Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 11:15am Mon 25 Feb 08
"Go Ape" can come out with all the excuses it wants to justify its position, arguments againts the wider public good as much as it wants.. . .
The simple fact remains that the "woefully inadequate" Consultation by Glasgow City Council, combined with the unofficial hand shake of G.C.C. and "Go Ape!" has clearly upset and angered alot of people, and justifiably so.
Whatever the reasons, excuses or arguements "Go Ape" try to scrape up - the fact remains that Pollok Park was gifted to the People of Glasgow, in 1966 by the Maxwell Family. That is how it should remain.
Not - for G.C.C. to step in, take over proceedings and decide on behalf of the people of Glasgow without a fair, above board, and lengthly enough consultation process.
The final outcome of, and discussion of this planning application in Pollok Park will be watched very closely by the media and people of Glasgow alike.
And with this new "CROSS-GLASGOW ALLIANCE ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONþ" being formed to unite all of our "Dear Green Space" Campaigns accross the city G.C.C should be quaking in their boots!
"Go Ape" can come out with all the excuses it wants to justify its position, arguments againts the wider public good as much as it wants.. . .
The simple fact remains that the "woefully inadequate" Consultation by Glasgow City Council, combined with the unofficial hand shake of G.C.C. and "Go Ape!" has clearly upset and angered alot of people, and justifiably so.
Whatever the reasons, excuses or arguements "Go Ape" try to scrape up - the fact remains that Pollok Park was gifted to the People of Glasgow, in 1966 by the Maxwell Family. That is how it should remain.
Not - for G.C.C. to step in, take over proceedings and decide on behalf of the people of Glasgow without a fair, above board, and lengthly enough consultation process.
The final outcome of, and discussion of this planning application in Pollok Park will be watched very closely by the media and people of Glasgow alike.
And with this new "CROSS-GLASGOW ALLIANCE ON COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONþ" being formed to unite all of our "Dear Green Space" Campaigns accross the city G.C.C should be quaking in their boots!
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 12:27pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote]Go Ape chief executive Tristram Mayhew answers the plan's critics and attempts to reassure people on every area of concern.[/quote]
Now -why I am NOT reassured mmmmm??
1) the agreement is for UP TO 450 free places i.e. that is the MAXIMUM in a year
2) presumably the £35,000 of free places last year include the "bogof" offers out of season to encourage new custom? Not exactly a "charitable" action
3) Additional car parking and additional toilets within the park are NOT part of the agreement that has been submitted to the Council. Neither are "secure bike racks" though it has to be said that the idea of corporate businesses organising their staff to get on their bikes to visit Go Ape is ludicrous.
4) I understand that the company has a proven track record of felling more trees than their original "estimate"
5) since Buxton opened last year that there have been a number of complaints about noise from those living in residential properties fairly close to the facilities.
and that's just for starters after a quick glance through the article, So, I will continue to say - Go Ape Go Home
Go Ape chief executive Tristram Mayhew answers the plan's critics and attempts to reassure people on every area of concern.
Now -why I am NOT reassured mmmmm??
1) the agreement is for UP TO 450 free places i.e. that is the MAXIMUM in a year
2) presumably the £35,000 of free places last year include the "bogof" offers out of season to encourage new custom? Not exactly a "charitable" action
3) Additional car parking and additional toilets within the park are NOT part of the agreement that has been submitted to the Council. Neither are "secure bike racks" though it has to be said that the idea of corporate businesses organising their staff to get on their bikes to visit Go Ape is ludicrous.
4) I understand that the company has a proven track record of felling more trees than their original "estimate"
5) since Buxton opened last year that there have been a number of complaints about noise from those living in residential properties fairly close to the facilities.
and that's just for starters after a quick glance through the article, So, I will continue to say - Go Ape Go Home
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 12:33pm Mon 25 Feb 08
It's good that the ET has kept this issue on its pages, but personally I wouldn't waste my time reading Tristram's excuses. If you want a laugh go to the following url and see how a senior New Labour politician conducts itself in public:
[italic]"You're supposed to represent US!"[/italic]
[bold]tinyurl.com/2rehnk[/bold]
It's good that the ET has kept this issue on its pages, but personally I wouldn't waste my time reading Tristram's excuses. If you want a laugh go to the following url and see how a senior New Labour politician conducts itself in public:
"You're supposed to represent US!"
tinyurl.com/2rehnk Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 12:37pm Mon 25 Feb 08
What does it say about Glasgow District Council, that it wants to destroy something has beautiful as Pollok Park for what is a glorified set of swings and monkey bars? Just plain insane.
What does it say about Glasgow District Council, that it wants to destroy something has beautiful as Pollok Park for what is a glorified set of swings and monkey bars? Just plain insane.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 12:50pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Hoi - where's my post gone?????
Hoi - where's my post gone?????
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 12:51pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote][bold]mulross[/bold] wrote:
Hoi - where's my post gone?????[/quote] It's back ?????
Confused in Glasgow
mulross wrote:
Hoi - where's my post gone?????
It's back ?????
Confused in Glasgow
Posted by: Bob Downie, Glasgow on 1:40pm Mon 25 Feb 08
It was always the intention to construct staff toilets, indeed this is a legal requirement. It was never the intention that these should be public toilets. If you read Mr Mayhew's statement carefully you will see no mention to public or customer use.
[quote]"We have always intended to include toilet facilities within our Go Ape course. Currently, we intend to include these facilities within the Go Ape hut however, we also recognise that there is a possible need for toilet facilities for other park users. We are therefore keen to explore other possibilities."
[/quote]
It was always the intention to construct staff toilets, indeed this is a legal requirement. It was never the intention that these should be public toilets. If you read Mr Mayhew's statement carefully you will see no mention to public or customer use.
"We have always intended to include toilet facilities within our Go Ape course. Currently, we intend to include these facilities within the Go Ape hut however, we also recognise that there is a possible need for toilet facilities for other park users. We are therefore keen to explore other possibilities."
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 2:05pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Glad to see that all posters have so far seen right through this article for what it is:
Council biased spin & rhetoric - trying to score points with those who are sitting on the fence!
As far as I can see the only folk sitting on the fence - are the Councillors (Aileen Colleran - Labour whip) and the other New Labour sheep following her!
Maybe once this "Pollok PArk - Go Ape proposal goes to Holyrood we'll finally have some common sense poured all over the plans, and our City Council will be forced to make yet another embarrassing U - turn!
Glad to see that all posters have so far seen right through this article for what it is:
Council biased spin & rhetoric - trying to score points with those who are sitting on the fence!
As far as I can see the only folk sitting on the fence - are the Councillors (Aileen Colleran - Labour whip) and the other New Labour sheep following her!
Maybe once this "Pollok PArk - Go Ape proposal goes to Holyrood we'll finally have some common sense poured all over the plans, and our City Council will be forced to make yet another embarrassing U - turn!
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 2:11pm Mon 25 Feb 08
I see that Go Ape's paid-for friends (their new Glasgow PR Company) have started getting them some more press attention. A reminder to all: paid-for friends are all that Go Ape has, unlike the thousands of supporters who are against the proposal!
I see that Go Ape's paid-for friends (their new Glasgow PR Company) have started getting them some more press attention. A reminder to all: paid-for friends are all that Go Ape has, unlike the thousands of supporters who are against the proposal!
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 2:15pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Perhaps we are seeing "Tristans" true colours, he is just a business man determined to grow his business and profits and to hell with the consequences for anyone else.
Smoke and mirrors, there is no mention in the planning submission of Toilets, either Staff or public, no mention of building/developing other car parking spaces. Hes just making this up.
I could go through everyone of the points he has made they are all disingenuous, half truths and some downright lies. He must be getting desperate either that or his new PR company is starting to earn its corn!!!
Perhaps we are seeing "Tristans" true colours, he is just a business man determined to grow his business and profits and to hell with the consequences for anyone else.
Smoke and mirrors, there is no mention in the planning submission of Toilets, either Staff or public, no mention of building/developing other car parking spaces. Hes just making this up.
I could go through everyone of the points he has made they are all disingenuous, half truths and some downright lies. He must be getting desperate either that or his new PR company is starting to earn its corn!!!
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 2:16pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Exactly - we the people cannot be fooled by the glossy pictures painted accross by any P.R. Companies!
It is way too late for that!
The "Save Pollok Park" movement was amassed and strongly supported way before any paid P.R. Company.
The Public Meeting in Pollok re - Pollok Park's "Go Ape" proposal with 1,000 people in attendance ( despite just 500 being published!) says it all.
Glasgow City Council had better be sitting up and listening to us - or they'll know all about it come the next elections!
Exactly - we the people cannot be fooled by the glossy pictures painted accross by any P.R. Companies!
It is way too late for that!
The "Save Pollok Park" movement was amassed and strongly supported way before any paid P.R. Company.
The Public Meeting in Pollok re - Pollok Park's "Go Ape" proposal with 1,000 people in attendance ( despite just 500 being published!) says it all.
Glasgow City Council had better be sitting up and listening to us - or they'll know all about it come the next elections!
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 2:16pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote]We have an agreement to provide 450 free places per year these places will be fully inclusive of insurance.[/quote]
This is one of the biggest charades of all. The 450 free places is a red herring. Participants are required to sign a detailed waiver of their rights against Go Ape, for any and all loss, injury or death caused by anything other than the company's gross negligence. The waiver is so far-reaching that a school in England, Buxtom Community School, were actually prohibited from taking part in the course by their legal department.
The 450 "free" places are worthless, it is a Cooncil red herring.
We have an agreement to provide 450 free places per year these places will be fully inclusive of insurance.
This is one of the biggest charades of all. The 450 free places is a red herring. Participants are required to sign a detailed waiver of their rights against Go Ape, for any and all loss, injury or death caused by anything other than the company's gross negligence. The waiver is so far-reaching that a school in England, Buxtom Community School, were actually prohibited from taking part in the course by their legal department.
The 450 "free" places are worthless, it is a Cooncil red herring.
Posted by: TICL, Glasgow on 2:19pm Mon 25 Feb 08
And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway.
And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 2:35pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote][bold]TICL[/bold] wrote:
And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway. [/quote] Its only business, and remember that the SE may only be able to act on certain aspects of the plan
TICL wrote:
And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway.
Its only business, and remember that the SE may only be able to act on certain aspects of the plan
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 2:36pm Mon 25 Feb 08
If this goes through I wil never vote for a Labour candidate in any election ever again.
I'm really disappoined and feel let down by the council over this. This land was bestowed to them in good faith to preserve for the people of Glasgow. Thye've abused this trust by handing it on to a private enterprise creating private space where once we could roam free.
If this goes through I wil never vote for a Labour candidate in any election ever again.
I'm really disappoined and feel let down by the council over this. This land was bestowed to them in good faith to preserve for the people of Glasgow. Thye've abused this trust by handing it on to a private enterprise creating private space where once we could roam free.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 2:46pm Mon 25 Feb 08
I assume that the Evening Times charged its usual rates for this advert for Tristram and Go Ape?
I assume that the Evening Times charged its usual rates for this advert for Tristram and Go Ape?
Posted by: parklover, Glasgow on 3:20pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Sarah Swain is to be congratulated for the succinct way she has summed up the many concerns of park users. She has allowed Mr Mayhew to condemn himself out of his own mouth, betraying his lack of knowledge or understanding of any of the issues. Well done.
Sarah Swain is to be congratulated for the succinct way she has summed up the many concerns of park users. She has allowed Mr Mayhew to condemn himself out of his own mouth, betraying his lack of knowledge or understanding of any of the issues. Well done.
Posted by: Bob Downie, Glasgow on 3:22pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote] TOILETS The Burrell Collection's toilets close at 5pm. In summer Go Ape is open until 8pm or 9pm so where will all the people go? It's a long walk to the Stables toilets.
We have always intended to include toilet facilities within our Go Ape course. Currently, we intend to include these facilities within the Go Ape hut however, we also recognise that there is a possible need for toilet facilities for other park users. We are therefore keen to explore other possibilities.[/quote]
It was always the intention to construct staff toilets, indeed this is a legal requirement. It was never the intention that these should be public toilets. If you read Mr Mayhew's statement carefully you will see no mention to public or customer use. Go Ape still can't explain the evening toilet question.
[quote] NOISE Protesters say the peace and tranquillity they enjoy in the North Wood will be shattered by screaming and shouting and the noise of the zip lines. Our experience at our other sites is that rather than loud and intrusive noise levels, participants at Go Ape are required to undertake such a high degree of concentration that they do not in fact make a great deal of noise.[/quote]
Absolute bullshit. Put a teenager on a massive zipwire and not expect to get screams from her/him?
[quote]WILDLIFE Roe deer, woodpeckers and owls are just some of the wildlife in the North Wood. Will these animals lose their habitat or be scared away?
# The ethos behind Go Ape is to encourage as many people as possible to experience nature and the environment. It is therefore in our best interests to ensure that the native wildlife and environment is not only preserved, but that it is also nurtured. [/quote]
Just words that mean absolutely nothing.
[quote]TREES How many will be felled and why is this needed. Will these be replaced?
# Because Go Ape is firmly committed to the environment, when we plan our structures one of our top priorities is to ensure there is a minimal impact upon the trees and surrounding environment. Of the estimated 100,000 trees growing in Pollok Park, Go Ape will only need to fell around 20 trees in total. [/quote]
And no mention of replanting any trees.
[quote]THE GLADE Save Pollok Park says this area was created as part of the designed landscape by the Stirling Maxwells and is a favourite quiet spot for walking and for picnics. The final 100-metre long zip wire will cross here and the landing strip will be cut out of the trees. Is this right?
# We are very sensitive to the concerns of some residents and park users as well as the park's history. We will continue to explore ways in which we can address some of the issues raised. However, we believe this facility would enhance the park and introduce a whole new generation to its many treasures. [/quote]
Translation: we are going to put the zipwire across the glade.
[quote]BUILDINGS Two new buildings will be visible from the Burrell, which has a unspoiled view. Electricity and phone lines will be installed too.
# No electricity or phone lines will be visible at all. Go Ape has worked closely with Glasgow City Council to ensure there is little or no visual impact on views from the Burrell building. [/quote]
Translation: the buildings will be clearly visible from the Burrell
[quote]RESTRICTIONS Landing areas will be fenced off, will this bar access to areas of the woods for walkers?
# The landing areas take up a very small area of the woods - most of the activity takes place up in the trees. Clearly for safety reasons it would not be appropriate for other park users to be walking in these small areas while activities were under way. [/quote]
Park users have a perfect right to access all parts of the park without exception. Go Ape want to exclude us.
[quote]TRAFFIC AND LITTER Save Pollok Park says there will 1000 extra cars per week in high season and no plans for extra car parks. Will this mean a major parking problem?
# Go Ape is aware of these concerns and is keen to work with the council and park users as well as community groups to look at ways that this can be addressed.
One option would be to look at other areas of the park which are already developed but not used so that additional car parking can be accommodated. The installation of secure bike racks could also be considered. [/quote]
"One option"? For goodness sake, this is an advanced planning application and to still be talking of options shows that Go Ape and the council haven’t a clue what they are doing. In any case, what are these “other areas of the park which are already developed but not used”?
[quote]SECURITY Could anybody access the course at night - or try to?
# All of our courses are designed so that when they are not in use the ladders and removable equipment is removed. Any platforms which are situated at an inaccessible height are designed so that two adults working together without the appropriate equipment cannot gain access to the course. We have built a number of courses in areas surrounded by high population and we have not experienced security problems. [/quote]
Translation: We hope that our facilities will be safe but we have no idea.
[quote]COMMERCIAL USE OF A PARK WHICH WAS GIFTED TO THE PEOPLE OF GLASGOW Will Go Ape be making a profit out of the park which belongs to the people of the city? The firm was invited by Glasgow City Council to look at the viability of providing a course within Pollok Park. It is a commercial company however we have a firm belief and excellent track record in supporting the local community. Last year, the company gave away £35,000 worth of free visits to its courses and there is an agreement between the council and the company that it would give away 450 free visits per year. [/quote]
When you have no answer, answer a question that wasn’t asked.
[quote]PLANTS Bluebells grow in the woods and are legally protected. How will these be safeguarded? Will other plants be killed by the landing areas?
# Because of the very nature of the Go Ape courses ie participants are away from ground level for the majority of the activity, footfall on the ground is minimal. Therefore there would be little impact on bluebells and other plants. [/quote]
Translation: Bluebells will be killed in the landing areas.
[quote]COSTS Will free places really be free? It's rumoured that people will still have to pay for insurance.
# This is not true. We have an agreement to provide 450 free places per year these places will be fully inclusive of insurance. [/quote]
Lets read the small print
[quote]LOCATION Why can't Go Ape look at an alternative location?
# Go Ape courses require a wide range of technical pre-requisites at each site to ensure that a course can be designed and built to a safe standard. Go Ape does not actively market or cold call to look at sites, we are invited by local authorities, land owners and other public authorities to assess whether or not a site is suitable for a course. [/quote]
Go Ape may have been invited by the council but has been rejected by the local population. Why won’t you listen?
[quote]CONSULTATION The council's consultation was labelled "woefully inadequate" by Deputy First Minister to Nicola Sturgeon. What does Go Ape think?
# While the formal consultation process is a matter for the appropriate authorities, we will keep listening to the concerns of local residents and park users. [/quote]
If you haven’t got the message by now then you are willfully not listening.
TOILETS The Burrell Collection's toilets close at 5pm. In summer Go Ape is open until 8pm or 9pm so where will all the people go? It's a long walk to the Stables toilets.
We have always intended to include toilet facilities within our Go Ape course. Currently, we intend to include these facilities within the Go Ape hut however, we also recognise that there is a possible need for toilet facilities for other park users. We are therefore keen to explore other possibilities.
It was always the intention to construct staff toilets, indeed this is a legal requirement. It was never the intention that these should be public toilets. If you read Mr Mayhew's statement carefully you will see no mention to public or customer use. Go Ape still can't explain the evening toilet question.
NOISE Protesters say the peace and tranquillity they enjoy in the North Wood will be shattered by screaming and shouting and the noise of the zip lines. Our experience at our other sites is that rather than loud and intrusive noise levels, participants at Go Ape are required to undertake such a high degree of concentration that they do not in fact make a great deal of noise.
Absolute bullshit. Put a teenager on a massive zipwire and not expect to get screams from her/him?
WILDLIFE Roe deer, woodpeckers and owls are just some of the wildlife in the North Wood. Will these animals lose their habitat or be scared away?
# The ethos behind Go Ape is to encourage as many people as possible to experience nature and the environment. It is therefore in our best interests to ensure that the native wildlife and environment is not only preserved, but that it is also nurtured.
Just words that mean absolutely nothing.
TREES How many will be felled and why is this needed. Will these be replaced?
# Because Go Ape is firmly committed to the environment, when we plan our structures one of our top priorities is to ensure there is a minimal impact upon the trees and surrounding environment. Of the estimated 100,000 trees growing in Pollok Park, Go Ape will only need to fell around 20 trees in total.
And no mention of replanting any trees.
THE GLADE Save Pollok Park says this area was created as part of the designed landscape by the Stirling Maxwells and is a favourite quiet spot for walking and for picnics. The final 100-metre long zip wire will cross here and the landing strip will be cut out of the trees. Is this right?
# We are very sensitive to the concerns of some residents and park users as well as the park's history. We will continue to explore ways in which we can address some of the issues raised. However, we believe this facility would enhance the park and introduce a whole new generation to its many treasures.
Translation: we are going to put the zipwire across the glade.
BUILDINGS Two new buildings will be visible from the Burrell, which has a unspoiled view. Electricity and phone lines will be installed too.
# No electricity or phone lines will be visible at all. Go Ape has worked closely with Glasgow City Council to ensure there is little or no visual impact on views from the Burrell building.
Translation: the buildings will be clearly visible from the Burrell
RESTRICTIONS Landing areas will be fenced off, will this bar access to areas of the woods for walkers?
# The landing areas take up a very small area of the woods - most of the activity takes place up in the trees. Clearly for safety reasons it would not be appropriate for other park users to be walking in these small areas while activities were under way.
Park users have a perfect right to access all parts of the park without exception. Go Ape want to exclude us.
TRAFFIC AND LITTER Save Pollok Park says there will 1000 extra cars per week in high season and no plans for extra car parks. Will this mean a major parking problem?
# Go Ape is aware of these concerns and is keen to work with the council and park users as well as community groups to look at ways that this can be addressed.
One option would be to look at other areas of the park which are already developed but not used so that additional car parking can be accommodated. The installation of secure bike racks could also be considered.
"One option"? For goodness sake, this is an advanced planning application and to still be talking of options shows that Go Ape and the council haven’t a clue what they are doing. In any case, what are these “other areas of the park which are already developed but not used”?
SECURITY Could anybody access the course at night - or try to?
# All of our courses are designed so that when they are not in use the ladders and removable equipment is removed. Any platforms which are situated at an inaccessible height are designed so that two adults working together without the appropriate equipment cannot gain access to the course. We have built a number of courses in areas surrounded by high population and we have not experienced security problems.
Translation: We hope that our facilities will be safe but we have no idea.
COMMERCIAL USE OF A PARK WHICH WAS GIFTED TO THE PEOPLE OF GLASGOW Will Go Ape be making a profit out of the park which belongs to the people of the city? The firm was invited by Glasgow City Council to look at the viability of providing a course within Pollok Park. It is a commercial company however we have a firm belief and excellent track record in supporting the local community. Last year, the company gave away £35,000 worth of free visits to its courses and there is an agreement between the council and the company that it would give away 450 free visits per year.
When you have no answer, answer a question that wasn’t asked.
PLANTS Bluebells grow in the woods and are legally protected. How will these be safeguarded? Will other plants be killed by the landing areas?
# Because of the very nature of the Go Ape courses ie participants are away from ground level for the majority of the activity, footfall on the ground is minimal. Therefore there would be little impact on bluebells and other plants.
Translation: Bluebells will be killed in the landing areas.
COSTS Will free places really be free? It's rumoured that people will still have to pay for insurance.
# This is not true. We have an agreement to provide 450 free places per year these places will be fully inclusive of insurance.
Lets read the small print
LOCATION Why can't Go Ape look at an alternative location?
# Go Ape courses require a wide range of technical pre-requisites at each site to ensure that a course can be designed and built to a safe standard. Go Ape does not actively market or cold call to look at sites, we are invited by local authorities, land owners and other public authorities to assess whether or not a site is suitable for a course.
Go Ape may have been invited by the council but has been rejected by the local population. Why won’t you listen?
CONSULTATION The council's consultation was labelled "woefully inadequate" by Deputy First Minister to Nicola Sturgeon. What does Go Ape think?
# While the formal consultation process is a matter for the appropriate authorities, we will keep listening to the concerns of local residents and park users.
If you haven’t got the message by now then you are willfully not listening.
Posted by: QuincyMD, Glasgow on 3:26pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Goto the area aurrounding the Go Ape in Aberfoyle and all you can hear is the sound of the ziplines upto at least 1kn away from the lines themselves.
Peace shattered for profits.
Goto the area aurrounding the Go Ape in Aberfoyle and all you can hear is the sound of the ziplines upto at least 1kn away from the lines themselves.
Peace shattered for profits.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 3:27pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote][bold]TICL[/bold] wrote:
And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway. [/quote] As you should well know, the Planning Committee is not subject to whipping by any political party. As a quasi-judicial committe, whipping would be a breach of the law.
Each member of the committe must decide purely on the merits of the application itself and, in my expereience, consistently do so.
TICL wrote:
And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway.
As you should well know, the Planning Committee is not subject to whipping by any political party. As a quasi-judicial committe, whipping would be a breach of the law.
Each member of the committe must decide purely on the merits of the application itself and, in my expereience, consistently do so.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 3:50pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Forbes
lets hope you are right and the application is decided purely on its merits, as if it is I am confident it would be rejected
Forbes
lets hope you are right and the application is decided purely on its merits, as if it is I am confident it would be rejected
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 4:09pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]TICL[/bold] wrote: And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway. [/quote] As you should well know, the Planning Committee is not subject to whipping by any political party. As a quasi-judicial committe, whipping would be a breach of the law. Each member of the committe must decide purely on the merits of the application itself and, in my expereience, consistently do so.[/quote] Forbes, your apparent faith in the objectivity of the Planning Committee is as endearing as it is misplaced.
Forbes Aiken wrote:
TICL wrote: And again, I am curious as to why Go Ape are going to the effort of paying another PR company for press attention when it is clear that the planning committee's whipped, Labour decision will be overturned by the Scottish Executive anyway.
As you should well know, the Planning Committee is not subject to whipping by any political party. As a quasi-judicial committe, whipping would be a breach of the law. Each member of the committe must decide purely on the merits of the application itself and, in my expereience, consistently do so.
Forbes, your apparent faith in the objectivity of the Planning Committee is as endearing as it is misplaced.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:19pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Sydney, if you have any evidence for suggesting that the Planning Committe, or any of its members, do not carry out their function in the prescribed manner I suggest that you make a complaint through the official channels.
Failing that, you may wish to desist from making unfounded and baseless allegations.
Sydney, if you have any evidence for suggesting that the Planning Committe, or any of its members, do not carry out their function in the prescribed manner I suggest that you make a complaint through the official channels.
Failing that, you may wish to desist from making unfounded and baseless allegations.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 4:31pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Thanks, I'll do that.
In addition, you may wish to desist from making unfounded and baseless allegations that I am made allegations.
Thanks, I'll do that.
In addition, you may wish to desist from making unfounded and baseless allegations that I am made allegations.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 4:38pm Mon 25 Feb 08
TICL clearly did as, by implication, you did also by implying that my faith in their objectivity was misplaced.
Either I am correct in accepting their objectivity or you shirking your responsibility in bringing to public attention any evidence to undermine my confidence.
TICL clearly did as, by implication, you did also by implying that my faith in their objectivity was misplaced.
Either I am correct in accepting their objectivity or you shirking your responsibility in bringing to public attention any evidence to undermine my confidence.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 5:02pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Forbes, my good man, I did not say [italic]how[/italic] endearing I consider your [italic]apparent[/italic] faith to be... you really must pay more attention please and not go jumping to conclusions which suit your own (mis)interpretation.
However, if anyone wishes to see one interpretation of the apparent 'objectivity' of Glasgow City Council's Labour politicians and the city's Planning Committee, they should read the article, "[bold]Cash Row MSP Helped Tycoon; Planning Rules Were Got Round Twice[/bold]" from the Sunday Mirror on December 9th last year.
The article includes the quote:
[quote]Now it has emerged that Mr Gordon [bold]TWICE[/bold] intervened on Mr Green's behalf after his firms were blocked from building shopping centres in Glasgow.[/quote]
Forbes, my good man, I did not say
how endearing I consider your
apparent faith to be... you really must pay more attention please and not go jumping to conclusions which suit your own (mis)interpretation.
However, if anyone wishes to see one interpretation of the apparent 'objectivity' of Glasgow City Council's Labour politicians and the city's Planning Committee, they should read the article, "
Cash Row MSP Helped Tycoon; Planning Rules Were Got Round Twice" from the Sunday Mirror on December 9th last year.
The article includes the quote:
Now it has emerged that Mr Gordon TWICE intervened on Mr Green's behalf after his firms were blocked from building shopping centres in Glasgow.
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 5:48pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
Forbes, my good man, I did not say [italic]how[/italic] endearing I consider your [italic]apparent[/italic] faith to be... you really must pay more attention please and not go jumping to conclusions which suit your own (mis)interpretation. However, if anyone wishes to see one interpretation of the apparent 'objectivity' of Glasgow City Council's Labour politicians and the city's Planning Committee, they should read the article, "[bold]Cash Row MSP Helped Tycoon; Planning Rules Were Got Round Twice[/bold]" from the Sunday Mirror on December 9th last year. The article includes the quote: [quote]Now it has emerged that Mr Gordon [bold]TWICE[/bold] intervened on Mr Green's behalf after his firms were blocked from building shopping centres in Glasgow.[/quote] [/quote] !Love it Sydney..throughout this whole campaign against Go Ape, Forbes has constantly spouted his negativity towards any suggestion that Glasgow planning committee contains a few chancers and incompetents...sydne
y 1..forbes the fence sitter..0....
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
Forbes, my good man, I did not say how endearing I consider your apparent faith to be... you really must pay more attention please and not go jumping to conclusions which suit your own (mis)interpretation. However, if anyone wishes to see one interpretation of the apparent 'objectivity' of Glasgow City Council's Labour politicians and the city's Planning Committee, they should read the article, "Cash Row MSP Helped Tycoon; Planning Rules Were Got Round Twice" from the Sunday Mirror on December 9th last year. The article includes the quote: Now it has emerged that Mr Gordon TWICE intervened on Mr Green's behalf after his firms were blocked from building shopping centres in Glasgow.
!Love it Sydney..throughout this whole campaign against Go Ape, Forbes has constantly spouted his negativity towards any suggestion that Glasgow planning committee contains a few chancers and incompetents...sydne
y 1..forbes the fence sitter..0....
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 5:49pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Rather than wasting time in tittle tattle with a clear Labourite in Forbes Aiken - lets focus on the issue in hand.
The impracticalities of "Go Ape!" are clear to see. The discontent of the people/park users is clear to see. The will of the people in ensuring justice is served and Pollok Park is left in the hands of the people, not private developers is the key.
I do however like Sydney doubt the impartial capabilities of the Planning Department - as the bias influences from all around them in the media, Council meetings, and generally unfortunately and unwittingly can and do influence the proceedings.
Alo, I wonder why have New Labour made the Planning Process a quicker process for applications to be pushed through ?
The hidden agendas of Councillors is a real worry!
If not to ensure that enough time is allocated to examine the fine detail and evidence to base their ( so called ) impartial decisions.
The Planning Department of Glasgow City Council needs to be overhauled, and far more flexible to new elected bodies within it, on an annual if not 4 yearly basis.
This opposition should be a wake up call to councillors who are failing to represent their electorates wishes.
They would surely gain more respect from the public in defying the party whip more - and voting against party motions they disagree with, in the interest of their electorate.
Rather than wasting time in tittle tattle with a clear Labourite in Forbes Aiken - lets focus on the issue in hand.
The impracticalities of "Go Ape!" are clear to see. The discontent of the people/park users is clear to see. The will of the people in ensuring justice is served and Pollok Park is left in the hands of the people, not private developers is the key.
I do however like Sydney doubt the impartial capabilities of the Planning Department - as the bias influences from all around them in the media, Council meetings, and generally unfortunately and unwittingly can and do influence the proceedings.
Alo, I wonder why have New Labour made the Planning Process a quicker process for applications to be pushed through ?
The hidden agendas of Councillors is a real worry!
If not to ensure that enough time is allocated to examine the fine detail and evidence to base their ( so called ) impartial decisions.
The Planning Department of Glasgow City Council needs to be overhauled, and far more flexible to new elected bodies within it, on an annual if not 4 yearly basis.
This opposition should be a wake up call to councillors who are failing to represent their electorates wishes.
They would surely gain more respect from the public in defying the party whip more - and voting against party motions they disagree with, in the interest of their electorate.
Posted by: sceptic, Lanarkshire on 6:10pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Why are councils so quick to give away parks and space for next to nothing to big business who make profit at the expense of local communities
Why are councils so quick to give away parks and space for next to nothing to big business who make profit at the expense of local communities
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 6:53pm Mon 25 Feb 08
You have to ask ?
Because they don't want the responsibility of overseeing their maintainence, upkeeping and of course their cutting the need to pay out wages to their Park Wardens (etc.)
This all comes down to the city - district councils neglecting their duties to serve their public.
Selling off public parks gains them money in other ways through taxation of ventures etc - i.e. "Go Ape!" So, the council gains are in - direct is how I see it.
Just a pity so few councillors have any thread of conscience left to see that they make the right decisions for the people.
Until the electorate realise they must play a far more active role in the political process - and use their votes responsibly - we only have ourselves to blame for our apathy.
This is something which needs to change!
You have to ask ?
Because they don't want the responsibility of overseeing their maintainence, upkeeping and of course their cutting the need to pay out wages to their Park Wardens (etc.)
This all comes down to the city - district councils neglecting their duties to serve their public.
Selling off public parks gains them money in other ways through taxation of ventures etc - i.e. "Go Ape!" So, the council gains are in - direct is how I see it.
Just a pity so few councillors have any thread of conscience left to see that they make the right decisions for the people.
Until the electorate realise they must play a far more active role in the political process - and use their votes responsibly - we only have ourselves to blame for our apathy.
This is something which needs to change!
Posted by: Paul G, Pollok on 8:46pm Mon 25 Feb 08
this debate is not only about go ape its the councils appalling underhanded behaviour.
GCC already restrict the use of Pollok estate by cordoning of extemely large areas of the park for cattle why don't they put go ape on one of these areas where they would have access to the toilets of GCC offices and go ape could swing away off the ground in areas where the public do noy go anyway and the cattle would not be disturbed because go ape is high off the ground and Go Ape is committed to nurturing animals and wildlife.
this debate is not only about go ape its the councils appalling underhanded behaviour.
GCC already restrict the use of Pollok estate by cordoning of extemely large areas of the park for cattle why don't they put go ape on one of these areas where they would have access to the toilets of GCC offices and go ape could swing away off the ground in areas where the public do noy go anyway and the cattle would not be disturbed because go ape is high off the ground and Go Ape is committed to nurturing animals and wildlife.
Posted by: Frank, Glasgow on 9:19pm Mon 25 Feb 08
I am sure the Labour Council have the gumption to stand up against these no good whingers, who don't want anything to change. Labour gave them a fair chance to comment and none of them could be bothered now they are all stamping their feet to stop progress, typical of some in our city.
I am sure the Labour Council have the gumption to stand up against these no good whingers, who don't want anything to change. Labour gave them a fair chance to comment and none of them could be bothered now they are all stamping their feet to stop progress, typical of some in our city.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:10pm Mon 25 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Frank[/bold] wrote:
I am sure the Labour Council have the gumption to stand up against these no good whingers, who don't want anything to change. Labour gave them a fair chance to comment and none of them could be bothered now they are all stamping their feet to stop progress, typical of some in our city.[/quote]
Clearly then you did not read the comments made by Nicola Sturgeon SNP MSP who clearly stated the consultation for the "Go Ape!" Project was less than adequate.
So, go do your homework - and stop preaching more Labour spin and rhetoric to us.
Failing that - join the Labour numpties on their cruise of lies, deceit and appalling behaviour towards the people of this fine city.
And while your at it - tell Aileen Colleran & Robert Booth to Leave our "Dear Green Space" alone!
Frank wrote:
I am sure the Labour Council have the gumption to stand up against these no good whingers, who don't want anything to change. Labour gave them a fair chance to comment and none of them could be bothered now they are all stamping their feet to stop progress, typical of some in our city.
Clearly then you did not read the comments made by Nicola Sturgeon SNP MSP who clearly stated the consultation for the "Go Ape!" Project was less than adequate.
So, go do your homework - and stop preaching more Labour spin and rhetoric to us.
Failing that - join the Labour numpties on their cruise of lies, deceit and appalling behaviour towards the people of this fine city.
And while your at it - tell Aileen Colleran & Robert Booth to Leave our "Dear Green Space" alone!
Posted by: GML, right here on 4:17pm Tue 26 Feb 08
What a lot of moaning about hee haw. A few people abseiling about in trees? It's not exactly building a huge art gallery, museum and car park, cutting down trees and building new roads, but when they did all that for the Burrell Collection, were these whingers protesting?
This is just thinly disguised class hatred of people called Tristan and their pals who can afford to fork out £25 on having a laugh.
What a lot of moaning about hee haw. A few people abseiling about in trees? It's not exactly building a huge art gallery, museum and car park, cutting down trees and building new roads, but when they did all that for the Burrell Collection, were these whingers protesting?
This is just thinly disguised class hatred of people called Tristan and their pals who can afford to fork out £25 on having a laugh.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:51pm Tue 26 Feb 08
Aye well GML,
Away up to Aberfoyle and use the ziplines there - as thats the only place nearest Glasgow that "Go Ape" will be based!
This Campaign has more clout than you'll ever know about - and more passion, commitment and belief in what is right for the people of Glasgow than you'll ever experience!
Your must be another of these apathetic types who just likes to snipe from the sidelines, and sit on the fence - without any real commitment or belief! Well more fool you!
Away and read your cosmopolitan magazine or listen to The Archers on Radio 4. Some of us have got more important issues to contend with - like fighting for the rights of the people, and keeping our "Dear Green Space" under the ownership of the public not some private money grabbing tycoon.
Aye well GML,
Away up to Aberfoyle and use the ziplines there - as thats the only place nearest Glasgow that "Go Ape" will be based!
This Campaign has more clout than you'll ever know about - and more passion, commitment and belief in what is right for the people of Glasgow than you'll ever experience!
Your must be another of these apathetic types who just likes to snipe from the sidelines, and sit on the fence - without any real commitment or belief! Well more fool you!
Away and read your cosmopolitan magazine or listen to The Archers on Radio 4. Some of us have got more important issues to contend with - like fighting for the rights of the people, and keeping our "Dear Green Space" under the ownership of the public not some private money grabbing tycoon.
Comment | Read Comments (35)
