wolfstalin Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 But now i;ve read through everything, i'm wondering if i've been miselad in some way-it looks as though this issue is being used as a party political thing to do down the council. Is it really necessary to ask you if you will be standing for election in the Graves Park ward for labour as an existing labour party officer or are you going to attempt to pass yourself off as a none combatant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opensociety Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I do not think either side has been totally open with the information they give out, if the letter from the charity commission is correct. Also most people I speak to do not know what the problem is, as long as a charity owns the site. Could they swop sites? The simple answer could be do not build anywhere but who really gains from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassicaia Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Its the I'VE BEEN ASKED bit that bothers me, this could very vell be trolling for info on people. My 15 year old knows this lad (thought I recognised the name). Big fan of the park. Wrote letters to the council about the state of the playground & stream at Cobnar Road entrance when he was in junior school. Really don't think its malicious - more likely just naiive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I do not think either side has been totally open with the information they give out, if the letter from the charity commission is correct. Also most people I speak to do not know what the problem is, as long as a charity owns the site. Could they swop sites? The simple answer could be do not build anywhere but who really gains from that. Its very simple. It's our park. It was left in trust for us, not to be flogged off at the whim of some councilors and officials to their mates. St. Lukes has really dropped one on this issue, they have lost a lot of respect from Sheffielders and have proven themselves thick-headed and conceited. I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassicaia Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I do not think either side has been totally open with the information they give out... When you say either side, who do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfraction Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I do not think either side has been totally open with the information they give out, if the letter from the charity commission is correct. Also most people I speak to do not know what the problem is, as long as a charity owns the site. Could they swop sites? The simple answer could be do not build anywhere but who really gains from that. What do you mean by sides? If it's the myth that it's FOGP v St.Lukes then we're talking about ignorance and naivity because this isn't the case. Also if you think it was as simple as swapping land...a sort of fair exchange if you like...I can't see St. Lukes putting anything on the table by way of exchange. They want parkland for free. Does that sound fair to you? Finally for clarity's sake I'd be interested to understand where in the Charity Commission's letter you believe BOTH sides have given incorrect information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I do not think either side has been totally open with the information they give out, if the letter from the charity commission is correct. Also most people I speak to do not know what the problem is, as long as a charity owns the site. Could they swop sites? The simple answer could be do not build anywhere but who really gains from that. Perhaps you could give an example from the Charity Commission letter that demonstrates the people against SLH stealing our parkland haven't been open with information? Just because St Luke's is a charity, it doesn't give it the right to take land from other charities! You might as well say that the NSPCC could suddenly decide it wanted some property owned by the RNIB and were entitled to it, just because they are a charity!! The simple answer is that St Luke's should do what every other charity does when it wants land - it goes and finds some that is actually available - it doesn't try and steal land that belongs to the people of Sheffield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy the dj Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 ill admit ive not read all this post soor not enough time at the moment. Its unbelievable put a bit of land or a few flowers over peoples lives and health. i couldnt believe the responce BLUEBELL WOOD hospis got in donny it was a place to help terminaly ill kids,and people complained. land and plants are important but more important than peoples lives??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIVA Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 ill admit ive not read all this post soor not enough time at the moment. Its unbelievable put a bit of land or a few flowers over peoples lives and health. i couldnt believe the responce BLUEBELL WOOD hospis got in donny it was a place to help terminaly ill kids,and people complained. land and plants are important but more important than peoples lives??? When you do get the time, I'd recommend you do read it, then you might view things differently, having the full story. The land in question already has people working there and a disabled horticultural project, it's very impressive actually, there are already charities who use that area. If you get the chance, I recommend you have a look. Sheffield's green spaces are more important than ever, for all our health. Nobody is saying that St Lukes don't deserve a bigger, better place. There's a far better site for a hospice, with better transport links and views, further up the road, at the old aerodrome site. There's a post/link on this thread about Bluebell Wood too. You're right of course, another very worthy cause but Bluebell Wood realised that they needed the support of all the community behind their move for it to be the success the patients and their families deserved, so they looked into alternative sites, and found one that they are very happy with. St Lukes have been presented with the opportunity of acquiring land at the aerodrome which would be a much better site, and would help their public image and ensure the greatest support in the Sheffield area. Unfortunately, it appears that they don't share the same philosophy as Bluebell Wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfraction Posted March 31, 2008 Share Posted March 31, 2008 ill admit ive not read all this post soor not enough time at the moment. Its unbelievable put a bit of land or a few flowers over peoples lives and health. i couldnt believe the responce BLUEBELL WOOD hospis got in donny it was a place to help terminaly ill kids,and people complained. land and plants are important but more important than peoples lives??? You really ought to find the time to do some research and dig a bit deeper at what is going on here before arriving at a point of view that just because St. Lukes are the organisation they are we shouldn't give a seconds thought to gifting parkland to them. It's not a "bit of land with a few flowers" as you suggest. The land St. Lukes have decided they'd like is a modern working nursery not some barren derelict plot others would like you to believe. St. Lukes and Bluebell Wood's circumstances and approach to acquiring land are completely different. One looked for alternatives (30 different sites) was considerate and responsible the other is resorting to emotional blackmail, lies and the old boys network to grab land held in trust. Doors have been opened for St. Lukes but their business plan doesn't seem to work if land doesn't come at a knockdown price. They've been encouraged to look at alternate sites such as the Norton Aerodrome which has been vacant for many years and where English Partnerships have even commented that they'd welcome a hospice. I've worked for a charitable organisation for several decades and I can promise you being a charity doesn't make all your deeds good ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts