anarchist

I was digging the stones in my back garden and I found a bit of soil

That's flat out in a C2

Aren't people in Sheffield interested in the actions of a Sheffield MP?

Yes that new smile is about as convincing as his claim that removing the 10p rate of tax was a tax cut. You have to admire Angela Smith. She has at least shown she stands by her principles rather like Meg Munn on Graves Park. A pity the same can't be said for the party on the City Council

It is certainly mentioned on the Gleadless Valley flyers.

I think I know exactly where Terry Fox stands on this issue. That is why my vote will not be going to him. I wish him well in his next career.

I think the Labour Councillors hide behind the non comital cloak as they know they stand to lose votes if they quote their true policy of selling off parkland. It seems they are at it here as well... http://www.swcp-online.co.uk/page1.html

Meg also indicated that her meetings with English Partnerships suggested that they would be happy to look at a scheme to incorporate St lukes Hospice within any proposed development

Isn't it the Sheffield Labour Party that think it a good idea to spend £100,000 renovating the Norton Nursery which they want to demolish

Yes I think there is another stage 8a Take a job as a highly paid consultant for a building firm 8b Retire to live on large yacht in the Bahamas

I think you will also find that Wolfstalin was quoting Clive Betts who claimed the aerodrome was not in his constituency... QUOTE..... "Not quite, or you and Clive Betts both, he said it wasn't in his constituency!!!"

I don't see that it alters anything at all. Even if EP have indicated that they must get market value for the land that is entirely up to them. The Charity Commission have also ruled that any land out of Graves Park used for a hospice must be at full market rate anyhow, and only then if it can be shown to be in the interests of the Graves Park Charity. It is up to St Lukes to find themselves a suitable site. It is not up to park lovers and supporters to do any more than uphold the interests of Graves Park, its users and the charity that holds the land in trust. So between them St Lukes have ruled themselves out of moving to Norton Aerodrome. The Charity Commission say they can't have the park. They aren't having a lot of luck are they?

But without a hospice it is nothing more than a proposal to build houses on the green belt. My objection to that one goes in the day the proposals are revealed

No mention there of the J G Graves Charitable trust which has 2 LABOUR appointees.

That is the nubb of the argument. If councillors could be trusted to act as required by charity law there would not be a problem. Charity law requires trustees to act in the interests of the charity they represent whilst ignoring the interests of other parties. When councillors are trustees they cannot be trusted to do that. Furthermore when councillors are acting as trustees party affiliations are not relevant, because this is when the councillors are acting for the charity. However the influence of the whip will usually be apparent.

In the St Lukes charity shop about 6 weeks ago they were collecting signatures on the petition. Someone asked a chap to sign and he said that he was not from Sheffield but was up to visit his son who was at the university. The reply was sign anyway and sign for your son as well!!!!!

Hi It was one block back from the river. It was a great pub for music and had an old pot stove in the bar with a chimney that crossed the bar area and at times glowed with the heat. Sadly it became stucturally unsound and was demolished a few years back.

I was rather taken aback to hear Bishop Jack suggesting that the people of Sheffield give a part of Graves Park to St Lukes Hospice in order that they can relocate there and sell their existing site. This despite Graves Park being charitable land that was given to the people of Sheffield, provided it was used solely as a public park. What make the bishops suggestion so galling is the apparent double standards here, for not 50 yards from Graves Park stands the Norton Church Hall. This building was largely built through public subscription and was a facility much used by the local community. However only last year the chuch decided to sell this local assett to the highest bidder and the hall looks like being replaced by a block of flats.

I really don't see why we should concern ourselves about how much it would cost to clean up the site and somehow put that forward as an excuse to put houses on greenbelt. If the site has a minimum requirement to be decontaminated then that is English Parnerships problem as they own the site. This has nothing to do with any consideration about the sites future. I am firmly of the opinion that this site was poluted by the MOD and that they should contribute towards its decontamination. However that is between the MOD and English Partnerships to sort out. Regardless of the outcome of that debate the site should be cleaned up. After this has happened we can have fresh discussion about its future. I was in favour of the hospice option and would have accepted that as part of the site was to be developed for that a degree of housing would perhaps be acceptable as long as alternative green belt land was provided. However it is difficult to see where this would be sourced as the surrounding farmland would be protected anyhow. Now that St Lukes have indicated they have no interest in the site I think the sensible option is to have a clean up and for the site to remain as greenbelt. We shouldn't allow site opperators to polute a site and use it as an excuse for development. The poluter should be responsible for restoring the site to a standard acceptable to its green belt status. If the poluter won't pay the onus is on the site owner. Let's not forget they got it for a quid, unless I am very much mistaken.

A good claivoyant should have seen that you wanted to contact them and already got in touch.

That's about where I am. This is a green belt site and it should be retained as green belt. If we start allowing development on the green belt it gives the nod to developers to pull the whole lot apart. Pretty soon the green belt will become a concrete jungle with nowhere safe. Whilst St Lukes were being tipped to move there I would have been happy to see a hospice on the site. That would have been a worthy use and not set any prescedent. However it is clear that they have no interest in such a windswept site. My vote therefore goes to NO DEVELOPMENT HERE AND PROTECT THE GREEN BELT. I wish I hadn't already cast my votes. I would like to change my mind in light of the new evidence.

Nice letter and one that seems to poke a stick in the eye of anyone who might not agree with the attempted land grab in Graves Park. However you have to think if the park option disappears, which is looking extremely likely, then the option of the aerodrome won't be considered, so over to you Wimpey Homes. Incidentally the Friends of Graves Park (whom I assume Alex refers to) are not self appointed. The group is a registered charity and therefore holds exactly the same status as St Lukes Hospice. The charity holds an AGM in accordance with its agreed constitution and elects representives as trustees. The object of the FOGP charity is EXACTLY as guardians of their environment. Perhaps Alex should take a look at the Charities Act and learn to work within it.

There was an interesting post on another forum topic, but it is very relevant. Alex Pettifer wrote this letter to City Councillors without revealing he is on the board of St Lukes As a Sheffield Council Tax payer I do not understand how it can be the policy of any political party or individual politician seeking election to seek to consign the very sick and dying to one of the most windswept, inconvenient and isolated places that Sheffield can offer i.e. Norton Aerodrome rather than support a new St Luke's hospice in one of the nicest parkland settings in the city as a celebration of life and the respect our city has for everyone within it. Such a policy of isolation smacks of "out of sight...and not here please" and seems to me to be callous and completely indifferent to the needs of everyday people. Where do I want to die? Not I think at Norton Aerodrome, certainly not there in preference to Norton Nurseries and certainly not there because some politicians seem beholden to a few self appointed and unelected so called guardians of my or their environment. Alex Pettifer Nice letter and one that seems to poke a stick in the eye of anyone who might not agree with the attempted land grab in Graves Park. However you have to think if the park option disappears, which is looking extremely likely, then the option of the aerodrome won't be considered, so over to you Wimpey Homes. Incidentally the Friends of Graves Park (whom I assume you refer to) are not self appointed. The group is a registered charity and therefore holds exactly the same status as St Lukes Hospice. The charity holds an AGM in accordance with its agreed constitution and elects representives as trustees. The object of the FOGP charity is EXACTLY as guardians of their environment. Perhaps Alex should take a look at the Charities Act and learn to work within it.

So did you go? What was said?

A couple of hundred years ago we deported criminals to Australia. The boat trip took 6 months. Quite often the water would run out and the criminals were forced to drink their own urine. It is just that some of them got to like it, although I think they prefer it a bit colder these days.