Is Sheffield Council about to sell off bits of Graves Park YET AGAIN?

[Localman 10]

No rudeness was intended.

 

In earlier posts, foxy lady has made a number of assertions of (what she says is) the legal position and the legal action that was to be initiated in support of her perspective.

 

I happen to disagree with her understanding of the law but, more importantly, I happen to believe that the sale of Cobnar Cottage (which has at no time provided any public benefit or public access) with the proceeds (attracting additional matched funding) being invested in improving Graves Park and its public amenities is entirely consistent with JG Graves’ intentions and his legacy.

 

Despite foxy lady’s assertions and threats, it appears that no such legal action has been taken.

 

“Empty vessels make most sound” and “All fur coat and no knickers” appear to provide accurate characterisations of the situation……unless foxy lady is going to tell us different.

[Robin-H 11]

why are you being so rude to some one who just wanted to save something that was given to the people of Sheffield, not the council ?

 

Well said.

 

I'm not sure how it can be claimed that 'no rudeness was intended' when phrases such as 'empty vessels make the most noise' are used. How is that meant to be intended?

 

It is perfectly right that people are allowed to fight for what they believe in, and if people believe it was wrong to sell off land and property given to the people of Sheffield to a private purchaser, then they are entitled to.

 

If other people believe that the money raised from such a sale makes the transaction the most sensible course of action then they are entitled to think that too.

 

I'm not sure personally why it needs to resort to rudeness or name calling.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Robin-H

[Hambeast 10]

Any news from user Foxy Lady then?

[Localman 10]

Well said.

 

I'm not sure how it can be claimed that 'no rudeness was intended' when phrases such as 'empty vessels make the most noise' are used. How is that meant to be intended? ...... I'm not sure personally why it needs to resort to rudeness or name calling.

 

You are hardly a disinterested, independent observer are you?

 

As you posted above, you were a keen supporter of the scheme to allow some unspecified stonemason to occupy Cobnar Cottage rent-free for an unspecified period and for it to be handed back in an unspecified condition and for which it was not possible to construct even the simplest business case.

 

I am very pleased that you believe debates such as this should be conducted without the ‘need to resort to rudeness or name calling.’ I happen to agree with that.

 

I have had a quick scan of the thread. I set out below just some of the words and phrases that have been used (including by you and foxy lady – I’m sure you’ll spot which are yours) against those of us who have argued that the disposal of the Cottage and the re-investment of the proceeds in the park produces easily the best outcomes for, and entirely consistent with, the Graves’ bequest.

 

They include:

• greed, greed, greed

• are they ever honest

• subterfuge

• above and beyond the law.

• incompetence

• brain dead morons

• not fit custodians

• corrupt to the core

• sneaky

• stupidity

• thieving scum

• arrogance with no bounds

• underhanded

• buffoons

• what they say rings hollow

• disgrace

• breaking a legal covenant

• acting illegally

 

So, I’m somewhat surprised that you have waited until now to suggest debates might be conducted differently.

 

Unless you’ve now had a Damascene conversion, it rather appears that you are proposing one rule for some (a free-for-all for anyone supporting your position) and a different set of rules for everyone else.

 

Whatever, I’m sure we’re all interested to learn from foxy lady who had firmly asserted that ‘this would not end here’ but now appears to have taken a vow of silence.

[foxy lady 10]

You are hardly a disinterested, independent observer are you?

 

As you posted above, you were a keen supporter of the scheme to allow some unspecified stonemason to occupy Cobnar Cottage rent-free for an unspecified period and for it to be handed back in an unspecified condition and for which it was not possible to construct even the simplest business case.

 

I am very pleased that you believe debates such as this should be conducted without the ‘need to resort to rudeness or name calling.’ I happen to agree with that.

 

I have had a quick scan of the thread. I set out below just some of the words and phrases that have been used (including by you and foxy lady – I’m sure you’ll spot which are yours) against those of us who have argued that the disposal of the Cottage and the re-investment of the proceeds in the park produces easily the best outcomes for, and entirely consistent with, the Graves’ bequest.

 

They include:

• greed, greed, greed

• are they ever honest

• subterfuge

• above and beyond the law.

• incompetence

• brain dead morons

• not fit custodians

• corrupt to the core

• sneaky

• stupidity

• thieving scum

• arrogance with no bounds

• underhanded

• buffoons

• what they say rings hollow

• disgrace

• breaking a legal covenant

• acting illegally

 

So, I’m somewhat surprised that you have waited until now to suggest debates might be conducted differently.

 

Unless you’ve now had a Damascene conversion, it rather appears that you are proposing one rule for some (a free-for-all for anyone supporting your position) and a different set of rules for everyone else.

 

Whatever, I’m sure we’re all interested to learn from foxy lady who had firmly asserted that ‘this would not end here’ but now appears to have taken a vow of silence.

 

Actually I've not taken a vow of silence. I prefer to call it having a life on a nice sunny weekend.

 

But the last I heard the matter was "in the hands of the solicitors", so unless your council colleagues keep you in the loop you will probably have to wait for the outcome.

[Robin-H 11]

You are hardly a disinterested, independent observer are you?

 

As you posted above, you were a keen supporter of the scheme to allow some unspecified stonemason to occupy Cobnar Cottage rent-free for an unspecified period and for it to be handed back in an unspecified condition and for which it was not possible to construct even the simplest business case.

 

I am very pleased that you believe debates such as this should be conducted without the ‘need to resort to rudeness or name calling.’ I happen to agree with that.

 

I have had a quick scan of the thread. I set out below just some of the words and phrases that have been used (including by you and foxy lady – I’m sure you’ll spot which are yours) against those of us who have argued that the disposal of the Cottage and the re-investment of the proceeds in the park produces easily the best outcomes for, and entirely consistent with, the Graves’ bequest.

 

They include:

• greed, greed, greed

• are they ever honest

• subterfuge

• above and beyond the law.

• incompetence

• brain dead morons

• not fit custodians

• corrupt to the core

• sneaky

• stupidity

• thieving scum

• arrogance with no bounds

• underhanded

• buffoons

• what they say rings hollow

• disgrace

• breaking a legal covenant

• acting illegally

 

So, I’m somewhat surprised that you have waited until now to suggest debates might be conducted differently.

 

Unless you’ve now had a Damascene conversion, it rather appears that you are proposing one rule for some (a free-for-all for anyone supporting your position) and a different set of rules for everyone else.

 

Whatever, I’m sure we’re all interested to learn from foxy lady who had firmly asserted that ‘this would not end here’ but now appears to have taken a vow of silence.

 

I wouldn't ordinarily feel the need to reply, but seeing as you have taken some pains to write a list of 'phrases that have been used' throughout the thread without saying who said what I think it deserves a response.

 

May I make it perfectly clear that I said none of the things that could be considered rude, such as 'thieving scum' or 'brain dead morons'. I may well have said that the council have broken a legal covenant (which they have in the past) as the past sale of a cottage was found to have been done 'ultra vires'. How that is rude I'm not entirely sure, as I was stating a fact. I dont think I said any of the following, but I'm not entirely sure how words like 'sneaky', 'underhanded' or 'disgrace' are inappropriate either if they are referring to someone's opinion of the council.

 

There is an obvious difference in commenting on the council to singling out a forum member and making direct comments about them.

 

Therefore please take back the accusations that I think there is one rule for some and one for everyone else - I have never been rude to someone in this thread, indeed have barely commented.

[Hambeast 10]

So calling people "thieving scum" and "buffoons" isn't being rude? Interesting.

[Robin-H 11]

So calling people "thieving scum" and "buffoons" isn't being rude? Interesting.

 

Did you not read my reply? I said that yes things like that are rude, and no, I have never said anything like that.

[Localman 10]

But the last I heard the matter was "in the hands of the solicitors", so unless your council colleagues keep you in the loop you will probably have to wait for the outcome.

 

As I don’t have any council colleagues (councillors or officers or otherwise) it will be difficult to be kept in the loop as you suggest.

 

So, I look forward to you advising us all of the legal action being taken as you promised. However, I have to say that I won’t be holding my breath.

 

My involvement with Graves Park is as a user over more than 40 years – playing football & cricket, walking and playing with my children and, now, walking and playing with my grandchildren. We’re looking forward to some of the improvements that will come about from investing the proceeds of the receipts from the sale of Cobnar Cottage.

 

---------- Post added 11-06-2016 at 23:10 ----------

 

There is an obvious difference in commenting on the council to singling out a forum member and making direct comments about them.

 

Well actually there isn’t. Your own comment confirms that you believe in one rule for some people and a different rule for others.

 

For the record, I’m not a councillor or a council officer and, to the best of my knowledge, I’m not related to anyone who is.

 

But that doesn’t stop me from making the case that, when it comes to rudeness, there is and should be no difference at all.

 

I think the logic of your position is quite astonishing ie because someone is a councillor or a council officer, it is perfectly OK for members of the public (especially those hiding in anonymity) to be personally rude to them, whereas the reverse would be unacceptable. I disagree.

[Localman 10]

I was wondering if the silence on this thread resulted from people reflecting about whether it is acceptable or not to be rude, unpleasant and threatening to councillors, council officers etc just because we may disagree with them, in the light of the murder of Jo Cox.[i'm clear that it is unacceptable.]

 

However, it appears that - especially on threads about the EU referendum and the Chilcot Report - normal service has been resumed.

 

However, given that a month has passed since Foxy Lady told us that the matter was "in the hands of the solicitors" and, to the best of my knowledge (reading The Star may be limiting), there has been no legal action.

 

Perhaps Foxy Lady could tell us all. Is she - quite sensibly - using No Case, No Show solicitors?

[Robin-H 11]

I was wondering if the silence on this thread resulted from people reflecting about whether it is acceptable or not to be rude, unpleasant and threatening to councillors, council officers etc just because we may disagree with them, in the light of the murder of Jo Cox.[i'm clear that it is unacceptable.]

 

However, it appears that - especially on threads about the EU referendum and the Chilcot Report - normal service has been resumed.

 

However, given that a month has passed since Foxy Lady told us that the matter was "in the hands of the solicitors" and, to the best of my knowledge (reading The Star may be limiting), there has been no legal action.

 

Perhaps Foxy Lady could tell us all. Is she - quite sensibly - using No Case, No Show solicitors?

 

Personally I didn't feel the need to reply as I didn't want to get drawn into a petty online argument.

 

You are the only singling out a forum use to be rude to. If you wanted an update on where proceedings stand at the moment then a simple request for information would have been sufficient.

 

https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-council-protect-graves-park/u/17123204

[Hambeast 10]

Just seen the Just Giving link. Unless the whole thing isnt loading up, 6 people have donated £237.50 between them.

 

Aye, good luck(!!)