Dick Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Its a possibility, I think everyone knows around here that I don't think its the real Albert. Its would be hard to do any comparisons because PP always avoided putting pen to paper, in all the time I was involved I never saw any document or proposal written by him, Gerry Montgomery was his ghost writer, after he left it was John Taylor. I can assure you Albert is indeed Albert I met him doing research for Dean1's project recording WW1 war memorials. This was posted by Dean 1 on 27/08/07 in the History and expats section. Hi Dick glad you bumped into Albert, wonderful man. He has been a MASSIVE help with this project. Hi Albert. a nice bit of new information about the Dore Lychgate and plaque Dick. just wondering if anybody know's of other Lychgate's as war memorial's? the only other one i know of is at Wortley church. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunder Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Does anyone know who the City Council Surveyor is? PART 2 of the draft scheme says, The following land in Sheffield: Land known as Chantrey Cottage and contained within a lease dated 26 January 1995 and a supplemental lease dated 3 November 1999, which is further identified in a plan compiled by the City Council Surveyor and which forms part of the land contained in the Conveyance dated 18 December 1936, being an area of approximately 620 square metres. The properties known as the Graves Trust Homes, 1-29 Little Norton Lane. Could be mistaken but I thought someone said a surveyor should be independent and act in the best interests of the charity. If the trustees (Sheffield City Council) are authorised to dispose of the property above then the City Council Surveyor doesn't exactly sound independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfstalin Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 So can we infer from this that SLH are not after any of our parkland? If so once the status of the nurseries part of the park is established, as it has been amply on this thread, by the CC and even by SSC own admission, SLH will say sorry and go and look for another site? Or have I let common sense creep into my thinking? Something that has been sadly lacking in SLH dealings with this matter. Well no, because their proposal includes 3 acres of even what THEY admit is park. Remember they want 8 acres, the nurseries are only 5 acres, so even their own flawed argument that they don't want to take any parkland is undermined by asking for more land which in THEIR definition is parkland. The problem once you start lying is that you have to firstly remember all the lies in order to keep a cogent spin going and secondly make sure all your lies fit the premise you are trying to put forward. Its abundantly clear that these bozo's can't remember what they said yesterday and can't or didn't think they needed to keep their story straight, either though gross stupidity or arrogance, or maybe both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfstalin Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I can assure you Albert is indeed Albert I met him doing research for Dean1's project recording WW1 war memorials. This was posted by Dean 1 on 27/08/07 in the History and expats section. Hi Dick glad you bumped into Albert, wonderful man. He has been a MASSIVE help with this project. Hi Albert. a nice bit of new information about the Dore Lychgate and plaque Dick. just wondering if anybody know's of other Lychgate's as war memorial's? the only other one i know of is at Wortley church. Dean Back then I have no doubt at all, its the now we are talking about, since Christmas in point of fact. Can't help but notice he's disappeared since I raised the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chavs Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Do you think Paul Scriven will tell us after Wednesday (in The Star perhaps) if St Luke's have accepted his invitation to high level discussion? Why shouldn't they meet with the Leader of the Council? The thing is, if they turn Paul Scriven down for anything they will look as though they don't have the best interests of St Luke's and their patients at heart. After all, what other interests could they have? I understand this is taking place very soon !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassicaia Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Graves Trust Homes were mentioned in the draft scheme. I wonder if St Luke's now intend to relocate to the land currently occupied by numbers 1 to 29 Little Norton Lane as a way of fulfilling their ambition to be near to/close to/outside of Graves park. Or is the land too small? Yes, I'm having a problem with this too. Whether SLH have designs on the trust homes or not, they don't belong to SCC, but they will do if this scheme goes ahead. My understanding is that because trustees sold Chantrey Cottage illegally, they were required to replace the lost land by transferring the bigger parcels of land into the GPT. This scheme actually allows GAIN from illegal dealings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 My understanding is that because trustees sold Chantrey Cottage illegally, they were required to replace the lost land by transferring the bigger parcels of land into the GPT. This scheme actually allows GAIN from illegal dealings! I am not sure that this is correct. The draft document made no mention of Chantrey Cottage as part of the deal. Neither did it make mention of land which is occupied as a garden. These seem to have been slipped into the document AFTER parties agreed to the scheme. I smell a rat and it isn't one of the ones from around the lakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunder Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Found this video of Mary Bagley speaking about parks at The Big Environment Debate 17th November 2007. It lasts for almost 16 minutes. These are the approximate times of points of interest. 5:54 'Friends of' groups 9:10 Open spaces health benefits 13:40 Local people decide development and changes to parks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Found this video of Mary Bagley speaking about parks at The Big Environment Debate 17th November 2007. It lasts for almost 16 minutes. These are the approximate times of points of interest. 5:54 'Friends of' groups 9:10 Open spaces health benefits 13:40 Local people decide development and changes to parks. It's a good job somebody clapped at the end and woke up the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert T Smith Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Is it a slow weekend? Come on folks, let's not do this. This kind of cabal style chat is unedifying and not a credit to the good work done to protect Graves Park from Sheffield District Labour Party. A very great danger is now appearing which involves political opinions being given in a charitable organisations interest. Get out of this habit now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts