Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Labour hits out at return of major event in park
Labour makes some great points about the threatened return of a major event in a public park. These are their key ones:
- Event decision steamrollered
- Strong opposition by local residents
- Disappointing organisation
- Lack of confidence for further events
- Concerns about safety
- Disruption in the summer
- Concerns about lengthy set-up and take-down times
- Poor public consultation
- Excessive noise from loudspeakers
“We have had a steady stream of emails from local residents opposing this event very strongly and claiming that they have not had any response from the Leader of the Council. The council has also not said how it would spend the revenue from the event, so residents cannot put up with this amount of disruption to their local park if they cannot see any benefit.”
Full article:
Labour Party website
(could hardly have made the case better myself)
CDC
Haringey Councillor
Liberal Democrat Party
Tags for Forum Posts: Major Events, Public Park, disruption, noise, public consultation, safety
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Eddie:
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
How is it deceit ?
Clive's summary accurately reflects the content of the Labour Party website article.
His opening sentence - "... a major event in a public park " - makes it clear he's not talking about Finsbury Park.
Hypocrisy is perhaps seen where the Labour group in one local authority attacks the kind of policies promoted by the Labour group in another local authority.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
"a proportion of people (quite reasonably) won't have the time or inclination to dig through and read the article", that's patronising. Very patronising.
-
-
Er, yes John!
It was my earnest hope that readers would have their curiosity sufficiently piqued to go to the enormous trouble to "dig through" (click the link in plain view).
(I understand the HOL house rules reasonably discourage the copying and pasting of large chunks of text from elsewhere. I also understand that it is not unusual for linkages to be used on the World Wide Web)
If after having finally dug through to the main article, anyone thinks my bullet points summaries are unfair or misrepresentative, I'd still like to know.
-
-
I said that what you wrote was patronising. It was.
You are just a bit odd, as if you have some undeclared position.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Not sure how it is patronising John. I'm reading this on a teeny screen with no internet connection. Links take ages to open and are hard to read on a phone. I normally don't bother because of that
-
-
"I'm reading this on a teeny screen with no internet connection" - Well excuse me. I presume if you get to this page, you have "an" internet connection. I also think it's fair to assume that if something has raised your interest enough, you'll click through.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon T on
-
Hang on John M: I usually read HoL on a PC screen. I can get to it via my 3G phone when I'm out, but on that, any site that's not mobile-friendly gives me partial or no response, so I can't necessarily click through and read the linked article however interested I am, till I get home.
-
-
On the 341 going up Grays Inn Road - so no internet connection
-
-
Alex what do you mean by "drivel" ?
Are you saying you disagree with these points or criticism, or are you saying that I have unfairly summarised the full article to which I linked?
If so, where please?
This isn't about votes: it's about public policy in parks.
For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with the points made in the full article. I'm glad I gained your attention but I'm sorry if I upset you. The intention was to provoke thought and reflection.
(BTW, I'm obliged by the house rules to identify myself, including party affiliation, on a subject like this. It's something that does not apply to others. I believe the point I'm making would stand, even were I to post anonymously).
-
-
I hope that those who've had trouble getting past the way I introduced the main article, can now begin to think about the substantive issues.
To a greater or lessor extent, parks and open spaces are under threat throughout London.
I was particularly struck by the features-in-common and wider applicability of the thorough going criticism of further major events in a big park, on the Labour Party's web page.
(as a member of one party, I'm quite prepared to endorse good points made by another party, when they arise).
-
-
Alex, what's all this about "intellectual rigour"? And why should Clive have changed his title as you suggest? And when I used the phrase about brain teasing earlier, I wasn't talking about "harmless teasing" as you interpreted it above. More the original teasing out of fibres in wool or fabric to sort out what's what. Alex, you seem to be resistant to different ways of using language to make a point, so you abuse Clive for misleading you, and Eugene earlier uses the post to characterise the whole LibDem shebang as deceitful. You guys should get out a little more or, if not, try reading a little more from time to time with an open mind. "Intellectual rigour" indeed! Who was that meant to impress?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
