Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 10:55am Wed 26 Mar 08
This is a [bold]disgusting corporate land-grab[/bold] by politicians who are clearly acting beyond the control of the people of Glasgow. The only good thing to come out of this process is that there is now an end in sight of the despicable incompetence which has masqueraded as New Labour politics in Glasgow.
This is a
disgusting corporate land-grab by politicians who are clearly acting beyond the control of the people of Glasgow. The only good thing to come out of this process is that there is now an end in sight of the despicable incompetence which has masqueraded as New Labour politics in Glasgow.
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 11:00am Wed 26 Mar 08
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:12am Wed 26 Mar 08
Those in the city chambers knew what the outcome of this would be, they can't be that stupid and for that brazen act yesterday, they have just signed their own death warrant!
RIP Labour - you only have yourselves to blame for your own downfall!
Those in the city chambers knew what the outcome of this would be, they can't be that stupid and for that brazen act yesterday, they have just signed their own death warrant!
RIP Labour - you only have yourselves to blame for your own downfall!
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 11:17am Wed 26 Mar 08
How does this affect the legal status of the legal deeds given by Pollok to Glasgow to keep the park for the people? I am sure that the council has broken its own rules ovr this.
How does this affect the legal status of the legal deeds given by Pollok to Glasgow to keep the park for the people? I am sure that the council has broken its own rules ovr this.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:18am Wed 26 Mar 08
And for anybody else out there who may still have land or property in Glasgow - don't give it to the council, it will be trashed or demolished like everything else!
WASTERS!
And for anybody else out there who may still have land or property in Glasgow - don't give it to the council, it will be trashed or demolished like everything else!
WASTERS!
Posted by: zipper, Glasgow on 11:24am Wed 26 Mar 08
i cant wait to have a go
looks like excellent fun
i cant wait to have a go
looks like excellent fun
Posted by: Eric Flack, Drumchapel on 11:33am Wed 26 Mar 08
It seems expensive. Wonder just how many will pay £20 to £25 to use it. Would zipping down hill at Bellahouston Park not be a better option ?
It seems expensive. Wonder just how many will pay £20 to £25 to use it. Would zipping down hill at Bellahouston Park not be a better option ?
Posted by: GoingApe, Glasgow on 11:36am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
This is a [bold]disgusting corporate land-grab[/bold] by politicians who are clearly acting beyond the control of the people of Glasgow. The only good thing to come out of this process is that there is now an end in sight of the despicable incompetence which has masqueraded as New Labour politics in Glasgow.[/quote] Why is it just the NuLabs ur having a go at? There's 3 SNP councillors there too who backed the proposals
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
This is a disgusting corporate land-grab by politicians who are clearly acting beyond the control of the people of Glasgow. The only good thing to come out of this process is that there is now an end in sight of the despicable incompetence which has masqueraded as New Labour politics in Glasgow.
Why is it just the NuLabs ur having a go at? There's 3 SNP councillors there too who backed the proposals
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 11:43am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jim[/bold] wrote:
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.[/quote] Your Fired Labour
jim wrote:
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.
Your Fired Labour
Posted by: BeeSee, bsaj2001@yahoo.co.uk on 11:45am Wed 26 Mar 08
Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun).
I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun).
I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:48am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]GoingApe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is a [bold]disgusting corporate land-grab[/bold] by politicians who are clearly acting beyond the control of the people of Glasgow. The only good thing to come out of this process is that there is now an end in sight of the despicable incompetence which has masqueraded as New Labour politics in Glasgow.[/quote] Why is it just the NuLabs ur having a go at? There's 3 SNP councillors there too who backed the proposals[/quote] They should get the boot as well for bowing to Labour pressure: I'll scrub your back if you scrub mine / dodgy handshakes / brown envelopes - whatever it was, its not acceptable.
Labour don't give a monkeys and they are currently the ruling group.
But for how much longer? that'll be down to the ignorant people who will no doubt continue to vote them in.
GoingApe wrote:
Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is a disgusting corporate land-grab by politicians who are clearly acting beyond the control of the people of Glasgow. The only good thing to come out of this process is that there is now an end in sight of the despicable incompetence which has masqueraded as New Labour politics in Glasgow.
Why is it just the NuLabs ur having a go at? There's 3 SNP councillors there too who backed the proposals
They should get the boot as well for bowing to Labour pressure: I'll scrub your back if you scrub mine / dodgy handshakes / brown envelopes - whatever it was, its not acceptable.
Labour don't give a monkeys and they are currently the ruling group.
But for how much longer? that'll be down to the ignorant people who will no doubt continue to vote them in.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:53am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] The park wasn't given to Glasgow for this purpose - don't tell me, you can't see the wood for the trees!
BeeSee wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
The park wasn't given to Glasgow for this purpose - don't tell me, you can't see the wood for the trees!
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 11:54am Wed 26 Mar 08
Simple: this [bold]corporate land-grab[/bold] is part of a wider New Labour strategy to relieve the people of Glasgow of the product of years of toil and sweat by generations of Glaswegians.
...and why is New Labour doing this to the people who have stubbornly followed them in the past? Well, that's simple again: New Labour will lose power in Glasgow at the next local elections, even our 'wise' council leader can work that one out. So, before they are booted out, they're going to make sure any subsequent administration will not have control over our assets, as they will be in the greedy grasp of corporate exploiters.
There are many analogies from history which would help explain this, such as that of the life Gaius Julius Caesar, but I fear these would all be lost on the council leader, as, as I revealed last week, [italic]Mr Purcell struggles to grasp Glasgow's recent industrial history, let alone the complex ancient history of the Roman Republic.[/italic]
Simple: this
corporate land-grab is part of a wider New Labour strategy to relieve the people of Glasgow of the product of years of toil and sweat by generations of Glaswegians.
...and why is New Labour doing this to the people who have stubbornly followed them in the past? Well, that's simple again: New Labour will lose power in Glasgow at the next local elections, even our 'wise' council leader can work that one out. So, before they are booted out, they're going to make sure any subsequent administration will not have control over our assets, as they will be in the greedy grasp of corporate exploiters.
There are many analogies from history which would help explain this, such as that of the life Gaius Julius Caesar, but I fear these would all be lost on the council leader, as, as I revealed last week,
Mr Purcell struggles to grasp Glasgow's recent industrial history, let alone the complex ancient history of the Roman Republic.Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:55am Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
BeeSee wrote:
Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
Posted by: uncle ben, glasgow on 11:57am Wed 26 Mar 08
Right, lets vote them out.
This is deplorable and typical of this crowd in power at the Chambers.
Who has responsibility for culture, museums and parks, is it our esteemed culture vulture and ex lord provost, Liz Cameron? Shame on you.
This is our heritage. You are rubbishing it.
Right, lets vote them out.
This is deplorable and typical of this crowd in power at the Chambers.
Who has responsibility for culture, museums and parks, is it our esteemed culture vulture and ex lord provost, Liz Cameron? Shame on you.
This is our heritage. You are rubbishing it.
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 11:57am Wed 26 Mar 08
Go Ape is a good, not very noisy and not very intrusive facility.
Go Ape is a good, not very noisy and not very intrusive facility.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 12:10pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Go Ape is a good, not very noisy and not very intrusive facility.[/quote] I agree Brad - in the right place. North Wood is NOT the right place.
[quote]Who has responsibility for culture, museums and parks, is it our esteemed culture vulture and ex lord provost, Liz Cameron? Shame on you.[/quote]
Yep, the same one who at the re-opening of Kelvingrove spoke about giving the museum back to the people of Glasgow. Hypocrite.
Brad wrote:
Go Ape is a good, not very noisy and not very intrusive facility.
I agree Brad - in the right place. North Wood is NOT the right place.
Who has responsibility for culture, museums and parks, is it our esteemed culture vulture and ex lord provost, Liz Cameron? Shame on you.
Yep, the same one who at the re-opening of Kelvingrove spoke about giving the museum back to the people of Glasgow. Hypocrite.
Posted by: bob mckay, glasgow on 12:11pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
Go Ape is a good, not very noisy and not very intrusive facility.[/quote] Spot on Brad. Im delighted and if some of the treehugging lardies want to go on the adventure ropewalk ill pay- after all fitter glaswegians is a good thing?
Its my park too and me and my friends and family want to go. Mon the planning commitee!!!
Brad wrote:
Go Ape is a good, not very noisy and not very intrusive facility.
Spot on Brad. Im delighted and if some of the treehugging lardies want to go on the adventure ropewalk ill pay- after all fitter glaswegians is a good thing?
Its my park too and me and my friends and family want to go. Mon the planning commitee!!!
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 12:15pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]uncle ben[/bold] wrote:
Right, lets vote them out.
This is deplorable and typical of this crowd in power at the Chambers.
Who has responsibility for culture, museums and parks, is it our esteemed culture vulture and ex lord provost, Liz Cameron? Shame on you.
This is our heritage. You are rubbishing it.
[/quote] Liz Cameron is the uninspiring chairwoman of the board of the private company 'Culture and Sport Glasgow', which runs our museums, as - although we have internationally renowned attractions - Purcell and his cronies decided last year that the people of Glasgow were not fit to run them on our own.
Now, [italic]where this gets interesting[/italic], and where I have encouraged appropriate regulators to get involved, is that the Burrell Collection's cafe and shop are likely to see [bold]increased profits as a direct result[/bold] of the approval of the Go Ape plan (in part by Liz Cameron). Understandably other private companies in Glasgow, who also try to attract tourists and/or business visitors to spend money in their cafes and shops are [bold]furious[/bold] at the involvement of the chairwoman of Culture and Sport Glasgow.
uncle ben wrote:
Right, lets vote them out.
This is deplorable and typical of this crowd in power at the Chambers.
Who has responsibility for culture, museums and parks, is it our esteemed culture vulture and ex lord provost, Liz Cameron? Shame on you.
This is our heritage. You are rubbishing it.
Liz Cameron is the uninspiring chairwoman of the board of the private company 'Culture and Sport Glasgow', which runs our museums, as - although we have internationally renowned attractions - Purcell and his cronies decided last year that the people of Glasgow were not fit to run them on our own.
Now,
where this gets interesting, and where I have encouraged appropriate regulators to get involved, is that the Burrell Collection's cafe and shop are likely to see
increased profits as a direct result of the approval of the Go Ape plan (in part by Liz Cameron). Understandably other private companies in Glasgow, who also try to attract tourists and/or business visitors to spend money in their cafes and shops are
furious at the involvement of the chairwoman of Culture and Sport Glasgow.
Posted by: BeeSee on 12:17pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?[/quote] I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil.
I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.
The Missing City wrote:
BeeSee wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil.
I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 12:36pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?[/quote] I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.[/quote] Okay Bee
It seems obvious that you think the whole thing stinks, those who agree with the plan are either family or friends of the muppets who approved this, why else would they be rejoicing with delight at the fact this was approved?
To this lot, they don't care! It seems the Glasgow people this land was gifted to are people of a different Glasgow to what the people are today - or maybe Labour was under the impression that the people were thick and had no clue of the park's origins - whatever the case maybe, it stinks - rotten to the core!
This may be a benchmark in selling off or leasing more of the parks and open space which is supposed to be for the public - the people of Glasgow, which are seen now as nobody's, meaningless numbers to keep this lot in the positions of curruption they love so much!
BeeSee wrote:
The Missing City wrote: BeeSee wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.
Okay Bee
It seems obvious that you think the whole thing stinks, those who agree with the plan are either family or friends of the muppets who approved this, why else would they be rejoicing with delight at the fact this was approved?
To this lot, they don't care! It seems the Glasgow people this land was gifted to are people of a different Glasgow to what the people are today - or maybe Labour was under the impression that the people were thick and had no clue of the park's origins - whatever the case maybe, it stinks - rotten to the core!
This may be a benchmark in selling off or leasing more of the parks and open space which is supposed to be for the public - the people of Glasgow, which are seen now as nobody's, meaningless numbers to keep this lot in the positions of curruption they love so much!
Posted by: BhoyWunda, East Kilbride on 12:44pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Why are you all getting your knickers in a twist? Jobs and young people getting fit!
Why are you all getting your knickers in a twist? Jobs and young people getting fit!
Posted by: BeeSee on 12:46pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?[/quote] I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.[/quote] Okay Bee It seems obvious that you think the whole thing stinks, those who agree with the plan are either family or friends of the muppets who approved this, why else would they be rejoicing with delight at the fact this was approved? To this lot, they don't care! It seems the Glasgow people this land was gifted to are people of a different Glasgow to what the people are today - or maybe Labour was under the impression that the people were thick and had no clue of the park's origins - whatever the case maybe, it stinks - rotten to the core! This may be a benchmark in selling off or leasing more of the parks and open space which is supposed to be for the public - the people of Glasgow, which are seen now as nobody's, meaningless numbers to keep this lot in the positions of curruption they love so much![/quote] The whole process stinks, but i dont have any issues with Go ape installing the facility.
If they had been more open from the start (instead of insulting evreyone's inteligence and trying to seneak it in)then this whole mess may have been lessened, For me though the council has been left wanting ever since they covered George Square in red tarmac and removed most of the grass parts so that they could rent it out as and when they please. They lost a friend in me the day that happened.
The Missing City wrote:
BeeSee wrote: The Missing City wrote: BeeSee wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.
Okay Bee It seems obvious that you think the whole thing stinks, those who agree with the plan are either family or friends of the muppets who approved this, why else would they be rejoicing with delight at the fact this was approved? To this lot, they don't care! It seems the Glasgow people this land was gifted to are people of a different Glasgow to what the people are today - or maybe Labour was under the impression that the people were thick and had no clue of the park's origins - whatever the case maybe, it stinks - rotten to the core! This may be a benchmark in selling off or leasing more of the parks and open space which is supposed to be for the public - the people of Glasgow, which are seen now as nobody's, meaningless numbers to keep this lot in the positions of curruption they love so much!
The whole process stinks, but i dont have any issues with Go ape installing the facility.
If they had been more open from the start (instead of insulting evreyone's inteligence and trying to seneak it in)then this whole mess may have been lessened, For me though the council has been left wanting ever since they covered George Square in red tarmac and removed most of the grass parts so that they could rent it out as and when they please. They lost a friend in me the day that happened.
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 12:50pm Wed 26 Mar 08
All of the posters who are for this Go-Ape project are missing the point..This land was gifted to the people of Glasgow not to the council to do with as they see fit..The cou8ncil have no right to do this with public land & are breaking the law..
All of the posters who are for this Go-Ape project are missing the point..This land was gifted to the people of Glasgow not to the council to do with as they see fit..The cou8ncil have no right to do this with public land & are breaking the law..
Posted by: Raven, Saigon on 12:52pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I continue to read these posts with great interest. It would appear that the objectors to this proposal represent the whole of the indigenous population of Glasgow, I suspect if a survey was conducted in Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Sighthill to name but a few, in respect of this proposal and its impact on the Park, there could very well be a few choice responses.
I continue to read these posts with great interest. It would appear that the objectors to this proposal represent the whole of the indigenous population of Glasgow, I suspect if a survey was conducted in Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Sighthill to name but a few, in respect of this proposal and its impact on the Park, there could very well be a few choice responses.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 1:00pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Raven[/bold] wrote:
I continue to read these posts with great interest. It would appear that the objectors to this proposal represent the whole of the indigenous population of Glasgow, I suspect if a survey was conducted in Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Sighthill to name but a few, in respect of this proposal and its impact on the Park, there could very well be a few choice responses. [/quote] [italic]There would be and there was:[/italic]
[bold]pollokpark.org[/bold]
Raven wrote:
I continue to read these posts with great interest. It would appear that the objectors to this proposal represent the whole of the indigenous population of Glasgow, I suspect if a survey was conducted in Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Castlemilk, Sighthill to name but a few, in respect of this proposal and its impact on the Park, there could very well be a few choice responses.
There would be and there was:
pollokpark.org Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:05pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]BhoyWunda[/bold] wrote:
Why are you all getting your knickers in a twist? Jobs and young people getting fit![/quote] if I have to explain it then you probably would not understand, but I will try.
What jobs? what young people getting fit? jobs are seasonal and barely above minimum wages, how many young people do you know who will pay £25 a go and how likely are they to have this as part of a regular routine.
BhoyWunda wrote:
Why are you all getting your knickers in a twist? Jobs and young people getting fit!
if I have to explain it then you probably would not understand, but I will try.
What jobs? what young people getting fit? jobs are seasonal and barely above minimum wages, how many young people do you know who will pay £25 a go and how likely are they to have this as part of a regular routine.
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 1:07pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Will anyone here join and do a protest outside the city chambers and order City Council Leader out.
Will anyone here join and do a protest outside the city chambers and order City Council Leader out.
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 1:09pm Wed 26 Mar 08
The fight will never end I know who i will vote for and it's not Labour.
The fight will never end I know who i will vote for and it's not Labour.
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 1:17pm Wed 26 Mar 08
11 Labour for it and 1 against not good enough Labour. Labour you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
11 Labour for it and 1 against not good enough Labour. Labour you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 1:27pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]I hear your pain[/bold] wrote:
All of the posters who are for this Go-Ape project are missing the point..This land was gifted to the people of Glasgow not to the council to do with as they see fit..The cou8ncil have no right to do this with public land & are breaking the law..[/quote] The End is nigh for labour in Glasgow
I hear your pain wrote:
All of the posters who are for this Go-Ape project are missing the point..This land was gifted to the people of Glasgow not to the council to do with as they see fit..The cou8ncil have no right to do this with public land & are breaking the law..
The End is nigh for labour in Glasgow
Posted by: Joe Shmo, Glasgow on 1:34pm Wed 26 Mar 08
My only concern is the apes in the park. What if they escape? do they get fed real bananas.? Where do they Go ?
My only concern is the apes in the park. What if they escape? do they get fed real bananas.? Where do they Go ?
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 1:40pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Labour are monkeys and dont listen to the people of Glasgow.
Labour are monkeys and dont listen to the people of Glasgow.
Posted by: Tarry breeks, Partick on 1:45pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I don't really see the problem with this specific proposal, it's not a permanent fixture of the park, it takes up a small area and it adds another visitor attraction to the area. Something for the kids perhaps while mums and dads visit The Burrell Collection.
What bothers me is that despite all the objections the proposal was approved. What hope is there to objections to other inappropriate developments like the ridiculous TescoTown proposal for Partick? Or Stephan Kings proposal for a nightclub at the Botanics?
Sure investment is a good thing and if the proposal is right for the area then it should be approved, but not in the face of huge public objection. Have these councillors forgotten who pays their wages?
Councillors in Glasgow have for too long become complacent in their 'jobs for the boys'; being voted in time after time. I'm sure many are guilty of taking backhanders for votes. Time for a change Glasgow, time to get these goons out of power.
I don't really see the problem with this specific proposal, it's not a permanent fixture of the park, it takes up a small area and it adds another visitor attraction to the area. Something for the kids perhaps while mums and dads visit The Burrell Collection.
What bothers me is that despite all the objections the proposal was approved. What hope is there to objections to other inappropriate developments like the ridiculous TescoTown proposal for Partick? Or Stephan Kings proposal for a nightclub at the Botanics?
Sure investment is a good thing and if the proposal is right for the area then it should be approved, but not in the face of huge public objection. Have these councillors forgotten who pays their wages?
Councillors in Glasgow have for too long become complacent in their 'jobs for the boys'; being voted in time after time. I'm sure many are guilty of taking backhanders for votes. Time for a change Glasgow, time to get these goons out of power.
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 1:50pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Joe Shmo[/bold] wrote:
My only concern is the apes in the park. What if they escape? do they get fed real bananas.? Where do they Go ? [/quote] That is the best thing i have heard for a long time well done
Joe Shmo wrote:
My only concern is the apes in the park. What if they escape? do they get fed real bananas.? Where do they Go ?
That is the best thing i have heard for a long time well done
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 2:18pm Wed 26 Mar 08
BeeSee
I agree with you that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park in Glasgow there would not have been such an outcry.
The reason for this is because none of these parks have an amenity which is as well loved and as well used as the North Wood. Which by the way is as well loved by people living in the multi storey flats in Pollokshaws as it is by the people living in the leafy drives of Pollokshields.
The idea that only middle class people care for the tranquillity of this last unspoiled section of the park is rot. Everyone who uses it does.
BeeSee
I agree with you that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park in Glasgow there would not have been such an outcry.
The reason for this is because none of these parks have an amenity which is as well loved and as well used as the North Wood. Which by the way is as well loved by people living in the multi storey flats in Pollokshaws as it is by the people living in the leafy drives of Pollokshields.
The idea that only middle class people care for the tranquillity of this last unspoiled section of the park is rot. Everyone who uses it does.
Posted by: newman, glasgow on 3:05pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Remember them at the next council elections.[bold]bold[/bold] [bold]bold[/bold]
Remember them at the next council elections.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 3:28pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jim[/bold] wrote:
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.[/quote]
This pocket lining exercise by new labour is nothing more than a slap on he face for us the electorate!
With only one labour councillor voting against this proposal - compared to the eleven who voted for it - that speaks volumes!
Gooodbye Labour right enough - their days in Glasgow City Council are well and truly over!
Lets make sure we remind all voers just how callous, greedy, two faced, and manipulative they are! And ensure we vote tactically & based on who can do better for us! NOT LABOUR!
jim wrote:
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.
This pocket lining exercise by new labour is nothing more than a slap on he face for us the electorate!
With only one labour councillor voting against this proposal - compared to the eleven who voted for it - that speaks volumes!
Gooodbye Labour right enough - their days in Glasgow City Council are well and truly over!
Lets make sure we remind all voers just how callous, greedy, two faced, and manipulative they are! And ensure we vote tactically & based on who can do better for us! NOT LABOUR!
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 3:42pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Goodbye Labour we had enough now you are woser than the torries of the 80's
Goodbye Labour we had enough now you are woser than the torries of the 80's
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 3:45pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I support Bill Fraser and as he said the fight goes on to holyrood
I support Bill Fraser and as he said the fight goes on to holyrood
Posted by: Scott, Glasgow on 3:49pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I call for a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Council from the electorate of Glasgow.
Anyone care to second me?
-Scott
I call for a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Council from the electorate of Glasgow.
Anyone care to second me?
-Scott
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 3:53pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scott[/bold] wrote:
I call for a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Council from the electorate of Glasgow. Anyone care to second me? -Scott[/quote] Should we the people of Glasgow ask for another Local Election now. So the council in the Monkey Chambers who voted for the go-ape to go ahead are kicked out and the council leader.
Scott wrote:
I call for a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Council from the electorate of Glasgow. Anyone care to second me? -Scott
Should we the people of Glasgow ask for another Local Election now. So the council in the Monkey Chambers who voted for the go-ape to go ahead are kicked out and the council leader.
Posted by: sb1987, Glasgow on 3:54pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scott[/bold] wrote:
I call for a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Council from the electorate of Glasgow. Anyone care to second me? -Scott[/quote] I second you on this debate
Scott wrote:
I call for a vote of no confidence in the current leadership of the Council from the electorate of Glasgow. Anyone care to second me? -Scott
I second you on this debate
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 3:57pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote]Something for the kids perhaps while mums and dads visit The Burrell Collection.[/quote]
Nope - children must be accompanied by a [bold]participating[/bold]adult. Each adult can be responsible for up to 2 children - if there is a 3rd child than that need two participating adults. So, mum [bold]or[/bold] dad plus 2 kids = £65. If 3 kids then it will cost mum & dad £110
That's just one of the objections and why it is totally misleading for the Council and others to claim that it will improve the health of children by providing them with healthy, outdoor exercise.
Something for the kids perhaps while mums and dads visit The Burrell Collection.
Nope - children must be accompanied by a
participatingadult. Each adult can be responsible for up to 2 children - if there is a 3rd child than that need two participating adults. So, mum
or dad plus 2 kids = £65. If 3 kids then it will cost mum & dad £110
That's just one of the objections and why it is totally misleading for the Council and others to claim that it will improve the health of children by providing them with healthy, outdoor exercise.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 4:01pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jim[/bold] wrote:
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.[/quote]
This pocket lining exercise by new labour is nothing more than a slap on he face for us the electorate!
With only one labour councillor voting against this proposal - compared to the eleven who voted for it - that speaks volumes!
Gooodbye Labour right enough - their days in Glasgow City Council are well and truly over!
Lets make sure we remind all voers just how callous, greedy, two faced, and manipulative they are! And ensure we vote tactically & based on who can do better for us! NOT LABOUR!
[/quote] And what about the three out of five SNP councillors who voted in favour? Not to mention Councillor Deans(also SNP) who heaped scorn on those Glasgow citizens who oppose the plans?
People Power wrote:
jim wrote:
Bye labour ,Hello Independence.
This pocket lining exercise by new labour is nothing more than a slap on he face for us the electorate!
With only one labour councillor voting against this proposal - compared to the eleven who voted for it - that speaks volumes!
Gooodbye Labour right enough - their days in Glasgow City Council are well and truly over!
Lets make sure we remind all voers just how callous, greedy, two faced, and manipulative they are! And ensure we vote tactically & based on who can do better for us! NOT LABOUR!
And what about the three out of five SNP councillors who voted in favour? Not to mention Councillor Deans(also SNP) who heaped scorn on those Glasgow citizens who oppose the plans?
Posted by: hawkey, glasgow green on 4:04pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?[/quote] I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.[/quote] you're missing the point. It's not just about "a small section of the park" It will be accessed by even more cars. There are few places in Glasgow where you can walk without continually looking over your shoulder for cars. The increase in traffic going into the park is unacceptable. The access route through the park to the Burrell car park already causes problems for pedestrians, this proposal will make it worse.
It also seems to me that you have not a clue about who uses Polok Park so away and patronise those who can't see through you.
BeeSee wrote:
The Missing City wrote: BeeSee wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.
you're missing the point. It's not just about "a small section of the park" It will be accessed by even more cars. There are few places in Glasgow where you can walk without continually looking over your shoulder for cars. The increase in traffic going into the park is unacceptable. The access route through the park to the Burrell car park already causes problems for pedestrians, this proposal will make it worse.
It also seems to me that you have not a clue about who uses Polok Park so away and patronise those who can't see through you.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 4:07pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]mulross[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]jim[/bold] wrote: Bye labour ,Hello Independence.[/quote] This pocket lining exercise by new labour is nothing more than a slap on he face for us the electorate! With only one labour councillor voting against this proposal - compared to the eleven who voted for it - that speaks volumes! Gooodbye Labour right enough - their days in Glasgow City Council are well and truly over! Lets make sure we remind all voers just how callous, greedy, two faced, and manipulative they are! And ensure we vote tactically & based on who can do better for us! NOT LABOUR! [/quote] And what about the three out of five SNP councillors who voted in favour? Not to mention Councillor Deans(also SNP) who heaped scorn on those Glasgow citizens who oppose the plans?[/quote] [quote]They should get the boot as well for bowing to Labour pressure: I'll scrub your back if you scrub mine / dodgy handshakes / brown envelopes - whatever it was, its not acceptable.
Labour don't give a monkeys and they are currently the ruling group.
But for how much longer? that'll be down to the ignorant people who will no doubt continue to vote them in.[/quote]
My view on that comment of yours Mulross, from the top of the pile (Well, almost!!)
mulross wrote:
People Power wrote: jim wrote: Bye labour ,Hello Independence.
This pocket lining exercise by new labour is nothing more than a slap on he face for us the electorate! With only one labour councillor voting against this proposal - compared to the eleven who voted for it - that speaks volumes! Gooodbye Labour right enough - their days in Glasgow City Council are well and truly over! Lets make sure we remind all voers just how callous, greedy, two faced, and manipulative they are! And ensure we vote tactically & based on who can do better for us! NOT LABOUR!
And what about the three out of five SNP councillors who voted in favour? Not to mention Councillor Deans(also SNP) who heaped scorn on those Glasgow citizens who oppose the plans?
They should get the boot as well for bowing to Labour pressure: I'll scrub your back if you scrub mine / dodgy handshakes / brown envelopes - whatever it was, its not acceptable.
Labour don't give a monkeys and they are currently the ruling group.
But for how much longer? that'll be down to the ignorant people who will no doubt continue to vote them in.
My view on that comment of yours Mulross, from the top of the pile (Well, almost!!)
Posted by: GML, right here on 4:27pm Wed 26 Mar 08
What an incredible amount of groaning and moaning about a few people abseiling and climbing about in trees in a big park. I can't help but imagine if it was being run by Billy Bragg and Tommy Sheridan for the benefit of Cuban orphans there would be nothing like the same amount of protests. But some guy called Tristan charging £25 a go, that's an outrage, obviously. To the barricades, brothers...
What an incredible amount of groaning and moaning about a few people abseiling and climbing about in trees in a big park. I can't help but imagine if it was being run by Billy Bragg and Tommy Sheridan for the benefit of Cuban orphans there would be nothing like the same amount of protests. But some guy called Tristan charging £25 a go, that's an outrage, obviously. To the barricades, brothers...
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 4:30pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I think they have the wrong park a survival course in possilpark sounds better to me.
I think they have the wrong park a survival course in possilpark sounds better to me.
Posted by: andy3127, Troon on 4:30pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I still think this is a great idea and will attract me and my park to an area of Glasgow we wouldnt have bothered visiting before, surely that must be good for the local economy?!
I still think this is a great idea and will attract me and my park to an area of Glasgow we wouldnt have bothered visiting before, surely that must be good for the local economy?!
Posted by: BeeSee on 4:34pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]hawkey[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]The Missing City[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]BeeSee[/bold] wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.[/quote] PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?[/quote] I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.[/quote] you're missing the point. It's not just about "a small section of the park" It will be accessed by even more cars. There are few places in Glasgow where you can walk without continually looking over your shoulder for cars. The increase in traffic going into the park is unacceptable. The access route through the park to the Burrell car park already causes problems for pedestrians, this proposal will make it worse. It also seems to me that you have not a clue about who uses Polok Park so away and patronise those who can't see through you.[/quote] Hawkey, i use Pollock at least once a week, it is the best location in Glasgow to run, with good flats, and challenging gradients, as a runner and a father i like it because of the lack of traffic and the fact it is used by people who are there to enjoy the park and are not there to annoy cos its handy.
At current charging and allowed usage levels it will be busiest during the day on weekdays where corporate teams will use it for "team building" and levels will be so low at evening and on the weekends that the extra 20-30 cars generated will add no more extra cars than when the Burrell has a special exhibition.
hawkey wrote:
BeeSee wrote: The Missing City wrote: BeeSee wrote: Let me see if I understand this correctly, the council we all voted for, use our council tax to maintain, clean and promote Pollock park, not to mention fund the very successful family weekend (which no one seems to mind the noise and over parking from) and as soon as a very small corner of it is to be used by a private enterprise that doesn't fall into the acceptable category of middle class persons who pretend to be upper class, then everyone goes ape (pardon the pun). I honestly believe that if the application was from a coffee shop, pottery making studio, or internet cafe (which although making just as much noise and generating just as much traffic, would be a constant eyesore) then none of these upper class pretenders would bother.
PS If you like this park so well, how come you can't even spell the name of the place properly?
I love the park missing city, i really do and is only beaten in Glasgow by Kelvingrove (where i oppose the plans for any nightclub / restaurant)but it is my heartfelt belief that if the go ape plan was for Tollcross, Auchinlea, Alexandra or any other park where not so nice families use the facilities then these objections would be nil. I understand the feeling's and sentiments on how the city council are abusing their position and agree wholeheartedly that its only going ahead because there will high income generated for them, but at the end of the day its a small section of the park and will be hard to notice unless you are looking for it, As a city they where voted in by sheep who dont ask questions and only vote cos their parents voted that way and their parents, parents voted that way etc etc, The council dont realise how high feelings run on this and they will pay for their shortsightedness.
you're missing the point. It's not just about "a small section of the park" It will be accessed by even more cars. There are few places in Glasgow where you can walk without continually looking over your shoulder for cars. The increase in traffic going into the park is unacceptable. The access route through the park to the Burrell car park already causes problems for pedestrians, this proposal will make it worse. It also seems to me that you have not a clue about who uses Polok Park so away and patronise those who can't see through you.
Hawkey, i use Pollock at least once a week, it is the best location in Glasgow to run, with good flats, and challenging gradients, as a runner and a father i like it because of the lack of traffic and the fact it is used by people who are there to enjoy the park and are not there to annoy cos its handy.
At current charging and allowed usage levels it will be busiest during the day on weekdays where corporate teams will use it for "team building" and levels will be so low at evening and on the weekends that the extra 20-30 cars generated will add no more extra cars than when the Burrell has a special exhibition.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:36pm Wed 26 Mar 08
If this was a labour stitch up. why did the majority of SNP members of the Committee support the application for Planning Permission?
Quite simple, in terms of planning legislation it was a competent application and, as such, the members of the came to the right decision. The fact that there were 800 objections is neither here nor there, it is the relevance of the objections that matters not the quantity.
If this was a labour stitch up. why did the majority of SNP members of the Committee support the application for Planning Permission?
Quite simple, in terms of planning legislation it was a competent application and, as such, the members of the came to the right decision. The fact that there were 800 objections is neither here nor there, it is the relevance of the objections that matters not the quantity.
Posted by: Scott, Glasgow on 4:59pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote]Posted by: [bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] , Glasgow on 4:36pm today
it is the relevance of the objections that matters not the quantity.[/quote]
Excellent words Forbes! Perhaps the finest I've read from you.
Let's hope that the relevance [bold]is indeed[/bold] what the Scottish Government looks at and takes the quantity of these objections into account to show public feeling behind this [bold]absolute[/bold] relevance.
-Scott
Posted by: Forbes Aiken , Glasgow on 4:36pm today
it is the relevance of the objections that matters not the quantity.
Excellent words Forbes! Perhaps the finest I've read from you.
Let's hope that the relevance
is indeed what the Scottish Government looks at and takes the quantity of these objections into account to show public feeling behind this
absolute relevance.
-Scott
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 5:01pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
If this was a labour stitch up. why did the majority of SNP members of the Committee support the application for Planning Permission?
Quite simple, in terms of planning legislation it was a competent application and, as such, the members of the came to the right decision. The fact that there were 800 objections is neither here nor there, it is the relevance of the objections that matters not the quantity.[/quote] As usual a shady bit of twisted logic from our resident chief council lackey. As he well knows, the '[bold]labour stitch up[/bold]' he correctly refers to happened long before the decision by the planning committee, and hinged on a [bold]fundamentally flawed and thoroughly discredited process of 'public consultation'[/bold].
It's a bit like scrutinising the actions of individual soldiers in IRAQ according to the conventions of Westminster debating, when in actual fact the troops should never have been there in the first place!
Forbes Aiken wrote:
If this was a labour stitch up. why did the majority of SNP members of the Committee support the application for Planning Permission?
Quite simple, in terms of planning legislation it was a competent application and, as such, the members of the came to the right decision. The fact that there were 800 objections is neither here nor there, it is the relevance of the objections that matters not the quantity.
As usual a shady bit of twisted logic from our resident chief council lackey. As he well knows, the '
labour stitch up' he correctly refers to happened long before the decision by the planning committee, and hinged on a
fundamentally flawed and thoroughly discredited process of 'public consultation'.
It's a bit like scrutinising the actions of individual soldiers in IRAQ according to the conventions of Westminster debating, when in actual fact the troops should never have been there in the first place!
Posted by: yerauldda, West End Exile on 5:26pm Wed 26 Mar 08
sydney, your a paranoid wreck
can you remind me what film studio they used to film the moon landing?
stop moaning about it people. get over it. get on with your lives. move along. nothing to see here.
people prtesting this are a bunch of do-gooders, who, when it comes down to it, probably don't really care. they just want the status.
sydney, your a paranoid wreck
can you remind me what film studio they used to film the moon landing?
stop moaning about it people. get over it. get on with your lives. move along. nothing to see here.
people prtesting this are a bunch of do-gooders, who, when it comes down to it, probably don't really care. they just want the status.
Comment | Read Comments (79)
