Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 11:06am Thu 3 Apr 08
I think that it is correct to focus on the [bold]sham consultation process[/bold] to make sure that all the issues concerning this damaging application are addressed, not just the narrow remit considered by the ill-equipped Planning Committee.
May I urge caution on one front: it is possible that GCC leaders may try to outflank any subsequent wider investigation by portraying the SNP as 'anti-business'. In this respect it is important that the apparent anti-competitive nature of the initial application, and subsequent granting, of the plan are also fully investigated.
Do not let these New Labour numpties run to the 'business' high ground, when in fact [bold]their actions have destroyed one of the prime resources in attracting tourists to this city[/bold] and contributing to tourism businesses throughout the city.
I think that it is correct to focus on the
sham consultation process to make sure that all the issues concerning this damaging application are addressed, not just the narrow remit considered by the ill-equipped Planning Committee.
May I urge caution on one front: it is possible that GCC leaders may try to outflank any subsequent wider investigation by portraying the SNP as 'anti-business'. In this respect it is important that the apparent anti-competitive nature of the initial application, and subsequent granting, of the plan are also fully investigated.
Do not let these New Labour numpties run to the 'business' high ground, when in fact
their actions have destroyed one of the prime resources in attracting tourists to this city and contributing to tourism businesses throughout the city.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 11:13am Thu 3 Apr 08
It's a pity the SNP weren't so keen to observe proper diligence in their handling of Donald Trump's proposal for Balmedie.
It's a pity the SNP weren't so keen to observe proper diligence in their handling of Donald Trump's proposal for Balmedie.
Posted by: Stewie Griffin, Glasgow on 11:38am Thu 3 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Pete[/bold] wrote:
It's a pity the SNP weren't so keen to observe proper diligence in their handling of Donald Trump's proposal for Balmedie.[/quote] Hear Hear.
Nicola Sturgeon or Wendy Alexander. Which one is more irritating?
There's only one way to find out.
FIGHT!
Pete wrote:
It's a pity the SNP weren't so keen to observe proper diligence in their handling of Donald Trump's proposal for Balmedie.
Hear Hear.
Nicola Sturgeon or Wendy Alexander. Which one is more irritating?
There's only one way to find out.
FIGHT!
Posted by: Scott, Glasgow on 11:48am Thu 3 Apr 08
I reckon Nicola will keep eveything as transparent and proper as it should be.
There'll be no envelopes from property developers here (as was the case with Mr Brown of the Council and Wendy Alexanders' benefactor).
This is what the democratic process should be, and now it is achieving it.
Now is our day.
-Scott
I reckon Nicola will keep eveything as transparent and proper as it should be.
There'll be no envelopes from property developers here (as was the case with Mr Brown of the Council and Wendy Alexanders' benefactor).
This is what the democratic process should be, and now it is achieving it.
Now is our day.
-Scott
Posted by: jamesa0330, glasgow on 12:26pm Thu 3 Apr 08
I'm not convinced that focusing on the "sham consultation process" is the only or best way forward to stop this vandalism to this quiet sanctuary of a park. I think we need a broader approach to look at other material issues.
I'm not convinced that focusing on the "sham consultation process" is the only or best way forward to stop this vandalism to this quiet sanctuary of a park. I think we need a broader approach to look at other material issues.
Posted by: AndrewM, Shawlands, Glasgow on 12:32pm Thu 3 Apr 08
Nicola Sturgeon went out of her way last night to make clear to people who were thinking that because she was a Minister she could make this happen that this will not be the case. She will fight as our local MSP but won't be part of any decision process.
I think it is completely unfair that Glasgow City Council has forced a planning officer to draw conclusions that he would never have came to of his own free will. There can be little doubt that things like this just add to the public distrust of politicians - lets not forget that SNP councillors supported this as well.
Nicola Sturgeon went out of her way last night to make clear to people who were thinking that because she was a Minister she could make this happen that this will not be the case. She will fight as our local MSP but won't be part of any decision process.
I think it is completely unfair that Glasgow City Council has forced a planning officer to draw conclusions that he would never have came to of his own free will. There can be little doubt that things like this just add to the public distrust of politicians - lets not forget that SNP councillors supported this as well.
Posted by: nobby garside, glasgow on 1:53pm Thu 3 Apr 08
why does sturgeon head an invisible ball for every word that comes out her mouth ?
why does sturgeon head an invisible ball for every word that comes out her mouth ?
Posted by: hazyman, glasgow on 2:00pm Thu 3 Apr 08
I use Pollok Park frequently from the Burrel Colection, Pollok House to the Sports Pitches and feel that This Go-Ape facility will be superb. My family and I will make great use of it and really look forward to it opening.
I use Pollok Park frequently from the Burrel Colection, Pollok House to the Sports Pitches and feel that This Go-Ape facility will be superb. My family and I will make great use of it and really look forward to it opening.
Posted by: Stewie Griffin, Glasgow on 2:19pm Thu 3 Apr 08
[quote][bold]hazyman[/bold] wrote:
I use Pollok Park frequently from the Burrel Colection, Pollok House to the Sports Pitches and feel that This Go-Ape facility will be superb. My family and I will make great use of it and really look forward to it opening. [/quote] to be honest, i really don't care what happens to Pollok Park. It's nowhere near where I live, it's too difficult to get to unless you drive and I'm sure if this was proposed for the East end, the good folks of the south side wouldn't give a monkies. (get it?)
hazyman wrote:
I use Pollok Park frequently from the Burrel Colection, Pollok House to the Sports Pitches and feel that This Go-Ape facility will be superb. My family and I will make great use of it and really look forward to it opening.
to be honest, i really don't care what happens to Pollok Park. It's nowhere near where I live, it's too difficult to get to unless you drive and I'm sure if this was proposed for the East end, the good folks of the south side wouldn't give a monkies. (get it?)
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 4:03pm Thu 3 Apr 08
when will the gcc get it into their heads this park belongs to the citizens of glasgow....hands off,they have no right to butcher this park as we(the glasgow taxpayers) have the right of taking over the property of anyone else without a by your leave,i was of the opinion this was a country of democracy, i guess i got it all wrong ,its turned into a dictatorship run den of corruption.it should be noted that elected councillors are put in position to administer the buisiness of the city, they do not have the authority to sell or giveaway any part of this city without the permission of its citizens in a DEMOCRATIC VOTE.we need to turf out the underhanded ways that seem to be the norm in the powers that be who seem to assume that the glasgow city belongs to them to do as they please, the parks that have been gifted, too many parks have been given to sources who have no rights .....example, builders for a start, now GO APE, where will this end? piece by peice our glasgow will be renamed no mans land.
when will the gcc get it into their heads this park belongs to the citizens of glasgow....hands off,they have no right to butcher this park as we(the glasgow taxpayers) have the right of taking over the property of anyone else without a by your leave,i was of the opinion this was a country of democracy, i guess i got it all wrong ,its turned into a dictatorship run den of corruption.it should be noted that elected councillors are put in position to administer the buisiness of the city, they do not have the authority to sell or giveaway any part of this city without the permission of its citizens in a DEMOCRATIC VOTE.we need to turf out the underhanded ways that seem to be the norm in the powers that be who seem to assume that the glasgow city belongs to them to do as they please, the parks that have been gifted, too many parks have been given to sources who have no rights .....example, builders for a start, now GO APE, where will this end? piece by peice our glasgow will be renamed no mans land.
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 4:16pm Thu 3 Apr 08
the teenagers who are the focus of this scheme would rather be in the pubs, the underage would rather be drinking buckfast, why indulge these youngsters at 20 pounds a time, i know i would'nt! will GO APE have enough insurance also wages, and electricity enough to cover if it goes belly up?, in glasgow weather to boot! then after a few months the price will go up...can you imagine the parents who give the lttle darlings all their hearts desire parting with this money 2 or 3 times a week?.
the teenagers who are the focus of this scheme would rather be in the pubs, the underage would rather be drinking buckfast, why indulge these youngsters at 20 pounds a time, i know i would'nt! will GO APE have enough insurance also wages, and electricity enough to cover if it goes belly up?, in glasgow weather to boot! then after a few months the price will go up...can you imagine the parents who give the lttle darlings all their hearts desire parting with this money 2 or 3 times a week?.
Posted by: rgleiser, Mansewood on 4:25pm Thu 3 Apr 08
[quote][bold]hazyman[/bold] wrote:
I use Pollok Park frequently from the Burrel Colection, Pollok House to the Sports Pitches and feel that This Go-Ape facility will be superb. My family and I will make great use of it and really look forward to it opening. [/quote] Bear in mind that what distinguishes the Burrell Collection, Pollok House and the sports pitches from Go Ape facilities is the fact that Go Ape is the only one which is not free, and makes a profit for a commercial enterprise.
If you and your family - presumably at least 4 people - can afford to make great use of it, at 4 x £20 = £80 per outing, you're far from representative of the majority of Glasgow families. Surely you can think of a better use for your money?
hazyman wrote:
I use Pollok Park frequently from the Burrel Colection, Pollok House to the Sports Pitches and feel that This Go-Ape facility will be superb. My family and I will make great use of it and really look forward to it opening.
Bear in mind that what distinguishes the Burrell Collection, Pollok House and the sports pitches from Go Ape facilities is the fact that Go Ape is the only one which is not free, and makes a profit for a commercial enterprise.
If you and your family - presumably at least 4 people - can afford to make great use of it, at 4 x £20 = £80 per outing, you're far from representative of the majority of Glasgow families. Surely you can think of a better use for your money?
Posted by: robertgrey, Glasgow on 10:57pm Thu 3 Apr 08
The problem with focusing on the consultation process (which I actually was aware of, having read about it in the paper and seen a couple of posters, but didn't take part in because I'm fairly agnostic on the Go Ape plan) is that it was, as far as I understand, not required by the planning legislation.
Anyway, if Nicola Sturgeon is so worried about Pollok Park, why did she do the same as me and decline her invitation to comment?
The problem with focusing on the consultation process (which I actually was aware of, having read about it in the paper and seen a couple of posters, but didn't take part in because I'm fairly agnostic on the Go Ape plan) is that it was, as far as I understand, not required by the planning legislation.
Anyway, if Nicola Sturgeon is so worried about Pollok Park, why did she do the same as me and decline her invitation to comment?
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 10:21am Fri 4 Apr 08
Appreciate what you are saying jamesa0330 and robertgrey, but I meant focusing on the sham consultation [italic]initially[/italic] as a reason for a "call in", then hopefully a full public local inquiry.
As I have said on here before 4 things mainly bother me:
1. The [bold]sham consultation[/bold], of course: asking a couple of hundred kids if they want to zip down a slide is hardly a competent public consultation exercise.
2. The [bold]behaviour and conduct[/bold] of certain members and officials of GCC, which I believe has severely damaged the long-term credibility of the council.
3. Crucially, the [bold]initial sequencing[/bold] of the application/invitati
on process: who contacted whom, when, and how.
4. The role of Culture and Sport Glasgow in the whole process: specifically, their unwillingness to enter the debate to protect the interests of the Burrell collection, and, also, the role of the board chair, Liz Cameron, who sat on the Planning Committee, i.e. a potential [bold]conflict of interest[/bold].
Appreciate what you are saying jamesa0330 and robertgrey, but I meant focusing on the sham consultation
initially as a reason for a "call in", then hopefully a full public local inquiry.
As I have said on here before 4 things mainly bother me:
1. The
sham consultation, of course: asking a couple of hundred kids if they want to zip down a slide is hardly a competent public consultation exercise.
2. The
behaviour and conduct of certain members and officials of GCC, which I believe has severely damaged the long-term credibility of the council.
3. Crucially, the
initial sequencing of the application/invitati
on process: who contacted whom, when, and how.
4. The role of Culture and Sport Glasgow in the whole process: specifically, their unwillingness to enter the debate to protect the interests of the Burrell collection, and, also, the role of the board chair, Liz Cameron, who sat on the Planning Committee, i.e. a potential
conflict of interest.
Comment | Read Comments (14)
