Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 10:53am Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote]There are a lot of professional objectors involved in this...[/quote]
This is a typical, contemptuous response from a Glasgow City Council representative and betrays the condescending, manipulative attitude which afflicts our council at every level.
Go to the following url, from the SPP website, to see an example of this attitude in action:
[bold]tinyurl.com/227os8[/bold]
There are a lot of professional objectors involved in this...
This is a typical, contemptuous response from a Glasgow City Council representative and betrays the condescending, manipulative attitude which afflicts our council at every level.
Go to the following url, from the SPP website, to see an example of this attitude in action:
tinyurl.com/227os8 Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 11:02am Fri 29 Feb 08
Professional objectors..?
Indeed, the same people who objected to proposed improvements in Queens Park, the M77, the Iraq war, in fact anything proposed by the council or government that doesn't fit their parocial narrow minded world view. Thank goodness these people are never elected to anything, and have no real power!
Professional objectors..?
Indeed, the same people who objected to proposed improvements in Queens Park, the M77, the Iraq war, in fact anything proposed by the council or government that doesn't fit their parocial narrow minded world view. Thank goodness these people are never elected to anything, and have no real power!
Posted by: jamesa0330, glasgow on 11:17am Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
Professional objectors..? Indeed, the same people who objected to proposed improvements in Queens Park, the M77, the Iraq war, in fact anything proposed by the council or government that doesn't fit their parocial narrow minded world view. Thank goodness these people are never elected to anything, and have no real power![/quote] Jim, your posting seems unclear ... who are you describing as having a "parochial narrow minded world view"?
Thanks for clarifying.
James
Jim Brown wrote:
Professional objectors..? Indeed, the same people who objected to proposed improvements in Queens Park, the M77, the Iraq war, in fact anything proposed by the council or government that doesn't fit their parocial narrow minded world view. Thank goodness these people are never elected to anything, and have no real power!
Jim, your posting seems unclear ... who are you describing as having a "parochial narrow minded world view"?
Thanks for clarifying.
James
Posted by: parklover, Glasgow on 11:23am Fri 29 Feb 08
140 in favour is 'significant', but 800 against are 'professional objectors'. What sort of crazy double-think is this?
140 in favour is 'significant', but 800 against are 'professional objectors'. What sort of crazy double-think is this?
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:43am Fri 29 Feb 08
Somebody on here a few weeks ago stated that the previous landowners (The Maxwell's) and their protests against this development were pathetic, and as the writer put it "Who cares what the Maxwell's think?" Maybe that writer saw these people as a nuisance, maybe the writer was suggesting that this family are a bunch of diddy's, that on top of the ordinary people who are against this - it seems that Glasgow City Council are not interested in what anybody has to say and that nobody's points matter.
If this is the way things are to be run in this city, how long will it be before we see violent protests like it was back in Pollok Park befiore the M77 extension was built?
Somebody on here a few weeks ago stated that the previous landowners (The Maxwell's) and their protests against this development were pathetic, and as the writer put it "Who cares what the Maxwell's think?" Maybe that writer saw these people as a nuisance, maybe the writer was suggesting that this family are a bunch of diddy's, that on top of the ordinary people who are against this - it seems that Glasgow City Council are not interested in what anybody has to say and that nobody's points matter.
If this is the way things are to be run in this city, how long will it be before we see violent protests like it was back in Pollok Park befiore the M77 extension was built?
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 11:51am Fri 29 Feb 08
It seems the "tone" of this article is somewhat concerning. 880 objections are "professional" objectors what does that mean, and 140 in favour is significant.
Having spent many hours in the planning department and having read many of the submissions I would make a few observations.
The vast majority of objectors described them selves as regular park users, the vast majority of objectors lived with in a few miles of the park. Those in support generally used the phrase "... having used Go Ape", also note worthy that many of these supporters were emails and many of them came from parts of the UK you would not expect folk to be taking an interest in a Glasgow planning matter, places such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh and many other places far from Glasgow. This left me with the distinct impression that these had been encouraged by either Go Ape or an Agency acting on their behalf.
It is to be hoped that the Planning Committee will either reject this application for failing to answer basic planning issues such as "toileting facilities" and "car Parking", this is without having to examine details of failure to provide detailed surveys of plant cover or noise intrusion.
Failing this a hearing would be an interesting experience where at least opinions could be properly expressed.
It seems the "tone" of this article is somewhat concerning. 880 objections are "professional" objectors what does that mean, and 140 in favour is significant.
Having spent many hours in the planning department and having read many of the submissions I would make a few observations.
The vast majority of objectors described them selves as regular park users, the vast majority of objectors lived with in a few miles of the park. Those in support generally used the phrase "... having used Go Ape", also note worthy that many of these supporters were emails and many of them came from parts of the UK you would not expect folk to be taking an interest in a Glasgow planning matter, places such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh and many other places far from Glasgow. This left me with the distinct impression that these had been encouraged by either Go Ape or an Agency acting on their behalf.
It is to be hoped that the Planning Committee will either reject this application for failing to answer basic planning issues such as "toileting facilities" and "car Parking", this is without having to examine details of failure to provide detailed surveys of plant cover or noise intrusion.
Failing this a hearing would be an interesting experience where at least opinions could be properly expressed.
Posted by: Bob Downie, Glasgow on 11:52am Fri 29 Feb 08
The 140 in favour can partly be explained by the fact that Go Ape emailed all the users of other Go Ape sites and asked them to write in favour of the application. In other words, many the 140 people were prompted to respond.
The 140 in favour can partly be explained by the fact that Go Ape emailed all the users of other Go Ape sites and asked them to write in favour of the application. In other words, many the 140 people were prompted to respond.
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 12:16pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments.
So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments.
So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 12:25pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments.
So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.[/quote] Jim
the point is as previously stated, local folk are objecting to this, regular park users are objecting. The consultation process has been shown to be seriously flawed.
It is extraordinary for any planning application to merit the attention of any one outwith the Greater Glasgow area. SO how come so many of the "supporting" submissions come from other parts of the UK? I know this as a [bold]Fact[/bold] as I have actually been in to the planning department and read many of them, perhaps you should do the same, before you berate folk for exercising their right to make representation.
Jim Brown wrote:
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments.
So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
Jim
the point is as previously stated, local folk are objecting to this, regular park users are objecting. The consultation process has been shown to be seriously flawed.
It is extraordinary for any planning application to merit the attention of any one outwith the Greater Glasgow area. SO how come so many of the "supporting" submissions come from other parts of the UK? I know this as a
Fact as I have actually been in to the planning department and read many of them, perhaps you should do the same, before you berate folk for exercising their right to make representation.
Posted by: Lol, Glasgow on 12:41pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments. So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.[/quote] Since when is protesting about an issue "anti-democratic"?
Bob Downie didn't use the word "conspiracy". Surely, it is a question of fact whether Go Ape emailed its registered users to highlight this issue & request support. Of course, Go APe is perfectly entitled to do this to engender some support in the same way that protestors can set up a website in the support of their cause. It is reasonable to question whether the supporters would have bothered to register their support without a prompting email and whether their support is relevant. Indeed, it is reasonable to examine the motivations of objectors & supporters. If the former are mainly local people who use the park regularly as compared with mostly non-locals who visit the area infrequently, then Bob's points are perfectly valid.
How do you know that he didn't participate in the consultation?
And there is a huge difference between people feeling strongly enough about an issue to get off their backsides & participate in a protest or to sit down and draft a planning objection than the minimal effort required to fire off an email such as this.
I haven't so far participated in protests against this proposal even though I object(I must confess due to apathy). However, your contribution to this debate (& others like you) has strengthened my resolve to stand up and be counted. If it's not too late, I'll get my objection in. If it is, I'll be attending that public meeting when it happens. So thanks for that, Jim.
Jim Brown wrote:
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments. So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
Since when is protesting about an issue "anti-democratic"?
Bob Downie didn't use the word "conspiracy". Surely, it is a question of fact whether Go Ape emailed its registered users to highlight this issue & request support. Of course, Go APe is perfectly entitled to do this to engender some support in the same way that protestors can set up a website in the support of their cause. It is reasonable to question whether the supporters would have bothered to register their support without a prompting email and whether their support is relevant. Indeed, it is reasonable to examine the motivations of objectors & supporters. If the former are mainly local people who use the park regularly as compared with mostly non-locals who visit the area infrequently, then Bob's points are perfectly valid.
How do you know that he didn't participate in the consultation?
And there is a huge difference between people feeling strongly enough about an issue to get off their backsides & participate in a protest or to sit down and draft a planning objection than the minimal effort required to fire off an email such as this.
I haven't so far participated in protests against this proposal even though I object(I must confess due to apathy). However, your contribution to this debate (& others like you) has strengthened my resolve to stand up and be counted. If it's not too late, I'll get my objection in. If it is, I'll be attending that public meeting when it happens. So thanks for that, Jim.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 12:48pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote]a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.[/quote]
What complete rubbish you write Jim.
a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
What complete rubbish you write Jim.
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 12:52pm Fri 29 Feb 08
LOL,
You are very clever, and I feel like an idiot, now that I have inspired you to object.
How foolish of me!
LOL!
LOL,
You are very clever, and I feel like an idiot, now that I have inspired you to object.
How foolish of me!
LOL!
Posted by: Lol, Glasgow on 12:53pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments. So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.[/quote] Since when is protesting about an issue "anti-democratic"?
Bob Downie didn't use the word "conspiracy". Surely, it is a question of fact whether Go Ape emailed its registered users to highlight this issue & request support. Of course, Go APe is perfectly entitled to do this to engender some support in the same way that protestors can set up a website in the support of their cause. It is reasonable to question whether the supporters would have bothered to register their support without a prompting email and whether their support is relevant. Indeed, it is reasonable to examine the motivations of objectors & supporters. If the former are mainly local people who use the park regularly as compared with mostly non-locals who visit the area infrequently, then Bob's points are perfectly valid.
How do you know that he didn't participate in the consultation?
And there is a huge difference between people feeling strongly enough about an issue to get off their backsides & participate in a protest or to sit down and draft a planning objection than the minimal effort required to fire off an email such as this.
I haven't so far participated in protests against this proposal even though I object(I must confess due to apathy). However, your contribution to this debate (& others like you) has strengthened my resolve to stand up and be counted. If it's not too late, I'll get my objection in. If it is, I'll be attending that public meeting when it happens. So thanks for that, Jim.
Jim Brown wrote:
Once again the arrogance and anti democratic counterproductivity of the objecters rears its head with Bob Downie's comments. So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy! Ridiculous. What about you and the other professional protest leaders "prompting people to object"? Let us not forget that this proposal was first mentioned in the Evening Times over a year ago! Why then did you not take part in the consultation at the time? Your campaign has little credibility left, and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
Since when is protesting about an issue "anti-democratic"?
Bob Downie didn't use the word "conspiracy". Surely, it is a question of fact whether Go Ape emailed its registered users to highlight this issue & request support. Of course, Go APe is perfectly entitled to do this to engender some support in the same way that protestors can set up a website in the support of their cause. It is reasonable to question whether the supporters would have bothered to register their support without a prompting email and whether their support is relevant. Indeed, it is reasonable to examine the motivations of objectors & supporters. If the former are mainly local people who use the park regularly as compared with mostly non-locals who visit the area infrequently, then Bob's points are perfectly valid.
How do you know that he didn't participate in the consultation?
And there is a huge difference between people feeling strongly enough about an issue to get off their backsides & participate in a protest or to sit down and draft a planning objection than the minimal effort required to fire off an email such as this.
I haven't so far participated in protests against this proposal even though I object(I must confess due to apathy). However, your contribution to this debate (& others like you) has strengthened my resolve to stand up and be counted. If it's not too late, I'll get my objection in. If it is, I'll be attending that public meeting when it happens. So thanks for that, Jim.
Posted by: Lol, Glasgow on 12:57pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
LOL, You are very clever, and I feel like an idiot, now that I have inspired you to object. How foolish of me! LOL![/quote] I'm devastated by your sarcasm but think I'll leave others to peruse your various contributions & make up their own minds.
Jim Brown wrote:
LOL, You are very clever, and I feel like an idiot, now that I have inspired you to object. How foolish of me! LOL!
I'm devastated by your sarcasm but think I'll leave others to peruse your various contributions & make up their own minds.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 12:57pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
LOL,
You are very clever, and I feel like an idiot, now that I have inspired you to object.
How foolish of me!
LOL![/quote] Isn't democracy a wonderful thing, where debate and exchange of opinion can inspire folk to become involved.
Jim Brown wrote:
LOL,
You are very clever, and I feel like an idiot, now that I have inspired you to object.
How foolish of me!
LOL!
Isn't democracy a wonderful thing, where debate and exchange of opinion can inspire folk to become involved.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 1:06pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Dear, dear Jim Brown, if you insist on trolling this discussion kindly arm yourself with some facts, rather than your own misguided prejudices and shoddy guesstimates.
Go Ape was first mentioned in the ET over two years ago - [italic]not one[/italic] - on January 20th 2006, to be exact. The article began: "Daredevils with a head for heights could soon be swinging through the treetops in [bold]three[/bold] Glasgow parks...."
Now tellingly in the same article 'Parks boss' Mr Boyle said:
[quote]Once we get a company in, we will get them to [bold]produce a presentation and they will then go out and talk to local groups to explain the project[/bold][/quote]
Did Go Ape do this as part of Glasgow City Council's 'full consultation'? No, [bold]they did not[/bold], so not only did GCC not conduct a 'full consultation', they did not even bother to do the things which they promised to do at the start!
Now, Jim, if I'm happy that you can produce even a modicum facts instead of rants in your future posts, I may reply to you, but if not, [italic]consider yourself ignored[/italic] and I advise others here to do the same, then we can all just sit back and laugh at him as he wastes his time. ;-)
Dear, dear Jim Brown, if you insist on trolling this discussion kindly arm yourself with some facts, rather than your own misguided prejudices and shoddy guesstimates.
Go Ape was first mentioned in the ET over two years ago -
not one - on January 20th 2006, to be exact. The article began: "Daredevils with a head for heights could soon be swinging through the treetops in
three Glasgow parks...."
Now tellingly in the same article 'Parks boss' Mr Boyle said:
Once we get a company in, we will get them to produce a presentation and they will then go out and talk to local groups to explain the project
Did Go Ape do this as part of Glasgow City Council's 'full consultation'? No,
they did not, so not only did GCC not conduct a 'full consultation', they did not even bother to do the things which they promised to do at the start!
Now, Jim, if I'm happy that you can produce even a modicum facts instead of rants in your future posts, I may reply to you, but if not,
consider yourself ignored and I advise others here to do the same, then we can all just sit back and laugh at him as he wastes his time. ;-)
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 1:14pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Sydney
You have proved my point by calling me troll.
Is Bid Eck working you from the back?
Sydney
You have proved my point by calling me troll.
Is Bid Eck working you from the back?
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 1:30pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote]It is extraordinary for any planning application to merit the attention of any one outwith the Greater Glasgow area. SO how come so many of the "supporting" submissions come from other parts of the UK? I know this as a Fact as I have actually been in to the planning department and read many of them, perhaps you should do the same, before you berate folk for exercising their right to make representation.[/quote]
I agree Gavin - I have also seen the many emails of support, many of which do not even supply an address. Plus the fact that they "enjoyed" their Go Ape experience (the usual reason given for support) is hardly a planning concern???
It is extraordinary for any planning application to merit the attention of any one outwith the Greater Glasgow area. SO how come so many of the "supporting" submissions come from other parts of the UK? I know this as a Fact as I have actually been in to the planning department and read many of them, perhaps you should do the same, before you berate folk for exercising their right to make representation.
I agree Gavin - I have also seen the many emails of support, many of which do not even supply an address. Plus the fact that they "enjoyed" their Go Ape experience (the usual reason given for support) is hardly a planning concern???
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:35pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
Sydney
You have proved my point by calling me troll.
Is Bid Eck working you from the back?[/quote] It does appear as if all the facts, and all the informed opinion are not coming from you.
If you have any opinion that you wish to share without trying to bring the discussion down to personal attacks then please share them with us. If you don't then stop ranting.
I was at the public meeting in January where over 500 people were in the Pollokshaws Burgh halls with many turned away because there was no room. I was impressed by the broad range of folks there from the oldest to the youngest, from ordinary folk to those who were better off. So to try to describe the reaction of folk to this proposal as anything other than a genuine respond from concerned people is just nonsensical.
The so called consultation process was seriously flawed.
The ability of people opposed to be able to organise is to be admired not ridiculed.
Jim Brown wrote:
Sydney
You have proved my point by calling me troll.
Is Bid Eck working you from the back?
It does appear as if all the facts, and all the informed opinion are not coming from you.
If you have any opinion that you wish to share without trying to bring the discussion down to personal attacks then please share them with us. If you don't then stop ranting.
I was at the public meeting in January where over 500 people were in the Pollokshaws Burgh halls with many turned away because there was no room. I was impressed by the broad range of folks there from the oldest to the youngest, from ordinary folk to those who were better off. So to try to describe the reaction of folk to this proposal as anything other than a genuine respond from concerned people is just nonsensical.
The so called consultation process was seriously flawed.
The ability of people opposed to be able to organise is to be admired not ridiculed.
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 1:45pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Gavin
I too was at the public meeting. Seemed to me to be mainly the middle classes in attendence.
Gavin
I too was at the public meeting. Seemed to me to be mainly the middle classes in attendence.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:56pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Jim Brown[/bold] wrote:
Gavin
I too was at the public meeting. Seemed to me to be mainly the middle classes in attendence.[/quote] I suppose you would need to define what you see as Middle Class, I certainly am not, nor were most of the folk standing anywhere near me.
Anyway rather than a discussion on class (what ever that is) lets stay on topic.
The issue is about this high wire adventure playground which would cost £25 a go, surely this would put it out of the reach of many ordinary Glaswegians. The park which is voted the best in Europe is free to all as it is.
Jim Brown wrote:
Gavin
I too was at the public meeting. Seemed to me to be mainly the middle classes in attendence.
I suppose you would need to define what you see as Middle Class, I certainly am not, nor were most of the folk standing anywhere near me.
Anyway rather than a discussion on class (what ever that is) lets stay on topic.
The issue is about this high wire adventure playground which would cost £25 a go, surely this would put it out of the reach of many ordinary Glaswegians. The park which is voted the best in Europe is free to all as it is.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 2:16pm Fri 29 Feb 08
"We're all middle class now"
"We're all middle class now"
Posted by: AndrewM, Shawlands, Glasgow on 2:31pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote]Attraction bosses have agreed to provide 450 places to city children free of charge each year.[/quote]
Attraction bosses don't mention that the 450 free places are only for 30 minutes as opposed to the 180 minutes for those who pay.
Attraction bosses have agreed to provide 450 places to city children free of charge each year.
Attraction bosses don't mention that the 450 free places are only for 30 minutes as opposed to the 180 minutes for those who pay.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 2:51pm Fri 29 Feb 08
One thing which might explain Go Ape's apparent desparation at getting into Pollok Park, is the fact that they are on the rebound:
[bold]Go Ape plan scuppered[/bold]
[italic]Brentwood Gazette, Wednesday March 1st 2006[/italic]
The article begins:
[quote]Go Ape protestors were cheering this week after county councillors dramatically threw out proposals to establish a high ropes course in Thorndon Country Park.
The shock result was greeted by applause as the 100 objectors who had travelled over to the crucial meeting at County Hall celebrated.
The Go Ape plans had been recommended for approval by planning officers, but councillors on the planning and development control committee came down against the scheme after hearing the county council had received more than [bold]250 letters of objection[/bold]... [/quote]
One thing which might explain Go Ape's apparent desparation at getting into Pollok Park, is the fact that they are on the rebound:
Go Ape plan scuppered
Brentwood Gazette, Wednesday March 1st 2006
The article begins:
Go Ape protestors were cheering this week after county councillors dramatically threw out proposals to establish a high ropes course in Thorndon Country Park.
The shock result was greeted by applause as the 100 objectors who had travelled over to the crucial meeting at County Hall celebrated.
The Go Ape plans had been recommended for approval by planning officers, but councillors on the planning and development control committee came down against the scheme after hearing the county council had received more than 250 letters of objection...
Posted by: sheopined, Glasgow on 2:52pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Honestly, is anyone surprised at anything GCC do? Their malpractise has been going on since the year dot. They couldn't care less about what the citizens of Glasgow need and want - too busy passing around the brown envelopes now, before they're voted out!
Honestly, is anyone surprised at anything GCC do? Their malpractise has been going on since the year dot. They couldn't care less about what the citizens of Glasgow need and want - too busy passing around the brown envelopes now, before they're voted out!
Posted by: Scott, Glasgow on 2:59pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote]So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy![/quote]
And...
[quote]and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.[/quote]
Jim, did someone forget to put on their tinfoil hat this morning?
Where is your proof for those in attendance at the January 22nd meeting being 'middle class'. I can say for sure, and prove, that there were more than a few folk from an area currently classified as requiring economic regeneration.
Can you provide any facts at all for any of your arguments?
Someone needs a huge! Maybe from a straitjacket!
-Scott
So because those who wrote in favour don't agree with you, they must be part of some sort of Go-Ape inspired conspiriacy!
And...
and it is clearly a petty SNP led campaign in disguise.
Jim, did someone forget to put on their tinfoil hat this morning?
Where is your proof for those in attendance at the January 22nd meeting being 'middle class'. I can say for sure, and prove, that there were more than a few folk from an area currently classified as requiring economic regeneration.
Can you provide any facts at all for any of your arguments?
Someone needs a huge! Maybe from a straitjacket!
-Scott
Posted by: sheopined, Glasgow on 3:02pm Fri 29 Feb 08
I see there's no place for comments on the taxi licence refusal article...was just wondering what the people who voted for Ruth Black though when she jumped ship to Labour. What loyalty to those who supported her! What political conviction! Ach! They're all tarred with the same brush.
I see there's no place for comments on the taxi licence refusal article...was just wondering what the people who voted for Ruth Black though when she jumped ship to Labour. What loyalty to those who supported her! What political conviction! Ach! They're all tarred with the same brush.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 4:07pm Fri 29 Feb 08
All a bit reactive... Personally I wouldnae trust anyone who drags a child along to a protest to hold a placard
All a bit reactive... Personally I wouldnae trust anyone who drags a child along to a protest to hold a placard
Posted by: emma, Glasgow on 4:42pm Fri 29 Feb 08
I am definately not middle class and live in the socially and financially deprived area of pollokshaws. Having something that costs £25 to use (and where do i get that money from??), mucks up what is good about the park (country park its got the countryside for enjoyment!), and is not at all aimed at the vast majority of people in the local area never mind glasgow. I want to walk in peace in the greenery not be zipped past. Why are we ruining this park? The M77 disgrace was the thin end of the wedge i fear.
I am definately not middle class and live in the socially and financially deprived area of pollokshaws. Having something that costs £25 to use (and where do i get that money from??), mucks up what is good about the park (country park its got the countryside for enjoyment!), and is not at all aimed at the vast majority of people in the local area never mind glasgow. I want to walk in peace in the greenery not be zipped past. Why are we ruining this park? The M77 disgrace was the thin end of the wedge i fear.
Posted by: Buffalo Bill, Maryhill on 5:04pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[quote]It is understood the vast majority of the objections are based on fears Go Ape will disturb the peace and tranquillity of the South Side park.[/quote]
More like the protesters were disturbing the peace and tranquility.
It is understood the vast majority of the objections are based on fears Go Ape will disturb the peace and tranquillity of the South Side park.
More like the protesters were disturbing the peace and tranquility.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 6:12pm Fri 29 Feb 08
There are currently at least 5000 acres of quiet parks in glasgow where is the equivalent of noisy fun places for kids to play in a safe environment. There isnt even 1 acre of noisy fun places to play outdoors in glasgow. There isnt even any football parks left the council sold them to building contractors for bribes and brown envelopes.
There are currently at least 5000 acres of quiet parks in glasgow where is the equivalent of noisy fun places for kids to play in a safe environment. There isnt even 1 acre of noisy fun places to play outdoors in glasgow. There isnt even any football parks left the council sold them to building contractors for bribes and brown envelopes.
Posted by: Frank, Glasgow on 6:59pm Fri 29 Feb 08
The Labour Council gave these people an opportunity to take part in the consultation process and they failed to take the chance. It is hardly the fault of the Council that they are to thick or lazy to participate. Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.
The Labour Council gave these people an opportunity to take part in the consultation process and they failed to take the chance. It is hardly the fault of the Council that they are to thick or lazy to participate. Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 7:20pm Fri 29 Feb 08
[italic]For goodness sake Frankie Boy, how the devil are you, we've been having a right natter in here today and I for one have missed your comments... better late than never, though, and once again I thank you for your wise words and rapier-like insight.[/italic]
Just one very small point though regarding:
[quote]Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.[/quote]
Aren't councillors supposed to represent all people in their wards, not just those who support their political party?
For goodness sake Frankie Boy, how the devil are you, we've been having a right natter in here today and I for one have missed your comments... better late than never, though, and once again I thank you for your wise words and rapier-like insight.
Just one very small point though regarding:
Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.
Aren't councillors supposed to represent all people in their wards, not just those who support their political party?
Posted by: ng, glasgow on 7:53pm Fri 29 Feb 08
copy of an email recieved today
I would like to inform you that the planning application to erect a Go Ape adventure facility in Pollok Country Park will be heard at this Tuesday’s Planning Applications Committee (March 4 at 11.00am). The recommendation is to GRANT.
I believe that two of the local ward members, Cllr Steven Curran and Cllr Colin Deans, have written to the Chair of the Committee to request a hearing be granted into the application. A hearing would allow objectors the opportunity to address the Committee at a specially convened meeting. I would support a hearing.
I will keep you posted with developments.
Regards,
Councillor David Meikle
copy of an email recieved today
I would like to inform you that the planning application to erect a Go Ape adventure facility in Pollok Country Park will be heard at this Tuesday’s Planning Applications Committee (March 4 at 11.00am). The recommendation is to GRANT.
I believe that two of the local ward members, Cllr Steven Curran and Cllr Colin Deans, have written to the Chair of the Committee to request a hearing be granted into the application. A hearing would allow objectors the opportunity to address the Committee at a specially convened meeting. I would support a hearing.
I will keep you posted with developments.
Regards,
Councillor David Meikle
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 9:16pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Sydney Meriwether,
Thanks for that amusing and very insightful link - far more informative than the guff of this article. Where are the Opposition Party quotes ? Councillors from every party should have a right to be quoted - not just the New Labour mob!
Also this statement read out by an official:
[quote]A council insider said: "There are a lot of professional objectors involved in this but given the number of representations, it may well be the council would consider a hearing.
"About 140 people have written in favour of the Go Ape plan which is significant because it is not common for a large number of people to write in to support a planning application."[/quote]
What a patronising insult is this to the people of Glasgow to suggest that the objectors were "proffessional" - as parklover stated:
[quote]140 in favour is 'significant', but 800 against are 'professional objectors'. What sort of crazy double-think is this?[/quote]
Point being that it seems that the Council think people are to apathetic, or ill - informed, uneducated or unable to come up with eligable, and considered planning objections.
Well let me tell G.C.C. this - people are becoming far more in tune with Glasgow planning departments devious ways, how to object, what to object on, and how to ensure your stance - opinion is accepted, and understood.
Something Ruth Simpson failed miserably at, as people clearly recognised that she was:
1. Not in tune with the feelings of the majority.
2. Not interested in any real facts coming out.
3. Prepared to stand up and tell lie after lie and defend the councils stance - when the fact is the feeling of the public in this sham of a consultation is being "Made A Mockery Of!" as was put so well by an attendee of the Public Meeting in Pollok.
Ruth Simpson is clearly not fit for the job in hand, and if she can put on such a terrible performance as that - insulting the people of Glasgow then ( in my opinion) she should consider resigning!
Power to the people and may the Save Pollok Park Campaign go from strength to strength!
Sydney Meriwether,
Thanks for that amusing and very insightful link - far more informative than the guff of this article. Where are the Opposition Party quotes ? Councillors from every party should have a right to be quoted - not just the New Labour mob!
Also this statement read out by an official:
A council insider said: "There are a lot of professional objectors involved in this but given the number of representations, it may well be the council would consider a hearing.
"About 140 people have written in favour of the Go Ape plan which is significant because it is not common for a large number of people to write in to support a planning application."
What a patronising insult is this to the people of Glasgow to suggest that the objectors were "proffessional" - as parklover stated:
140 in favour is 'significant', but 800 against are 'professional objectors'. What sort of crazy double-think is this?
Point being that it seems that the Council think people are to apathetic, or ill - informed, uneducated or unable to come up with eligable, and considered planning objections.
Well let me tell G.C.C. this - people are becoming far more in tune with Glasgow planning departments devious ways, how to object, what to object on, and how to ensure your stance - opinion is accepted, and understood.
Something Ruth Simpson failed miserably at, as people clearly recognised that she was:
1. Not in tune with the feelings of the majority.
2. Not interested in any real facts coming out.
3. Prepared to stand up and tell lie after lie and defend the councils stance - when the fact is the feeling of the public in this sham of a consultation is being "Made A Mockery Of!" as was put so well by an attendee of the Public Meeting in Pollok.
Ruth Simpson is clearly not fit for the job in hand, and if she can put on such a terrible performance as that - insulting the people of Glasgow then ( in my opinion) she should consider resigning!
Power to the people and may the Save Pollok Park Campaign go from strength to strength!
Posted by: hamandegg, glasvegas on 10:10pm Fri 29 Feb 08
nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given.
but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.
nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given.
but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:22pm Fri 29 Feb 08
Well, perhaps that would all of been different if the Council had been far more transparent from the offset.
The opposition to this has only grown, and spiralled out of control - due to the utter lack of respect of the electorate from the Council, and the way in which the public are sick of their rights being trampled on.
So - GCC can only blame themselves for this complete outrage against "Go Ape!" their handling of this has lesd to the situation we have now!
Maybe "Go Ape!" could of improved Pollok Park - - but if that is the case - then why didn't GCC consult with us before their unofficial handshake with "Go Ape!"
We voted the councillors in - and we can vote them out - they ought to remember, and respect that!
Well, perhaps that would all of been different if the Council had been far more transparent from the offset.
The opposition to this has only grown, and spiralled out of control - due to the utter lack of respect of the electorate from the Council, and the way in which the public are sick of their rights being trampled on.
So - GCC can only blame themselves for this complete outrage against "Go Ape!" their handling of this has lesd to the situation we have now!
Maybe "Go Ape!" could of improved Pollok Park - - but if that is the case - then why didn't GCC consult with us before their unofficial handshake with "Go Ape!"
We voted the councillors in - and we can vote them out - they ought to remember, and respect that!
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 5:43am Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]hamandegg[/bold] wrote:
nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given.
but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.[/quote] I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this.
This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge.
This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use.
Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved.
hamandegg wrote:
nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given.
but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.
I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this.
This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge.
This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use.
Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 7:09am Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]hamandegg[/bold] wrote: nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given. but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.[/quote] I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this. This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge. This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use. Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved. [/quote]
gavin48,
100% spot on! All that I'd say is The Burrell Collection within the park - is dertracted from and reminds people of the Council with it's "encore" catering, a name hardly fitting to the quality of its food!
As well as the fact that those who object so strongly against G.C.C. ironically are giving their money straight back to G.C.C. when eating in the cafe!
It would be nice - if it could be bought over -or run by the community for the community!
That for me would be the icing on the cake!
Gifted to the People of Glasgow - so let the people of Glasgow run the Cafe in the Burrell, where the bog standard catering for such a wonderful collection for me detracts from it.
gavin48 wrote:
hamandegg wrote: nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given. but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.
I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this. This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge. This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use. Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved.
gavin48,
100% spot on! All that I'd say is The Burrell Collection within the park - is dertracted from and reminds people of the Council with it's "encore" catering, a name hardly fitting to the quality of its food!
As well as the fact that those who object so strongly against G.C.C. ironically are giving their money straight back to G.C.C. when eating in the cafe!
It would be nice - if it could be bought over -or run by the community for the community!
That for me would be the icing on the cake!
Gifted to the People of Glasgow - so let the people of Glasgow run the Cafe in the Burrell, where the bog standard catering for such a wonderful collection for me detracts from it.
Posted by: musemonkey, uk on 9:34am Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]AndrewM[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Attraction bosses have agreed to provide 450 places to city children free of charge each year.[/quote] Attraction bosses don't mention that the 450 free places are only for 30 minutes as opposed to the 180 minutes for those who pay. [/quote] For the love of god get your facts straight!!!
Go Ape take sessions every half an hour!!
30 minutes would not be enough time to even finish getting harnesses on not or the safety brief!
With Go Ape you do not pay for time you pay for the experience which could take up to 3 hours.
The free places would not be 30 minutes only, this is SSP manipulation of a positive contribution Go Ape could bring!!
AndrewM wrote:
Attraction bosses have agreed to provide 450 places to city children free of charge each year.
Attraction bosses don't mention that the 450 free places are only for 30 minutes as opposed to the 180 minutes for those who pay.
For the love of god get your facts straight!!!
Go Ape take sessions every half an hour!!
30 minutes would not be enough time to even finish getting harnesses on not or the safety brief!
With Go Ape you do not pay for time you pay for the experience which could take up to 3 hours.
The free places would not be 30 minutes only, this is SSP manipulation of a positive contribution Go Ape could bring!!
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 9:44am Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]ng[/bold] wrote:
copy of an email recieved today
I would like to inform you that the planning application to erect a Go Ape adventure facility in Pollok Country Park will be heard at this Tuesday’s Planning Applications Committee (March 4 at 11.00am). The recommendation is to GRANT.
I believe that two of the local ward members, Cllr Steven Curran and Cllr Colin Deans, have written to the Chair of the Committee to request a hearing be granted into the application. A hearing would allow objectors the opportunity to address the Committee at a specially convened meeting. I would support a hearing.
I will keep you posted with developments.
Regards,
Councillor David Meikle
[/quote] That sounds as if it will go ahead..If it does then they will meet with serious protests,all within the law though..
This land was given to the people of Glasgow to be used as a park, where you can go for peace & quiet.. Its already had a kiddies play park & a mountain bike trail built in it surely that is enough..
Come on people please stand up & be heard & protest if need be..
ng wrote:
copy of an email recieved today
I would like to inform you that the planning application to erect a Go Ape adventure facility in Pollok Country Park will be heard at this Tuesday’s Planning Applications Committee (March 4 at 11.00am). The recommendation is to GRANT.
I believe that two of the local ward members, Cllr Steven Curran and Cllr Colin Deans, have written to the Chair of the Committee to request a hearing be granted into the application. A hearing would allow objectors the opportunity to address the Committee at a specially convened meeting. I would support a hearing.
I will keep you posted with developments.
Regards,
Councillor David Meikle
That sounds as if it will go ahead..If it does then they will meet with serious protests,all within the law though..
This land was given to the people of Glasgow to be used as a park, where you can go for peace & quiet.. Its already had a kiddies play park & a mountain bike trail built in it surely that is enough..
Come on people please stand up & be heard & protest if need be..
Posted by: Paul from Langside, Glasgow on 10:33am Sat 1 Mar 08
As a Liberal Democrat councillor for the next door ward of Langside I have been against this proposal from the start. The council has its values wrong as it tries to balance competing interests. The park contains: fields of highland cattle; a golf course; a motorway; a gallery; an historic house; a museum; an adventure play area, Stables; a ranger centre; a sport facility for the police; police training dog kennels; cycle ways, and a picnic area.
The quiet green space left (essentially North wood) has been valued with this proposal as practically worthless to the general public by the Labour administration (i.e. worth a few thousand quid a year by giving privileged access to a lot of rich fun seekers) this was also the view of most SNP councillors I talked to until the public changed their minds. Let’s hope the Labour group is not above listening.
As a Liberal Democrat councillor for the next door ward of Langside I have been against this proposal from the start. The council has its values wrong as it tries to balance competing interests. The park contains: fields of highland cattle; a golf course; a motorway; a gallery; an historic house; a museum; an adventure play area, Stables; a ranger centre; a sport facility for the police; police training dog kennels; cycle ways, and a picnic area.
The quiet green space left (essentially North wood) has been valued with this proposal as practically worthless to the general public by the Labour administration (i.e. worth a few thousand quid a year by giving privileged access to a lot of rich fun seekers) this was also the view of most SNP councillors I talked to until the public changed their minds. Let’s hope the Labour group is not above listening.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 10:47am Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]musemonkey[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]AndrewM[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Attraction bosses have agreed to provide 450 places to city children free of charge each year.[/quote] Attraction bosses don't mention that the 450 free places are only for 30 minutes as opposed to the 180 minutes for those who pay. [/quote] For the love of god get your facts straight!!!
Go Ape take sessions every half an hour!!
30 minutes would not be enough time to even finish getting harnesses on not or the safety brief!
With Go Ape you do not pay for time you pay for the experience which could take up to 3 hours.
The free places would not be 30 minutes only, this is SSP manipulation of a positive contribution Go Ape could bring!!
[/quote] It is a very limited "contribution" numerically 450 for a city the size of Glasgow. It is nothing more than "tokenism" as places are available out of peak hours etc etc.
The [bold]price to be paid is far too high[/bold] , the ruination of Europes best park, so that a private company can make its profits, the ruination of the enjoyment 100000 of thousands of visitors so that maybe 20000 can line the pockets of Tristram Meyhew.
[italic]Ye gods get some principles right[/italic]
musemonkey wrote:
AndrewM wrote:
Attraction bosses have agreed to provide 450 places to city children free of charge each year.
Attraction bosses don't mention that the 450 free places are only for 30 minutes as opposed to the 180 minutes for those who pay.
For the love of god get your facts straight!!!
Go Ape take sessions every half an hour!!
30 minutes would not be enough time to even finish getting harnesses on not or the safety brief!
With Go Ape you do not pay for time you pay for the experience which could take up to 3 hours.
The free places would not be 30 minutes only, this is SSP manipulation of a positive contribution Go Ape could bring!!
It is a very limited "contribution" numerically 450 for a city the size of Glasgow. It is nothing more than "tokenism" as places are available out of peak hours etc etc.
The
price to be paid is far too high , the ruination of Europes best park, so that a private company can make its profits, the ruination of the enjoyment 100000 of thousands of visitors so that maybe 20000 can line the pockets of Tristram Meyhew.
Ye gods get some principles right Posted by: hamandegg, glasvegas on 2:22pm Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]hamandegg[/bold] wrote: nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given. but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.[/quote] I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this. This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge. This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use. Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved. [/quote] I understand fine well the reasons for the objections when so many of these claims are completely unfounded - how many of the protesters i wonder have seen or heard a go ape site? In my opinion, having visited go ape sites, that is neither large nor noisy, and the visual impact is minimal as it is all made from wood and designed to blend in with the environment. Its not a theme park like people seem to think!
You are taking advantage our your democratic right to have your say, which is a good thing. In the same sense though, saying comparitively few people will be able to use it is very presumptious and surely it is people's democratic right to choose whether they want to use go ape or not.
gavin48 wrote:
hamandegg wrote: nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given. but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.
I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this. This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge. This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use. Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved.
I understand fine well the reasons for the objections when so many of these claims are completely unfounded - how many of the protesters i wonder have seen or heard a go ape site? In my opinion, having visited go ape sites, that is neither large nor noisy, and the visual impact is minimal as it is all made from wood and designed to blend in with the environment. Its not a theme park like people seem to think!
You are taking advantage our your democratic right to have your say, which is a good thing. In the same sense though, saying comparitively few people will be able to use it is very presumptious and surely it is people's democratic right to choose whether they want to use go ape or not.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 2:59pm Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]hamandegg[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]hamandegg[/bold] wrote: nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given. but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.[/quote] I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this. This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge. This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use. Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved. [/quote] I understand fine well the reasons for the objections when so many of these claims are completely unfounded - how many of the protesters i wonder have seen or heard a go ape site? In my opinion, having visited go ape sites, that is neither large nor noisy, and the visual impact is minimal as it is all made from wood and designed to blend in with the environment. Its not a theme park like people seem to think!
You are taking advantage our your democratic right to have your say, which is a good thing. In the same sense though, saying comparitively few people will be able to use it is very presumptious and surely it is people's democratic right to choose whether they want to use go ape or not.[/quote] No I do not think you do understand.
I have used Go Ape in Aberfoyle and also in Grizdale, they are great fun, but the are most definitely noisy, and visually they have a significant impact.
It is not presumtive to say relatively few people will be able to use it, it is a matter of Arithmetic, even Go APe say they hope for 20000 a year. This has to be measured against the 100s of thousands who currently enjoy the park the way it is. Are there views not valued? Are there preferences to be able to walk in quiet in an unspoiled wood not to be taken into account?
Go Ape is fine but not in Pollok Park, it is simply the wrong location, a with the lose of amenity for existing park users too high
hamandegg wrote:
gavin48 wrote:
hamandegg wrote: nobody doubts the council duffed the consultation, thats a given. but my word do you people talk some rubbish! power to the people indeed - i'm glad you're standing up for your city but lets not do it against something which will introduce people to how good a place the park is. is it that you don't want everyone else to come and enjoy the park too? i think its ridiculous that this development and the other 99% of the park can't live with each other and more people can enjoy the green spaces of glasgow.
I think you do not understand the reason for so many objections to this. This development will ruin the very heart of his park, the North Wood is the last part of the park that has now been developed, it is a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland. The go ape development is not some small and unintrusive thing, it is large and it is noisy, its visual impact is also huge. This park is already very popular and very well used, why spoil this for something that comparatively few people will be able to use. Remember that the park is the best in the UK and the best in Europe, it archived this as it is, a park with many facilities, a park which has much to do in it. a park that is well used and well loved.
I understand fine well the reasons for the objections when so many of these claims are completely unfounded - how many of the protesters i wonder have seen or heard a go ape site? In my opinion, having visited go ape sites, that is neither large nor noisy, and the visual impact is minimal as it is all made from wood and designed to blend in with the environment. Its not a theme park like people seem to think!
You are taking advantage our your democratic right to have your say, which is a good thing. In the same sense though, saying comparitively few people will be able to use it is very presumptious and surely it is people's democratic right to choose whether they want to use go ape or not.
No I do not think you do understand.
I have used Go Ape in Aberfoyle and also in Grizdale, they are great fun, but the are most definitely noisy, and visually they have a significant impact.
It is not presumtive to say relatively few people will be able to use it, it is a matter of Arithmetic, even Go APe say they hope for 20000 a year. This has to be measured against the 100s of thousands who currently enjoy the park the way it is. Are there views not valued? Are there preferences to be able to walk in quiet in an unspoiled wood not to be taken into account?
Go Ape is fine but not in Pollok Park, it is simply the wrong location, a with the lose of amenity for existing park users too high
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 4:36pm Sat 1 Mar 08
I urge all those with even the slightest objections - resevations or doubts in their minds about this "Go Ape!" proposal to either come and sit in on the [bold]Planning Committee Hearing at 11:00am this Tuesday 4th March.[/bold]
Or better still protest [bold]outside the City Chambers,[/bold] [bold]; George Square - meet 10:30am.[/bold]
Feel free to bring your own placards/ banners.
To me the only place left for a [bold]"Zip Slide"[/bold] is accross the lips of Steven Purcell, as his mouth is so big it needs "Zipped" shut.
Much as he trys, ( he's very trying!) he is clearly overly opinionated on new ideas which always seem to backfire.
N.B. - Bananas not provided! ( bring your own!)
I urge all those with even the slightest objections - resevations or doubts in their minds about this "Go Ape!" proposal to either come and sit in on the
Planning Committee Hearing at 11:00am this Tuesday 4th March.
Or better still protest
outside the City Chambers, ; George Square - meet 10:30am.
Feel free to bring your own placards/ banners.
To me the only place left for a
"Zip Slide" is accross the lips of Steven Purcell, as his mouth is so big it needs "Zipped" shut.
Much as he trys, ( he's very trying!) he is clearly overly opinionated on new ideas which always seem to backfire.
N.B. - Bananas not provided! ( bring your own!)
Posted by: Frank, Glasgow on 7:04pm Sat 1 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
[italic]For goodness sake Frankie Boy, how the devil are you, we've been having a right natter in here today and I for one have missed your comments... better late than never, though, and once again I thank you for your wise words and rapier-like insight.[/italic]
Just one very small point though regarding:
[quote]Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.[/quote]
Aren't councillors supposed to represent all people in their wards, not just those who support their political party?[/quote] The majority of people voted Labour remember we won the election in Glasgow. Equally the majority of people understand that Labour Council has delivered and more. A few tree huggers, who couldn't be bothered to take part in the consultation, should not stand in the way of the majority of people of Glasgow. Mr Purcell will quite rightly deliver on this issue as he has with all his others.
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
For goodness sake Frankie Boy, how the devil are you, we've been having a right natter in here today and I for one have missed your comments... better late than never, though, and once again I thank you for your wise words and rapier-like insight.
Just one very small point though regarding:
Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.
Aren't councillors supposed to represent all people in their wards, not just those who support their political party?
The majority of people voted Labour remember we won the election in Glasgow. Equally the majority of people understand that Labour Council has delivered and more. A few tree huggers, who couldn't be bothered to take part in the consultation, should not stand in the way of the majority of people of Glasgow. Mr Purcell will quite rightly deliver on this issue as he has with all his others.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 7:54pm Sat 1 Mar 08
The level of public apathy in elections is clearly a factor as to why the older, and regular voters turn out to vote Labour year in year out!
However, last May this was not the case - with so many seats lost in protest votes AGAINST NEW LABOUR!
Clearly - the next election will see yet more people vote AGAINST NEW LABOUR - and yet more seats lost to SNP, Greens & even Conservatives.
( Is their any difference between N.L. & Tories?)
Clearly the consultation response seems lower -However, the Opposition declared by the 1,000 people at the Public Meeting in February re "Go Ape!" was clear to see!
[bold]tinyurl.com/227os8[/bold]
More contentious G.C.C. issues of late are potentially being passed onto Holyrood to be decided, along with the calls for Public hearing/s, inquiry/s or lengthened consultations.......
So, this is by no means a foregone conclusion.
The letters of objection all have to be logged, acknowledged and combed through.
Sydney, can I just clarify your stance here - based on your comments to Frank ?
Roll on Tuesday!
The level of public apathy in elections is clearly a factor as to why the older, and regular voters turn out to vote Labour year in year out!
However, last May this was not the case - with so many seats lost in protest votes AGAINST NEW LABOUR!
Clearly - the next election will see yet more people vote AGAINST NEW LABOUR - and yet more seats lost to SNP, Greens & even Conservatives.
( Is their any difference between N.L. & Tories?)
Clearly the consultation response seems lower -However, the Opposition declared by the 1,000 people at the Public Meeting in February re "Go Ape!" was clear to see!
tinyurl.com/227os8
More contentious G.C.C. issues of late are potentially being passed onto Holyrood to be decided, along with the calls for Public hearing/s, inquiry/s or lengthened consultations.......
So, this is by no means a foregone conclusion.
The letters of objection all have to be logged, acknowledged and combed through.
Sydney, can I just clarify your stance here - based on your comments to Frank ?
Roll on Tuesday!
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 3:11am Sun 2 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Frank[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
[italic]For goodness sake Frankie Boy, how the devil are you, we've been having a right natter in here today and I for one have missed your comments... better late than never, though, and once again I thank you for your wise words and rapier-like insight.[/italic]
Just one very small point though regarding:
[quote]Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.[/quote]
Aren't councillors supposed to represent all people in their wards, not just those who support their political party?[/quote] The majority of people voted Labour remember we won the election in Glasgow. Equally the majority of people understand that Labour Council has delivered and more. A few tree huggers, who couldn't be bothered to take part in the consultation, should not stand in the way of the majority of people of Glasgow. Mr Purcell will quite rightly deliver on this issue as he has with all his others. [/quote] What is your basis for believing that the majority of Glaswegians are in favour of this development?
Some simple Arithmetic for you, consultation, even counting the schoolchildren, total 214.
Public meeting in January over 550 people all but 7 opposed. Planning Submissions 881 objections 120 supporting.
Councillors of any party or none are elected as our REPRESENTATIVES, not for us to blindly follow them.
While I can and do respect folk who hold a different point of view, I am perplexed by anyone who seems to blindly accept the view of any politic party for no other reason than it is the view of the party.
Mr Purcell delivered on which particular issues? I would be very interested to hear of any?
Frank wrote:
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
For goodness sake Frankie Boy, how the devil are you, we've been having a right natter in here today and I for one have missed your comments... better late than never, though, and once again I thank you for your wise words and rapier-like insight.
Just one very small point though regarding:
Labour should just carry on with the plans and ignore the SNP objectors.
Aren't councillors supposed to represent all people in their wards, not just those who support their political party?
The majority of people voted Labour remember we won the election in Glasgow. Equally the majority of people understand that Labour Council has delivered and more. A few tree huggers, who couldn't be bothered to take part in the consultation, should not stand in the way of the majority of people of Glasgow. Mr Purcell will quite rightly deliver on this issue as he has with all his others.
What is your basis for believing that the majority of Glaswegians are in favour of this development?
Some simple Arithmetic for you, consultation, even counting the schoolchildren, total 214.
Public meeting in January over 550 people all but 7 opposed. Planning Submissions 881 objections 120 supporting.
Councillors of any party or none are elected as our REPRESENTATIVES, not for us to blindly follow them.
While I can and do respect folk who hold a different point of view, I am perplexed by anyone who seems to blindly accept the view of any politic party for no other reason than it is the view of the party.
Mr Purcell delivered on which particular issues? I would be very interested to hear of any?
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 1:39pm Sun 2 Mar 08
its always the same story......the parks are presented to the people of glasgow, the backhanders are exchanged, the contractors move in, ...bingo, glasgow residents are shafted once more and after a while, when things die down the builders start building houses on the same site that was supposed to be for the benefit of ALL citizens, not just the chosen few who have the stamina to swing from trees(do the councillors think people do not know the sleaze that goes on?)who is willing to put a bet on that this deal will go through, even as we speak?)
its always the same story......the parks are presented to the people of glasgow, the backhanders are exchanged, the contractors move in, ...bingo, glasgow residents are shafted once more and after a while, when things die down the builders start building houses on the same site that was supposed to be for the benefit of ALL citizens, not just the chosen few who have the stamina to swing from trees(do the councillors think people do not know the sleaze that goes on?)who is willing to put a bet on that this deal will go through, even as we speak?)
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 3:58pm Sun 2 Mar 08
Some great comments and a clear indication of the general very strong feeling against a stupid proposal based on a sham consultation.
I was only pulling Frank's leg on a Friday evening, but I do enjoy his posts, as they are a clear reminder of the state of denial which infects the minds of the Party faithful.
As for Frank's latest nonsense that the majority of Glaswegians voted Labour and Purcell is delivering progress in Glasgow:
1. If you look at the election results, e.g. for Purcell's Drumchapel ward, only [bold]44%[/bold] of the electorate bothered to vote and only [bold]9%[/bold] of the local electorate bothered to choose Purcell as their first preference, and he's [italic]the leader of the sham[/italic]. These figures make the usual mockery of Frank's nonsense claims that "the majority of people voted Labour".
2. As for Purcell's record, it's nothing but failure after failure: from employment to education to services... Even take his pet Clean Glasgow project which was initially strongly supported by the people of Glasgow, but because of a continual failure to deliver, has recently seen a complete reversal of support, as shown by an ET poll which found that over 70% of readers believed that fines failed to make a difference to the war on litter?
Failure... failure... failure and let's not forget that at the last local election Labour's majority was decimated: from 63 to 11.
I await Frank's latest nonsense with eagerness...
Some great comments and a clear indication of the general very strong feeling against a stupid proposal based on a sham consultation.
I was only pulling Frank's leg on a Friday evening, but I do enjoy his posts, as they are a clear reminder of the state of denial which infects the minds of the Party faithful.
As for Frank's latest nonsense that the majority of Glaswegians voted Labour and Purcell is delivering progress in Glasgow:
1. If you look at the election results, e.g. for Purcell's Drumchapel ward, only
44% of the electorate bothered to vote and only
9% of the local electorate bothered to choose Purcell as their first preference, and he's
the leader of the sham. These figures make the usual mockery of Frank's nonsense claims that "the majority of people voted Labour".
2. As for Purcell's record, it's nothing but failure after failure: from employment to education to services... Even take his pet Clean Glasgow project which was initially strongly supported by the people of Glasgow, but because of a continual failure to deliver, has recently seen a complete reversal of support, as shown by an ET poll which found that over 70% of readers believed that fines failed to make a difference to the war on litter?
Failure... failure... failure and let's not forget that at the last local election Labour's majority was decimated: from 63 to 11.
I await Frank's latest nonsense with eagerness...
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 9:45pm Sun 2 Mar 08
[quote][bold]trench[/bold] wrote:
its always the same story......the parks are presented to the people of glasgow, the backhanders are exchanged, the contractors move in, ...bingo, glasgow residents are shafted once more and after a while, when things die down the builders start building houses on the same site that was supposed to be for the benefit of ALL citizens, not just the chosen few who have the stamina to swing from trees(do the councillors think people do not know the sleaze that goes on?)who is willing to put a bet on that this deal will go through, even as we speak?)[/quote]
Trench - I could almost say that "I love you!" - Sorry....tee hee - I mean I love your posts!
The chances of justice being served to the good people of this city are being cut as every day under our luny politicians and councillor passes!
Calling all pacifists, apathetics and "wooses" - get up of your bu*tts and start to contribute to the process!
Calling all non believers ( of politics) and lazy sonso's - start using your votes, and appreciating what we have - God - look at the corruption other countries in the world have.
Our Council dictatorship may not involve assassinations, murders, imprisonment, or public beatings - but the behaviour of our Councillors cannot carry on the way it has.
I call all people of Glasgow to see the sleeze, and say it anyway ; "feel the fear and do it anyway" ; And, hear the lies and challenge them anyway!
This council must sit up and listen. And come Tuesday objectors views must be acknowleged.
Lets see a clean fight on the protesters side, just a shame the dirty tactics used by the councillors have been seen right through!
Good v Evil - Heroes v Villains! We know who is who!
trench wrote:
its always the same story......the parks are presented to the people of glasgow, the backhanders are exchanged, the contractors move in, ...bingo, glasgow residents are shafted once more and after a while, when things die down the builders start building houses on the same site that was supposed to be for the benefit of ALL citizens, not just the chosen few who have the stamina to swing from trees(do the councillors think people do not know the sleaze that goes on?)who is willing to put a bet on that this deal will go through, even as we speak?)
Trench - I could almost say that "I love you!" - Sorry....tee hee - I mean I love your posts!
The chances of justice being served to the good people of this city are being cut as every day under our luny politicians and councillor passes!
Calling all pacifists, apathetics and "wooses" - get up of your bu*tts and start to contribute to the process!
Calling all non believers ( of politics) and lazy sonso's - start using your votes, and appreciating what we have - God - look at the corruption other countries in the world have.
Our Council dictatorship may not involve assassinations, murders, imprisonment, or public beatings - but the behaviour of our Councillors cannot carry on the way it has.
I call all people of Glasgow to see the sleeze, and say it anyway ; "feel the fear and do it anyway" ; And, hear the lies and challenge them anyway!
This council must sit up and listen. And come Tuesday objectors views must be acknowleged.
Lets see a clean fight on the protesters side, just a shame the dirty tactics used by the councillors have been seen right through!
Good v Evil - Heroes v Villains! We know who is who!
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 4:38pm Mon 3 Mar 08
I am not sure why the council should consider emails and letters of support for Go Ape from people who do not live in Glasgow.
I do not think that anybody is saying that Go Ape is of itself a bad thing. The issue is the proposed location in the North Wood.
In my view the only representations which should be counted are those from people with a Glasgow postcode or who have an identifiable interest in the proceeedings such as the National Trust.
The fact that someone went to a Go Ape in England and thinks it would be a jolly good idea in Pollok Park is meaningless. Unless they have been to Pollok Park and have an understanding of the area then what value does their opinion have? I would suggest very little.
As to the suggestions being made that the SNP are behind the campaign to retain Pollok Park as it is - what utter nonsense. Political support for that campaign has come from the SNP, from the Greens, from some Lib Dems and even from the Tories. They key thing is that the politicians involved are doing it because they are representing their constituents.
Only the Labour Party has treated this as a party matter and they will come to regret that in my view.
I am not sure why the council should consider emails and letters of support for Go Ape from people who do not live in Glasgow.
I do not think that anybody is saying that Go Ape is of itself a bad thing. The issue is the proposed location in the North Wood.
In my view the only representations which should be counted are those from people with a Glasgow postcode or who have an identifiable interest in the proceeedings such as the National Trust.
The fact that someone went to a Go Ape in England and thinks it would be a jolly good idea in Pollok Park is meaningless. Unless they have been to Pollok Park and have an understanding of the area then what value does their opinion have? I would suggest very little.
As to the suggestions being made that the SNP are behind the campaign to retain Pollok Park as it is - what utter nonsense. Political support for that campaign has come from the SNP, from the Greens, from some Lib Dems and even from the Tories. They key thing is that the politicians involved are doing it because they are representing their constituents.
Only the Labour Party has treated this as a party matter and they will come to regret that in my view.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:39pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Until Glasgow City Council is more fairly represented from all parties, as well as independant Councillors the problem of New Labour still throwing their weight around, and causing the damage it is will continue.
Majority rule is only of benefit when the people who are most active in the political process, voting, protesting and in general also see that it is what each individual councillor has done over the past few years that counts when deciding who to give their vote to ?
Those Councillors who have upstaged themselves, and actually voted in favour of projects - policies so many of us opposed should be struck off by us the voters.
Just a shame so few of us think more carefully when posting our votes at polling stations.
Lets be the ones to pull their strings, and not let them pull ours!
"Go Ape!" is not wanted - and those who write into G.C.C. in favour of it - when their not even within the area to experience the down sides should wise up.
Until Glasgow City Council is more fairly represented from all parties, as well as independant Councillors the problem of New Labour still throwing their weight around, and causing the damage it is will continue.
Majority rule is only of benefit when the people who are most active in the political process, voting, protesting and in general also see that it is what each individual councillor has done over the past few years that counts when deciding who to give their vote to ?
Those Councillors who have upstaged themselves, and actually voted in favour of projects - policies so many of us opposed should be struck off by us the voters.
Just a shame so few of us think more carefully when posting our votes at polling stations.
Lets be the ones to pull their strings, and not let them pull ours!
"Go Ape!" is not wanted - and those who write into G.C.C. in favour of it - when their not even within the area to experience the down sides should wise up.
Comment | Read Comments (54)
