Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Lib Dems start Petition to "Save Haringey's Parks Police"
Before just clicking through and signing, please read this discussion & this one for details - and further comments below.
Additional Note:
As this discussion has developed, concern has been expressed about the party political sponsorship of this petition. I'm leaving it up for the time being because it relates to an issue which members have expressed concern about previously. But please do be aware of where this petition comes from.
Click here for the petition.
Additional Note:
As this discussion has developed, concern has been expressed about the party political sponsorship of this petition. I'm leaving it up for the time being because it relates to an issue which members have expressed concern about previously. But please do be aware of where this petition comes from.
Click here for the petition.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
It's Haringey Friends of the Parks Forum that pushed for more permanent parks staff and the council's reaction (eventually) was to cut the Parks Police initiative to pay for what the Parks Forum wanted. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As small green areas such as the open space at Falkland/Fairfax Rds won't obviously get a permanent staff member but, were covered by the Parks Police, it appears getting rid of the Parks Police would be a backward step.
The Lib Dems are possibly walking into a mine field with this one as certain Friends of Parks groups pushed hard for these changes.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on
-
I thought politics was forbidden on this site, Hugh?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Party politics is forbidden Justin. You're quite right. This petition is, if taken at face value, councillors representing residents' views. The main reason I posted it was becuase it relates to an issue which concerned people on this site previously.
BUT, the petition may have party political overtones which is why I took great care in the title to draw attention to the fact that the petition was sponsored by a political party.
-
Permalink Reply by GK/OD on
-
A politically sponsered petition, that`s brave....Almost like having a referedum
-
-
This comment in this morning from Dave Morris:
Please note that the Haringey Friends of Parks Forum supports the disbanding of the parks police, with their responsibilities taken up instead by the 116-strong locally-based Safer Neigbourhood Teams (including a special parks unit based at Finsbury Park). The parks dept is understaffed as it is and has a limit budget, hence the money they spend on the expensive parks police is much more appropriately to be spent on the increased front-line parks staffing which everyone knows is needed. This view has been developed over the last 2 years as part of Friends groups' determination to improve parks management and lobby for greater resources. Unfortunately at the same time we have had to oppose recent cuts in the parks service budget (as part of cuts across all Council departments).
At the Haringey Friends of Parks Forum meeting last Saturday there was a discussion with Paul Ely (Head of Recreation Services policy development) to ensure that the understandable and valid concerns of some Friends groups are addressed properly and that the transfer of responsibilities to the SNTs is effective and transparent so that everyone will know how it will work.
Naturally the Friends of Parks Forum are also supporting the general drift of the Parkforce re-organisation of parks staffing to ensure more dedicated on-site staffing (within budgetary constraints) and greater community liason and involvement.
Friends groups have worked hard to ensure a much higher public profile, greater protection, higher usage and community involvement, effective partnership-working, and a range of physical and managemental improvements for our open spaces - however, revenue funding has not kept pace (or has even been reduced).
I'm sure everyone agrees it is important not to be complacent, and it would be helpful for everyone to keep up the pressure for greater resources for the management of all our parks and green spaces. This includes of course increasing the pressure on central government to ensure adequate funding for all public services in Haringey and across the UK.
sincerely
Dave Morris
-
-
Hugh, this IS a political petition. It has little support (see Dave's post). It should be deleted!
For what it’s worth, I fully support Dave Morris and the Parks Users’ Group stance on this.
PS. Having read the Lib Dems' campaign manual, they set up petitions to obtain people's telephone and email address in order to send residents political propaganda at election times. Don't be fooled by them. It's one big con!
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Do you support the stance in a personal capacity or as chair of the local Conservatives? You should make this clear when you post, Justin. I think it is good that you come on the site to discuss matters, you are most welcome. I do not support the deleting of posts on the whole but believe that rigourous debate is better to allow people to make up their own minds. ,You make an interesting point about the Lib Dems, but you should be clear about whether you object/support things from a personal point of view or are promoting the view of your party (same goes for all those who represent political parties by the way).
As a matter of interest, why is the model proposed better than the current model? I see no satisfactory answer to this. I understand from some background reading that there could be advantages to the CABE model but this has been so badly presented, so little explained to residents and done in such a high handed manner by all concerned that it looks like a cost cutting measure that may put public safety at risk. No one seems to be able to explain why this would not be the case. Dave Morris' statement was as clear as mud. Care to have a go?
-
-
What campaigning groups like Haringey Friends of Parks Forum (HFPF)have to realise is this; if they push for staffing changes they need also to push for extra funding to back this up.
The council has a budget limit. If a change is asked for such as that requested by HFPF the council will respond by tinkering within their set budget. This is what has happened here.
If the council and/or HFPF have sort extra funding (but failed) I'm not aware of this. They should not have gone ahead with these changes without extra funding in place.
The Parks Police was only set up fairly recently. To change all this again is just going to end up confusing the public.
I repeat, open spaces will not obviously have dedicated parks staff under this new arrangement. We do currently have a Parks Police force in place to ring for problems such as the current wave of attack dog related problems.
-
-
I agree, Matt with your comments on extra funding. The model they are adopting should not be done on the cheap (Dave's constant references to budgetary constraints and adequate funding are a real worry) but I reiterate my point that no one who supports this change has made any effort to explain in clear terms why the old model didn't work (except for comments about understaffing and expensive parks police) when to those of us who are regular users of these parks (which were frankly unsafe in the past) it appears to working just fine nor why the new model will be an improvement and enhance our experience of using these green spaces. While I really do appreciate the effort that has been put in to the campaigning and securing of better facilities by the Parks groups, they must not lose sight of who they are doing this for and must take the time to explain the processes and advantages to the model they are proposing and not assume that we parents pushing swings or flat dwellers with no gardens reading on a blanket are not interested in what is going on or are incapable of understanding the arguments.
-
-
Have added an additional note to the original post Tom. For me, flagging LD sponsorship in the title and using quotation marks for the petition title is a warning, not an advert. Certainly interested to learn how others feel about this.
-
-
I think your title is clear & even better with the additional note. The discussion centring around the petition is what's important to continue here.
That a political party is enabling folk to air their views on the proposed park staffing arrangements, when they haven't had a chance to do so before, is important. Doesn't matter which party it is quite frankly.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
