Posted by: Fire Fighter, Glasvegas on 11:25am Fri 18 Apr 08
In the words of Rab C. - Ghetto back tae buggery!
Aye, forget about the Botanic Gardens I 100% agree I would not support it in any way.
But GoApe has my support! They want us to get back with nature, this is a fun and exciting way to do it - not many people find birdwatching, walking and collecting leaves fun.....
In the words of Rab C. - Ghetto back tae buggery!
Aye, forget about the Botanic Gardens I 100% agree I would not support it in any way.
But GoApe has my support! They want us to get back with nature, this is a fun and exciting way to do it - not many people find birdwatching, walking and collecting leaves fun.....
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 11:47am Fri 18 Apr 08
You are missing the point Fire-fighter, the parks belong to the people not the council to sell of as & when they see fit..
Go-Ape is a wrong move & we will protest until our parks are safe from this corporate invasion..
You are missing the point Fire-fighter, the parks belong to the people not the council to sell of as & when they see fit..
Go-Ape is a wrong move & we will protest until our parks are safe from this corporate invasion..
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 11:49am Fri 18 Apr 08
That should read sell off
That should read sell off
Posted by: yerauldda, West End Exile on 11:53am Fri 18 Apr 08
see if i had enough money, i'd buy pollok park and close it
see if i had enough money, i'd buy pollok park and close it
Posted by: jamesa0330, glasgow on 12:16pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Fire Fighter[/bold] wrote:
In the words of Rab C. - Ghetto back tae buggery! Aye, forget about the Botanic Gardens I 100% agree I would not support it in any way. But GoApe has my support! They want us to get back with nature, this is a fun and exciting way to do it - not many people find birdwatching, walking and collecting leaves fun.....[/quote] Are you serious? Do you think sliding down zip wires and climbing trees is really what this project is about? Do you think people are going on go ape courses to get back in touch with nature or trees? NO! They are doing it because it’s an adventure, a thrill which happens to use trees as the support mechanism! It’s about making money! It has about as much to do with keeping fit or introducing people to nature as sliding down a Sauchiehall Street zip wire from the GFT would be about introducing people to either cinema or architecture! Teenagers won’t be able to afford this regularly and both Go Ape and GCC want to make money from the extortionate corporate fees 9to save corporate team builders from going ALL the way to Aberfoyle where they may not get reception on their blackberries (heaven forbid!)
Let’s get real here! This has NOTHING to do with getting fit or getting back to nature! Nothing!
Fire Fighter wrote:
In the words of Rab C. - Ghetto back tae buggery! Aye, forget about the Botanic Gardens I 100% agree I would not support it in any way. But GoApe has my support! They want us to get back with nature, this is a fun and exciting way to do it - not many people find birdwatching, walking and collecting leaves fun.....
Are you serious? Do you think sliding down zip wires and climbing trees is really what this project is about? Do you think people are going on go ape courses to get back in touch with nature or trees? NO! They are doing it because it’s an adventure, a thrill which happens to use trees as the support mechanism! It’s about making money! It has about as much to do with keeping fit or introducing people to nature as sliding down a Sauchiehall Street zip wire from the GFT would be about introducing people to either cinema or architecture! Teenagers won’t be able to afford this regularly and both Go Ape and GCC want to make money from the extortionate corporate fees 9to save corporate team builders from going ALL the way to Aberfoyle where they may not get reception on their blackberries (heaven forbid!)
Let’s get real here! This has NOTHING to do with getting fit or getting back to nature! Nothing!
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 12:19pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Sell off? There is no sell off and to suggest otherwise is a simple falsehood.
Sell off? There is no sell off and to suggest otherwise is a simple falsehood.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 12:20pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Do you mean buy pollok park & close the park or close "Go Ape" once it was theoretically built?
Do you mean buy pollok park & close the park or close "Go Ape" once it was theoretically built?
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 12:25pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I cannot believe the fuss over Go Ape and this recent comparison is desperation. The protesters cannot see the difference in real terms about the health issues and how green Go Ape will be. They've had their say they can 'fight on' for all they want but they should also start to respect the wishes of people who want this park and will use it. I've seen the benefits to teenages and children - their self confidence develops immensely. Parks are our heritage and careful consideration has gone into the way people will use it and the safeguards are there to remove if seen to be detrimental to the park. They are not just for local people who want to walk their dogs in silence and who wish others to keep away.
I cannot believe the fuss over Go Ape and this recent comparison is desperation. The protesters cannot see the difference in real terms about the health issues and how green Go Ape will be. They've had their say they can 'fight on' for all they want but they should also start to respect the wishes of people who want this park and will use it. I've seen the benefits to teenages and children - their self confidence develops immensely. Parks are our heritage and careful consideration has gone into the way people will use it and the safeguards are there to remove if seen to be detrimental to the park. They are not just for local people who want to walk their dogs in silence and who wish others to keep away.
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 12:31pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
Sell off? There is no sell off and to suggest otherwise is a simple falsehood.[/quote] Now you are just being pedantic FA but okay as you wish..Letting companies such as GO-APE entry into "our" parks to run a business is a bad idea & no matter what you or you ilk think, this will not go ahead..These dear green spaces to coin a phrase belong to "THE PEOPLE" & the majority of do not want this project in "THEIR" park..
So dream on because it isnt going to happen......
Forbes Aiken wrote:
Sell off? There is no sell off and to suggest otherwise is a simple falsehood.
Now you are just being pedantic FA but okay as you wish..Letting companies such as GO-APE entry into "our" parks to run a business is a bad idea & no matter what you or you ilk think, this will not go ahead..These dear green spaces to coin a phrase belong to "THE PEOPLE" & the majority of do not want this project in "THEIR" park..
So dream on because it isnt going to happen......
Posted by: yerauldda, West End Exile on 12:37pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
Do you mean buy pollok park & close the park or close "Go Ape" once it was theoretically built? [/quote] close the whole park and slab it
People Power wrote:
Do you mean buy pollok park & close the park or close "Go Ape" once it was theoretically built?
close the whole park and slab it
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 12:37pm Fri 18 Apr 08
What you have to do is rise above the [bold]spin and disinformation[/bold] coming from Glasgow City Council mouthpieces and Go Ape corporate PR agencies. Go Ape has nothing to do with fun, getting back to nature, or kids exercising. It is a simple, cynical ploy by mis-guided and uneducated GCC officials to try to exploit the footfall at Pollok Park for financial gain.
If GCC acted in a responsible and grown-up way then we could have a serious debate about the real issues, but as usual the leadership of this failing council choose to [bold]spin, divert and obfuscate[/bold]... the only consultation is that the 'leadership' is finished as a credible entity and will be turfed out onto their ample posteriors at the next election.
What you have to do is rise above the
spin and disinformation coming from Glasgow City Council mouthpieces and Go Ape corporate PR agencies. Go Ape has nothing to do with fun, getting back to nature, or kids exercising. It is a simple, cynical ploy by mis-guided and uneducated GCC officials to try to exploit the footfall at Pollok Park for financial gain.
If GCC acted in a responsible and grown-up way then we could have a serious debate about the real issues, but as usual the leadership of this failing council choose to
spin, divert and obfuscate... the only consultation is that the 'leadership' is finished as a credible entity and will be turfed out onto their ample posteriors at the next election.
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 12:39pm Fri 18 Apr 08
You are being pedantic Forbes but okay have it your way,,Not sell off but steal this land that was granted to the people of Glasgow to relax in & enjoy the peace & quiet in a city that is increasingly noisy..
I now quote the greatest PM ever & alter it a bit but the sentiment is the same.." we shall defend our PARK, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the paths, we shall fight on the playing fields,we shall fight in the fields and in the woods, we shall fight in the museum; we shall never surrender to GO-APE & Glasgow Hypocritical council..
You are being pedantic Forbes but okay have it your way,,Not sell off but steal this land that was granted to the people of Glasgow to relax in & enjoy the peace & quiet in a city that is increasingly noisy..
I now quote the greatest PM ever & alter it a bit but the sentiment is the same.." we shall defend our PARK, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the paths, we shall fight on the playing fields,we shall fight in the fields and in the woods, we shall fight in the museum; we shall never surrender to GO-APE & Glasgow Hypocritical council..
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 1:19pm Fri 18 Apr 08
This is what I laugh at "we will defend our park" nonsense. Its not only your park, it also belongs to everyone else in Glasgow and many of us want this. Saw the website and the part of 'do you want this...or this?' My answer to that is 'both.' Go Ape will not ruin the other.
I also think the SPP crowd have resorted to disrespect; of GCC and other organisations and have started a smear campaign making it obvious they don't like anybody who disagrees with them. I'm afraid that politics comes into everything and that those of us for Go Ape or similar ventures are no less ignorant of them. They are the lame excuses for going against this venture.I've been to a few such schemes and they are better placed within large areas such as PP. They DO help youngsters respect nature in the way they promote their activities.
So 'dream on .. it IS going to happen.'
This is what I laugh at "we will defend our park" nonsense. Its not only your park, it also belongs to everyone else in Glasgow and many of us want this. Saw the website and the part of 'do you want this...or this?' My answer to that is 'both.' Go Ape will not ruin the other.
I also think the SPP crowd have resorted to disrespect; of GCC and other organisations and have started a smear campaign making it obvious they don't like anybody who disagrees with them. I'm afraid that politics comes into everything and that those of us for Go Ape or similar ventures are no less ignorant of them. They are the lame excuses for going against this venture.I've been to a few such schemes and they are better placed within large areas such as PP. They DO help youngsters respect nature in the way they promote their activities.
So 'dream on .. it IS going to happen.'
Posted by: Alessandro, Airdrie on 1:32pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Go Ape just sounds like an incredibly poor deal for Glasgow's council tax payers. Just £2000 per year in the first instance to allow a profit-making organisation to annex a large area of public land? And never even so much as one tenth of annual turnover?
Whatever the benefits or otherwise of having such a facility, the company should have to fork out a lot more money if it wants to control an area of public land.
Would £2000 even be enough to rent one council house for a year?
Go Ape just sounds like an incredibly poor deal for Glasgow's council tax payers. Just £2000 per year in the first instance to allow a profit-making organisation to annex a large area of public land? And never even so much as one tenth of annual turnover?
Whatever the benefits or otherwise of having such a facility, the company should have to fork out a lot more money if it wants to control an area of public land.
Would £2000 even be enough to rent one council house for a year?
Posted by: daz, glasgow on 1:36pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
What you have to do is rise above the [bold]spin and disinformation[/bold] coming from Glasgow City Council mouthpieces and Go Ape corporate PR agencies. Go Ape has nothing to do with fun, getting back to nature, or kids exercising. It is a simple, cynical ploy by mis-guided and uneducated GCC officials to try to exploit the footfall at Pollok Park for financial gain. If GCC acted in a responsible and grown-up way then we could have a serious debate about the real issues, but as usual the leadership of this failing council choose to [bold]spin, divert and obfuscate[/bold]... the only consultation is that the 'leadership' is finished as a credible entity and will be turfed out onto their ample posteriors at the next election.[/quote] aye and if the council cared about pollok park they would trial the whole thing in another park, then learn from any mistakes (i know i had a chuckle too........) before introducing it to pollok park.
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
What you have to do is rise above the spin and disinformation coming from Glasgow City Council mouthpieces and Go Ape corporate PR agencies. Go Ape has nothing to do with fun, getting back to nature, or kids exercising. It is a simple, cynical ploy by mis-guided and uneducated GCC officials to try to exploit the footfall at Pollok Park for financial gain. If GCC acted in a responsible and grown-up way then we could have a serious debate about the real issues, but as usual the leadership of this failing council choose to spin, divert and obfuscate... the only consultation is that the 'leadership' is finished as a credible entity and will be turfed out onto their ample posteriors at the next election.
aye and if the council cared about pollok park they would trial the whole thing in another park, then learn from any mistakes (i know i had a chuckle too........) before introducing it to pollok park.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 1:37pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Alessandro, how dare you look down at council housing and reduce it to a poor unit of measurement.
Alessandro, how dare you look down at council housing and reduce it to a poor unit of measurement.
Posted by: Happy Harry, Glasgow on 1:52pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
This is what I laugh at "we will defend our park" nonsense. Its not only your park, it also belongs to everyone else in Glasgow and many of us want this. Saw the website and the part of 'do you want this...or this?' My answer to that is 'both.' Go Ape will not ruin the other. I also think the SPP crowd have resorted to disrespect; of GCC and other organisations and have started a smear campaign making it obvious they don't like anybody who disagrees with them. I'm afraid that politics comes into everything and that those of us for Go Ape or similar ventures are no less ignorant of them. They are the lame excuses for going against this venture.I've been to a few such schemes and they are better placed within large areas such as PP. They DO help youngsters respect nature in the way they promote their activities. So 'dream on .. it IS going to happen.'[/quote] Well said Luggie, I to am fed up with unelected self appointed "representives of the people" ranting on about "their" park. They complain constantly about the lack of consultation but refuse to accept that a large number of people support this development, or condecendingly dimiss them as being ignorant facts.
Kelvingrove Park has excellent examples of what these people want our parks to look like. A individual applied to lease a rundown old toilet block and turn it into a health food cafe with refurished public toilet and refurbish the adjacent swing park. This immediaely led to the predictable flurry of objections to stop this evil capitalist selling carrot cake at a profit. So now it still stands as dilapadated old toilet block. A similair attempt to develop the band stand ito a cafe bar and jazz club was stopped because an entrepenaur was willing to invest in something that people would enjoy which some people seem to find a sound reason for objection.
4000 Glaswegians objected to Go Ape
4000 Glaswegians voted BNP at the last election
Neither of these groups have the right to claim to represent the view of all Glaswegians.
Luggie wrote:
This is what I laugh at "we will defend our park" nonsense. Its not only your park, it also belongs to everyone else in Glasgow and many of us want this. Saw the website and the part of 'do you want this...or this?' My answer to that is 'both.' Go Ape will not ruin the other. I also think the SPP crowd have resorted to disrespect; of GCC and other organisations and have started a smear campaign making it obvious they don't like anybody who disagrees with them. I'm afraid that politics comes into everything and that those of us for Go Ape or similar ventures are no less ignorant of them. They are the lame excuses for going against this venture.I've been to a few such schemes and they are better placed within large areas such as PP. They DO help youngsters respect nature in the way they promote their activities. So 'dream on .. it IS going to happen.'
Well said Luggie, I to am fed up with unelected self appointed "representives of the people" ranting on about "their" park. They complain constantly about the lack of consultation but refuse to accept that a large number of people support this development, or condecendingly dimiss them as being ignorant facts.
Kelvingrove Park has excellent examples of what these people want our parks to look like. A individual applied to lease a rundown old toilet block and turn it into a health food cafe with refurished public toilet and refurbish the adjacent swing park. This immediaely led to the predictable flurry of objections to stop this evil capitalist selling carrot cake at a profit. So now it still stands as dilapadated old toilet block. A similair attempt to develop the band stand ito a cafe bar and jazz club was stopped because an entrepenaur was willing to invest in something that people would enjoy which some people seem to find a sound reason for objection.
4000 Glaswegians objected to Go Ape
4000 Glaswegians voted BNP at the last election
Neither of these groups have the right to claim to represent the view of all Glaswegians.
Posted by: Big Al, Paisley on 1:56pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I must say that to compare the two things doesn't make a lot of sense to me... One an intiative to encourage people out into the park and get some exercise, the other an initiative to encourage people out into the park and drink...
Despite the finer details and various objections, I don't see the comparison.
I must say that to compare the two things doesn't make a lot of sense to me... One an intiative to encourage people out into the park and get some exercise, the other an initiative to encourage people out into the park and drink...
Despite the finer details and various objections, I don't see the comparison.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 2:27pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I don't like the misrepresentations. For one the Save Pollok Park campaign is not a Save Pollok Park campaign. The park itself is not being closed down, there is no threat to the park. So I don't like the hijacking nature of its ambigious title. On their website they do a whole section How Big Is Go Ape claiming the council got their figures wrong. 15% is sectioned off so that the 1% of designated activity can occur in the centre as far away from the general movevment of the public. And it looks like less than 1% to me. So I don't like their innacurate claim of 15%. GCC should not have to put up with this misrepresentation. And well said Big Al - a glaringly obvious point.
No doubt there'll probably be objections made when the park goes ahead and I hope the police will be on hand to allow respect for all who want to encourage Go Ape or indeed other ventures.
I don't like the misrepresentations. For one the Save Pollok Park campaign is not a Save Pollok Park campaign. The park itself is not being closed down, there is no threat to the park. So I don't like the hijacking nature of its ambigious title. On their website they do a whole section How Big Is Go Ape claiming the council got their figures wrong. 15% is sectioned off so that the 1% of designated activity can occur in the centre as far away from the general movevment of the public. And it looks like less than 1% to me. So I don't like their innacurate claim of 15%. GCC should not have to put up with this misrepresentation. And well said Big Al - a glaringly obvious point.
No doubt there'll probably be objections made when the park goes ahead and I hope the police will be on hand to allow respect for all who want to encourage Go Ape or indeed other ventures.
Posted by: KB, Glasgow on 2:38pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I don't remember an outcry when a museum was built in the park.
I don't remember an outcry when a museum was built in the park.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 2:46pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Ask yourselves a simple question. Were those behind the 'SPP' ever that involved in any other contentious issues over any other park in Glasgow, with their Dear Green Place vigils? Answer: 'no.' Wonder why?
Ask yourselves a simple question. Were those behind the 'SPP' ever that involved in any other contentious issues over any other park in Glasgow, with their Dear Green Place vigils? Answer: 'no.' Wonder why?
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 2:59pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote]the only [bold]consultation[/bold] is that the 'leadership' is finished as a credible entity and will be turfed out onto their ample posteriors at the next election.[/quote]
Oops, wee Freudian moment... should been [bold]consolation[/bold]... still have "AND YOU DID NOT RESPOND" ringing in my ears! ;-)
Try putting "Glasgow City Councillor" into YouTube and have a wee Friday afternoon laugh...
the only consultation is that the 'leadership' is finished as a credible entity and will be turfed out onto their ample posteriors at the next election.
Oops, wee Freudian moment... should been
consolation... still have "AND YOU DID NOT RESPOND" ringing in my ears! ;-)
Try putting "Glasgow City Councillor" into YouTube and have a wee Friday afternoon laugh...
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 3:15pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[bold]Alessandro[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Go Ape just sounds like an incredibly poor deal for Glasgow's council tax payers.[/quote]
You're 100% correct: the Go Ape sham will contribute peanuts to city coffers (should help feed the monkeys), however, the most important thing for the short-sighted GCC officials and their commander-in-grief, Mr Purcell, is that a precedent is set and the floodgates can thereafter be open without even a glimmer of consultation; [bold]thin end of the wedge and all that[/bold]!
What you are now seeing here and in the media is the attempted rubbishing of the SPP campaign, in combination with an attempt to smear the organisers of the campaign and question their motives.
Always beware of one-issue trolls on the ET pages; numpties like Luggie, who register for one day, get all indignant and demanding about a single issue, and then scuttle away never to be seen again.
Alessandro wrote:
Go Ape just sounds like an incredibly poor deal for Glasgow's council tax payers.
You're 100% correct: the Go Ape sham will contribute peanuts to city coffers (should help feed the monkeys), however, the most important thing for the short-sighted GCC officials and their commander-in-grief, Mr Purcell, is that a precedent is set and the floodgates can thereafter be open without even a glimmer of consultation;
thin end of the wedge and all that!
What you are now seeing here and in the media is the attempted rubbishing of the SPP campaign, in combination with an attempt to smear the organisers of the campaign and question their motives.
Always beware of one-issue trolls on the ET pages; numpties like Luggie, who register for one day, get all indignant and demanding about a single issue, and then scuttle away never to be seen again.
Posted by: emma, Glasgow on 3:23pm Fri 18 Apr 08
"It also ties in with the council's health agenda because we want to encourage more young people to become active." So that'll be £20 a week at least three times a week to get some exercise, and where does the money to pay this come from.
How about getting Pollok swimming open again and the Pollokshaws pool back open then we'd have more fit kids!
How about FREE activities that people can engage in - like football pitches instead of selling them off to office developers and house builders!
"It also ties in with the council's health agenda because we want to encourage more young people to become active." So that'll be £20 a week at least three times a week to get some exercise, and where does the money to pay this come from.
How about getting Pollok swimming open again and the Pollokshaws pool back open then we'd have more fit kids!
How about FREE activities that people can engage in - like football pitches instead of selling them off to office developers and house builders!
Posted by: emma, Glasgow on 3:26pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Oh silly me I forgot, Pollok Park isnt in the West End so it will go ahead
Oh silly me I forgot, Pollok Park isnt in the West End so it will go ahead
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 3:28pm Fri 18 Apr 08
As said Alessandro, resorting to disrespect as usual. And who are you - never seen you on these pages before? So don't be suggesting you're any less of a scuttler than others. Talk about single issue clowns - there's more than one park you know, don't see you campaigning for them.
As said Alessandro, resorting to disrespect as usual. And who are you - never seen you on these pages before? So don't be suggesting you're any less of a scuttler than others. Talk about single issue clowns - there's more than one park you know, don't see you campaigning for them.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 3:29pm Fri 18 Apr 08
And by the way I like the SPP site - shows great photos of the fun involved in Go Ape.
And by the way I like the SPP site - shows great photos of the fun involved in Go Ape.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 3:42pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Nice to see so many "new" posters on a Go Ape topic. As usual we have all the minimising of the real impact of Go Ape on the Pollok PArk, we have all the half truths spun as if they are reasonable suggestions. So here are some facts
The whole of Pollok Park is 360 Acres, this includes 2 golf courses, sports fields for football, hockey, hurling and running, cricket club, rugby club, stables, allotments and several sports fields. So how can you possibly argue there are not enough things for young people to do. And before you start all of these are run as not for profit organistaions and all of them were in place before the PArk was gifted to the City.
The part of the park that this proposal will be in is the North Wood, which is the last undeveloped part of woodland in the park and probably in the city, it extends to just over 17 Acres, the footfall of go ape is 2 to 3 Acres, yet the lease is for 15 Acres.
By its very nature Go Ape will have a significant impact on this last tranquial haven, in terms of visual impact and noise, it will undoubted have significant impact on wildlife, for example the blubells that cover this wood are a protected species, yet this was dismissed by planning as not significant as they will grow back.
Why is it felt that this park development it already attracts over 2 million visitors a year, why was the go ape development not proposed for one of the cities run down parks that could do with a visitor attraction?
This whole sorry story has been one incredible stitch up from the pathetically flawed "consultation", where the majority of respondents were a group of first years doing a citizens project, yet no local people knew any thing about the consultation.
The planning process has also been seriously flawed where there has been blatant disregard to established planning process and in particular allow this development without any independent assessment of impact on the North Wood of noise, parking requirements they could not even get the bit about the toilet requirements correct.
We are told that it will encourage young people to make more use of the park, at £25 a go I don't know how many young people will be able to afford it, let alone do so on a regular basis. The real cost of this is the impact on the park and the loss of amenity.
Other matters relate to things such as whay has Culture and Sport been silent on this matter after all the run the Burrell, could it be that the will be major benefactors as they will hire rooms for corporate functions and use the restaurant for the same, could it be that Liz Cameron had a clash of interest here as she is the Chair person of C&S and also on the planning committee.
The whole thing has the smell of sleeze to it and the aroma of wee deals made behind closed doors.
The matter is with the Scottish Government and given the amount of opposition it is very likely to be called in completely, this will allow for the full examination of the whole process, standby for what I am sure will be some very interesting conclusions
Nice to see so many "new" posters on a Go Ape topic. As usual we have all the minimising of the real impact of Go Ape on the Pollok PArk, we have all the half truths spun as if they are reasonable suggestions. So here are some facts
The whole of Pollok Park is 360 Acres, this includes 2 golf courses, sports fields for football, hockey, hurling and running, cricket club, rugby club, stables, allotments and several sports fields. So how can you possibly argue there are not enough things for young people to do. And before you start all of these are run as not for profit organistaions and all of them were in place before the PArk was gifted to the City.
The part of the park that this proposal will be in is the North Wood, which is the last undeveloped part of woodland in the park and probably in the city, it extends to just over 17 Acres, the footfall of go ape is 2 to 3 Acres, yet the lease is for 15 Acres.
By its very nature Go Ape will have a significant impact on this last tranquial haven, in terms of visual impact and noise, it will undoubted have significant impact on wildlife, for example the blubells that cover this wood are a protected species, yet this was dismissed by planning as not significant as they will grow back.
Why is it felt that this park development it already attracts over 2 million visitors a year, why was the go ape development not proposed for one of the cities run down parks that could do with a visitor attraction?
This whole sorry story has been one incredible stitch up from the pathetically flawed "consultation", where the majority of respondents were a group of first years doing a citizens project, yet no local people knew any thing about the consultation.
The planning process has also been seriously flawed where there has been blatant disregard to established planning process and in particular allow this development without any independent assessment of impact on the North Wood of noise, parking requirements they could not even get the bit about the toilet requirements correct.
We are told that it will encourage young people to make more use of the park, at £25 a go I don't know how many young people will be able to afford it, let alone do so on a regular basis. The real cost of this is the impact on the park and the loss of amenity.
Other matters relate to things such as whay has Culture and Sport been silent on this matter after all the run the Burrell, could it be that the will be major benefactors as they will hire rooms for corporate functions and use the restaurant for the same, could it be that Liz Cameron had a clash of interest here as she is the Chair person of C&S and also on the planning committee.
The whole thing has the smell of sleeze to it and the aroma of wee deals made behind closed doors.
The matter is with the Scottish Government and given the amount of opposition it is very likely to be called in completely, this will allow for the full examination of the whole process, standby for what I am sure will be some very interesting conclusions
Posted by: yerauldda, West End Exile on 3:43pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
[bold]Alessandro[/bold] wrote: [quote]Go Ape just sounds like an incredibly poor deal for Glasgow's council tax payers.[/quote] You're 100% correct: the Go Ape sham will contribute peanuts to city coffers (should help feed the monkeys), however, the most important thing for the short-sighted GCC officials and their commander-in-grief, Mr Purcell, is that a precedent is set and the floodgates can thereafter be open without even a glimmer of consultation; [bold]thin end of the wedge and all that[/bold]! What you are now seeing here and in the media is the attempted rubbishing of the SPP campaign, in combination with an attempt to smear the organisers of the campaign and question their motives. Always beware of one-issue trolls on the ET pages; numpties like Luggie, who register for one day, get all indignant and demanding about a single issue, and then scuttle away never to be seen again.[/quote] opposed to the 1 issue trolls who turn every subject into an anti glasgow city council subject
"a wee girl today made a scrap book of petals from nice flowers"
sydney - thats gcc's fault. mr purcell is pulling the wool over the public's eyes by allowing this wee girl to collect petals
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
Alessandro wrote: Go Ape just sounds like an incredibly poor deal for Glasgow's council tax payers.
You're 100% correct: the Go Ape sham will contribute peanuts to city coffers (should help feed the monkeys), however, the most important thing for the short-sighted GCC officials and their commander-in-grief, Mr Purcell, is that a precedent is set and the floodgates can thereafter be open without even a glimmer of consultation; thin end of the wedge and all that! What you are now seeing here and in the media is the attempted rubbishing of the SPP campaign, in combination with an attempt to smear the organisers of the campaign and question their motives. Always beware of one-issue trolls on the ET pages; numpties like Luggie, who register for one day, get all indignant and demanding about a single issue, and then scuttle away never to be seen again.
opposed to the 1 issue trolls who turn every subject into an anti glasgow city council subject
"a wee girl today made a scrap book of petals from nice flowers"
sydney - thats gcc's fault. mr purcell is pulling the wool over the public's eyes by allowing this wee girl to collect petals
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 3:47pm Fri 18 Apr 08
As said - the energy going in from the 'locals' to 'their' park is incredible. What a yawn the previous entry is.
As said - the energy going in from the 'locals' to 'their' park is incredible. What a yawn the previous entry is.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 3:51pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
[quote]What a yawn the previous entry is.[/quote]
[bold]SECONDED, yerauldda, give it a rest will you!!![/bold]
Luggie wrote:
What a yawn the previous entry is.
SECONDED, yerauldda, give it a rest will you!!! Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 3:58pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Gavin48 you asked the question "why was the go ape development not proposed for one of the cities run down parks that could do with a visitor attraction?"
Perhaps for the negative reasons you object to it being in Pollok park are multiplied in smaller parks. A bit obvious is it not. But of course you don't care about other parks.
You give yourselves away with this rhetoric. The whole SPP is a 'not on our doorstep' campaign. I feel sorry for the kids from these families who will secretly wish to be zipping across thesky but will be forced to frown upon this development and have a negative attitude to the youngsters who go to it.
Gavin48 you asked the question "why was the go ape development not proposed for one of the cities run down parks that could do with a visitor attraction?"
Perhaps for the negative reasons you object to it being in Pollok park are multiplied in smaller parks. A bit obvious is it not. But of course you don't care about other parks.
You give yourselves away with this rhetoric. The whole SPP is a 'not on our doorstep' campaign. I feel sorry for the kids from these families who will secretly wish to be zipping across thesky but will be forced to frown upon this development and have a negative attitude to the youngsters who go to it.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 4:04pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Other matters relate to things such as whay has Culture and Sport been silent on this matter after all the run the Burrell, could it be that the will be major benefactors as they will hire rooms for corporate functions and use the restaurant for the same, could it be that Liz Cameron had a clash of interest here as she is the Chair person of C&S and also on the planning committee.[/quote]
I think this is a core point Gavin, and one which must be rigorously investigated, especially in light of CSG's decision this week to charge for entry to an exhibition at the Kelvingrove.
[bold]How can the chairwoman of CSG sit on the Planning Committee which approved Go Ape, when she represents a company (CSG) which stands to profit from the Go Ape venture?[/bold] At the least it is anti-competitive, and at the other extreme I think the Scottish Government should have their lawyers look into the whole matter!
gavin48 wrote:
Other matters relate to things such as whay has Culture and Sport been silent on this matter after all the run the Burrell, could it be that the will be major benefactors as they will hire rooms for corporate functions and use the restaurant for the same, could it be that Liz Cameron had a clash of interest here as she is the Chair person of C&S and also on the planning committee.
I think this is a core point Gavin, and one which must be rigorously investigated, especially in light of CSG's decision this week to charge for entry to an exhibition at the Kelvingrove.
How can the chairwoman of CSG sit on the Planning Committee which approved Go Ape, when she represents a company (CSG) which stands to profit from the Go Ape venture? At the least it is anti-competitive, and at the other extreme I think the Scottish Government should have their lawyers look into the whole matter!
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:07pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Sydney, YOU'RE telling me to give it a rest. And what about THE NOISE FROM yourselves websites and all? Don't be so hypocritical.
Sydney, YOU'RE telling me to give it a rest. And what about THE NOISE FROM yourselves websites and all? Don't be so hypocritical.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:07pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Gavin48 you asked the question "why was the go ape development not proposed for one of the cities run down parks that could do with a visitor attraction?"
Perhaps for the negative reasons you object to it being in Pollok park are multiplied in smaller parks. A bit obvious is it not. But of course you don't care about other parks.
You give yourselves away with this rhetoric. The whole SPP is a 'not on our doorstep' campaign. I feel sorry for the kids from these families who will secretly wish to be zipping across thesky but will be forced to frown upon this development and have a negative attitude to the youngsters who go to it.[/quote] When all else fails go for the Nimby response, very mature very grown up!!!
If you were open to adult debate you would knew Glasgow has several parks that would benefit from this development. Go Ape is brilliant experience, I know because I have used it twice with my children. An example of another park that is local to me that [bold]would[/bold] benefit would be the Linn Park . It is also one of my local parks and I would support Go Ape being in it.
So I will ask you again why Pollok Park?, why the best used and probably busiest park in the city? Why a park that has many attractions needing an another one?
If you respond try doing so with out name calling. Try putting the reasons for your support in a coherent and reasoned way, I can manage it why cannot you?
Luggie wrote:
Gavin48 you asked the question "why was the go ape development not proposed for one of the cities run down parks that could do with a visitor attraction?"
Perhaps for the negative reasons you object to it being in Pollok park are multiplied in smaller parks. A bit obvious is it not. But of course you don't care about other parks.
You give yourselves away with this rhetoric. The whole SPP is a 'not on our doorstep' campaign. I feel sorry for the kids from these families who will secretly wish to be zipping across thesky but will be forced to frown upon this development and have a negative attitude to the youngsters who go to it.
When all else fails go for the Nimby response, very mature very grown up!!!
If you were open to adult debate you would knew Glasgow has several parks that would benefit from this development. Go Ape is brilliant experience, I know because I have used it twice with my children. An example of another park that is local to me that
would benefit would be the Linn Park . It is also one of my local parks and I would support Go Ape being in it.
So I will ask you again why Pollok Park?, why the best used and probably busiest park in the city? Why a park that has many attractions needing an another one?
If you respond try doing so with out name calling. Try putting the reasons for your support in a coherent and reasoned way, I can manage it why cannot you?
Posted by: hawkey, glasgow green on 4:09pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I'd like Happy Harry to show some evidence that "large numbers" of people support Go Ape
As far as I can see, large numbers of people demonstrated, objected and signed a petition against this proposal.
Show us your evidence Harry
put up or shut up !
I'd like Happy Harry to show some evidence that "large numbers" of people support Go Ape
As far as I can see, large numbers of people demonstrated, objected and signed a petition against this proposal.
Show us your evidence Harry
put up or shut up !
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:17pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Gavin48 I think 'Nimby' is name calling abit is it not? However lets be civil and my response is to both you and hawkey. The reasons for all you ask are with the GCC and too numerous to mention on these posts. But sure I thought you had asked them. However todays problems lies in the fact that the 'SPP' are not accepting the facts that the majority of Glasgow citizens want this project. I'm also suggesting that they don't care about the others in Glasgow because its all done and dusted as far consultation is concerned. And ordinary public don't want to have to justify their reasons or consult again just because you people can't accept 'no' for an answer. Hold on 'til I do a name calling check. Yep.. we're ok!
Gavin48 I think 'Nimby' is name calling abit is it not? However lets be civil and my response is to both you and hawkey. The reasons for all you ask are with the GCC and too numerous to mention on these posts. But sure I thought you had asked them. However todays problems lies in the fact that the 'SPP' are not accepting the facts that the majority of Glasgow citizens want this project. I'm also suggesting that they don't care about the others in Glasgow because its all done and dusted as far consultation is concerned. And ordinary public don't want to have to justify their reasons or consult again just because you people can't accept 'no' for an answer. Hold on 'til I do a name calling check. Yep.. we're ok!
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 4:18pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Sydney, YOU'RE telling me to give it a rest. And what about THE NOISE FROM yourselves websites and all? Don't be so hypocritical.[/quote] Ehhh.... no, I told yerauldda to give it a rest because YOU said his post was a big yawn.
As for the rest of your post, it dinnae makes sense!
Luggie wrote:
Sydney, YOU'RE telling me to give it a rest. And what about THE NOISE FROM yourselves websites and all? Don't be so hypocritical.
Ehhh.... no, I told yerauldda to give it a rest because YOU said his post was a big yawn.
As for the rest of your post, it dinnae makes sense!
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:21pm Fri 18 Apr 08
My sincere apologies Sydney - got a bit carried away.
My sincere apologies Sydney - got a bit carried away.
Posted by: hawkey, glasgow green on 4:22pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I'd like Luggie to show some proof that the "majority of Glasgow citizens want this project"
It's complete nonsense
Show us the proof
put up or shut up
I'd like Luggie to show some proof that the "majority of Glasgow citizens want this project"
It's complete nonsense
Show us the proof
put up or shut up
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:24pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Als yerraulda's wasnt the post i was referring to it was gavin48's but my post delayed.
Als yerraulda's wasnt the post i was referring to it was gavin48's but my post delayed.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:25pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Didn't you understand? Go to the GCC hawkey and don't tell me to shut up.
Didn't you understand? Go to the GCC hawkey and don't tell me to shut up.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:28pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Gavin48 I think 'Nimby' is name calling abit is it not? However lets be civil and my response is to both you and hawkey. The reasons for all you ask are with the GCC and too numerous to mention on these posts. But sure I thought you had asked them. However todays problems lies in the fact that the 'SPP' are not accepting the facts that the majority of Glasgow citizens want this project. I'm also suggesting that they don't care about the others in Glasgow because its all done and dusted as far consultation is concerned. And ordinary public don't want to have to justify their reasons or consult again just because you people can't accept 'no' for an answer. Hold on 'til I do a name calling check. Yep.. we're ok![/quote] Luggie
Nimby is what you implicitly called me in previous posting, I was certainly not calling you this.
Ok if it is a "fact" that the majority of Glaswegians want this proposal then where is your evidence?
If you understand the process, then the consultation cannot be re run, I raised it to evidence my growing view that this whole process was a stitch up from the very start.
Planning application is automatically referred to the Scottish Government as GCC has a financial interest. They have the option if enough evidence is brought forward to call in the application, if they do so then then all pertinent things can be looked at including the consultation and a every thing else in this sorry episode. This may prove some what embarrassing for GCC. Try to remember this is not just about Pollok PArk, important as it is, it is about the principles of open and accountable democracy
Luggie wrote:
Gavin48 I think 'Nimby' is name calling abit is it not? However lets be civil and my response is to both you and hawkey. The reasons for all you ask are with the GCC and too numerous to mention on these posts. But sure I thought you had asked them. However todays problems lies in the fact that the 'SPP' are not accepting the facts that the majority of Glasgow citizens want this project. I'm also suggesting that they don't care about the others in Glasgow because its all done and dusted as far consultation is concerned. And ordinary public don't want to have to justify their reasons or consult again just because you people can't accept 'no' for an answer. Hold on 'til I do a name calling check. Yep.. we're ok!
Luggie
Nimby is what you implicitly called me in previous posting, I was certainly not calling you this.
Ok if it is a "fact" that the majority of Glaswegians want this proposal then where is your evidence?
If you understand the process, then the consultation cannot be re run, I raised it to evidence my growing view that this whole process was a stitch up from the very start.
Planning application is automatically referred to the Scottish Government as GCC has a financial interest. They have the option if enough evidence is brought forward to call in the application, if they do so then then all pertinent things can be looked at including the consultation and a every thing else in this sorry episode. This may prove some what embarrassing for GCC. Try to remember this is not just about Pollok PArk, important as it is, it is about the principles of open and accountable democracy
Posted by: Alessandro, Airdrie on 4:29pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Alessandro, how dare you look down at council housing and reduce it to a poor unit of measurement.[/quote] I was trying to make the point that in the first instance, Go Ape will be getting a large area of land for an amount of money that is in the same order of magnitude as the cost of a council house. A house is probably the biggest single expense for a person, except perhaps if they have a very nice car, yet it is (relatively speaking) buttons to an organisation that has a potential million pound turnover from one facility.
That's not exactly looking down at council housing, is it?
Luggie wrote:
Alessandro, how dare you look down at council housing and reduce it to a poor unit of measurement.
I was trying to make the point that in the first instance, Go Ape will be getting a large area of land for an amount of money that is in the same order of magnitude as the cost of a council house. A house is probably the biggest single expense for a person, except perhaps if they have a very nice car, yet it is (relatively speaking) buttons to an organisation that has a potential million pound turnover from one facility.
That's not exactly looking down at council housing, is it?
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:31pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Alessandro, in my opinion you chose poorly.
Alessandro, in my opinion you chose poorly.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:36pm Fri 18 Apr 08
At the end of the day the issue is whether people want this project or not. In terms of [italic]how[/italic] councils, projects, companies run their business is secondary and not the issue. (Sure we could all go on for eternity on how anyone runs their affairs effectively.)
The glaringly obvious issue here is that after all the consultation and awareness raising the SPP will still not accept the outcome.
At the end of the day the issue is whether people want this project or not. In terms of
how councils, projects, companies run their business is secondary and not the issue. (Sure we could all go on for eternity on how anyone runs their affairs effectively.)
The glaringly obvious issue here is that after all the consultation and awareness raising the SPP will still not accept the outcome.
Posted by: hawkey, glasgow green on 4:36pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Didn't you understand? Go to the GCC hawkey and don't tell me to shut up.[/quote] Then show the evidence for your nonsencical claim that "the majority of Glasgow citizens support this proposal"
you can't do this, of course, because there is none
are you Homer Simpson ?
Duh !
Luggie wrote:
Didn't you understand? Go to the GCC hawkey and don't tell me to shut up.
Then show the evidence for your nonsencical claim that "the majority of Glasgow citizens support this proposal"
you can't do this, of course, because there is none
are you Homer Simpson ?
Duh !
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:41pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Oops a wee bit of name calling there from hawkey! Duh! Lets go slow for you. The council did the consultation and have the criteria for decisions and the results - go there to find out. I can't provide all this info for you on a post. Put simply on a post? The GCC asked the public and they wanted it.
Oops a wee bit of name calling there from hawkey! Duh! Lets go slow for you. The council did the consultation and have the criteria for decisions and the results - go there to find out. I can't provide all this info for you on a post. Put simply on a post? The GCC asked the public and they wanted it.
Posted by: Alessandro, Airdrie on 4:41pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
As said Alessandro, resorting to disrespect as usual. And who are you - never seen you on these pages before? So don't be suggesting you're any less of a scuttler than others. Talk about single issue clowns - there's more than one park you know, don't see you campaigning for them.[/quote] "resorting to disrespect as usual"... "never seen you on these pages before".
If that was aimed solely at me, you're contradicting yourself. However, since it was Sydney who used the words "scuttle" and "single issue", I shall assume that your second sentence onwards was aimed at him.
I would like you to justify your "resorting to disrespect as usual" assertion.
And I shall also state for the record that i've been registered since sometime in November or December. Just in case you were accusing me of being a scuttler after all.
Luggie wrote:
As said Alessandro, resorting to disrespect as usual. And who are you - never seen you on these pages before? So don't be suggesting you're any less of a scuttler than others. Talk about single issue clowns - there's more than one park you know, don't see you campaigning for them.
"resorting to disrespect as usual"... "never seen you on these pages before".
If that was aimed solely at me, you're contradicting yourself. However, since it was Sydney who used the words "scuttle" and "single issue", I shall assume that your second sentence onwards was aimed at him.
I would like you to justify your "resorting to disrespect as usual" assertion.
And I shall also state for the record that i've been registered since sometime in November or December. Just in case you were accusing me of being a scuttler after all.
Posted by: Alessandro, Airdrie on 4:43pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Alessandro, in my opinion you chose poorly.[/quote] Chose what poorly? What does that mean?
Luggie wrote:
Alessandro, in my opinion you chose poorly.
Chose what poorly? What does that mean?
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:47pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
At the end of the day the issue is whether people want this project or not. In terms of [italic]how[/italic] councils, projects, companies run their business is secondary and not the issue. (Sure we could all go on for eternity on how anyone runs their affairs effectively.)
The glaringly obvious issue here is that after all the consultation and awareness raising the SPP will still not accept the outcome.[/quote] Luggie
How councils run their business is exactly the issue. Examine the consultation process and tell me it was a genuine attempt to engage with people to gain their views on the matter. If it was how come GCC had already approached Go Ape before the consultation had even begun?
The consultation is very important as it is the result of this that is used to demonstrate that their is a wish to have such a development in the first place, this is the fundamental starting point of any planning submission. So if the consultation is not fit for purpose then the planning submission is started on a false premise.
The process is not yet finished, as pointed out previously the Scottish Government is still to play its part. So it is not a question of not accepting a decision but of not accepting the basis for the decision nor that the fight is yet over.
Luggie wrote:
At the end of the day the issue is whether people want this project or not. In terms of how councils, projects, companies run their business is secondary and not the issue. (Sure we could all go on for eternity on how anyone runs their affairs effectively.)
The glaringly obvious issue here is that after all the consultation and awareness raising the SPP will still not accept the outcome.
Luggie
How councils run their business is exactly the issue. Examine the consultation process and tell me it was a genuine attempt to engage with people to gain their views on the matter. If it was how come GCC had already approached Go Ape before the consultation had even begun?
The consultation is very important as it is the result of this that is used to demonstrate that their is a wish to have such a development in the first place, this is the fundamental starting point of any planning submission. So if the consultation is not fit for purpose then the planning submission is started on a false premise.
The process is not yet finished, as pointed out previously the Scottish Government is still to play its part. So it is not a question of not accepting a decision but of not accepting the basis for the decision nor that the fight is yet over.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:49pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Lets do a name calling check. From those opposed to the development:
council mouthpieces, uneducated and misguided GCC officials with ample posteriors, hypocritical (yes I used that also - sorry), Steven Purcell as commander-in-grief, trolls, numpties, sleaze, Nimby... yeah we really ought to listen to what these people are saying.
Lets do a name calling check. From those opposed to the development:
council mouthpieces, uneducated and misguided GCC officials with ample posteriors, hypocritical (yes I used that also - sorry), Steven Purcell as commander-in-grief, trolls, numpties, sleaze, Nimby... yeah we really ought to listen to what these people are saying.
Posted by: hawkey, glasgow green on 4:50pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Oops a wee bit of name calling there from hawkey! Duh! Lets go slow for you. The council did the consultation and have the criteria for decisions and the results - go there to find out. I can't provide all this info for you on a post. Put simply on a post? The GCC asked the public and they wanted it.[/quote] So on the basis of "the consultation" you make this spurious claim !
I was there when "the conultation" of 70% of the named individuals on the council records took place.
They were S1 pupils at Cleveden Secondary School in the North West of the city and none of them knew anything about Pollok park or had been there.
They were given the consultation questionaire as part of their Citizenship programme and none could refuse to complete what was school work
I saw it happening
so your claim that this represents the majority view of Glasgow citizens is ridiculous
Has Marj got your tea ready yet ?
Luggie wrote:
Oops a wee bit of name calling there from hawkey! Duh! Lets go slow for you. The council did the consultation and have the criteria for decisions and the results - go there to find out. I can't provide all this info for you on a post. Put simply on a post? The GCC asked the public and they wanted it.
So on the basis of "the consultation" you make this spurious claim !
I was there when "the conultation" of 70% of the named individuals on the council records took place.
They were S1 pupils at Cleveden Secondary School in the North West of the city and none of them knew anything about Pollok park or had been there.
They were given the consultation questionaire as part of their Citizenship programme and none could refuse to complete what was school work
I saw it happening
so your claim that this represents the majority view of Glasgow citizens is ridiculous
Has Marj got your tea ready yet ?
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:51pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Oops a wee bit of name calling there from hawkey! Duh! Lets go slow for you. The council did the consultation and have the criteria for decisions and the results - go there to find out. I can't provide all this info for you on a post. Put simply on a post? The GCC asked the public and they wanted it.[/quote] Luggie
Fundamental issue here, and the very core of this whole sorry episode. If you examined the consultation you would see that it was not fit for purpose. This is clear and easily evidenced.
Or are you taking the same stand as Councillor Ruth Simpson in her famous quote " .... you were asked you failed to respond" check it out on youtube if you want a laugh
Luggie wrote:
Oops a wee bit of name calling there from hawkey! Duh! Lets go slow for you. The council did the consultation and have the criteria for decisions and the results - go there to find out. I can't provide all this info for you on a post. Put simply on a post? The GCC asked the public and they wanted it.
Luggie
Fundamental issue here, and the very core of this whole sorry episode. If you examined the consultation you would see that it was not fit for purpose. This is clear and easily evidenced.
Or are you taking the same stand as Councillor Ruth Simpson in her famous quote " .... you were asked you failed to respond" check it out on youtube if you want a laugh
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:53pm Fri 18 Apr 08
I've been registered well before November.
I admire fighting on especially if you think there is inconsistencies. But I also suspect that noone is going to please the SSP and there comes a time when things have to go on as planned.
I've been registered well before November.
I admire fighting on especially if you think there is inconsistencies. But I also suspect that noone is going to please the SSP and there comes a time when things have to go on as planned.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 4:53pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Lets do a name calling check. From those opposed to the development:
council mouthpieces, uneducated and misguided GCC officials with ample posteriors, hypocritical (yes I used that also - sorry), Steven Purcell as commander-in-grief, trolls, numpties, sleaze, Nimby... yeah we really ought to listen to what these people are saying.[/quote] Luggie
Lets try some facts can you do that to support your point of view? If so lets hear them.
Luggie wrote:
Lets do a name calling check. From those opposed to the development:
council mouthpieces, uneducated and misguided GCC officials with ample posteriors, hypocritical (yes I used that also - sorry), Steven Purcell as commander-in-grief, trolls, numpties, sleaze, Nimby... yeah we really ought to listen to what these people are saying.
Luggie
Lets try some facts can you do that to support your point of view? If so lets hear them.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:58pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Sorry didn't get the Marj comment. Please enlighten. Yes I've had a look at youtube and think its disgraceful that people want to humiliate others who took the step of giving more time to those people. I saw both the original and the other one with music added and its tantamount to bullying. How you can expect the council to repect your communications after that is beyond me. I don't think that helps your case. Indeed I think people will dislike you even more for it.
Sorry didn't get the Marj comment. Please enlighten. Yes I've had a look at youtube and think its disgraceful that people want to humiliate others who took the step of giving more time to those people. I saw both the original and the other one with music added and its tantamount to bullying. How you can expect the council to repect your communications after that is beyond me. I don't think that helps your case. Indeed I think people will dislike you even more for it.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 5:04pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Sorry didn't get the Marj comment. Please enlighten. Yes I've had a look at youtube and think its disgraceful that people want to humiliate others who took the step of giving more time to those people. I saw both the original and the other one with music added and its tantamount to bullying. How you can expect the council to repect your communications after that is beyond me. I don't think that helps your case. Indeed I think people will dislike you even more for it.[/quote] Luggie
I was at that meeting, at least 650 people in the hall and hundreds turned away because they could not get in. This is note worthy not least because so many people attended. This is also a clear expression of just how opposed many local people are to this development. My take on Councillors Simpsons performance was that by that time the proposal was so far advanced that she had no option but to try to defend the Councils position, and she did not make a very good job of it.
As stated earlier the consultation has been a pivotal part of this, and I contend that as it was evidently not fit for purpose than the whole process has been devalued as aresult
Luggie wrote:
Sorry didn't get the Marj comment. Please enlighten. Yes I've had a look at youtube and think its disgraceful that people want to humiliate others who took the step of giving more time to those people. I saw both the original and the other one with music added and its tantamount to bullying. How you can expect the council to repect your communications after that is beyond me. I don't think that helps your case. Indeed I think people will dislike you even more for it.
Luggie
I was at that meeting, at least 650 people in the hall and hundreds turned away because they could not get in. This is note worthy not least because so many people attended. This is also a clear expression of just how opposed many local people are to this development. My take on Councillors Simpsons performance was that by that time the proposal was so far advanced that she had no option but to try to defend the Councils position, and she did not make a very good job of it.
As stated earlier the consultation has been a pivotal part of this, and I contend that as it was evidently not fit for purpose than the whole process has been devalued as aresult
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 5:05pm Fri 18 Apr 08
And the excuse for the cyberbullying?
And the excuse for the cyberbullying?
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 5:06pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Luggie face this fact.It isnt going to happen, the majority of the public are totally against this so post away my friend because we are going to win this fight..
As for KBs question regarding why there wasnt a fight against the Museum there is a simple answer to that..People come from all over the world to see the collection as it is known around the globe & it is a fascinating place..Tree sliding can be done anywhere in any city or country..
Some once again il say "Dream ON"
Luggie face this fact.It isnt going to happen, the majority of the public are totally against this so post away my friend because we are going to win this fight..
As for KBs question regarding why there wasnt a fight against the Museum there is a simple answer to that..People come from all over the world to see the collection as it is known around the globe & it is a fascinating place..Tree sliding can be done anywhere in any city or country..
Some once again il say "Dream ON"
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 5:07pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Well folks , gone all quiet. Thanks for the chat and sorry if I couldn't answer all who asked but I have to go. Bye for now.
Well folks , gone all quiet. Thanks for the chat and sorry if I couldn't answer all who asked but I have to go. Bye for now.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 5:11pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Well folks , gone all quiet. Thanks for the chat and sorry if I couldn't answer all who asked but I have to go. Bye for now.[/quote] Bye Luggie, long in word but short in fact. A bit like this whole Go Ape proposal
Luggie wrote:
Well folks , gone all quiet. Thanks for the chat and sorry if I couldn't answer all who asked but I have to go. Bye for now.
Bye Luggie, long in word but short in fact. A bit like this whole Go Ape proposal
Posted by: hawkey, glasgow green on 5:14pm Fri 18 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote: Lets do a name calling check. From those opposed to the development: council mouthpieces, uneducated and misguided GCC officials with ample posteriors, hypocritical (yes I used that also - sorry), Steven Purcell as commander-in-grief, trolls, numpties, sleaze, Nimby... yeah we really ought to listen to what these people are saying.[/quote] Luggie Lets try some facts can you do that to support your point of view? If so lets hear them.[/quote] Hey Homer
I've told you about the consultation
do you accept there's no proof at all that most Glasgow people are for Go Ape,
and that anyone with half a brain would see that
with a 5,000 signature petition,
900 objections
and the same number demonstrating in Pollok Park against this
indicates that Glagow citizens are AGAINST Go Ape
or maybe you should join Bart in the Foundation Modern Studies class.
I could use the jumbo typewriter if that would help
gavin48 wrote:
Luggie wrote: Lets do a name calling check. From those opposed to the development: council mouthpieces, uneducated and misguided GCC officials with ample posteriors, hypocritical (yes I used that also - sorry), Steven Purcell as commander-in-grief, trolls, numpties, sleaze, Nimby... yeah we really ought to listen to what these people are saying.
Luggie Lets try some facts can you do that to support your point of view? If so lets hear them.
Hey Homer
I've told you about the consultation
do you accept there's no proof at all that most Glasgow people are for Go Ape,
and that anyone with half a brain would see that
with a 5,000 signature petition,
900 objections
and the same number demonstrating in Pollok Park against this
indicates that Glagow citizens are AGAINST Go Ape
or maybe you should join Bart in the Foundation Modern Studies class.
I could use the jumbo typewriter if that would help
Posted by: Paul from Langside, Glasgow on 5:23pm Fri 18 Apr 08
Yes its something harmless for the young to do, so is Disneyland! How can this scheme meet anyone’s [bold]health or exercise[/bold] agenda? It costs £45 a go (a child at £20 under 16 needs an adult at £25). So - just how many times a week (i.e. REGULAR exercise) do you think the average 10 to 17 year old is going to be indulged at that price? The ‘free’ school places won’t be taken up even once given the 1 adult to 2 children ratio demanded by GO Ape - realistically how often can the schools send one adult to two pupils for a whole afternoon?
Yes its something harmless for the young to do, so is Disneyland! How can this scheme meet anyone’s
health or exercise agenda? It costs £45 a go (a child at £20 under 16 needs an adult at £25). So - just how many times a week (i.e. REGULAR exercise) do you think the average 10 to 17 year old is going to be indulged at that price? The ‘free’ school places won’t be taken up even once given the 1 adult to 2 children ratio demanded by GO Ape - realistically how often can the schools send one adult to two pupils for a whole afternoon?
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 7:40pm Fri 18 Apr 08
The "Free" School places as Paul, of Langside touches on are a P.R. Gimmick & irrelevant in the wider picture. The fact people will have to sign a disclaimer, before they use the "Go Ape" course is proof that "Go Ape" don't give a monkey about the"Free"kids health & safety.
All "Go Ape" care about is the money!
Whether people are for or against this the online consultation process by the Council was flawed from the onset.
Those attending the Public Meetings on the "Save Pollok Park" issue clearly demonstrated the level of public feeling.
And, the fact this sale of PUBLICALLY OWNED LAND is even being considered by G.C.C. is proof how strapped for cash it is.
Those who want this assault course within Pollok Park must surely see that the expense involved makes peoples right to enjoy such a course limited to only those who can afford it.
Surely by restricting the use to those who can fork out the £25 a head every time is proof this is based on the greed & profiteering of a private enterprise.
People of Pollok may already have sworn their allegiance to alternative parties other than Labour - so there is potentially less to be lost in terms of the politics.
The West End battle for the Botanics was won down to the way in which money talks & the affluence of people who have more power to control the labour representation has played a far bigger role in why the Botanics were saved.
The "Free" School places as Paul, of Langside touches on are a P.R. Gimmick & irrelevant in the wider picture. The fact people will have to sign a disclaimer, before they use the "Go Ape" course is proof that "Go Ape" don't give a monkey about the"Free"kids health & safety.
All "Go Ape" care about is the money!
Whether people are for or against this the online consultation process by the Council was flawed from the onset.
Those attending the Public Meetings on the "Save Pollok Park" issue clearly demonstrated the level of public feeling.
And, the fact this sale of PUBLICALLY OWNED LAND is even being considered by G.C.C. is proof how strapped for cash it is.
Those who want this assault course within Pollok Park must surely see that the expense involved makes peoples right to enjoy such a course limited to only those who can afford it.
Surely by restricting the use to those who can fork out the £25 a head every time is proof this is based on the greed & profiteering of a private enterprise.
People of Pollok may already have sworn their allegiance to alternative parties other than Labour - so there is potentially less to be lost in terms of the politics.
The West End battle for the Botanics was won down to the way in which money talks & the affluence of people who have more power to control the labour representation has played a far bigger role in why the Botanics were saved.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 8:12pm Fri 18 Apr 08
A musical interlude to lighten the air - the choice of song may not be to everyones taste, but at least the stats, in relation to the survey - consultation process carried out by G.C.C. give some food for thought.
See URL : www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=SN0RiLccR_4
Alternatively - See: www.PollokPark.org
I get the impression that Ruth Simpson isn't too popular. Wonder why ?
A musical interlude to lighten the air - the choice of song may not be to everyones taste, but at least the stats, in relation to the survey - consultation process carried out by G.C.C. give some food for thought.
See URL : www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=SN0RiLccR_4
Alternatively - See: www.PollokPark.org
I get the impression that Ruth Simpson isn't too popular. Wonder why ?
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 11:40pm Fri 18 Apr 08
So let me get this right. The People of Pollok are the only ones who are to engineer how others are to have a say and through their surveys and petitions etc, even though they themselves were... what .. too sleepy when asked in the first place and didn't respond to the council's request for consultation.
They then organise protests with innacurate information, websites etc. Invite a counil rep out to a meeting already designed to express horror at her. When she attempts to feedback about their poor response she gets booed - on cue for the filming going on at the side.
A smear campaign continues about council employees with many aspersions cast regarding their integrity.
Then take the video footage, select parts of it for 2 vidoes and edit so others can laugh at the councillor. Place on youtube in true cyberbullying style to further mock. Still promoted in previous post.
I tell you this, I have no respect for the people behind this. I did at first but no longer after seeing the way these people are conducting themselves. This is clearly a disgraceful smear campaign which is self serving and disrespectful to others in Glasgow.And if anyone behaves in this way then no wonder the council dont want to engage any more.
So let me get this right. The People of Pollok are the only ones who are to engineer how others are to have a say and through their surveys and petitions etc, even though they themselves were... what .. too sleepy when asked in the first place and didn't respond to the council's request for consultation.
They then organise protests with innacurate information, websites etc. Invite a counil rep out to a meeting already designed to express horror at her. When she attempts to feedback about their poor response she gets booed - on cue for the filming going on at the side.
A smear campaign continues about council employees with many aspersions cast regarding their integrity.
Then take the video footage, select parts of it for 2 vidoes and edit so others can laugh at the councillor. Place on youtube in true cyberbullying style to further mock. Still promoted in previous post.
I tell you this, I have no respect for the people behind this. I did at first but no longer after seeing the way these people are conducting themselves. This is clearly a disgraceful smear campaign which is self serving and disrespectful to others in Glasgow.And if anyone behaves in this way then no wonder the council dont want to engage any more.
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 2:23am Sat 19 Apr 08
They hope this will all go away ...
Out of view, out of mind ...
They hope this will all go away ...
Out of view, out of mind ...
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 10:45am Sat 19 Apr 08
Don't kid yourself. They don't have to do anything.
Bill Fraser himself gives it away:
"The people of the South Side might feel slighted if they don't get the same political support that people in the West End have got.
"The strength of feeling in the South Side is as strong as it is in the West End."
From the horses mouth - to the SPP this is entirely an 'only a South side' issue. In fact its an issue for the whole of Glasgow and they have spoken.
As for petitions they are "The existence of a substantial number of objections is not, in itself sufficient grounds to merit an in-call" (Scottish Executive)
And for good reason too. Petitions do not show the number of people who did not sign the petition and so do not represent the feeling at all and have no weight. The proper way was the consultation process and I'm afraid to say "you did not respond" (which is NOT a lie as portrayed in the disgraceful video.)
The POP ignore proper process and are ignoring the wishes of the people of Glasgow.
Don't kid yourself. They don't have to do anything.
Bill Fraser himself gives it away:
"The people of the South Side might feel slighted if they don't get the same political support that people in the West End have got.
"The strength of feeling in the South Side is as strong as it is in the West End."
From the horses mouth - to the SPP this is entirely an 'only a South side' issue. In fact its an issue for the whole of Glasgow and they have spoken.
As for petitions they are "The existence of a substantial number of objections is not, in itself sufficient grounds to merit an in-call" (Scottish Executive)
And for good reason too. Petitions do not show the number of people who did not sign the petition and so do not represent the feeling at all and have no weight. The proper way was the consultation process and I'm afraid to say "you did not respond" (which is NOT a lie as portrayed in the disgraceful video.)
The POP ignore proper process and are ignoring the wishes of the people of Glasgow.
Posted by: Paul from Langside, Glasgow on 11:39am Sat 19 Apr 08
So Lggie thinks we on the South Side are slugs who don’t listen at the right time?
I use the park everyday and saw no signs of consultation in the park (and I tend to notice these things). I attended community council meetings during the consultation (do you Loggie attend a community council regularly - wherever you live?) and it was presented as a walkway with no cost mentioned and the expectation it would be small (ish) and as free as the playground.
I attended the 'You tube' public meeting (how many ‘consultation’ public meetings do you go to Loggie, did you go to this one?), the chair was tough (agreed 'neutral' SNP background - same party as pro Go Ape Cllr Deans).
The hall (fire capacity 750) was full and the pro go ape Cllr Deans warned people about fire regulation problems since (1) he is on the hall committee, and (2) agreed rules for the format of the meeting and (3) people were standing in the aisles, entrances, corridors and exits, and I am told - but did not see myself – there were people in the car park who could not get in.
There were no more "aspersions" cast regarding Council officers "integrity" than at many public meetings on contentious subjects.
Large numbers (more than 750 anyway) of local people at that meeting did not feel adequately consulted.
The park is a Glasgow wide resource, but don't you think people who use the park daily (but missed the call to consult - because there was none in the park) and missed the notice of development to neighbours (because they don’t live in the park so there was none)- deserve some consideration?
So Lggie thinks we on the South Side are slugs who don’t listen at the right time?
I use the park everyday and saw no signs of consultation in the park (and I tend to notice these things). I attended community council meetings during the consultation (do you Loggie attend a community council regularly - wherever you live?) and it was presented as a walkway with no cost mentioned and the expectation it would be small (ish) and as free as the playground.
I attended the 'You tube' public meeting (how many ‘consultation’ public meetings do you go to Loggie, did you go to this one?), the chair was tough (agreed 'neutral' SNP background - same party as pro Go Ape Cllr Deans).
The hall (fire capacity 750) was full and the pro go ape Cllr Deans warned people about fire regulation problems since (1) he is on the hall committee, and (2) agreed rules for the format of the meeting and (3) people were standing in the aisles, entrances, corridors and exits, and I am told - but did not see myself – there were people in the car park who could not get in.
There were no more "aspersions" cast regarding Council officers "integrity" than at many public meetings on contentious subjects.
Large numbers (more than 750 anyway) of local people at that meeting did not feel adequately consulted.
The park is a Glasgow wide resource, but don't you think people who use the park daily (but missed the call to consult - because there was none in the park) and missed the notice of development to neighbours (because they don’t live in the park so there was none)- deserve some consideration?
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 12:09pm Sat 19 Apr 08
Aspersions cast on these posts at least. Go to GCC website for details of how they consulted - pretty wide I'd say.
Aspersions cast on these posts at least. Go to GCC website for details of how they consulted - pretty wide I'd say.
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 12:37pm Sat 19 Apr 08
Luggie ...
Its clear you have an "interest " in this proposal ...
Luggie ...
Its clear you have an "interest " in this proposal ...
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:07pm Sat 19 Apr 08
Exactly Paul,
the fact of the matter is that very few posters here bother to go that extrra mile when their P.C.'s aren't switched on & their not typing whatever crap comes into their head.
I like you attended my Community Council meetings throughout the Consultation, and like you didn't see any adequate, or proper notification within Pollok Park grounds as there should of been.
An online Consultation exercise as this appears to have been by G.C.C. is bias in favour of those who are 1. Computer literate. 2 Have the time to fill out or post their comments online. 3. Have access to a P.C. and 4 can even afford a P.C.
The G.C.C consultation was by no means covering all areas - in terms of versions of it (ie) paper & its overall availability in public places.
This fight - campaign should not be exclusive to the people of Pollok, any more than the Save Our Botanics Group was exclusive to The West End. Naturally the majority of those interested, and participating are local.
But - those who wish to help, participate, be part of the mailing list or send letter's of objetion are perfectly free to do so.
Getting people interested, and willing to take part at an active level is the hardest part of any campaign groups - as the level of apathy & willingness to comment, advise & suggest is no good.
People all need to see the need to be participatory, join their community councils, attend their councillors / MSP's surgeries, and write to them also.
Lets not lose track ofthe main aims & objectives here, due to any accusations of N.I.M.B.Y'ism - lets join hands accross the city & show G.C.C. no split exists.
Divide & Conquer - People Power & Consultation NOT Insultation.
We all have a role to play - lets not sit on our laurels or be complacent. Lets act NOW!
Exactly Paul,
the fact of the matter is that very few posters here bother to go that extrra mile when their P.C.'s aren't switched on & their not typing whatever crap comes into their head.
I like you attended my Community Council meetings throughout the Consultation, and like you didn't see any adequate, or proper notification within Pollok Park grounds as there should of been.
An online Consultation exercise as this appears to have been by G.C.C. is bias in favour of those who are 1. Computer literate. 2 Have the time to fill out or post their comments online. 3. Have access to a P.C. and 4 can even afford a P.C.
The G.C.C consultation was by no means covering all areas - in terms of versions of it (ie) paper & its overall availability in public places.
This fight - campaign should not be exclusive to the people of Pollok, any more than the Save Our Botanics Group was exclusive to The West End. Naturally the majority of those interested, and participating are local.
But - those who wish to help, participate, be part of the mailing list or send letter's of objetion are perfectly free to do so.
Getting people interested, and willing to take part at an active level is the hardest part of any campaign groups - as the level of apathy & willingness to comment, advise & suggest is no good.
People all need to see the need to be participatory, join their community councils, attend their councillors / MSP's surgeries, and write to them also.
Lets not lose track ofthe main aims & objectives here, due to any accusations of N.I.M.B.Y'ism - lets join hands accross the city & show G.C.C. no split exists.
Divide & Conquer - People Power & Consultation NOT Insultation.
We all have a role to play - lets not sit on our laurels or be complacent. Lets act NOW!
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 1:34pm Sat 19 Apr 08
If in doubt - check out - www.glasgowlost.org
If in doubt - check out - www.glasgowlost.org
Posted by: gordon, glagow on 1:59pm Sat 19 Apr 08
There is no comparison with these two proposals.
Go ape is a suitable venture for the Park. It will encourage young people to be active and make a positive contribution to the park.
The nightclub would be a low quality development aiming at punting as much booze as possible at people. Not to mention the special potential of the space created that would be wasted on King and his ubiquitous characterless pubs. This was as much of an issue in the west end as the development itself.
The west end has been more active in saving its community as it has a community to save.
Over the years the character of the area has deteriorated with the development of rubbish chain bars and restraunts. There is a huge amount of these and the commuity has a real case to stop more.
Ive never heard anything so ludicrous as campainging over what is basically a play park.
Pollok is not exactly teaming with activites for young people and this gives them something positive to do with their time.
The problem seems to be that private organisations will be active in the park. What sort of socialist nostalgia are we harking after? Would we be happier if the council were funding go -ape? Or would it be a waste of tax payers money?
There is no comparison with these two proposals.
Go ape is a suitable venture for the Park. It will encourage young people to be active and make a positive contribution to the park.
The nightclub would be a low quality development aiming at punting as much booze as possible at people. Not to mention the special potential of the space created that would be wasted on King and his ubiquitous characterless pubs. This was as much of an issue in the west end as the development itself.
The west end has been more active in saving its community as it has a community to save.
Over the years the character of the area has deteriorated with the development of rubbish chain bars and restraunts. There is a huge amount of these and the commuity has a real case to stop more.
Ive never heard anything so ludicrous as campainging over what is basically a play park.
Pollok is not exactly teaming with activites for young people and this gives them something positive to do with their time.
The problem seems to be that private organisations will be active in the park. What sort of socialist nostalgia are we harking after? Would we be happier if the council were funding go -ape? Or would it be a waste of tax payers money?
Posted by: Richard Davis, Vienna on 6:01pm Sat 19 Apr 08
I remember Tommy Sheridan making use of the trees in Pollok Park. The difference between the two is West End middle class and South Side working class.
I remember Tommy Sheridan making use of the trees in Pollok Park. The difference between the two is West End middle class and South Side working class.
Posted by: People Power on 7:16pm Sat 19 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gordon[/bold] wrote:
There is no comparison with these two proposals. Go ape is a suitable venture for the Park. It will encourage young people to be active and make a positive contribution to the park. The nightclub would be a low quality development aiming at punting as much booze as possible at people. Not to mention the special potential of the space created that would be wasted on King and his ubiquitous characterless pubs. This was as much of an issue in the west end as the development itself. The west end has been more active in saving its community as it has a community to save. Over the years the character of the area has deteriorated with the development of rubbish chain bars and restraunts. There is a huge amount of these and the commuity has a real case to stop more. Ive never heard anything so ludicrous as campainging over what is basically a play park. Pollok is not exactly teaming with activites for young people and this gives them something positive to do with their time. The problem seems to be that private organisations will be active in the park. What sort of socialist nostalgia are we harking after? Would we be happier if the council were funding go -ape? Or would it be a waste of tax payers money? [/quote]
Gordon,
The point here is whether the hard working tax payers fund this "Go Ape" Proposal - Development, [bold]OR[/bold] a Private Developer, the end result makes a big difference!
What would the majority of park users & working class people within Pollok & beyond see?
Private profiteering & Personal greed ?
[bold]OR[/bold]
Glasgow City Council / "Culture & Sport" funding "Go Ape" with profits ploughed back in to the Parks budget ?
Some kind of middle ground must be met here.
It is plain & simple.
* THE PARK WAS GIFTED TO THE PEOPLE.
* IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF NOR THE RIGHT OF GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL TO SELL / LEASE OFF ANY PART OF THE LAND WITHIN POLLOK PARK.
* NO MATTER WHAT LUGGIE SAYS ABOUT THE CONSULTATION THE HUNDEREDS OF PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE PUBLIC MEETING KNOW DIFFERENT - WHY IS THIS ?
* WHY SHOULD THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE GET WORSE OFF TREATMENT OR LEVELS OF RESPECT FROM THE CITY COUNCILLORS THAN THE MORE AFFLUENT MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE OF THE WEST END ?
* THIS SHOULD NOT COME DOWN TO MONEY, POWER , GREED & POLITICAL POINTS SCORING - BUT A MATTER OF WHAT IS RIGHT & WRONG - GOOD & BAD. AND WHAT US THE ELECTORATE AS A MAJORITY WANT.
Those cyber-trolls such as Luggie who just want to word play, without taking this seriously should leave this to the real activists & those who care about their community.
Still haven't heard exactly how many posters here are members of their community councils ?
Not very many by the looks of things - surely that says it all. Eh Luggie, all talk & no action!
gordon wrote:
There is no comparison with these two proposals. Go ape is a suitable venture for the Park. It will encourage young people to be active and make a positive contribution to the park. The nightclub would be a low quality development aiming at punting as much booze as possible at people. Not to mention the special potential of the space created that would be wasted on King and his ubiquitous characterless pubs. This was as much of an issue in the west end as the development itself. The west end has been more active in saving its community as it has a community to save. Over the years the character of the area has deteriorated with the development of rubbish chain bars and restraunts. There is a huge amount of these and the commuity has a real case to stop more. Ive never heard anything so ludicrous as campainging over what is basically a play park. Pollok is not exactly teaming with activites for young people and this gives them something positive to do with their time. The problem seems to be that private organisations will be active in the park. What sort of socialist nostalgia are we harking after? Would we be happier if the council were funding go -ape? Or would it be a waste of tax payers money?
Gordon,
The point here is whether the hard working tax payers fund this "Go Ape" Proposal - Development,
OR a Private Developer, the end result makes a big difference!
What would the majority of park users & working class people within Pollok & beyond see?
Private profiteering & Personal greed ?
OR
Glasgow City Council / "Culture & Sport" funding "Go Ape" with profits ploughed back in to the Parks budget ?
Some kind of middle ground must be met here.
It is plain & simple.
* THE PARK WAS GIFTED TO THE PEOPLE.
* IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF NOR THE RIGHT OF GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL TO SELL / LEASE OFF ANY PART OF THE LAND WITHIN POLLOK PARK.
* NO MATTER WHAT LUGGIE SAYS ABOUT THE CONSULTATION THE HUNDEREDS OF PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE PUBLIC MEETING KNOW DIFFERENT - WHY IS THIS ?
* WHY SHOULD THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE GET WORSE OFF TREATMENT OR LEVELS OF RESPECT FROM THE CITY COUNCILLORS THAN THE MORE AFFLUENT MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE OF THE WEST END ?
* THIS SHOULD NOT COME DOWN TO MONEY, POWER , GREED & POLITICAL POINTS SCORING - BUT A MATTER OF WHAT IS RIGHT & WRONG - GOOD & BAD. AND WHAT US THE ELECTORATE AS A MAJORITY WANT.
Those cyber-trolls such as Luggie who just want to word play, without taking this seriously should leave this to the real activists & those who care about their community.
Still haven't heard exactly how many posters here are members of their community councils ?
Not very many by the looks of things - surely that says it all. Eh Luggie, all talk & no action!
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 9:12pm Sat 19 Apr 08
Are you on the CC that covers Pollok Prk, PP? I thought you lived in the West End.
Are you on the CC that covers Pollok Prk, PP? I thought you lived in the West End.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 9:41pm Sat 19 Apr 08
No the point I am making is this is a City Wide campaign, and not just a N.I.M.B.Y Pollok affair.
The "Save Pollok Park" Campaigners came accross to the Botanic Gardens event recently -"Stake Your Claim" to offer their support.
Just as I attended the "Save Pollok Park" event of people joining hands to surround the area ear-marked for the "Go Ape" development.
Solidarity accross the city.
Irrespective of what Community Councils offer their support the point is this is the same situation we're seeing time & time again.
Where Glasgow City Council are stamping on the rights of individuals and disrespecting our "Dear Green Space."
In fact if you look at the "Save Pollok Park" website you'll find all the Community Councils who support this Campaign.
I think people need to be a bit more broadminded and see the way we need to treat this as a city wide consultation & Campaign.
Where I live or don't live is irrelevant!
No the point I am making is this is a City Wide campaign, and not just a N.I.M.B.Y Pollok affair.
The "Save Pollok Park" Campaigners came accross to the Botanic Gardens event recently -"Stake Your Claim" to offer their support.
Just as I attended the "Save Pollok Park" event of people joining hands to surround the area ear-marked for the "Go Ape" development.
Solidarity accross the city.
Irrespective of what Community Councils offer their support the point is this is the same situation we're seeing time & time again.
Where Glasgow City Council are stamping on the rights of individuals and disrespecting our "Dear Green Space."
In fact if you look at the "Save Pollok Park" website you'll find all the Community Councils who support this Campaign.
I think people need to be a bit more broadminded and see the way we need to treat this as a city wide consultation & Campaign.
Where I live or don't live is irrelevant!
Posted by: Trish, Pollok on 1:36am Sun 20 Apr 08
Having read all the above, I am appalled at the lack of respect and understanding of what the the 'go ape' demonstrators are about. It is something that surely all peace loving folk would be able to debate logically. I can't understand what part of 'the park belongs to the people of glasgow' some folk are not getting. To reiterate:
POLLOK COUNTRY PARK BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF GLASGOW AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GSC WHO SEEM TO THINK WE SHALL ALL LIE DOWN AND ACCEPT THEIR BULLYING IN THIS INSTANCE!
Hey, guess what. Reading some of these comments, it looks as though some of us have given in to the 'establishment'. What a shame. People power? You're having a laugh!!
Having read all the above, I am appalled at the lack of respect and understanding of what the the 'go ape' demonstrators are about. It is something that surely all peace loving folk would be able to debate logically. I can't understand what part of 'the park belongs to the people of glasgow' some folk are not getting. To reiterate:
POLLOK COUNTRY PARK BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF GLASGOW AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GSC WHO SEEM TO THINK WE SHALL ALL LIE DOWN AND ACCEPT THEIR BULLYING IN THIS INSTANCE!
Hey, guess what. Reading some of these comments, it looks as though some of us have given in to the 'establishment'. What a shame. People power? You're having a laugh!!
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 10:42am Sun 20 Apr 08
I see someone who says their forcing a democratic process has removed one of my postings. Shame it was really good as well. If I get a chance I might do another.
I laugh at all this 'People Power' and 'People of Pollok' - obviously their first time at getting involved in an issue and making up names for themselves, I suggest saving the Rainforest - but Oh.. you don't live next to it.
How about renaming the campaign WEW?
West End Wannabees
I see someone who says their forcing a democratic process has removed one of my postings. Shame it was really good as well. If I get a chance I might do another.
I laugh at all this 'People Power' and 'People of Pollok' - obviously their first time at getting involved in an issue and making up names for themselves, I suggest saving the Rainforest - but Oh.. you don't live next to it.
How about renaming the campaign WEW?
West End Wannabees
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 11:42am Sun 20 Apr 08
Trish wrote:
[quote]Having read all the above, I am appalled at the lack of respect and understanding of what the the 'go ape' demonstrators are about. It is something that surely all peace loving folk would be able to debate logically. I can't understand what part of 'the park belongs to the people of glasgow' some folk are not getting.[/quote]
What you have to understand Trish is that these are the new rules of the game: respect, understanding and logic go oot the windae when we are talking about greedy, selfish, self-interested councillors and their corporate chums, getting their hands on the people's inheritance.
To win against a force such what the people now face, we need to realise that the rules have changed and we need to toughen up. Remember that GCC has advisors, media managers and - most of all - jumped-up mouthpieces who daily spin and deceive info coming from GCC. Go Ape has their self-interested money-grabbers and PR agencies.
On a minor note, and example of the above is Luggie, who claims to be interested in Glasgow-wide issues, but only posts on this one issue. Luggie displays ignorance and arrogance in equal measure, while demonstrating clearly an absolute contempt for anything that seeks to put forward the wishes of he people. I would normally say ignore Luggie, but in this case I'M ENJOYING SEEING HIM/HER MAKE A FOOL OF ITSELF!!!
Trish wrote:
Having read all the above, I am appalled at the lack of respect and understanding of what the the 'go ape' demonstrators are about. It is something that surely all peace loving folk would be able to debate logically. I can't understand what part of 'the park belongs to the people of glasgow' some folk are not getting.
What you have to understand Trish is that these are the new rules of the game: respect, understanding and logic go oot the windae when we are talking about greedy, selfish, self-interested councillors and their corporate chums, getting their hands on the people's inheritance.
To win against a force such what the people now face, we need to realise that the rules have changed and we need to toughen up. Remember that GCC has advisors, media managers and - most of all - jumped-up mouthpieces who daily spin and deceive info coming from GCC. Go Ape has their self-interested money-grabbers and PR agencies.
On a minor note, and example of the above is Luggie, who claims to be interested in Glasgow-wide issues, but only posts on this one issue. Luggie displays ignorance and arrogance in equal measure, while demonstrating clearly an absolute contempt for anything that seeks to put forward the wishes of he people. I would normally say ignore Luggie, but in this case I'M ENJOYING SEEING HIM/HER MAKE A FOOL OF ITSELF!!!
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:35pm Sun 20 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Trish[/bold] wrote:
Having read all the above, I am appalled at the lack of respect and understanding of what the the 'go ape' demonstrators are about. It is something that surely all peace loving folk would be able to debate logically. I can't understand what part of 'the park belongs to the people of glasgow' some folk are not getting. To reiterate: POLLOK COUNTRY PARK BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF GLASGOW AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GSC WHO SEEM TO THINK WE SHALL ALL LIE DOWN AND ACCEPT THEIR BULLYING IN THIS INSTANCE! Hey, guess what. Reading some of these comments, it looks as though some of us have given in to the 'establishment'. What a shame. People power? You're having a laugh!![/quote]
[bold]Trish,
Perhaps you could expand in some way - why you believe I'm "having a laugh!"[/bold]
This unbeknown to some is a serious issue and one which people who sit on the fence, type their mince on this comments page, & are happy to stir things further..
Personally I say things as I see things.
I am basically standing up for what I believe in, however little people believe or want to agree with my stance.
Those who don't feel able to do anything to help the cause or fight for what they believe in through their councillors, MSP's and alongside the "Save Pollok Park" group can b**ger off and stop wasting our time reading their posts.
I salute & praise those who want to take this issue seriously and become active participants in seeing change happen.
But change wont happen overnight, and people need to get up off their fat butts to instigate it.
Did you get that Trish ?
[bold]B.T.W. - Are you on your local Community Council ? If not Why Not ?[/bold]
Trish wrote:
Having read all the above, I am appalled at the lack of respect and understanding of what the the 'go ape' demonstrators are about. It is something that surely all peace loving folk would be able to debate logically. I can't understand what part of 'the park belongs to the people of glasgow' some folk are not getting. To reiterate: POLLOK COUNTRY PARK BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF GLASGOW AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE PROPERTY OF GSC WHO SEEM TO THINK WE SHALL ALL LIE DOWN AND ACCEPT THEIR BULLYING IN THIS INSTANCE! Hey, guess what. Reading some of these comments, it looks as though some of us have given in to the 'establishment'. What a shame. People power? You're having a laugh!!
Trish,
Perhaps you could expand in some way - why you believe I'm "having a laugh!"
This unbeknown to some is a serious issue and one which people who sit on the fence, type their mince on this comments page, & are happy to stir things further..
Personally I say things as I see things.
I am basically standing up for what I believe in, however little people believe or want to agree with my stance.
Those who don't feel able to do anything to help the cause or fight for what they believe in through their councillors, MSP's and alongside the "Save Pollok Park" group can b**ger off and stop wasting our time reading their posts.
I salute & praise those who want to take this issue seriously and become active participants in seeing change happen.
But change wont happen overnight, and people need to get up off their fat butts to instigate it.
Did you get that Trish ?
B.T.W. - Are you on your local Community Council ? If not Why Not ? Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 2:00pm Sun 20 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
I see someone who says their forcing a democratic process has removed one of my postings. Shame it was really good as well. If I get a chance I might do another. I laugh at all this 'People Power' and 'People of Pollok' - obviously their first time at getting involved in an issue and making up names for themselves, I suggest saving the Rainforest - but Oh.. you don't live next to it. How about renaming the campaign WEW? West End Wannabees[/quote]
Oh dear Luggie! I see you've still nothing constructive to say other than mock and moan. If your postings are removed that says it all.
Now go and type your mince elsewhere & save yourself from further embarrassment - being the E.T. laughing stock.
Luggie wrote:
I see someone who says their forcing a democratic process has removed one of my postings. Shame it was really good as well. If I get a chance I might do another. I laugh at all this 'People Power' and 'People of Pollok' - obviously their first time at getting involved in an issue and making up names for themselves, I suggest saving the Rainforest - but Oh.. you don't live next to it. How about renaming the campaign WEW? West End Wannabees
Oh dear Luggie! I see you've still nothing constructive to say other than mock and moan. If your postings are removed that says it all.
Now go and type your mince elsewhere & save yourself from further embarrassment - being the E.T. laughing stock.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 2:08pm Sun 20 Apr 08
Aint me thats making a fool.
Here it is in simple terms (again.)
GCC consulted the people of Glasgow. They got a response and are acting on it. The SPP don't like it and want to thwart the democratic process and tell people like me that I've not to get what I and others asked for. They think that because they are nearer & use it more that they have more of a say.
Sorry, the people of Glasgow have provided you with it and just because we don't use it as much doesn't mean to say its more yours than anyone elses. We all all pay the same taxes as you, joined in consultations as much as you (well maybe not since 'you didn't respond')and have determined what is to happen next to less than 1% of it. We have spoken and just because you don't like it does not give you the authority to change the consultation process or force us into having to respond again. We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people.
Have all of the 'my meetings' you want - they have no authority. Of course all the opposition parties agree - thats what opposition parties do.
But what is most disturbing of all is the way the campaigners have conducted themselves and I actually feel a great misrepresentation of the people of Pollok is happening because these campaigners have engaged mostly in discrediting, mocking, distrust and have shown their true colours in the disgraceful videos on Youtube. As said before youre not helping yourselves.
My interest is in not allowing my decisions or other democratic decisions to be hiijacked by self serving parasites who have benefitted from the people of Glasgow's provision of this park, maintained it and you have all benefitted more than others - but paid the same as us all.
Aint me thats making a fool.
Here it is in simple terms (again.)
GCC consulted the people of Glasgow. They got a response and are acting on it. The SPP don't like it and want to thwart the democratic process and tell people like me that I've not to get what I and others asked for. They think that because they are nearer & use it more that they have more of a say.
Sorry, the people of Glasgow have provided you with it and just because we don't use it as much doesn't mean to say its more yours than anyone elses. We all all pay the same taxes as you, joined in consultations as much as you (well maybe not since 'you didn't respond')and have determined what is to happen next to less than 1% of it. We have spoken and just because you don't like it does not give you the authority to change the consultation process or force us into having to respond again. We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people.
Have all of the 'my meetings' you want - they have no authority. Of course all the opposition parties agree - thats what opposition parties do.
But what is most disturbing of all is the way the campaigners have conducted themselves and I actually feel a great misrepresentation of the people of Pollok is happening because these campaigners have engaged mostly in discrediting, mocking, distrust and have shown their true colours in the disgraceful videos on Youtube. As said before youre not helping yourselves.
My interest is in not allowing my decisions or other democratic decisions to be hiijacked by self serving parasites who have benefitted from the people of Glasgow's provision of this park, maintained it and you have all benefitted more than others - but paid the same as us all.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 2:11pm Sun 20 Apr 08
Its a bloody park for God's sake!
Its a bloody park for God's sake!
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 3:56pm Sun 20 Apr 08
It gives me the greatest of pleasure to see Luggie [bold]moan and bleat and whine[/bold] about the YouTube videos, as I think they are just brilliant, showing our senior councillors in their true colours.
When you compare the [bold]near-hysterical, banshee-like wailings of Cllr Simpson[/bold] with the reserved, determined dignity shown by the organisers of 'Save Pollok Park', you know that in the end there will only be one winner... and it won't be those like Simpson who try to shout down others who disagree with them.
Now Luggie, let's hear you moan, bleat and whine just a wee bit more... for someone who self-righteously declares to represent the will of the overwhelming majority, your support ludicrously non-existent!
It gives me the greatest of pleasure to see Luggie
moan and bleat and whine about the YouTube videos, as I think they are just brilliant, showing our senior councillors in their true colours.
When you compare the
near-hysterical, banshee-like wailings of Cllr Simpson with the reserved, determined dignity shown by the organisers of 'Save Pollok Park', you know that in the end there will only be one winner... and it won't be those like Simpson who try to shout down others who disagree with them.
Now Luggie, let's hear you moan, bleat and whine just a wee bit more... for someone who self-righteously declares to represent the will of the overwhelming majority, your support ludicrously non-existent!
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 4:07pm Sun 20 Apr 08
Dear me Sydney, you are a bit of a stalker! But then that fits with the Youtube nature - set folk up and then mock them, all the while hiding in the crowd. You mean nothing to me pal and I aint bleating. I haven't stopped laughing actually. Thankfullythe real people of Pollok aint like you.
Dear me Sydney, you are a bit of a stalker! But then that fits with the Youtube nature - set folk up and then mock them, all the while hiding in the crowd. You mean nothing to me pal and I aint bleating. I haven't stopped laughing actually. Thankfullythe real people of Pollok aint like you.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 6:50pm Sun 20 Apr 08
hiya Sydney,
Just a thought, but might be wise to focus on the facts & show Luggie who the adults are here!
We know who is in the right here & who the cyber-troll/s are!
If Luggie wants to carry on rambling, prolificating & making irrelevant points of view, whilst supposedly criticising the excellent work done by Bill Fraser & his "Save Pollok Park" group thats fine.
But, no point rising to the bait - lets prove we're above all this bickering & stick to the facts & relevant points of view.
Otherwise we're just going round in circles.
All I can say is if theres such a thing as a shred of decency & democracy left within this useless council of ours, we can only carry on fighting & campaigning for what belongs to the people of this fine city.
Those who stoop as low as to swallow the pill of spin, lies, double standards & inefficiency by our useless councillors can go bleat in the fields with all the other gullible, blinkered sheep!
hiya Sydney,
Just a thought, but might be wise to focus on the facts & show Luggie who the adults are here!
We know who is in the right here & who the cyber-troll/s are!
If Luggie wants to carry on rambling, prolificating & making irrelevant points of view, whilst supposedly criticising the excellent work done by Bill Fraser & his "Save Pollok Park" group thats fine.
But, no point rising to the bait - lets prove we're above all this bickering & stick to the facts & relevant points of view.
Otherwise we're just going round in circles.
All I can say is if theres such a thing as a shred of decency & democracy left within this useless council of ours, we can only carry on fighting & campaigning for what belongs to the people of this fine city.
Those who stoop as low as to swallow the pill of spin, lies, double standards & inefficiency by our useless councillors can go bleat in the fields with all the other gullible, blinkered sheep!
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 7:37pm Sun 20 Apr 08
Ah ken wit you're saying PP, but I just like to drop in every few hours and wind Luggie up - he/she normally replies within 10 minutes so we'll wait and see...
[bold]We all know the facts: the consultation process was a sham; senior councillors behaved like deranged commissars; and the democratic process in this city was treated like toilet paper![/bold]
We're all still waiting on the whining Luggie to show us the evidence that the majority of people in this city supported the Go Ape plan, but of course it's not going to happen... come on Luggie where's your evidence to support your silly, contrived and rather boring claims???
Ah ken wit you're saying PP, but I just like to drop in every few hours and wind Luggie up - he/she normally replies within 10 minutes so we'll wait and see...
We all know the facts: the consultation process was a sham; senior councillors behaved like deranged commissars; and the democratic process in this city was treated like toilet paper!
We're all still waiting on the whining Luggie to show us the evidence that the majority of people in this city supported the Go Ape plan, but of course it's not going to happen... come on Luggie where's your evidence to support your silly, contrived and rather boring claims???
Posted by: Scott, Glasgow on 2:35am Mon 21 Apr 08
Nice to see the Botanics campaign, which I actively supported, as finally won.
I think the Evening Times might want to run a story based on the IP addresses of people posting here for and against this Go Ape! proposal - within the confines of law of course. I'm not sure if I'd be surprised at the findings or not.
Nice to see the Botanics campaign, which I actively supported, as finally won.
I think the Evening Times might want to run a story based on the IP addresses of people posting here for and against this Go Ape! proposal - within the confines of law of course. I'm not sure if I'd be surprised at the findings or not.
Posted by: lawrence20086, ny on 4:32am Mon 21 Apr 08
Recently, quite a few celebrities and pro athletes were said to appear on the millionaire luxury club "Wealthy Kiss.c o m" to hook up with hot girs and models. OMG!!! Are these famous guys fond of internet dating for now?? Maybe they are indeed so rich that they feel boring sometimes to need new things?
Recently, quite a few celebrities and pro athletes were said to appear on the millionaire luxury club "Wealthy Kiss.c o m" to hook up with hot girs and models. OMG!!! Are these famous guys fond of internet dating for now?? Maybe they are indeed so rich that they feel boring sometimes to need new things?
Posted by: I Like North Wood As It Is, Right Next To Pollok Park on 9:31am Mon 21 Apr 08
Any attempt to justify the proposed Go-Ape development in the North Wood of Pollok Park on the grounds that it fits with a "health agenda" is errant nonsense.
I trust in the fullness of time this will be shown to be the case.
Any attempt to justify the proposed Go-Ape development in the North Wood of Pollok Park on the grounds that it fits with a "health agenda" is errant nonsense.
I trust in the fullness of time this will be shown to be the case.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:35am Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]lawrence20086[/bold] wrote:
Recently, quite a few celebrities and pro athletes were said to appear on the millionaire luxury club "Wealthy Kiss.c o m" to hook up with hot girs and models. OMG!!! Are these famous guys fond of internet dating for now?? Maybe they are indeed so rich that they feel boring sometimes to need new things?[/quote]
GO and place your spam & promotional posts else where. This forum is not for hyjacking from you.
lawrence20086 wrote:
Recently, quite a few celebrities and pro athletes were said to appear on the millionaire luxury club "Wealthy Kiss.c o m" to hook up with hot girs and models. OMG!!! Are these famous guys fond of internet dating for now?? Maybe they are indeed so rich that they feel boring sometimes to need new things?
GO and place your spam & promotional posts else where. This forum is not for hyjacking from you.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 12:29pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]gavin48[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Well folks , gone all quiet. Thanks for the chat and sorry if I couldn't answer all who asked but I have to go. Bye for now.[/quote] Bye Luggie, long in word but short in fact. A bit like this whole Go Ape proposal[/quote] Hey Luggie
Do you have any facts, I am still waiting for you to answer one of the queries. Go on try it will be good for you.
Here are some starters
Why was the consultation so clearly not fit for purpose?
Why has their been so much concern from ordinary folk about this proposal? given that most folk are fairly laisse faire about things.
Why did the planning report mis such fundamental planning issues such as parking, toileting and loss of amenity, they would not normally just accept a developers word for it, they would usually require substantial evidence.
Why have Culture and Sport been completely quiet about the development?
Why is the financial deal for the council so pitiful, given that the company is likley to make £100 of thousands a year.
Why if the footfall of the development is so small do they require to lease almost the complete North Wood?
I would really welcome your answers preferably with facts to support them.
Go on you know you can do it.
gavin48 wrote:
Luggie wrote:
Well folks , gone all quiet. Thanks for the chat and sorry if I couldn't answer all who asked but I have to go. Bye for now.
Bye Luggie, long in word but short in fact. A bit like this whole Go Ape proposal
Hey Luggie
Do you have any facts, I am still waiting for you to answer one of the queries. Go on try it will be good for you.
Here are some starters
Why was the consultation so clearly not fit for purpose?
Why has their been so much concern from ordinary folk about this proposal? given that most folk are fairly laisse faire about things.
Why did the planning report mis such fundamental planning issues such as parking, toileting and loss of amenity, they would not normally just accept a developers word for it, they would usually require substantial evidence.
Why have Culture and Sport been completely quiet about the development?
Why is the financial deal for the council so pitiful, given that the company is likley to make £100 of thousands a year.
Why if the footfall of the development is so small do they require to lease almost the complete North Wood?
I would really welcome your answers preferably with facts to support them.
Go on you know you can do it.
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 4:47pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote:
Aint me thats making a fool.
Here it is in simple terms (again.)
GCC consulted the people of Glasgow. They got a response and are acting on it. The SPP don't like it and want to thwart the democratic process and tell people like me that I've not to get what I and others asked for. They think that because they are nearer & use it more that they have more of a say.
Sorry, the people of Glasgow have provided you with it and just because we don't use it as much doesn't mean to say its more yours than anyone elses. We all all pay the same taxes as you, joined in consultations as much as you (well maybe not since 'you didn't respond')and have determined what is to happen next to less than 1% of it. We have spoken and just because you don't like it does not give you the authority to change the consultation process or force us into having to respond again. We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people.
Have all of the 'my meetings' you want - they have no authority. Of course all the opposition parties agree - thats what opposition parties do.
But what is most disturbing of all is the way the campaigners have conducted themselves and I actually feel a great misrepresentation of the people of Pollok is happening because these campaigners have engaged mostly in discrediting, mocking, distrust and have shown their true colours in the disgraceful videos on Youtube. As said before youre not helping yourselves.
My interest is in not allowing my decisions or other democratic decisions to be hiijacked by self serving parasites who have benefitted from the people of Glasgow's provision of this park, maintained it and you have all benefitted more than others - but paid the same as us all.[/quote] Luggie one simple thing, they consulted the people of Glasgow & are riding roughshod over the people..Get your facts straight or maybe you have something to gain through this..Are you perhaps a labourite??
Luggie wrote:
Aint me thats making a fool.
Here it is in simple terms (again.)
GCC consulted the people of Glasgow. They got a response and are acting on it. The SPP don't like it and want to thwart the democratic process and tell people like me that I've not to get what I and others asked for. They think that because they are nearer & use it more that they have more of a say.
Sorry, the people of Glasgow have provided you with it and just because we don't use it as much doesn't mean to say its more yours than anyone elses. We all all pay the same taxes as you, joined in consultations as much as you (well maybe not since 'you didn't respond')and have determined what is to happen next to less than 1% of it. We have spoken and just because you don't like it does not give you the authority to change the consultation process or force us into having to respond again. We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people.
Have all of the 'my meetings' you want - they have no authority. Of course all the opposition parties agree - thats what opposition parties do.
But what is most disturbing of all is the way the campaigners have conducted themselves and I actually feel a great misrepresentation of the people of Pollok is happening because these campaigners have engaged mostly in discrediting, mocking, distrust and have shown their true colours in the disgraceful videos on Youtube. As said before youre not helping yourselves.
My interest is in not allowing my decisions or other democratic decisions to be hiijacked by self serving parasites who have benefitted from the people of Glasgow's provision of this park, maintained it and you have all benefitted more than others - but paid the same as us all.
Luggie one simple thing, they consulted the people of Glasgow & are riding roughshod over the people..Get your facts straight or maybe you have something to gain through this..Are you perhaps a labourite??
Posted by: People Power on 5:13pm Mon 21 Apr 08
[quote][bold]I hear your pain[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Luggie[/bold] wrote: Aint me thats making a fool. Here it is in simple terms (again.) GCC consulted the people of Glasgow. They got a response and are acting on it. The SPP don't like it and want to thwart the democratic process and tell people like me that I've not to get what I and others asked for. They think that because they are nearer & use it more that they have more of a say. Sorry, the people of Glasgow have provided you with it and just because we don't use it as much doesn't mean to say its more yours than anyone elses. We all all pay the same taxes as you, joined in consultations as much as you (well maybe not since 'you didn't respond')and have determined what is to happen next to less than 1% of it. We have spoken and just because you don't like it does not give you the authority to change the consultation process or force us into having to respond again. We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people. Have all of the 'my meetings' you want - they have no authority. Of course all the opposition parties agree - thats what opposition parties do. But what is most disturbing of all is the way the campaigners have conducted themselves and I actually feel a great misrepresentation of the people of Pollok is happening because these campaigners have engaged mostly in discrediting, mocking, distrust and have shown their true colours in the disgraceful videos on Youtube. As said before youre not helping yourselves. My interest is in not allowing my decisions or other democratic decisions to be hiijacked by self serving parasites who have benefitted from the people of Glasgow's provision of this park, maintained it and you have all benefitted more than others - but paid the same as us all.[/quote] Luggie one simple thing, they consulted the people of Glasgow & are riding roughshod over the people..Get your facts straight or maybe you have something to gain through this..Are you perhaps a labourite??[/quote]
Glasgow,
come on that goes without saying - anyone who can defend the council position and deny the consultation over Pollok Park & Go Ape was an absolute shambles & farce ought to be given their Labour Party membership now!
Theres no room for those who stand up for such pitiful & shocking dis-representation by our Council. Step aside labour - come on down SNP.
I hear your pain wrote:
Luggie wrote: Aint me thats making a fool. Here it is in simple terms (again.) GCC consulted the people of Glasgow. They got a response and are acting on it. The SPP don't like it and want to thwart the democratic process and tell people like me that I've not to get what I and others asked for. They think that because they are nearer & use it more that they have more of a say. Sorry, the people of Glasgow have provided you with it and just because we don't use it as much doesn't mean to say its more yours than anyone elses. We all all pay the same taxes as you, joined in consultations as much as you (well maybe not since 'you didn't respond')and have determined what is to happen next to less than 1% of it. We have spoken and just because you don't like it does not give you the authority to change the consultation process or force us into having to respond again. We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people. Have all of the 'my meetings' you want - they have no authority. Of course all the opposition parties agree - thats what opposition parties do. But what is most disturbing of all is the way the campaigners have conducted themselves and I actually feel a great misrepresentation of the people of Pollok is happening because these campaigners have engaged mostly in discrediting, mocking, distrust and have shown their true colours in the disgraceful videos on Youtube. As said before youre not helping yourselves. My interest is in not allowing my decisions or other democratic decisions to be hiijacked by self serving parasites who have benefitted from the people of Glasgow's provision of this park, maintained it and you have all benefitted more than others - but paid the same as us all.
Luggie one simple thing, they consulted the people of Glasgow & are riding roughshod over the people..Get your facts straight or maybe you have something to gain through this..Are you perhaps a labourite??
Glasgow,
come on that goes without saying - anyone who can defend the council position and deny the consultation over Pollok Park & Go Ape was an absolute shambles & farce ought to be given their Labour Party membership now!
Theres no room for those who stand up for such pitiful & shocking dis-representation by our Council. Step aside labour - come on down SNP.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:46am Tue 22 Apr 08
Hey Luggie
Very interesting use of language, "...my decision" " ... our decision" could you actually be a local councillor? I wander which one? my guess are you actually Ruth Simpson?
Your rant about democratic process is also very revealing as that is exactly what the SPP and all its supporters are about, democracy and due process.
A process that is not yet finished, we shall see what the Scottish Government makes of this tawdry little affair.
I remain hopeful and optimistic that they will make the decision that is best for Glasgow and all its citizens and not allow the destroying of this unique and greatly loved park.
Hey Luggie
Very interesting use of language, "...my decision" " ... our decision" could you actually be a local councillor? I wander which one? my guess are you actually Ruth Simpson?
Your rant about democratic process is also very revealing as that is exactly what the SPP and all its supporters are about, democracy and due process.
A process that is not yet finished, we shall see what the Scottish Government makes of this tawdry little affair.
I remain hopeful and optimistic that they will make the decision that is best for Glasgow and all its citizens and not allow the destroying of this unique and greatly loved park.
Posted by: Luggie, Glasgow on 5:56pm Tue 22 Apr 08
What a laugh you guys are. Unbelievable. One zip wire and its all campaigning, suspicion, feeling duped and slander. Get a life!
What a laugh you guys are. Unbelievable. One zip wire and its all campaigning, suspicion, feeling duped and slander. Get a life!
Posted by: Paul from Langside, Glasgow on 4:54pm Mon 28 Apr 08
[quote]We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people.[/quote]
Really - ALL Glasgow people or just the ones who can afford £45+ for a walk in the woods?
We are not here to provide you with your own special needs we are here to provide Glasgow with parks with facilities for the Glasgow people.
Really - ALL Glasgow people or just the ones who can afford £45+ for a walk in the woods?
Comment | Read Comments (100)
