St Luke's bid for Graves Park / Norton Nurseries

I have no idea who redrobbo is IRL[1], but I'm very sure it wouldn't take more than 5 minutes investigation on the SF (and a quick Google), to tell you his address, inside leg measurement and PIN[2].

 

I'm all for accountability, but there is a specific instruction out about what councillors should be doing re. this issue in public, and what they have to do is to respect that. Please behave.

 

Otherwise, we'll be worse off in the long run, when our councillors decide that it's not worth the hassle of using this medium to communicate with us.

 

 

 

[1] Yeah, I'm that lazy!

[2] That might take longer.

You can discover my inside leg measurement and my PIN number! Help me someone, help!

On a serious note though maggi, I am aware that debates on SF are noticed by some councillors. I have in fact been known to recommend to councillors that they should at least lurk on SF to see what interests the citizens of Sheffield.

May I take this opportunity to thank the forum member who took the trouble to contact me via PM, and for spending several hours today showing me around the Norton Nursery site.

The forum member introduced me to park staff and Greenfingers members, showed me the Ecology area (which has been mentioned in some posts on this thread), showed me around the greenhouses, described the interesting wildlife of the area, and informed me of the work of the Friends of Graves Park Group in obtaining funding for improving the parkland.

I would like to additionally thank this forum member for freely giving of his time today, and for being so courteous - particularly as he deliberately avoided raising with me the issue of St. Luke's Hospice request to relocate on this site.

Now I've got 5 posts I can post it as a link! (Hurrah for common sense):

http://www.thestar.co.uk/columnists/Paul-License-speaking-out-St.3902884.jp

Now I've got 5 posts I can post it as a link! (Hurrah for common sense):

http://www.thestar.co.uk/columnists/Paul-License-speaking-out-St.3902884.jp

Wow. 44 comments. If that's not a loud and clear message, I don't know what is.

Well, if they're going to revisit it, it would seem sense for Jackie Drayton to declare a personal interest as a member of the JG Graves Charitable Trust along with Peter Price - although one has to wonder why this needed to be declared at all, since JG Graves Charitable Trust didn't come out in support of the SLH proposal until September - 3 months after this council meeting!

 

Surely other councillors present should have questionned this declaration at the time???

Erm, I think I remember the JGGCT being quoted as supporting St. Luke's building on Norton Nurseries in the press way back in March or April last year.

Yes, sccsux, I do indeed post on SF as a private individual.

 

However, it should be noted that my forum identity was deliberately revealed in a council meeting* (which was subsequently reported on in the local press) - so my real life identity is now known to a much wider audience.

 

In the process of this expose, I found that words I had used in a post on a SF discussion thread were quoted in an opposition amendment to a motion in a council meeting! This was a calculated political decision by the main opposition party - taken at the highest level of their group - to attack me by quoting my words posted on SF and exposing my forum identity in the council chamber.

 

So sscsux, in the cirumstances, I must decline your offer to express my personal opinion on this issue. To do otherwise might yet again find the main opposition party in a council meeting quoting my personal views expressed on SF.

 

I no longer enjoy the total freedom or luxury of posting my personal views on certain issues, and I am both circumspect in what threads I post on, and what I have to say if I do post. I will at all costs try to avoid any accusation of not being impartial on this issue.

 

 

* Link: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=69195&highlight=outed

Hey chaps if we can stop attacking individuals and concentrate on the issues.

Councillors will not give a view as it will disqualify them from a vote.

This is a mere distraction.

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

 

Could the author of this e-mail to Councillors, possibly be the same Mr Pettifer as listed as a Trustee of St Luke's Hospice?

 

I am not aware of any Councillor seeking to consign SLH to the aerodrome, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

If the author is indeed the SLH Trustee, his dalliance with the truth again brings his credibility into doubt.

I've only just seen this. Is it genuine? I can't believe that any rational person would be crass enough to put this into print and then stick his own name on the bottom! Perhaps someone else wrote it?

If it is Mr. Pettifer of SLH trustee fame, it gives a rather colourful insight into his true character, doesn't it.

Well, lobbying is to be expected, but some of that material (http://www.stlukeshospice.org.uk/images/letter%20template%20-%20charity%20commission.doc) is downright lies Perhaps a case for

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc47.asp

 

"6. The Commission's powers of intervention are specifically designed for use in circumstanceswhere there is some grave, general risk to a charity's interests and are designed principally to protect the charity and its assets. Complaints that the Commission will take up as regulator are, generally speaking, ones where there is a serious risk of significant harm or abuse to the charity, its assets, beneficiaries or reputation; where the use of our powers of intervention is necessary to protect them; and where this represents a proportionate response to the issues in the case."

 

then (my hihghlighting)

 

"8. By 'harm' we mean:

 

* serious detriment to the people or causes the charity serves;

* loss or misuse of significant assets or resources; and

* serious damage to the reputation of a charity or charities generally.

 

9. Circumstances in which we would see serious risk of harm include those where there is evidence of the following:

 

[snip]

 

* the trustees seriously misleading the public, or the Commission, or others with an interest in the charity (eg funders, beneficiaries or employees) about matters of material importance;

 

[snip]"

Another nice try by St Lukes board but sadly no cigar.

I suspect this is as a result of the meeting with the Charity Commission. The CC did not give SL too much hope from the meeting despite controling the chair and the agenda.

The commission made it cystal clear that any disposal must be demonstrated to be in the best interest of the Graves Park Charity... hence the new batch of letters aimed at trying to convince the ignorant that this move would be in the interests of the park..

Whoops!!!! missed one little point. The CC also ruled that as SL's objects were not those of the Graves Park Charity they could see no way that having a hospice in the park would be in the interests of the park charity.

As has been seen in the past, you can hand out a load of bull to the masses and fool quite a few, but that won't pull the wool over the eyes of the Charity Commision. We will send them copies of the latest tricks. I am sure they will be very interested.

It won't stand up to any legal challenge and one will deffinitely follow any attempt to dispose of this site.

Hey chaps if we can stop attacking individuals and concentrate on the issues.

 

Councillors will not give a view as it will disqualify them from a vote.

 

This is a mere distraction.

I agree but it does depend on the individual. Until SLH put their thinking heads on, it's better if as many Sheffielders as possible know who these individual SLH trustees are (e.g. the Pettifer).

Erm, I think I remember the JGGCT being quoted as supporting St. Luke's building on Norton Nurseries in the press way back in March or April last year.

OK - my bad. I assumed that because the official letter of support to the Chief Exec from JGGCT was dated September 07, anything prior to that was unofficial and wouldn't warrant a declaration of interest. Thank you for putting me straight.

It sounds like if anyone digs their heels in too far in favour of St Luke's that this one could end up in court.