Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 3:50pm Tue 4 Mar 08
The decision reached was the best possible outcome in the circumstances, thankfully the original suggestion of all Planning Department officials visiting the Aberfoyle "Go Ape!" site was not taken up.
What I would say as a member of the supporters from "Save Pollok Park" - the way in which the Council officials at the front desk were so keen to prevent any of us to sit in on the proceedings was most disappointing.
It demonstrated the tight lipped, backwards & rigid mentality of our city council & just how much they want to protect the image of the council so much more, than see them represent us - the people!
Thankfully with negtotiation 5 of the "Save Pollok Park" protesters were allowed to sit in the meeting &listen to the decision being reached.
It begs the question though - When issues of this nature are being discussed, why do the planning committee insist on using the same chamber / room with so few chairs for observers, members of the public & media ?
Also, is it not the right of the public to be made aware of the nature of exactly what is discussed, and the way our Planning Department conduct themselves for them to understand & know what goes on behind closed doors.
Had some of the protesters who stood with their placards outside the City Chambers not been as persevering in questioning why we were being told: [italic]"there were no seats left"[/italic] we might of just accepted the words as that & just left it at that!
Thankfully, by pointing out our rights to be present to hear the procedings, 5 of the 30 from the group were allowed in.
Had this not been the case, we wouldn't of discovered there were actually 7 empty seats - not none as we were first told...... A clear indication "they" did not want us to witness exactly what was being said within these four walls.
Surely that kind of need for us to negotiate & persuade is exactly why so many are put off by the whole planning process, politics & sadly voting. This will all have to change!
People will ultimately have to use their votes far more carefully in future, to see that they are fairly & honestly represented in future.
The decision reached was the best possible outcome in the circumstances, thankfully the original suggestion of all Planning Department officials visiting the Aberfoyle "Go Ape!" site was not taken up.
What I would say as a member of the supporters from "Save Pollok Park" - the way in which the Council officials at the front desk were so keen to prevent any of us to sit in on the proceedings was most disappointing.
It demonstrated the tight lipped, backwards & rigid mentality of our city council & just how much they want to protect the image of the council so much more, than see them represent us - the people!
Thankfully with negtotiation 5 of the "Save Pollok Park" protesters were allowed to sit in the meeting &listen to the decision being reached.
It begs the question though - When issues of this nature are being discussed, why do the planning committee insist on using the same chamber / room with so few chairs for observers, members of the public & media ?
Also, is it not the right of the public to be made aware of the nature of exactly what is discussed, and the way our Planning Department conduct themselves for them to understand & know what goes on behind closed doors.
Had some of the protesters who stood with their placards outside the City Chambers not been as persevering in questioning why we were being told:
"there were no seats left" we might of just accepted the words as that & just left it at that!
Thankfully, by pointing out our rights to be present to hear the procedings, 5 of the 30 from the group were allowed in.
Had this not been the case, we wouldn't of discovered there were actually 7 empty seats - not none as we were first told...... A clear indication "they" did not want us to witness exactly what was being said within these four walls.
Surely that kind of need for us to negotiate & persuade is exactly why so many are put off by the whole planning process, politics & sadly voting. This will all have to change!
People will ultimately have to use their votes far more carefully in future, to see that they are fairly & honestly represented in future.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 4:19pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its [bold]culture of secrecy[/bold] easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society.
I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives.
Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of [bold]Culture and Sport Glasgow[/bold] in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC.
[bold]Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.[/bold]
Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its
culture of secrecy easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society.
I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives.
Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of
Culture and Sport Glasgow in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC.
Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 6:25pm Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote]contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives.[/quote]
I've always been under the impression that it was GCC who made the approach to Go Ape and have never heard any "alternative" version?
At the Burgh hall it was stated that Go Ape was given the choice of Pollok and Dawsholm - unsurprisingly they chose Pollok. Dawsholm has no existing car park or toilets plus being situated next to the city dump probably would not appeal to Go Ape's corporate customers.
contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives.
I've always been under the impression that it was GCC who made the approach to Go Ape and have never heard any "alternative" version?
At the Burgh hall it was stated that Go Ape was given the choice of Pollok and Dawsholm - unsurprisingly they chose Pollok. Dawsholm has no existing car park or toilets plus being situated next to the city dump probably would not appeal to Go Ape's corporate customers.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 7:01pm Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote]I've always been under the impression that it was GCC who made the approach to Go Ape and have never heard any "alternative" version?[/quote]
Yes, I've heard that version too, but I have also heard the opposite, that the initial approach was made by Go Ape. Indeed in the first article in the ET on this subject:
[bold]Firm bids to bring treetop asssault courses to city; Three Glasgow parks could be home to network of rope bridges and death slides[/bold]
[italic]January 20, 2006[/italic]
We are told within the first few paragraphs that (my brackets):
[quote]Leisure bosses have been approached by an English company (presumably Go Ape) which wants to build aerial assault courses - 20ft up in the air - made up of a network of rope bridges, trapezes and death slides.
The company operates similar schemes south of the border which can be used by adventure seekers over the age of 10 and are more than 4ft 7in tall.[/quote]
So, as I say, I think we need a clear sequenced timeline of events just to clarify exactly, for the record, how developments 'progressed'.
I've always been under the impression that it was GCC who made the approach to Go Ape and have never heard any "alternative" version?
Yes, I've heard that version too, but I have also heard the opposite, that the initial approach was made by Go Ape. Indeed in the first article in the ET on this subject:
Firm bids to bring treetop asssault courses to city; Three Glasgow parks could be home to network of rope bridges and death slides
January 20, 2006
We are told within the first few paragraphs that (my brackets):
Leisure bosses have been approached by an English company (presumably Go Ape) which wants to build aerial assault courses - 20ft up in the air - made up of a network of rope bridges, trapezes and death slides.
The company operates similar schemes south of the border which can be used by adventure seekers over the age of 10 and are more than 4ft 7in tall.
So, as I say, I think we need a clear sequenced timeline of events just to clarify exactly, for the record, how developments 'progressed'.
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 7:08pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Sounds very cloak and dagger at the Chambers .
Sounds very cloak and dagger at the Chambers .
Posted by: Scott, Glasgow on 8:02pm Tue 4 Mar 08
I'm with Sydney on using the Freedom of Information act to get a full and transparent view of how all this came together.
187 letter support the idea eh? I know that privacy is there for a reason, and rightly so, but it'd be nice to see if all the names in support can be found in and around Glasgow.
Honey PR seemed very keen on getting anyone of Go Ape!'s previous customers to contact Glasgow City Council with encouraging words.
-Scott
I'm with Sydney on using the Freedom of Information act to get a full and transparent view of how all this came together.
187 letter support the idea eh? I know that privacy is there for a reason, and rightly so, but it'd be nice to see if all the names in support can be found in and around Glasgow.
Honey PR seemed very keen on getting anyone of Go Ape!'s previous customers to contact Glasgow City Council with encouraging words.
-Scott
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 8:21pm Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scott[/bold] wrote:
I'm with Sydney on using the Freedom of Information act to get a full and transparent view of how all this came together.
187 letter support the idea eh? I know that privacy is there for a reason, and rightly so, but it'd be nice to see if all the names in support can be found in and around Glasgow.
Honey PR seemed very keen on getting anyone of Go Ape!'s previous customers to contact Glasgow City Council with encouraging words.
-Scott[/quote] Scott
I twice read the planning application including the submissions, as I have said previously, I had the impression that many if not most of the objections used phrases such as " as a regular park user" where as almost all the the supporting ones were emails, used phrases such as " having used go ape" and of the ones that had addressess almost all were from all over the UK.
I was certainly left with a feeling that these had been solicited by someone, why else would folk from without the greater glasgow area be interested in a Glasgow planning matter.
Scott wrote:
I'm with Sydney on using the Freedom of Information act to get a full and transparent view of how all this came together.
187 letter support the idea eh? I know that privacy is there for a reason, and rightly so, but it'd be nice to see if all the names in support can be found in and around Glasgow.
Honey PR seemed very keen on getting anyone of Go Ape!'s previous customers to contact Glasgow City Council with encouraging words.
-Scott
Scott
I twice read the planning application including the submissions, as I have said previously, I had the impression that many if not most of the objections used phrases such as " as a regular park user" where as almost all the the supporting ones were emails, used phrases such as " having used go ape" and of the ones that had addressess almost all were from all over the UK.
I was certainly left with a feeling that these had been solicited by someone, why else would folk from without the greater glasgow area be interested in a Glasgow planning matter.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 9:24pm Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote][bold]roor06[/bold] wrote:
Sounds very cloak and dagger at the Chambers .[/quote]
roor06,
You would not believe the secrecy and lies that goes on in that place on a daily basis.
Even the anti-labour movement would find it hard to believe the way in which you are taken in an almost time warp - transported by tardist - to a form of thinking, mentality and secrecy which encloaks all who work within the City Chambers, and most departments of the City Council.
Even a couple of officials - janitor like figures in maroon blazers both standing upstairs, as we left the hearing [bold]would you believe it[/bold] BOTH HAD THEIR ID BADGES FACING INWARDS - SO YOU COULD NOT SEE THEIR NAMES - PHOTOS! - TOTALLY UNPROFFESSIONAL & WHAT WERE THEY WORRIED ABOUT ?
This coming Publc hearing granted will hopefully be in a hall - room where enough seating is provided for all who wish to attend.
Just a shame some councillors are more interested in picking up their pensions than any good intentions. (no rhyme intended!)
roor06 wrote:
Sounds very cloak and dagger at the Chambers .
roor06,
You would not believe the secrecy and lies that goes on in that place on a daily basis.
Even the anti-labour movement would find it hard to believe the way in which you are taken in an almost time warp - transported by tardist - to a form of thinking, mentality and secrecy which encloaks all who work within the City Chambers, and most departments of the City Council.
Even a couple of officials - janitor like figures in maroon blazers both standing upstairs, as we left the hearing
would you believe it BOTH HAD THEIR ID BADGES FACING INWARDS - SO YOU COULD NOT SEE THEIR NAMES - PHOTOS! - TOTALLY UNPROFFESSIONAL & WHAT WERE THEY WORRIED ABOUT ?
This coming Publc hearing granted will hopefully be in a hall - room where enough seating is provided for all who wish to attend.
Just a shame some councillors are more interested in picking up their pensions than any good intentions. (no rhyme intended!)
Posted by: People Power on 9:39pm Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote][bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Scott[/bold] wrote: I'm with Sydney on using the Freedom of Information act to get a full and transparent view of how all this came together. 187 letter support the idea eh? I know that privacy is there for a reason, and rightly so, but it'd be nice to see if all the names in support can be found in and around Glasgow. Honey PR seemed very keen on getting anyone of Go Ape!'s previous customers to contact Glasgow City Council with encouraging words. -Scott[/quote] Scott I twice read the planning application including the submissions, as I have said previously, I had the impression that many if not most of the objections used phrases such as " as a regular park user" where as almost all the the supporting ones were emails, used phrases such as " having used go ape" and of the ones that had addressess almost all were from all over the UK. I was certainly left with a feeling that these had been solicited by someone, why else would folk from without the greater glasgow area be interested in a Glasgow planning matter. [/quote]
Scott, naturally it is easy to believe that letter either for or against were pre -formulated, in such a way that they had similar, or the same slogans within them.
This can be the case in some occassions, when people need guidance on the planning objections considered by the department when the issue is discussed.
Until people from all classes, backgrounds and walks of life are more clued up on how to utilise the planning legislation, access information through F.O.I. and know grounds of objection to use - such letters will sometimes need to set the basis for giving people an idea of what should be included within them.
Naturally, suspicion should be raised from letters stating "As A Regular Park User!" - if the sender comes from well outwith Glasgows boundaries - and is from other parts of the UK!
The Planning Department is far from perfect in how it bases its decision on what objections count, and which letters in favour are included / considered.
Should ones from outwith a boundary of say: ( eg) 50 miles ? then I would find it hard to believe that anybodies objection from such a location could be considered.
DO PEOPLE EVEN HAVE TO STATE THEIR ADDRESS - LOCATION ON THEIR OBJECTION - ENDORSEMENT ?
Perhaps Glasgow City Council could provide a far better insight into how the Planning Committees work, and exactly how to object in simple english - easily accessible in all languages on its website!
People have also got the option of using Planning Aid - ( A Scottish Charity) to access FREE training, materials, and information on all planning issues. All that is asked is that a donation is made towards its runnning.
See: www. planning-aid-scotlan
d. org. uk for more info.
We have the tools and information at our fingertips - its high time we start using it to our advantage!
gavin48 wrote:
Scott wrote: I'm with Sydney on using the Freedom of Information act to get a full and transparent view of how all this came together. 187 letter support the idea eh? I know that privacy is there for a reason, and rightly so, but it'd be nice to see if all the names in support can be found in and around Glasgow. Honey PR seemed very keen on getting anyone of Go Ape!'s previous customers to contact Glasgow City Council with encouraging words. -Scott
Scott I twice read the planning application including the submissions, as I have said previously, I had the impression that many if not most of the objections used phrases such as " as a regular park user" where as almost all the the supporting ones were emails, used phrases such as " having used go ape" and of the ones that had addressess almost all were from all over the UK. I was certainly left with a feeling that these had been solicited by someone, why else would folk from without the greater glasgow area be interested in a Glasgow planning matter.
Scott, naturally it is easy to believe that letter either for or against were pre -formulated, in such a way that they had similar, or the same slogans within them.
This can be the case in some occassions, when people need guidance on the planning objections considered by the department when the issue is discussed.
Until people from all classes, backgrounds and walks of life are more clued up on how to utilise the planning legislation, access information through F.O.I. and know grounds of objection to use - such letters will sometimes need to set the basis for giving people an idea of what should be included within them.
Naturally, suspicion should be raised from letters stating "As A Regular Park User!" - if the sender comes from well outwith Glasgows boundaries - and is from other parts of the UK!
The Planning Department is far from perfect in how it bases its decision on what objections count, and which letters in favour are included / considered.
Should ones from outwith a boundary of say: ( eg) 50 miles ? then I would find it hard to believe that anybodies objection from such a location could be considered.
DO PEOPLE EVEN HAVE TO STATE THEIR ADDRESS - LOCATION ON THEIR OBJECTION - ENDORSEMENT ?
Perhaps Glasgow City Council could provide a far better insight into how the Planning Committees work, and exactly how to object in simple english - easily accessible in all languages on its website!
People have also got the option of using Planning Aid - ( A Scottish Charity) to access FREE training, materials, and information on all planning issues. All that is asked is that a donation is made towards its runnning.
See: www. planning-aid-scotlan
d. org. uk for more info.
We have the tools and information at our fingertips - its high time we start using it to our advantage!
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 9:59pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Our Parks and "Dear Green Spaces" are not simply pieces of land that G.C.C. can so ignorantly, and flippantly sell off - or offer on a plate to Private Developers.
We cannot put a price tag on the value of what green space our city has. It is priceless.
Greedy councillors may see "£" signs in front of their eyes, but those who can see right through this plan know what damage will be done - and how alienating this "Adventure Park" for the wealthy will be for those facing hardship and poverty.
Dream on G.C.C. - But this fight is not over!
With a Public Hearing & visit to Pollok Park by the Planning Commitee - The "Save Pollok Park" group - along with objecting residents and Glasgow Pollok Park users alike will finally get to have their say!
Our Parks and "Dear Green Spaces" are not simply pieces of land that G.C.C. can so ignorantly, and flippantly sell off - or offer on a plate to Private Developers.
We cannot put a price tag on the value of what green space our city has. It is priceless.
Greedy councillors may see "£" signs in front of their eyes, but those who can see right through this plan know what damage will be done - and how alienating this "Adventure Park" for the wealthy will be for those facing hardship and poverty.
Dream on G.C.C. - But this fight is not over!
With a Public Hearing & visit to Pollok Park by the Planning Commitee - The "Save Pollok Park" group - along with objecting residents and Glasgow Pollok Park users alike will finally get to have their say!
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 10:26pm Tue 4 Mar 08
They say "in around a month" ...
Why cant they give an exact date ???
They say "in around a month" ...
Why cant they give an exact date ???
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 11:01pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Because in reality. . . .they are disorganised twats who are supposed to be representing the views of the objectors and the supporters equally, and indiscriminately!
And, they don't want those members of the public to find out the exact date till it suits them for us to know - i.e. ( as I suspect) as late in the day as possible.
All I know is they meet every Tuesday at 11:00am.
I'm sure through the F.O.I. act - you should be able to get a more specific date.
I'm sure "Save Pollok Park" would like to know when they will be visiting the park itself, but as I can imagine - finding out such information could be tricky!
Council politics - cloaks, daggers and yet more hidden truths and lies.
Because in reality. . . .they are disorganised twats who are supposed to be representing the views of the objectors and the supporters equally, and indiscriminately!
And, they don't want those members of the public to find out the exact date till it suits them for us to know - i.e. ( as I suspect) as late in the day as possible.
All I know is they meet every Tuesday at 11:00am.
I'm sure through the F.O.I. act - you should be able to get a more specific date.
I'm sure "Save Pollok Park" would like to know when they will be visiting the park itself, but as I can imagine - finding out such information could be tricky!
Council politics - cloaks, daggers and yet more hidden truths and lies.
Posted by: People Power on 11:26pm Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its [bold]culture of secrecy[/bold] easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of [bold]Culture and Sport Glasgow[/bold] in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. [bold]Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.[/bold][/quote]
Thanks Sydney,
Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled.
Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair.
Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also.
And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way.
There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow.
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its culture of secrecy easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of Culture and Sport Glasgow in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.
Thanks Sydney,
Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled.
Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair.
Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also.
And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way.
There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow.
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 7:02am Wed 5 Mar 08
Pollok Park is an oasis in the city a place you can take the kids, the dog, yourself & just relax..
You actually forget that you are in the midst of one of the biggest cities in Europe, its a beautiful green space & surely to god that this is reason enough that it isnt exploited for financial gain..
Please think on GCC..
Pollok Park is an oasis in the city a place you can take the kids, the dog, yourself & just relax..
You actually forget that you are in the midst of one of the biggest cities in Europe, its a beautiful green space & surely to god that this is reason enough that it isnt exploited for financial gain..
Please think on GCC..
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 9:02am Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its [bold]culture of secrecy[/bold] easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of [bold]Culture and Sport Glasgow[/bold] in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. [bold]Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.[/bold][/quote] Thanks Sydney, Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled. Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair. Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also. And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way. There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow. [/quote] I hope you don't creep up and bite me on the **** when I say this PP but the park was gifted to the city in 1969 (just a small, if minor correction).. You are on a roll and I suppose you and the fellow protestors who could make it had actually forced the council into doing a u-turn on this.
Sure there are lots of other open space sites and other parks they could use for this purpose, but why they chose Pollok Park over all of this seems a bit odd - just because its a country park, yet parts of Inner City Glasgow look as if they are part of the country too!
It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too.
I'm all for it going elsewhere in the city and I'm sure there are numerous others who would like to see that happening because I believe Go Ape is a good thing for Glasgow.
People Power wrote:
Sydney Meriwether wrote: Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its culture of secrecy easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of Culture and Sport Glasgow in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.
Thanks Sydney, Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled. Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair. Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also. And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way. There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow.
I hope you don't creep up and bite me on the **** when I say this PP but the park was gifted to the city in 1969 (just a small, if minor correction).. You are on a roll and I suppose you and the fellow protestors who could make it had actually forced the council into doing a u-turn on this.
Sure there are lots of other open space sites and other parks they could use for this purpose, but why they chose Pollok Park over all of this seems a bit odd - just because its a country park, yet parts of Inner City Glasgow look as if they are part of the country too!
It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too.
I'm all for it going elsewhere in the city and I'm sure there are numerous others who would like to see that happening because I believe Go Ape is a good thing for Glasgow.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 9:03am Wed 5 Mar 08
WHOOPS! Essex, that is girl!! ;-)
WHOOPS! Essex, that is girl!! ;-)
Posted by: People Power on 12:48pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its [bold]culture of secrecy[/bold] easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of [bold]Culture and Sport Glasgow[/bold] in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. [bold]Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.[/bold][/quote] Thanks Sydney, Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled. Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair. Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also. And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way. There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow. [/quote] I hope you don't creep up and bite me on the **** when I say this PP but the park was gifted to the city in 1969 (just a small, if minor correction).. You are on a roll and I suppose you and the fellow protestors who could make it had actually forced the council into doing a u-turn on this. Sure there are lots of other open space sites and other parks they could use for this purpose, but why they chose Pollok Park over all of this seems a bit odd - just because its a country park, yet parts of Inner City Glasgow look as if they are part of the country too! It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too. I'm all for it going elsewhere in the city and I'm sure there are numerous others who would like to see that happening because I believe Go Ape is a good thing for Glasgow. [/quote]
I beg your pudding - Missing City - read this Quote from Glasgow City Councils website - and you may stand corrected:
[italic]
[bold]History[/bold]
This magnificent countryside park with its superb walled gardens and woodland walks was once part of the Old Pollok estate and was the ancestral home of the Maxwell Family for seven centuries.
The parkland and house was gifted to the City of Glasgow in 1966 by the Maxwell Family along with the remainder of the estate being used for farming and recreation, particularly golf.[/italic]
See the Glasgow City Council site for yourself.
So - either glasgow City Council can't even get their facts right ? Or you are on a wind up mission ? lol ;-)
You say:[quote]It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too.[/quote]
Thanks! I know! I did it down in Essex ( even) single handedly! lol ;-)
Roll on the weekend - this week is feeling alot longer!
The Missing City wrote:
People Power wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its culture of secrecy easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of Culture and Sport Glasgow in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.
Thanks Sydney, Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled. Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair. Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also. And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way. There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow.
I hope you don't creep up and bite me on the **** when I say this PP but the park was gifted to the city in 1969 (just a small, if minor correction).. You are on a roll and I suppose you and the fellow protestors who could make it had actually forced the council into doing a u-turn on this. Sure there are lots of other open space sites and other parks they could use for this purpose, but why they chose Pollok Park over all of this seems a bit odd - just because its a country park, yet parts of Inner City Glasgow look as if they are part of the country too! It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too. I'm all for it going elsewhere in the city and I'm sure there are numerous others who would like to see that happening because I believe Go Ape is a good thing for Glasgow.
I beg your pudding - Missing City - read this Quote from Glasgow City Councils website - and you may stand corrected:
History
This magnificent countryside park with its superb walled gardens and woodland walks was once part of the Old Pollok estate and was the ancestral home of the Maxwell Family for seven centuries.
The parkland and house was gifted to the City of Glasgow in 1966 by the Maxwell Family along with the remainder of the estate being used for farming and recreation, particularly golf.
See the Glasgow City Council site for yourself.
So - either glasgow City Council can't even get their facts right ? Or you are on a wind up mission ? lol ;-)
You say:
It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too.
Thanks! I know! I did it down in Essex ( even) single handedly! lol ;-)
Roll on the weekend - this week is feeling alot longer!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 2:06pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its [bold]culture of secrecy[/bold] easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of [bold]Culture and Sport Glasgow[/bold] in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. [bold]Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.[/bold][/quote] Thanks Sydney, Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled. Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair. Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also. And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way. There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow. [/quote] I hope you don't creep up and bite me on the **** when I say this PP but the park was gifted to the city in 1969 (just a small, if minor correction).. You are on a roll and I suppose you and the fellow protestors who could make it had actually forced the council into doing a u-turn on this. Sure there are lots of other open space sites and other parks they could use for this purpose, but why they chose Pollok Park over all of this seems a bit odd - just because its a country park, yet parts of Inner City Glasgow look as if they are part of the country too! It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too. I'm all for it going elsewhere in the city and I'm sure there are numerous others who would like to see that happening because I believe Go Ape is a good thing for Glasgow. [/quote] I beg your pudding - Missing City - read this Quote from Glasgow City Councils website - and you may stand corrected: [italic] [bold]History[/bold] This magnificent countryside park with its superb walled gardens and woodland walks was once part of the Old Pollok estate and was the ancestral home of the Maxwell Family for seven centuries. The parkland and house was gifted to the City of Glasgow in 1966 by the Maxwell Family along with the remainder of the estate being used for farming and recreation, particularly golf.[/italic] See the Glasgow City Council site for yourself. So - either glasgow City Council can't even get their facts right ? Or you are on a wind up mission ? lol ;-) You say:[quote]It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too.[/quote] Thanks! I know! I did it down in Essex ( even) single handedly! lol ;-) Roll on the weekend - this week is feeling alot longer! [/quote] A quote from Wikipedia
[quote]The park was originally part of the Old Pollok Estate, which was home to the Maxwell family for over 700 years. In 1966 Mrs Anne Maxwell Macdonald gifted the estate, including Pollok House, to Glasgow City Council with the condition that [bold]it remained a public park[/bold].[/quote]
I do remember seeing the date as 1969 printed in this very paper, that's where I got my date from - and so on this occasion I am quite happy to be corrected Madam Power, it is not the first time the Evening Times has printed the wrong information!
I must add these quotes though
Queens Park Camera Club (for which my best friends aunt was a model for the club back in the early 60's)
[italic]Pollok Park was gifted by the Maxwell family in 1969 “for the enjoyment of the citizens of Glasgow” and the “enhancement of the beauty of the neighbourhood”. In 2007 Pollok Park was voted Britain’ s Best Park. In the November 2007 Greenspace Scotland Bulletin, the then Manager of the Park, Tony Boyle, is quoted as follows: “What we have here is unbelievable: outdoor activities, a stately home, and the finest art collection in Europe. And the wonderful thing is it is free!”[/italic]
And this quote from Historic Scotland
[italic]Sir John died in 1956 and was succeeded by his daughter Mrs Anne Maxwell MacDonald who, in 1967, gifted Pollok House and 361 acres to the City of Glasgow making, as part of the gift, provision for the siting of The Burrell Collection which had been presented to the City of Glasgow by William Burrell in 1946. In 1980 this area was designated as a Country Park, and The Burrell Collection was opened to the public in October 1983. Pollok House is also open to the public as a museum.[/italic]
It beggars belief that for something so recent in history, it seems that the dates that nobody can get their dates right, however there is always exact accounts of the city and its history in the Glasgow Room at the Mitchell.
;-)
People Power wrote:
The Missing City wrote: People Power wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: Exactly People Power: what is clear is that Glasgow City Council will not give up its culture of secrecy easily, instead we will have to continue to demand rights normally freely available in a democratic society. I would like the hearing to go back to the beginning of this saga and establish a clear sequenced timeline of events, as their is contradictory information about who approached whom and - more importantly - why Pollok Park was selected on its own, to the exclusion of all other (arguably more suitable) alternatives. Crucially though, I would like to see SPP use the FoI Act to get information about the role of Culture and Sport Glasgow in this affair. CSG's virtual silence on this issue has been deafening and is now beginning to look very worrying: as the body responsible for running the Burrell, either they are content to ignore this major proposed development which will directly involve and affect the Burrell, or they are happy with the course of action proposed, despite the huge volume of complaints received recently by GCC. Either way it is time for Culture and Sport Glasgow to get off the fence and prove that they are up to the task of looking after the Burrell Collection.
Thanks Sydney, Don't worry - plenty more is being done when it comes to all angles which can be tackled. Not least by approaching The National Trust For Scotland, to see exactly what it's stance is in this whole affair. Naturally the thoughts and feelings of the Maxwell family are very important also. And I would like to see their taking action to see that the Park they gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966 remains that way. There is also the refused planning application down south which is interesting - and comparisons can be made, and information - knowledge gained - so you can be sure that all routes, avenues and angles will be looked at and persued in the name of justice for the people of Glasgow.
I hope you don't creep up and bite me on the **** when I say this PP but the park was gifted to the city in 1969 (just a small, if minor correction).. You are on a roll and I suppose you and the fellow protestors who could make it had actually forced the council into doing a u-turn on this. Sure there are lots of other open space sites and other parks they could use for this purpose, but why they chose Pollok Park over all of this seems a bit odd - just because its a country park, yet parts of Inner City Glasgow look as if they are part of the country too! It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too. I'm all for it going elsewhere in the city and I'm sure there are numerous others who would like to see that happening because I believe Go Ape is a good thing for Glasgow.
I beg your pudding - Missing City - read this Quote from Glasgow City Councils website - and you may stand corrected: History This magnificent countryside park with its superb walled gardens and woodland walks was once part of the Old Pollok estate and was the ancestral home of the Maxwell Family for seven centuries. The parkland and house was gifted to the City of Glasgow in 1966 by the Maxwell Family along with the remainder of the estate being used for farming and recreation, particularly golf. See the Glasgow City Council site for yourself. So - either glasgow City Council can't even get their facts right ? Or you are on a wind up mission ? lol ;-) You say:It was People Power which forced the rejection of the application in Essez and I hope it is rejected here too.
Thanks! I know! I did it down in Essex ( even) single handedly! lol ;-) Roll on the weekend - this week is feeling alot longer!
A quote from Wikipedia
The park was originally part of the Old Pollok Estate, which was home to the Maxwell family for over 700 years. In 1966 Mrs Anne Maxwell Macdonald gifted the estate, including Pollok House, to Glasgow City Council with the condition that it remained a public park.
I do remember seeing the date as 1969 printed in this very paper, that's where I got my date from - and so on this occasion I am quite happy to be corrected Madam Power, it is not the first time the Evening Times has printed the wrong information!
I must add these quotes though
Queens Park Camera Club (for which my best friends aunt was a model for the club back in the early 60's)
Pollok Park was gifted by the Maxwell family in 1969 “for the enjoyment of the citizens of Glasgow” and the “enhancement of the beauty of the neighbourhood”. In 2007 Pollok Park was voted Britain’ s Best Park. In the November 2007 Greenspace Scotland Bulletin, the then Manager of the Park, Tony Boyle, is quoted as follows: “What we have here is unbelievable: outdoor activities, a stately home, and the finest art collection in Europe. And the wonderful thing is it is free!”
And this quote from Historic Scotland
Sir John died in 1956 and was succeeded by his daughter Mrs Anne Maxwell MacDonald who, in 1967, gifted Pollok House and 361 acres to the City of Glasgow making, as part of the gift, provision for the siting of The Burrell Collection which had been presented to the City of Glasgow by William Burrell in 1946. In 1980 this area was designated as a Country Park, and The Burrell Collection was opened to the public in October 1983. Pollok House is also open to the public as a museum.
It beggars belief that for something so recent in history, it seems that the dates that nobody can get their dates right, however there is always exact accounts of the city and its history in the Glasgow Room at the Mitchell.
;-)
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 2:37pm Wed 5 Mar 08
I think, that based on the innaccuracies of the dates on all quotes, including information printed by the E.T. previously, is it any wonder folk are confused, or eventually switch off to certain news stories.
Media coverage of certain stories is a very important medium to make people aware of both sides of the arguement and quote councillors / MSP's from all sides of the divide.
Unfortunately this is not the case with the E.T.
All I shall say is that : The difference is the protesters, campaigners, and people standing up for their rights, what they believe in and raising the issues that are of so much importance have no major publicity companies to back them - just their own gritty determination.
"Go Ape" can Go Home! And the cross Glasgow Alliance Of Campaigns will soon see that Glasgow City Council has a real fight on its hands.
And the people of Glasgow will not be pushed over that easily!
I think, that based on the innaccuracies of the dates on all quotes, including information printed by the E.T. previously, is it any wonder folk are confused, or eventually switch off to certain news stories.
Media coverage of certain stories is a very important medium to make people aware of both sides of the arguement and quote councillors / MSP's from all sides of the divide.
Unfortunately this is not the case with the E.T.
All I shall say is that : The difference is the protesters, campaigners, and people standing up for their rights, what they believe in and raising the issues that are of so much importance have no major publicity companies to back them - just their own gritty determination.
"Go Ape" can Go Home! And the cross Glasgow Alliance Of Campaigns will soon see that Glasgow City Council has a real fight on its hands.
And the people of Glasgow will not be pushed over that easily!
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 3:04pm Wed 5 Mar 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
I think, that based on the innaccuracies of the dates on all quotes, including information printed by the E.T. previously, is it any wonder folk are confused, or eventually switch off to certain news stories. Media coverage of certain stories is a very important medium to make people aware of both sides of the arguement and quote councillors / MSP's from all sides of the divide. Unfortunately this is not the case with the E.T. All I shall say is that : The difference is the protesters, campaigners, and people standing up for their rights, what they believe in and raising the issues that are of so much importance have no major publicity companies to back them - just their own gritty determination. "Go Ape" can Go Home! And the cross Glasgow Alliance Of Campaigns will soon see that Glasgow City Council has a real fight on its hands. And the people of Glasgow will not be pushed over that easily! [/quote] Aye, I would say that was the best quote of the day (even if it was yesterdays news) however, GCC as always will have something stuff up their sleeves
Yes, slimy slugs is what we are dealing with and its the slimy slugs that have been voted by the people of the city - now is their wake up call to change things for good, moreso to end the privatisation of public services or there will be no more public services as Purcell is keen to adopt Thatcher policies (traitor) however, in this day and age, the two parties go together like fish n chips. Also for the fact that GCC has done little to regenerate the dilapidated Inner City and leaving the existing generations to rot further.
We may be seen as irritants, but if it weren't for people like us in days gone who have taken a stand against all that is evil (haha) then we would be in a worse state than what we are in just now.
I was reading a book the other day and it was referring to the clearance of Woodlands Road down to Great Western Road and along to Park Road with the exception of St George's Mansions. It was a scary read considering that this proposal by Glasgow Corporation was made in 1975 to co-incide with the wholesale demolition of Woodside and Queens Cross. Had it not been for the actions of a pressure group in that area at the time, Woodlands would probably look like the back end of the Gorbals justy now with people saying "Aye, well it was SLUMS! or some p1sh like that.
Thought you'd be interested to hear this considering that is all we hear day in and day out and also for the fact that you are a Westender ;-)
People Power wrote:
I think, that based on the innaccuracies of the dates on all quotes, including information printed by the E.T. previously, is it any wonder folk are confused, or eventually switch off to certain news stories. Media coverage of certain stories is a very important medium to make people aware of both sides of the arguement and quote councillors / MSP's from all sides of the divide. Unfortunately this is not the case with the E.T. All I shall say is that : The difference is the protesters, campaigners, and people standing up for their rights, what they believe in and raising the issues that are of so much importance have no major publicity companies to back them - just their own gritty determination. "Go Ape" can Go Home! And the cross Glasgow Alliance Of Campaigns will soon see that Glasgow City Council has a real fight on its hands. And the people of Glasgow will not be pushed over that easily!
Aye, I would say that was the best quote of the day (even if it was yesterdays news) however, GCC as always will have something stuff up their sleeves
Yes, slimy slugs is what we are dealing with and its the slimy slugs that have been voted by the people of the city - now is their wake up call to change things for good, moreso to end the privatisation of public services or there will be no more public services as Purcell is keen to adopt Thatcher policies (traitor) however, in this day and age, the two parties go together like fish n chips. Also for the fact that GCC has done little to regenerate the dilapidated Inner City and leaving the existing generations to rot further.
We may be seen as irritants, but if it weren't for people like us in days gone who have taken a stand against all that is evil (haha) then we would be in a worse state than what we are in just now.
I was reading a book the other day and it was referring to the clearance of Woodlands Road down to Great Western Road and along to Park Road with the exception of St George's Mansions. It was a scary read considering that this proposal by Glasgow Corporation was made in 1975 to co-incide with the wholesale demolition of Woodside and Queens Cross. Had it not been for the actions of a pressure group in that area at the time, Woodlands would probably look like the back end of the Gorbals justy now with people saying "Aye, well it was SLUMS! or some p1sh like that.
Thought you'd be interested to hear this considering that is all we hear day in and day out and also for the fact that you are a Westender ;-)
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 3:36pm Wed 5 Mar 08
So the Cooncil then and the cooncil now are p1sh! No surprise there then! Nothings changed!
The main difference is the people are not a push over anymore. folk are far more aware of their rights, responsibilities, and duties to stop the decimation of their city.
Glasgow is a mess - how many empty plots of land are their around it at any given time, how many buildings are being pulled down, fully refurbished, or squeezed in to every spare piece of land there is.
Clearly as our overweight councillors do not get much fresh air, exercise or know the definition of green space - parks is it any wonder they are selling so much off ?
Whether its historical facts from 30 years ago or current up to date news - it seems that little or nothing has been learned in that space of time.
A sad reflection on our city and how it was & still is being run today.
So the Cooncil then and the cooncil now are p1sh! No surprise there then! Nothings changed!
The main difference is the people are not a push over anymore. folk are far more aware of their rights, responsibilities, and duties to stop the decimation of their city.
Glasgow is a mess - how many empty plots of land are their around it at any given time, how many buildings are being pulled down, fully refurbished, or squeezed in to every spare piece of land there is.
Clearly as our overweight councillors do not get much fresh air, exercise or know the definition of green space - parks is it any wonder they are selling so much off ?
Whether its historical facts from 30 years ago or current up to date news - it seems that little or nothing has been learned in that space of time.
A sad reflection on our city and how it was & still is being run today.
Comment | Read Comments (21)
