
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 5:13pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
Marty, you do know that posting twice doesn't help a lame point, it just makes it look twice as lame. ;)[/quote] lolzzaaa Nice one Sydney !
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
Marty, you do know that posting twice doesn't help a lame point, it just makes it look twice as lame. ;)
lolzzaaa Nice one Sydney !
Posted by: marty, Glasgow on 5:14pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]marty[/bold] wrote:
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz. As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings: [quote]The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.[/quote] What are you whittering on about?! And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway.. The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets! PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.[/quote] Omgzzz
The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
This is soo not gonna happen !! it will be burnt down !!
or they will prob say there are some diseases in the building and its unfit for people to live in !!
Im getting the marshmallows and tatties ready for a nice wee roasting !![/quote] Get yer marshmallows on a Tuesday then; these spontaneous "mystery fires" seem to occur on an alarmingly regular basis to Glasgow's listed sites (those in line for a new development) on Tues night / Wednesday mornings... Seriously!
aunt sally wrote:
marty wrote:
What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz. As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings: The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
What are you whittering on about?! And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway.. The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets! PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
Omgzzz
The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
This is soo not gonna happen !! it will be burnt down !!
or they will prob say there are some diseases in the building and its unfit for people to live in !!
Im getting the marshmallows and tatties ready for a nice wee roasting !!
Get yer marshmallows on a Tuesday then; these spontaneous "mystery fires" seem to occur on an alarmingly regular basis to Glasgow's listed sites (those in line for a new development) on Tues night / Wednesday mornings... Seriously!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:16pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
That's quite a rant, TMC@5.02pm, but I'll pick you up on one point that was relevant to the story: you said "Glasgow may be sold off to everybody else in the world, and where does that leave the or[d]inary people"? This site - once the hooses are built - will be sold off to the people who will live in them. I'm assuming they'll be fairly run-of-the-mill folks (superstars and aristocracy probably won't be living in the estate). Maybe you think that people who aspire to owning their own home (and most homes are owner-occupied) aren't "ordinary" but it doesn't seem so weird to me. What's happening here is that a derelict site owned by an unaccountable quango is going to provide homes and be owned by individuals and families, probably mostly local folk. That seems a pretty reasonable outcome (although I'd have liked to see some social housing element too - maybe we can agree on that?).[/quote] I'd love to see more people getting the chance to own their home, but the right to buy scheme was a flop beacuse it was shady housing stock.
This new stakeholder scheme that is operated by several HA's in this country seems to be a winner, I like it, decent homes that are not made for shanty town living, why can't there be more of that - public land for the public
Public services re-instated alonsgside decent places to live - is that too much or too impossible to re-create?
NOte how I never said re-instate - most of the municipal housing builkt after 1930 was a complete disaster, had the inner city gone through re-construction rather than obliteration, we may have never had the problems associated with the whole city as it is now.
[bold]Just something to think about - The ROOTS![/bold]
Brad wrote:
That's quite a rant, TMC@5.02pm, but I'll pick you up on one point that was relevant to the story: you said "Glasgow may be sold off to everybody else in the world, and where does that leave the orinary people"? This site - once the hooses are built - will be sold off to the people who will live in them. I'm assuming they'll be fairly run-of-the-mill folks (superstars and aristocracy probably won't be living in the estate). Maybe you think that people who aspire to owning their own home (and most homes are owner-occupied) aren't "ordinary" but it doesn't seem so weird to me. What's happening here is that a derelict site owned by an unaccountable quango is going to provide homes and be owned by individuals and families, probably mostly local folk. That seems a pretty reasonable outcome (although I'd have liked to see some social housing element too - maybe we can agree on that?).
I'd love to see more people getting the chance to own their home, but the right to buy scheme was a flop beacuse it was shady housing stock.
This new stakeholder scheme that is operated by several HA's in this country seems to be a winner, I like it, decent homes that are not made for shanty town living, why can't there be more of that - public land for the public
Public services re-instated alonsgside decent places to live - is that too much or too impossible to re-create?
NOte how I never said re-instate - most of the municipal housing builkt after 1930 was a complete disaster, had the inner city gone through re-construction rather than obliteration, we may have never had the problems associated with the whole city as it is now.
Just something to think about - The ROOTS! Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 5:17pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]marty[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]marty[/bold] wrote: What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz. As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings: [quote]The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.[/quote] What are you whittering on about?! And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway.. The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets! PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.[/quote] Omgzzz The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital. This is soo not gonna happen !! it will be burnt down !! or they will prob say there are some diseases in the building and its unfit for people to live in !! Im getting the marshmallows and tatties ready for a nice wee roasting !![/quote] Get yer marshmallows on a Tuesday then; these spontaneous "mystery fires" seem to occur on an alarmingly regular basis to Glasgow's listed sites (those in line for a new development) on Tues night / Wednesday mornings... Seriously![/quote] Family bag bought and ready to go !
marty wrote:
aunt sally wrote: marty wrote: What a cheery bunch as usual! "Down with this sort of thing", "Bring back the halcyon days of yore", zzzzzz. As for the demolition of the existing listed buildings: The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital.
What are you whittering on about?! And as for arguments about buses vs. cars and what happenned to Springburn and Purcell's hidden glasgow... sheesh! These daft comments all conflict with themselves anyway.. The truth is it's a much needed development and the wage-earning occupants of these new homes will lift the overall prosperity and respectability of the area far more than dole scroungers with their expired crumpled all-day bus tickets! PS: If you want to find out how much land or property sold for, it's all in the public domain, and available online. "They" don't keep it hidden from you. For example, a neighbouring piece of land SE of Murano Street (Ruchill), sold for £5.25M to Queens Cross Housing Association Limited on 04/04/07... the same price as the old RAC building site at the bottom of Finnieston Street (opposite the Clyde Arc / City Inn) went for in Nov'07.
Omgzzz The plans involve the restoration and refurbishment of some key listed buildings on the site of the former infectious diseases hospital. This is soo not gonna happen !! it will be burnt down !! or they will prob say there are some diseases in the building and its unfit for people to live in !! Im getting the marshmallows and tatties ready for a nice wee roasting !!
Get yer marshmallows on a Tuesday then; these spontaneous "mystery fires" seem to occur on an alarmingly regular basis to Glasgow's listed sites (those in line for a new development) on Tues night / Wednesday mornings... Seriously!
Family bag bought and ready to go !
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 5:19pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Dear dear, Brad, I do seem to have upset you with my allusion yesterday that you may not be a "real person"... sorry, as you certainly are displaying some 'real person' insecurities here now.
Dear dear, Brad, I do seem to have upset you with my allusion yesterday that you may not be a "real person"... sorry, as you certainly are displaying some 'real person' insecurities here now.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:20pm Tue 8 Jan 08
TMC, I don't think you'll find many who think that Glasgow's post-War reconstruction was very helpful. Being kind to the politicians and planners of the time, it was a different world then.
TMC, I don't think you'll find many who think that Glasgow's post-War reconstruction was very helpful. Being kind to the politicians and planners of the time, it was a different world then.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:22pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils! I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity![/quote] Ordinary people are being killed off either with an abundance of smack dealers, Glasgow being the first city of that new empire, Stefan King's father's empire - G101 off licence's as well as Haddows and the numerous licensed grocers
Then you have the fatty food affair
So how does the council love these people when they have been put in a situation that they can't fend for themselves and flourish like yer west end trendies for example?
Were they simply too afraid to vote anybody else except Labour? Did they possess any intelligence to do so? Could they be bnothered? Was their self esteem that rattled they don't even want to be an integral part of socieyt as a result of mass Labour & Tory incompetence and negligence over the past 50 odd years?
Many things to chew over my man - you decide- f all to do with Newton Mearns and the like, they didn't want to be part of Glasgow and I don't see that changing either!
Brad wrote:
...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils! I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity!
Ordinary people are being killed off either with an abundance of smack dealers, Glasgow being the first city of that new empire, Stefan King's father's empire - G101 off licence's as well as Haddows and the numerous licensed grocers
Then you have the fatty food affair
So how does the council love these people when they have been put in a situation that they can't fend for themselves and flourish like yer west end trendies for example?
Were they simply too afraid to vote anybody else except Labour? Did they possess any intelligence to do so? Could they be bnothered? Was their self esteem that rattled they don't even want to be an integral part of socieyt as a result of mass Labour & Tory incompetence and negligence over the past 50 odd years?
Many things to chew over my man - you decide- f all to do with Newton Mearns and the like, they didn't want to be part of Glasgow and I don't see that changing either!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:22pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Dear dear Sydney, it's OK.
Being insulted by you isn't really an insult.
Dear dear Sydney, it's OK.
Being insulted by you isn't really an insult.
Posted by: azg on 5:23pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils!
I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity![/quote] AND then they would have to contribute to Glasgow by way of Council Tax. :)
Brad wrote:
...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils!
I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity!
AND then they would have to contribute to Glasgow by way of Council Tax. :)
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 5:25pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]azg[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote: ...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils! I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity![/quote] AND then they would have to contribute to Glasgow by way of Council Tax. :) [/quote] Council tax ?? whats that
azg wrote:
Brad wrote: ...and these "orinary people who the council wish had never existed" - whaddya mean??? The Cooncil loves them! Where would it be without them? After all, it's only us and N Lanarkshire who returned Labour-majority controlled councils! I say bring in the good burghers of Newton Mearns and Bearsden and give us a bit more voter (and political) diversity!
AND then they would have to contribute to Glasgow by way of Council Tax. :)
Council tax ?? whats that
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:26pm Tue 8 Jan 08
"Were they simply too afraid to vote anybody else except Labour? Did they possess any intelligence to do so? Could they be bothered?"
Good questions. But that's democracy for you: the freedom to f**k up.
"Were they simply too afraid to vote anybody else except Labour? Did they possess any intelligence to do so? Could they be bothered?"
Good questions. But that's democracy for you: the freedom to f**k up.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:27pm Tue 8 Jan 08
aunt sally, I think TMC was referring to you.
aunt sally, I think TMC was referring to you.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 5:28pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Remember when Labour councillors could actually stand up in public and defend the rights of the people of Glasgow over quangos and private property developers? No, neither do I, but here's a great letter to the editor of The Herald from November 11th 1999:
[quote][bold]How the alliance has blundered[/bold]
THE letters published in your columns from the Rev John Matthews cogently express the misgivings of much of the Ruchill community over the Glasgow Alliance's plans to build a mega-private housing development over the north of the city.
In contrast the letter from the Glasgow Alliance Executive Director, Andrew Fyfe, fails to get to grips with the massive blunder his organisation has perpetrated in launching the New Neighbourhood Initiative without engaging the existing residents of Ruchill in meaningful consultation. The Glasgow Alliance is, of course, an unelected body to which considerable powers have gravitated in respect of the regeneration of the city. Whether this is a desirable state of affairs is a matter for some reflection.
What is clear, however, is that an unelected body which seeks to make massive changes to the physical and social environment of a local community should display some degree of sensitivity. In particular, it should make thoroughgoing prior consultation a watchword in all its dealings. In respect of Ruchill, the alliance has patently failed on this account.
The document describing the New Neighbourhood Initiative was placed unexplained and unannounced into the hands of elected members and community activists last July. It is not simply an outline concept or an artist's impression. It is a detailed plan which, if implemented, would impact on almost every aspect of life in Ruchill. It contains 42 pages detailing the mega-development, six large coloured maps, and four tabulated pages of 'Proposed Actions' giving priorities and timescale. The final section is headed 'Early Action'. This is a proposal which, when first unveiled to the public, was clearly well down the road to realisation.
In addition to the building of up to 1500 houses in the price bracket 'Pounds 50,000 up to in excess of Pounds 110,000', the document proposes a new school (without saying what would happen to the two existing conveniently located schools in Ruchill): the seizure of the best part of Ruchill Park for the most expensive houses: a new access road cutting through Ruchill Park: and the demolition of 12 listed buildings. To add insult to injury, land which the local community was hoping could be made available for public rented housing is designated as a 'second potential development site of some significance'. If this cannot be realised the alliance has decided that alternatives could include 'a student village, commercial or retail use'.
It is worth repeating that all of this was committed to paper, and agreed by the alliance board, before one word of local consultationhad taken place on any of these detailed proposals.
Fortunately, when the alliance launched its first attempt to progress the New Neighbourhood Initiative in the form of a planning application for permission to build housing on the former Ruchill Hospital site, pressure from myself, Patricia Ferguson, MSP, and local community representatives secured a full planning hearing.
[bold]That hearing and the subsequent debate has brought into the public domain the whole way this proposed development has been mishandled by the Glasgow Alliance. It has also, quite properly, raised the wider issue of how a disadvantaged local community's legitimate expectations of 'social inclusion', 'partnership', and 'regeneration' can be pushed aside by a remote, unelected body that is only listening to its own narrow agenda.[/bold]
Mr Fyfe now, belatedly, offers systematic consultation 'where we will listen to local people and incorporate their priorities in the wider plans for the area'. This is to be welcomed, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Let us hope the recipe will now produce a digestible dish for the local community of Ruchill.
Councillor Jim Mackechnie,
North Kelvin Ward,[/quote]
Remember when Labour councillors could actually stand up in public and defend the rights of the people of Glasgow over quangos and private property developers? No, neither do I, but here's a great letter to the editor of The Herald from November 11th 1999:
How the alliance has blundered
THE letters published in your columns from the Rev John Matthews cogently express the misgivings of much of the Ruchill community over the Glasgow Alliance's plans to build a mega-private housing development over the north of the city.
In contrast the letter from the Glasgow Alliance Executive Director, Andrew Fyfe, fails to get to grips with the massive blunder his organisation has perpetrated in launching the New Neighbourhood Initiative without engaging the existing residents of Ruchill in meaningful consultation. The Glasgow Alliance is, of course, an unelected body to which considerable powers have gravitated in respect of the regeneration of the city. Whether this is a desirable state of affairs is a matter for some reflection.
What is clear, however, is that an unelected body which seeks to make massive changes to the physical and social environment of a local community should display some degree of sensitivity. In particular, it should make thoroughgoing prior consultation a watchword in all its dealings. In respect of Ruchill, the alliance has patently failed on this account.
The document describing the New Neighbourhood Initiative was placed unexplained and unannounced into the hands of elected members and community activists last July. It is not simply an outline concept or an artist's impression. It is a detailed plan which, if implemented, would impact on almost every aspect of life in Ruchill. It contains 42 pages detailing the mega-development, six large coloured maps, and four tabulated pages of 'Proposed Actions' giving priorities and timescale. The final section is headed 'Early Action'. This is a proposal which, when first unveiled to the public, was clearly well down the road to realisation.
In addition to the building of up to 1500 houses in the price bracket 'Pounds 50,000 up to in excess of Pounds 110,000', the document proposes a new school (without saying what would happen to the two existing conveniently located schools in Ruchill): the seizure of the best part of Ruchill Park for the most expensive houses: a new access road cutting through Ruchill Park: and the demolition of 12 listed buildings. To add insult to injury, land which the local community was hoping could be made available for public rented housing is designated as a 'second potential development site of some significance'. If this cannot be realised the alliance has decided that alternatives could include 'a student village, commercial or retail use'.
It is worth repeating that all of this was committed to paper, and agreed by the alliance board, before one word of local consultationhad taken place on any of these detailed proposals.
Fortunately, when the alliance launched its first attempt to progress the New Neighbourhood Initiative in the form of a planning application for permission to build housing on the former Ruchill Hospital site, pressure from myself, Patricia Ferguson, MSP, and local community representatives secured a full planning hearing.
That hearing and the subsequent debate has brought into the public domain the whole way this proposed development has been mishandled by the Glasgow Alliance. It has also, quite properly, raised the wider issue of how a disadvantaged local community's legitimate expectations of 'social inclusion', 'partnership', and 'regeneration' can be pushed aside by a remote, unelected body that is only listening to its own narrow agenda.
Mr Fyfe now, belatedly, offers systematic consultation 'where we will listen to local people and incorporate their priorities in the wider plans for the area'. This is to be welcomed, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Let us hope the recipe will now produce a digestible dish for the local community of Ruchill.
Councillor Jim Mackechnie,
North Kelvin Ward,
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:28pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
TMC, I don't think you'll find many who think that Glasgow's post-War reconstruction was very helpful. Being kind to the politicians and planners of the time, it was a different world then.[/quote] Well their world was all about the future generations of the city - they knew fine well industrialisation was out the window only to be replaced with booze then smack - who's kidding who?
Go to Scottish Screen and pick up some archive film from Parkhead, Easterhouse, Castlemilk and Possil from around 1978 - if that' doesn't give you an idea of what children would be born into, then I can only imagine that you ain't listening.
The festival of Britain in 1951 was the spearhead for radical social change - that happened..... and more - it destroyed Scotland as a lovely socieyt full of lovely people, it did exist, but now a minority
[bold]Thank you Britain[/bold]
Brad wrote:
TMC, I don't think you'll find many who think that Glasgow's post-War reconstruction was very helpful. Being kind to the politicians and planners of the time, it was a different world then.
Well their world was all about the future generations of the city - they knew fine well industrialisation was out the window only to be replaced with booze then smack - who's kidding who?
Go to Scottish Screen and pick up some archive film from Parkhead, Easterhouse, Castlemilk and Possil from around 1978 - if that' doesn't give you an idea of what children would be born into, then I can only imagine that you ain't listening.
The festival of Britain in 1951 was the spearhead for radical social change - that happened..... and more - it destroyed Scotland as a lovely socieyt full of lovely people, it did exist, but now a minority
Thank you Britain Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:30pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
aunt sally, I think TMC was referring to you.[/quote] With regards to what Brad?
Brad wrote:
aunt sally, I think TMC was referring to you.
With regards to what Brad?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:33pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Not sure about "Scotland as a lovely sociey full of lovely people"... where do 'No Mean City', razor gangs, the Orange Order, rickets, etc. fit into that?
Not sure about "Scotland as a lovely sociey full of lovely people"... where do 'No Mean City', razor gangs, the Orange Order, rickets, etc. fit into that?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:34pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters!
Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:39pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters![/quote] Sush, outside NO Mean City (where only 4 murders took place in the space of 10 years) and Auld Reekie with its smelly old slums, Scotland was a **** lovely country, read some books and trawl the Scottish Screen archive.
Could you imagine 4 murders in the space of 10 years now? So what would you call Glasgow now and what caused it to change? Have you clicked yet?
Rickets was lack of vitamin D - poor sunlight and lack of necessary nutrients as a child, hence free school milk back in the 50's until Thatcher the Milk Snatcher came along!
Have you clicked yet?
Brad wrote:
Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters!
Sush, outside NO Mean City (where only 4 murders took place in the space of 10 years) and Auld Reekie with its smelly old slums, Scotland was a **** lovely country, read some books and trawl the Scottish Screen archive.
Could you imagine 4 murders in the space of 10 years now? So what would you call Glasgow now and what caused it to change? Have you clicked yet?
Rickets was lack of vitamin D - poor sunlight and lack of necessary nutrients as a child, hence free school milk back in the 50's until Thatcher the Milk Snatcher came along!
Have you clicked yet?
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 5:46pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters![/quote] You love our chat Brad !! admit it!!
Missing city was not referring to me, so stop trying to start fights !!
Brad wrote:
Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters!
You love our chat Brad !! admit it!!
Missing city was not referring to me, so stop trying to start fights !!
Posted by: david on 5:48pm Tue 8 Jan 08
This comments section is like the best bits of the METRO minus that cheap ink.
[bold]http://peterfile.wor
dpress.com/[/bold]
This comments section is like the best bits of the METRO minus that cheap ink.
http://peterfile.wor
dpress.com/ Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:50pm Tue 8 Jan 08
You mentioned the Orange Order, now that could create a new thread entirely, however it is nothing to do with the deprivation of the city or this article, though most who support it support a union for which has no relevance to the country as it is now as there is no more empire and the place is awash with drunks, drugs and dare I say it, deprivation. You could say the drugs trade is the new empire.
The Orange Order is not the same thing as it was say 100 years ago when Britain ruled over a 1/3 of the planet and you had dark movements such as The Empire Loyalist Movement etc - that is all gone (Happy to sayso) we have enough terror threats coming our way as a result of Britain's activities in days gone by and more recently, with the actions of the good ol US of A
Anything else you wish to add? Keep within the thread please!
You mentioned the Orange Order, now that could create a new thread entirely, however it is nothing to do with the deprivation of the city or this article, though most who support it support a union for which has no relevance to the country as it is now as there is no more empire and the place is awash with drunks, drugs and dare I say it, deprivation. You could say the drugs trade is the new empire.
The Orange Order is not the same thing as it was say 100 years ago when Britain ruled over a 1/3 of the planet and you had dark movements such as The Empire Loyalist Movement etc - that is all gone (Happy to sayso) we have enough terror threats coming our way as a result of Britain's activities in days gone by and more recently, with the actions of the good ol US of A
Anything else you wish to add? Keep within the thread please!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:55pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote: Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters![/quote] You love our chat Brad !! admit it!! Missing city was not referring to me, so stop trying to start fights !! [/quote] That's what I was saying, I didn't know what he was on about, though I had a fair inclination he was trying to be cocky with you as well as using my name to launch a healthy course of provocation - a fatal mistake had it not been for the mask which is the Evening Times Website.
[italic]Typical[/italic]
aunt sally wrote:
Brad wrote: Dammit, I could have been home having my supper by now if it wasn't for you pesky posters!
You love our chat Brad !! admit it!! Missing city was not referring to me, so stop trying to start fights !!
That's what I was saying, I didn't know what he was on about, though I had a fair inclination he was trying to be cocky with you as well as using my name to launch a healthy course of provocation - a fatal mistake had it not been for the mask which is the Evening Times Website.
Typical Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:57pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Who with?
C'mon, TMC, yes there were fewer murders in the past(that's true in most countries I suspect, and definitely one thing that's gotten worse) but we did a couple of World Wars to keep the numbers of able young men down... (as well as greater infant mortality and shorter life expectancy)).
BUT - in this "lovely country", NET out-migration from Scotland in the 1950s was in the TENS of thousands per year! Maybe it looked nicer (apart from the grossly-overcrowded slum bits where hundreds of thousands lived) but Scots were voting with their feet.
Both Glasgow and Scotland now have modestly rising populations - I'd say that's an improvement.
Yesterday, someone was saying that what he wanted was a city with free public transport and no beggars... like your vision past, that place doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did.
****, I'm hungry.
Who with?
C'mon, TMC, yes there were fewer murders in the past(that's true in most countries I suspect, and definitely one thing that's gotten worse) but we did a couple of World Wars to keep the numbers of able young men down... (as well as greater infant mortality and shorter life expectancy)).
BUT - in this "lovely country", NET out-migration from Scotland in the 1950s was in the TENS of thousands per year! Maybe it looked nicer (apart from the grossly-overcrowded slum bits where hundreds of thousands lived) but Scots were voting with their feet.
Both Glasgow and Scotland now have modestly rising populations - I'd say that's an improvement.
Yesterday, someone was saying that what he wanted was a city with free public transport and no beggars... like your vision past, that place doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did.
****, I'm hungry.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:59pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Happy not to discuss the Orange Order, goodnight.
Happy not to discuss the Orange Order, goodnight.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:03pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Who with? C'mon, TMC, yes there were fewer murders in the past(that's true in most countries I suspect, and definitely one thing that's gotten worse) but we did a couple of World Wars to keep the numbers of able young men down... (as well as greater infant mortality and shorter life expectancy)). BUT - in this "lovely country", NET out-migration from Scotland in the 1950s was in the TENS of thousands per year! Maybe it looked nicer (apart from the grossly-overcrowded slum bits where hundreds of thousands lived) but Scots were voting with their feet. Both Glasgow and Scotland now have modestly rising populations - I'd say that's an improvement. Yesterday, someone was saying that what he wanted was a city with free public transport and no beggars... like your vision past, that place doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did. ****, I'm hungry.[/quote] Yes and as I explained above, a radical social change brought about by the onset of radically changing the place forced people to move.
I'd love to see Glasgow's population hit the million mark again, I'd be very surprised to see it in my lifetime - that is where we should be as we were in 1951, not now with just over a half a million people with the place in chaos and all sorts of disorder.
This place defies logic, Glasgow people are not entirely at fault for these errors, which a lot of ignorant people seem to think!
Brad wrote:
Who with? C'mon, TMC, yes there were fewer murders in the past(that's true in most countries I suspect, and definitely one thing that's gotten worse) but we did a couple of World Wars to keep the numbers of able young men down... (as well as greater infant mortality and shorter life expectancy)). BUT - in this "lovely country", NET out-migration from Scotland in the 1950s was in the TENS of thousands per year! Maybe it looked nicer (apart from the grossly-overcrowded slum bits where hundreds of thousands lived) but Scots were voting with their feet. Both Glasgow and Scotland now have modestly rising populations - I'd say that's an improvement. Yesterday, someone was saying that what he wanted was a city with free public transport and no beggars... like your vision past, that place doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did. ****, I'm hungry.
Yes and as I explained above, a radical social change brought about by the onset of radically changing the place forced people to move.
I'd love to see Glasgow's population hit the million mark again, I'd be very surprised to see it in my lifetime - that is where we should be as we were in 1951, not now with just over a half a million people with the place in chaos and all sorts of disorder.
This place defies logic, Glasgow people are not entirely at fault for these errors, which a lot of ignorant people seem to think!
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 6:04pm Tue 8 Jan 08
I dont know how anyone can be bothered have a lengthy discussion at this time of night...
TMC i think he is trying to start something
I dont know how anyone can be bothered have a lengthy discussion at this time of night...
TMC i think he is trying to start something
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:06pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Happy not to discuss the Orange Order, goodnight.[/quote] Same here, but you brought it up - so as Ronnie Barker used to say, its Goodnight from me!
Brad wrote:
Happy not to discuss the Orange Order, goodnight.
Same here, but you brought it up - so as Ronnie Barker used to say, its Goodnight from me!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:13pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote:
I dont know how anyone can be bothered have a lengthy discussion at this time of night... TMC i think he is trying to start something[/quote] Well I think I've done my best to gag him, I'll give him a reply to anything that he posts in my direction - anything that is within my capabilities of answering for which I have done extremely well on this particular thread, and not a thing has been removed either.
Wonderful!!!
Of course I'll happily reply to anybody on here Sal, good or bad, history cannot be re-written and to explain it as best as I can to educate ignorant people, I'm all for it - I don't hide from the truth I don't like liars but I also like to try and correct those are ill informed so they too can understand the madness that goes on around them.
Fear no one, not even workers posing as politicians!
TMC sounds like abb for something not too nice - just call me G - aye that;s it G Star hahaha
aunt sally wrote:
I dont know how anyone can be bothered have a lengthy discussion at this time of night... TMC i think he is trying to start something
Well I think I've done my best to gag him, I'll give him a reply to anything that he posts in my direction - anything that is within my capabilities of answering for which I have done extremely well on this particular thread, and not a thing has been removed either.
Wonderful!!!
Of course I'll happily reply to anybody on here Sal, good or bad, history cannot be re-written and to explain it as best as I can to educate ignorant people, I'm all for it - I don't hide from the truth I don't like liars but I also like to try and correct those are ill informed so they too can understand the madness that goes on around them.
Fear no one, not even workers posing as politicians!
TMC sounds like abb for something not too nice - just call me G - aye that;s it G Star hahaha
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 6:21pm Tue 8 Jan 08
G-star !! my thats sounds errr
Well call me Vix not Sal !!
G-star !! my thats sounds errr
Well call me Vix not Sal !!
Posted by: Brad, Almost home on 6:28pm Tue 8 Jan 08
"which I have done extremely well"
Couldn't let THAT pass!
"which I have done extremely well"
Couldn't let THAT pass!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:29pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]aunt sally[/bold] wrote:
G-star !! my thats sounds errr Well call me Vix not Sal !![/quote] Well call me Gordon then!
G Star is a clothing label which I first saw in Holland 7 years ago and its not something that hangs about Bennets with Erasure blastin oot the speakers waiting on camcorder fun as you may have been thinking hahaha!
TMC is just a project nanme!!
aunt sally wrote:
G-star !! my thats sounds errr Well call me Vix not Sal !!
Well call me Gordon then!
G Star is a clothing label which I first saw in Holland 7 years ago and its not something that hangs about Bennets with Erasure blastin oot the speakers waiting on camcorder fun as you may have been thinking hahaha!
TMC is just a project nanme!!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:32pm Tue 8 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
"which I have done extremely well" Couldn't let THAT pass![/quote] Has it been hit by a blockage of some kind Brad?
Brad wrote:
"which I have done extremely well" Couldn't let THAT pass!
Has it been hit by a blockage of some kind Brad?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 6:36pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Your 6.13 post is a cracker... I'm just pleased to see you admit to such a high opinion of yourself, TMC.
Your 6.13 post is a cracker... I'm just pleased to see you admit to such a high opinion of yourself, TMC.
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 6:39pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Brad i thought you were having Supper !
Brad i thought you were having Supper !
Posted by: thespaceman, glasgow on 7:30pm Tue 8 Jan 08
I could not agree more with Sydney.
Gradually, more and more Glasgow land is being sold off to private companies. Business seems to have the Glasgow Council in their pockets. I am no Law expert, but is the selling off of "public land" legal; is it theirs to sell? Surely, this land could have been used to make life better for the people in the area rather than just a few.
I could not agree more with Sydney.
Gradually, more and more Glasgow land is being sold off to private companies. Business seems to have the Glasgow Council in their pockets. I am no Law expert, but is the selling off of "public land" legal; is it theirs to sell? Surely, this land could have been used to make life better for the people in the area rather than just a few.
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 8:59am Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]thespaceman[/bold] wrote:
I could not agree more with Sydney. Gradually, more and more Glasgow land is being sold off to private companies. Business seems to have the Glasgow Council in their pockets. I am no Law expert, but is the selling off of "public land" legal; is it theirs to sell? Surely, this land could have been used to make life better for the people in the area rather than just a few. [/quote] If it is beneficial for the public they will sell it..
I was at a meeting last year for my local town.. it was about the regeneration of the town. Alot of the public land which is entrusted with the council is getting sold..
Guess who it is getting sold to! and at a cheap rate .. Tesco !!
In turn however they will pay alot of the new development costs
but yes back to the org point, they can sell the land if they think its beneficial..
This caused alot of anger at the meeting because it is public land! surely we should have a say !! but no !
thespaceman wrote:
I could not agree more with Sydney. Gradually, more and more Glasgow land is being sold off to private companies. Business seems to have the Glasgow Council in their pockets. I am no Law expert, but is the selling off of "public land" legal; is it theirs to sell? Surely, this land could have been used to make life better for the people in the area rather than just a few.
If it is beneficial for the public they will sell it..
I was at a meeting last year for my local town.. it was about the regeneration of the town. Alot of the public land which is entrusted with the council is getting sold..
Guess who it is getting sold to! and at a cheap rate .. Tesco !!
In turn however they will pay alot of the new development costs
but yes back to the org point, they can sell the land if they think its beneficial..
This caused alot of anger at the meeting because it is public land! surely we should have a say !! but no !
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 9:04am Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Your 6.13 post is a cracker... I'm just pleased to see you admit to such a high opinion of yourself, TMC.[/quote] Depends what it is your talking about
Brad wrote:
Your 6.13 post is a cracker... I'm just pleased to see you admit to such a high opinion of yourself, TMC.
Depends what it is your talking about
Posted by: workinhard, Glasgow on 9:16am Wed 9 Jan 08
Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!!
Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 9:47am Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]workinhard[/bold] wrote:
Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!! [/quote] I really don't know what this guy is on about Sir Workinhard, he tried to start a fight between me and Aunt Sally last night, but that's typical of internet heads who see web pages as a mask to hide them from others.
workinhard wrote:
Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!!
I really don't know what this guy is on about Sir Workinhard, he tried to start a fight between me and Aunt Sally last night, but that's typical of internet heads who see web pages as a mask to hide them from others.
Posted by: workinhard, Glasgow on 10:01am Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]workinhard[/bold] wrote: Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!! [/quote] I really don't know what this guy is on about Sir Workinhard, he tried to start a fight between me and Aunt Sally last night, but that's typical of internet heads who see web pages as a mask to hide them from others.[/quote] pesky kids with the maturity of a green banana!!
The Missing City wrote:
workinhard wrote: Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!!
I really don't know what this guy is on about Sir Workinhard, he tried to start a fight between me and Aunt Sally last night, but that's typical of internet heads who see web pages as a mask to hide them from others.
pesky kids with the maturity of a green banana!!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 10:20am Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]workinhard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]workinhard[/bold] wrote: Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!! [/quote] I really don't know what this guy is on about Sir Workinhard, he tried to start a fight between me and Aunt Sally last night, but that's typical of internet heads who see web pages as a mask to hide them from others.[/quote] pesky kids with the maturity of a green banana!![/quote] Green Bananas are nice cooked on toast, and as it happens, I had this guy on toast, but he seems to have disappeared for some strange reason, oh well..... today's news beckons!
workinhard wrote:
The Missing City wrote: workinhard wrote: Struth - see what happens when folks work late??!!!
I really don't know what this guy is on about Sir Workinhard, he tried to start a fight between me and Aunt Sally last night, but that's typical of internet heads who see web pages as a mask to hide them from others.
pesky kids with the maturity of a green banana!!
Green Bananas are nice cooked on toast, and as it happens, I had this guy on toast, but he seems to have disappeared for some strange reason, oh well..... today's news beckons!
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 10:23am Wed 9 Jan 08
bananas with brown suger roasted under the grill !! mmm
thats about as exciting as the ET will get today
bananas with brown suger roasted under the grill !! mmm
thats about as exciting as the ET will get today
Posted by: workinhard, Glasgow on 10:26am Wed 9 Jan 08
Missing City - you had a guy on toast??!!!!
You're not that German bloke are you, next you'll be telling us you pan fried his liver and........yuchhh too early in the morning for that!
Missing City - you had a guy on toast??!!!!
You're not that German bloke are you, next you'll be telling us you pan fried his liver and........yuchhh too early in the morning for that!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 11:53am Wed 9 Jan 08
"I had this guy on toast": in what sense?
(oh dear, here we go again...).
"I had this guy on toast": in what sense?
(oh dear, here we go again...).
Posted by: aunt sally, glasgow on 12:14pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Brad shut up!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 12:17pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Sorry, I can't help it. Partly I enjoy the ding-dong, and partly it's because I think he's talking mince.
Sorry, I can't help it. Partly I enjoy the ding-dong, and partly it's because I think he's talking mince.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 4:05pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Sorry, I can't help it. Partly I enjoy the ding-dong, and partly it's because I think he's talking mince.[/quote] Do you? That's interesting because me and thousamds of others must talk mince then, because you see sh1t through rosy coloured specs, you must be an MSP or worse - a councillor!
Failing that your just a numpty looking to start something, well go ahead numpty in the minority, hit me with your best shot - aim well, because I can be deadly if you don't strike me out on your first go!
You have been warned!
Brad wrote:
Sorry, I can't help it. Partly I enjoy the ding-dong, and partly it's because I think he's talking mince.
Do you? That's interesting because me and thousamds of others must talk mince then, because you see sh1t through rosy coloured specs, you must be an MSP or worse - a councillor!
Failing that your just a numpty looking to start something, well go ahead numpty in the minority, hit me with your best shot - aim well, because I can be deadly if you don't strike me out on your first go!
You have been warned!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 4:48pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Here's 4 lumps of mince from this thread...
1. "the fact of the matter is that land which was once public is being sold to the private sector for stuff that won't be used by the public or they certainly have no share in it."
"stuff that won't be used by the public"??? Houses???
2. "history cannot be re-written"
History is rewritten all the time. There is more than one view at any one time and these are regularly updated, revised, discredited, etc. Political, religious and scientific stuff is constantly being changed: the basic history of the Earth is disputed and under constant investigation.
3. "The festival of Britain in 1951 was the spearhead for radical social change"
It might depend on what you mean by "spearhead" but I'd suggest that WWII, the Beveridge report, Atlee's election, creation of the Welfare State, the planning system, nationalisation, and - for Glasgow - the Bruce Plan were all far more important.
4."which I have done extremely well"
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Clearly the saying "self praise is no honour" holds no sway with you.
You also appear to write off those who disagree with you as either "ignorant" or "liars" - which do you say I am? It does suggest, of course, there's no point in arguing with you - but that's my own failing.
And finally, you state that I'm "in the minority". Minority of what? Posters here? Well, big deal. Anything vaguely important, well where's your evidence? or don't you need it?
Couple of nice bits of homophobia too.
Here's 4 lumps of mince from this thread...
1. "the fact of the matter is that land which was once public is being sold to the private sector for stuff that won't be used by the public or they certainly have no share in it."
"stuff that won't be used by the public"??? Houses???
2. "history cannot be re-written"
History is rewritten all the time. There is more than one view at any one time and these are regularly updated, revised, discredited, etc. Political, religious and scientific stuff is constantly being changed: the basic history of the Earth is disputed and under constant investigation.
3. "The festival of Britain in 1951 was the spearhead for radical social change"
It might depend on what you mean by "spearhead" but I'd suggest that WWII, the Beveridge report, Atlee's election, creation of the Welfare State, the planning system, nationalisation, and - for Glasgow - the Bruce Plan were all far more important.
4."which I have done extremely well"
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Clearly the saying "self praise is no honour" holds no sway with you.
You also appear to write off those who disagree with you as either "ignorant" or "liars" - which do you say I am? It does suggest, of course, there's no point in arguing with you - but that's my own failing.
And finally, you state that I'm "in the minority". Minority of what? Posters here? Well, big deal. Anything vaguely important, well where's your evidence? or don't you need it?
Couple of nice bits of homophobia too.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 5:27pm Wed 9 Jan 08
[quote]"the fact of the matter is that land which was once public is being sold to the private sector for stuff that won't be used by the public or they certainly have no share in it."[/quote]
This plot of land is in private hands for private use
[quote]"history cannot be re-written"[/quote]
So you telling me that history is now fake and all made up?
[italic]"The festival of Britain in 1951 was the spearhead for radical social change"[/italic]
This event was to change the way people lived, modernism it was called, or are you going to say that's bullsh1t as well, oh well Kirsty Wark who worked on a project to do with post war britain and Sir Richard Rogers who created a lot of the structures which follwed on from the aspirations of this festival and the like must be arseholes too then according to you.
[quote]"which I have done extremely well"[/quote]
Yes a statement which I made as the site is normally full of ignorance and bl;atant postersd who use it as a security blanket to hide and abuse others, most on here seemed to disagree with your angle on things, most of the things you mention did not actually take place until after the Festival of Britain as the country was skint.
Who's kidding who?
"the fact of the matter is that land which was once public is being sold to the private sector for stuff that won't be used by the public or they certainly have no share in it."
This plot of land is in private hands for private use
"history cannot be re-written"
So you telling me that history is now fake and all made up?
"The festival of Britain in 1951 was the spearhead for radical social change"
This event was to change the way people lived, modernism it was called, or are you going to say that's bullsh1t as well, oh well Kirsty Wark who worked on a project to do with post war britain and Sir Richard Rogers who created a lot of the structures which follwed on from the aspirations of this festival and the like must be arseholes too then according to you.
"which I have done extremely well"
Yes a statement which I made as the site is normally full of ignorance and bl;atant postersd who use it as a security blanket to hide and abuse others, most on here seemed to disagree with your angle on things, most of the things you mention did not actually take place until after the Festival of Britain as the country was skint.
Who's kidding who?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 5:54pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Who are "the public"? The public is a collection of private citizens. The public will live in the houses on this site. Maybe you think we should live in communes?
Most history isn't fake but it is often subject to re-interpretation, revision and dispute. Evolution or creationism? They can't both be right. Why did the UK object to an 'official' European history? Because they don't think it would be one they would agree with - 'our' view of history is different from 'theirs' - even on the same topics.
Modernism much predates the FoB (which was but one small expression of some parts of it) by a long way. Le Corbusier and the Bauhaus were modernist before the FoB and before Rogers was born.
I would agree that "the site is normally full of ignorance": that's fine, it's my view too, and people are entitled to their views (although you appear to class anyone's who differs as "ignorant" or a "liar" - you still haven't said which I am). And on the basis that "the site is normally full of ignorance", it's OK that most people disagree with me, I'm quite pleased, in fact.
I'd repeat that "self praise is no honour". Feel free to differ, of course.
Who are "the public"? The public is a collection of private citizens. The public will live in the houses on this site. Maybe you think we should live in communes?
Most history isn't fake but it is often subject to re-interpretation, revision and dispute. Evolution or creationism? They can't both be right. Why did the UK object to an 'official' European history? Because they don't think it would be one they would agree with - 'our' view of history is different from 'theirs' - even on the same topics.
Modernism much predates the FoB (which was but one small expression of some parts of it) by a long way. Le Corbusier and the Bauhaus were modernist before the FoB and before Rogers was born.
I would agree that "the site is normally full of ignorance": that's fine, it's my view too, and people are entitled to their views (although you appear to class anyone's who differs as "ignorant" or a "liar" - you still haven't said which I am). And on the basis that "the site is normally full of ignorance", it's OK that most people disagree with me, I'm quite pleased, in fact.
I'd repeat that "self praise is no honour". Feel free to differ, of course.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 5:57pm Wed 9 Jan 08
Clearly the strength of feeling on this issue has shown from the number of comments so far.
All I will say is it is a sad day when our Historic, and Victorian Hospital Grounds are sold off to private developers.
And tells us all that we need to know about just how much the Government cares about our NHS.
- Not as much about the cost of maintaining the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - thats for sure!
Despite the victorian Hospital buildings being inadequate for the NHS in this day and age, the fact the grounds of the hospitals like Ruchill, the now closed Canniesburn, and also -Woodilee Hospital, Lenzie, along with patient care were so much better.
Glasgow Hospitals today are so cramped, with multiple buildings, and a severe lack of cleanliness - and infections caught within them. Sadly nurses morale is as low as it's ever been.
Also the swear word which New Labour dreamt up "Centralisation!" - which will ultimately kill any pride left within the NHS.
Clearly the strength of feeling on this issue has shown from the number of comments so far.
All I will say is it is a sad day when our Historic, and Victorian Hospital Grounds are sold off to private developers.
And tells us all that we need to know about just how much the Government cares about our NHS.
- Not as much about the cost of maintaining the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - thats for sure!
Despite the victorian Hospital buildings being inadequate for the NHS in this day and age, the fact the grounds of the hospitals like Ruchill, the now closed Canniesburn, and also -Woodilee Hospital, Lenzie, along with patient care were so much better.
Glasgow Hospitals today are so cramped, with multiple buildings, and a severe lack of cleanliness - and infections caught within them. Sadly nurses morale is as low as it's ever been.
Also the swear word which New Labour dreamt up "Centralisation!" - which will ultimately kill any pride left within the NHS.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:00pm Wed 9 Jan 08
What I don't like is pompous arrogant characters for which you are Brad.
Atlee wasn't in power very long, the failings of the bruce report is there for all to see
Homophobia? Do you suggest that my angle on society is an unfair one, or is that just nit picking on your behalf.
To see what you wrote on here in attack at other posters, you honestly give a true account of what you think of others - scum, no wonder the place is full of drunks and druggies.
What I don't like is pompous arrogant characters for which you are Brad.
Atlee wasn't in power very long, the failings of the bruce report is there for all to see
Homophobia? Do you suggest that my angle on society is an unfair one, or is that just nit picking on your behalf.
To see what you wrote on here in attack at other posters, you honestly give a true account of what you think of others - scum, no wonder the place is full of drunks and druggies.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 6:08pm Wed 9 Jan 08
If you want to take the European angle on issues here Brad, the Europeans were well beyond the scope of what was going on here in the 1930's for example when the like of Hitler and Le Corbusier were stamping their mark in Germany and France respectively.
I do not in any way attempt to fill people with the wrong information, nor do I tell lies to overthrow an argument, that's why I am proud of what I say.
If I'm ever wrong (which isn't very often) then I'm quite happy to be corrected, but on this thread, I don't see where I had done wrong - anyway this page is nothing major compared to mistakes and wrong doing that goes on everywhere, so although I don't discredit you for what you say (Funny how you couldn't say this stuff yesterday) but you have to look at the concerns of others and those views which are not neccesarily those of the writer.
If you want to take the European angle on issues here Brad, the Europeans were well beyond the scope of what was going on here in the 1930's for example when the like of Hitler and Le Corbusier were stamping their mark in Germany and France respectively.
I do not in any way attempt to fill people with the wrong information, nor do I tell lies to overthrow an argument, that's why I am proud of what I say.
If I'm ever wrong (which isn't very often) then I'm quite happy to be corrected, but on this thread, I don't see where I had done wrong - anyway this page is nothing major compared to mistakes and wrong doing that goes on everywhere, so although I don't discredit you for what you say (Funny how you couldn't say this stuff yesterday) but you have to look at the concerns of others and those views which are not neccesarily those of the writer.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 6:26pm Wed 9 Jan 08
TMC, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think other posters are scum. I don't: one of the reasons I most like this place is the people. I'm the one who points out that people are entitled to their opinions. You are the one who calls those who disagree with you "liars".
I may be pompous and arrogant (you also seem to be inferring (again) that I'm a liar - is that what you're saying?). However, I am not the one who claims to post "extremely well", or rarely to be wrong : indeed sir, I think you are (again) hoist on your own petard.
TMC, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think other posters are scum. I don't: one of the reasons I most like this place is the people. I'm the one who points out that people are entitled to their opinions. You are the one who calls those who disagree with you "liars".
I may be pompous and arrogant (you also seem to be inferring (again) that I'm a liar - is that what you're saying?). However, I am not the one who claims to post "extremely well", or rarely to be wrong : indeed sir, I think you are (again) hoist on your own petard.
Posted by: thespaceman, glasgow on 12:29am Thu 10 Jan 08
Some land estates were gifted to the City. This land, should always belong to the city and its citizens. Therefore, no single administration, no matter how long serving, should be able to sell this land. Yes, lets use the land for our citizens benefit during the administrations stewardship, but do not sell. We should have invested in this land; even if we could not afford to build educational, recreational facilities or truly social housing for example immediately, the land could have been leased out as offices etc. - as the "vibrant" Glasgow economy dictates (with reference to frequent communication from the ruling council). The profits gained from such ventures could then have been channelled into other services. The main point here is that selling the land was morally and financially wrong, as this offers very little return in the long term. If this land remains within our control, as circumstances change, how we use it can change. Once sold, though, it is gone [italic]forever[/italic] . If these points were not realised, I regret, that this land was sold for short term gain. Just like the citizen who sells his valuable best silver for a fraction of the cost. That citizen, more often than not, is in financial ruin and desperately needs some petty cash to flee from the situation, saving his own skin.
Some land estates were gifted to the City. This land, should always belong to the city and its citizens. Therefore, no single administration, no matter how long serving, should be able to sell this land. Yes, lets use the land for our citizens benefit during the administrations stewardship, but do not sell. We should have invested in this land; even if we could not afford to build educational, recreational facilities or truly social housing for example immediately, the land could have been leased out as offices etc. - as the "vibrant" Glasgow economy dictates (with reference to frequent communication from the ruling council). The profits gained from such ventures could then have been channelled into other services. The main point here is that selling the land was morally and financially wrong, as this offers very little return in the long term. If this land remains within our control, as circumstances change, how we use it can change. Once sold, though, it is gone
forever . If these points were not realised, I regret, that this land was sold for short term gain. Just like the citizen who sells his valuable best silver for a fraction of the cost. That citizen, more often than not, is in financial ruin and desperately needs some petty cash to flee from the situation, saving his own skin.
Posted by: thespaceman, glasgow on 12:29am Thu 10 Jan 08
Some land estates were gifted to the City. This land, should always belong to the city and its citizens. Therefore, no single administration, no matter how long serving, should be able to sell this land. Yes, lets use the land for our citizens benefit during the administrations stewardship, but do not sell. We should have invested in this land; even if we could not afford to build educational, recreational facilities or truly social housing for example immediately, the land could have been leased out as offices etc. - as the "vibrant" Glasgow economy dictates (with reference to frequent communication from the ruling council). The profits gained from such ventures could then have been channelled into other services. The main point here is that selling the land was morally and financially wrong, as this offers very little return in the long term. If this land remains within our control, as circumstances change, how we use it can change. Once sold, though, it is gone [italic]forever[/italic] . If these points were not realised, I regret, that this land was sold for short term gain. Just like the citizen who sells his valuable best silver for a fraction of the cost. That citizen, more often than not, is in financial ruin and desperately needs some petty cash to flee from the situation, saving his own skin.
Some land estates were gifted to the City. This land, should always belong to the city and its citizens. Therefore, no single administration, no matter how long serving, should be able to sell this land. Yes, lets use the land for our citizens benefit during the administrations stewardship, but do not sell. We should have invested in this land; even if we could not afford to build educational, recreational facilities or truly social housing for example immediately, the land could have been leased out as offices etc. - as the "vibrant" Glasgow economy dictates (with reference to frequent communication from the ruling council). The profits gained from such ventures could then have been channelled into other services. The main point here is that selling the land was morally and financially wrong, as this offers very little return in the long term. If this land remains within our control, as circumstances change, how we use it can change. Once sold, though, it is gone
forever . If these points were not realised, I regret, that this land was sold for short term gain. Just like the citizen who sells his valuable best silver for a fraction of the cost. That citizen, more often than not, is in financial ruin and desperately needs some petty cash to flee from the situation, saving his own skin.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 9:29am Thu 10 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
TMC, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think other posters are scum. I don't: one of the reasons I most like this place is the people. I'm the one who points out that people are entitled to their opinions. You are the one who calls those who disagree with you "liars". I may be pompous and arrogant (you also seem to be inferring (again) that I'm a liar - is that what you're saying?). However, I am not the one who claims to post "extremely well", or rarely to be wrong : indeed sir, I think you are (again) hoist on your own petard.[/quote] Now your being defensive, who says I was calling you a liar, your points was suggesting that I was some sort of liar and that required correction which isn't the case in my book
I'm sure others will give you exactly the same treatment if you want to have a go at tem as well - so I wish you luck and stop having a go at other people, education is a Labour failure!
Brad wrote:
TMC, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I think other posters are scum. I don't: one of the reasons I most like this place is the people. I'm the one who points out that people are entitled to their opinions. You are the one who calls those who disagree with you "liars". I may be pompous and arrogant (you also seem to be inferring (again) that I'm a liar - is that what you're saying?). However, I am not the one who claims to post "extremely well", or rarely to be wrong : indeed sir, I think you are (again) hoist on your own petard.
Now your being defensive, who says I was calling you a liar, your points was suggesting that I was some sort of liar and that required correction which isn't the case in my book
I'm sure others will give you exactly the same treatment if you want to have a go at tem as well - so I wish you luck and stop having a go at other people, education is a Labour failure!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 11:08am Thu 10 Jan 08
I don't for a moment think you are a liar, TMC, nor anyone else on these spaces. Even where I disagree with you, I am sure you post in good faith. And you may be correct, and I may be wrong.
I don't for a moment think you are a liar, TMC, nor anyone else on these spaces. Even where I disagree with you, I am sure you post in good faith. And you may be correct, and I may be wrong.
Comment | Read Comments (90)
