Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Finsbury Park Music Events
The Friends of Finsbury Park have their AGM this evening at 7pm in the Finsbury Park Trust Offices on Seven Sisters Road. "Everyone is welcome"
They've been given leave to appeal the outcome of their failed legal action to ban large scale events in London's parks. Sadly it seems they are still pressing ahead with their campaign to remove Finsbury Park's main source of income, send the park into decline and put a stop to events enjoyed by thousands of Londoners.
In their little post-truth echo chamber they continue to repeat concerns about damage to the park and security issues, neither of which were significant problems during last summer's events. They say the park will be just fine without the major events income, a belief which is backed by neither evidence nor common sense at a time when council services are being severely cut.
Here's Martin in a news clip on the subject. The FoFP was set up to promote the interests of the park and all of its users, but still appears to be prioritising the concerns of a handful of local residents:
http://www.londonlive.co.uk/news/2017-01-17/campaigners-win-the-rig...
Tags for Forum Posts: finsbury park, finsbury park events, friends of finsbury park
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Sadly there's too much of people having no time for proper justice these days, but be in no doubt it matters more now than perhaps it has for generations.
Of course the courts should be a last resort, but who's to say who's at fault here. There's quite clearly a fundamental disagreement and an inability to see eye-to-eye. It's not the first time nor will it be that last that relations between people have come to such a pass. I think it falls to the body of power, the Council in this case, to lead the way in finding a remedy outside the courts. Did they suggest mediation? If not, why not. That's certainly the route I would have taken in their place.
Without judging this particular situation, what I can say is that examples of unreasonable and intractable behaviour by Haringey Council are far from rare. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the FoFP just reached a stage when they felt no remedy other than a legal one was open to them.
At this point I have no evidence about what the route to court was, and I suspect that you don't either. In my mind the onus of responsibility for avoiding this situation lies properly with the Council. With all this being the case I defend the group's right to access justice.
-
-
I respect your right to your opinions, Billy, no matter how little you choose not to support them with any facts.
-
-
-
No, I wasn't critical of the chaps organising the Finsbury Park Neighbourhood Forum. I questioned the wisdom of part of Harringay submitting itself to the planning desires of people from a different area.
The participation of people in local residents' groups of all sorts is pitifully low. Neither the nature of this problem nor its scale is unique to FoFP.
Local democracy is full of holes and gaps. Perhaps you have a suggestion of how to replace all these poorly attended residents groups around the country. I'd guess that the vast majority of them are no better attended than the FoFP. Should we have compulsory participation? Should we deny their right to function unless they reach a minimum level of membership? Should they just give up? Or should we perhaps just accept an imperfect system that's the best it can be? It may be that you have another suggestion?
-
-
-
Re:"Justice for whom? Fundamentally I am arguing that this group don't represent Finsbury park anymore!"
Justice shouldn't be 'for' any particular group. Properly administered, it should be blind in that respect. Its purpose is to interpret the law. So if justice is properly administered, as far as the outcome is concerned, it doesn't really matter how representative the group is. All that any democrat can ask is that the law is applied and fairly so.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
Hugh, in answer to your point about"Should we deny their right to function unless they reach a minimum level of membership?" I think FOFP as a bare minimum should have polled ALL their membership which they could have done by a simple email vote instead of relying solely on the vote of their quickly arranged emergency AGM. 18 votes in favour of legal action when the membership is in the 100s doesn't smell like to democracy to me. I spoke to many FOFP members who say they knew nothing about it until the decision was already made.
-
-
-
Antoinette, it is not in the least unusual, nor unwise for resident groups to take votes only from those who offer their physical presence.
Please make no mistake I am not necessarily defending FoFP, I am defending the principle of what they are doing. Unlike a surprisingly high proportion of interlocutors, I do not have sufficient information on which to base a judgement about either the group's or the Council's actions in this case.
-
-
-
Tris, if not there's no dispute over the right of the FoFP to challenge the Council through the courts, there is a dispute to the fact of it. Isn't that tantamount to the same thing?
The uncharitable response to the meat of your comment is that it sounds rather like you accept the right of the group to challenge in court but dispute their actions in so doing because you don't like the possible outcomes. That's as difficult an argument for me to swallow as the one the Government recently made over the Brexit court challenge.
The more empathic response to what you wrote is that, yes, I can see that there are times when standing back might yield the best results.
I don't have any skin in this game. I'm just looking at the principles of justice involved. For that reason, as far as I'm concerned the answer isn't a straightforward one.
If what you say about the likely results is correct, I'm not sure that either of them is a solution I'd vote for. But does that mean I have the right to seek to bar anyone having recourse to the law of the land? I'm not sure that's where the solution lies.
-
-
-
Tris, I understand your point of view, but I don't think you've really responded to my concerns about it.
We've both expressed our views. For my part, I'm minded to leave it there.
-
-
-
I agree with the others. I am a staunch believer in holding public bodies legally to account. But the FoFP seem to have got fixated on this issue - and I say that as someone who lives very close to the park and did find Wireless an inconvenience. They lost which of course isn't proof in itself of a poor judgment call, but many people here think it was, and the decision to fight it a continuation of that. In the meantime there is no representative body working with the Council to improve the facilities in the park.
-
-
Be interesting to see where they think they are going to find the money to pay their lawyers....have they yet settled Haringey Council's £10,000 legal bill from the first case? The current balance on the Crowdfunder site is somewhere just over £11,000. Seems to me like they need at least as much again. I can't see anyone contributing any further cash via Crowdfunding considering the likelihood of them winning their appeal is pretty low. They've had their day in Court and frankly they are throwing good money down the drain pursuing this any further.
-
-
I agree that it's a shame FoFP are putting all their time and money into this. An appeal won't cost as much as a first hearing (no evidence to go through etc) but it's still unlikely to get them what they want and in the meantime there are all sorts of issues with the park that would benefit from attention and cash. There has been a discussion about this on Stroudgreen.org - where the former Jamboree playhuts and greenhouse area in particular were highlighted as total wastes of what could at the very least be more usable park space and at best thriving community assets. Allowing them just to languish is damaging to the whole atmosphere of the park.
-
-
Will you be going along tonight, Tris? I have a prior kebab date with some 9 year old's. ..(9 year old children, not 9 year old kebsbs)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
