Once more Sheffield's Graves Park is used as a council tip.

[Blackbeard 10]

I did. You don't seem to have much of a life outside of making excuses on this thread for inexcusable council behaviour. But you are doing a great job of alerting folk to every lame excuse in the book for a council tipping dangerous waste in a public park. For that you should be congratulated.

 

Thanks for that accolade shilling, I am not sure I deserve it.

If you want my honest opinion here it is.

 

You have been watching a party political broadcast on behalf of the Peoples Party for the Liberation of Graves Park, District and their allies the liberal party from the Oppressive Socialist led Sheffield City council. See Mr Angry on the libdems site and check his form on the forum.

http://www.sheffieldlibdems.org.uk/2013/07/30/community-demands-answers-as-labour-try-to-sell-off-park-land/

The facts so far, as learnt from this thread.

Graves Park does not belong to the oppressive SCC as proven by this quote from this thread "The land was gifted to the people of Sheffield as public access parkland. The council have seen fit to occupy an area contrary to the covenants. The charity commission ordered the occupation of charitable parkland to cease and the council agreed to do this. So far around 2/3 of the land has been cleared and restored. This is however a new violation. "

The oppressors have no rights to have a service area in the park as proved by the Sheffield Star "Sheffield Council has used the area as a ground maintenance service, where waste from parks in the south and east of the city is placed for removal, for several years."

The oppressors have to maintain Graves Park but not occupy it because they don't own it, just pay for it.

There is no defecation by the dogs in Graves Park and if they do the dogs are vegetarians.

There is no fly tipping in Graves Park except by the oppressors.

The Peoples Party do not recognise the Socialist led SCC so they cannot communicate with them directly, they have to resort to using 3rd parties like the newspaper, radio, TV etc.

Not only do the oppressors have no authority over Graves Park they have no authority over the Graves Park area because they elected Lib Dem councillors.

The oppressors have form; they tried to give permission for that other oppressive charity St Luke's, to build a much needed Hospice on a brown field site in the park, only stopped by personal intervention the brave Paul Scriven. St Luke's Facebook site 3413 likes, friends of Graves Park FB site likes 217, no contest.

Is there anything else I have forgotten?

 

I was disappointed that the Star did not feature a picture of the affected complainant,who we discovered lives on the road behind the waste site, with a gloomy face as they usually do, but they do like their picture on the libdem website.

Out of interest, I just checked about squatter’s rights, I am no lawyer but it seems that after 7 years of use you can claim the land.

How much would it cost to reinstate 3.5 acres of ”highly contaminated “land to virgin parkland, which is what is required by the originators of this thread? Remember this will have to be paid for by every council tax payer in Sheffield not just the people of Graves Park.

I did a search of the forum and found

Barpen tells us: Anyhow. Good luck with your quest. I too have a copy of the Covenant, and it is marked no 5286. I take it to FOGP meetings where anyone is welcome to read the document once they have gained my trust.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=5509442&highlight=no+5286#post5509442

Strange that because SHYTOT tells us

I have a copy of the covenant in my possession. I obtained it several years ago from the reference library. It is document number 5286.

 

I find it difficult to accept that Friends of Graves Park refused sight of the document as it is the corner stone of their organisation. I suspect that as the document is hand penned it is difficult to copy. Perhaps if you joined FOGP you could better paticipate in discussions as they are a registered charity and had the support of the Chirity Commission throughout the recent (and infact ALL) disputes over the sale of parkland.

 

The essence of the covenant is an agreement between JG Graves and the City Council. Graves agreed that he would purchase around 250 acres of parkland as a gift for the city provided it was never built on but was maintained in its entirity as public parkland forever.

 

It is a pretty poor show that after making such an agreement the previous council should desire to rob the people of Sheffield of their gift and sell it for profit.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=5496546&highlight=5286#post5496546

 

As an aside who was JG Graves, the person who gave land to the city, JG Graves a councillor, alderman but also Lord Mayor, but that was when wealthy business men ran the city even though they called themselves citizens. The citizens party was a coalition of Conservative and Liberal groups when they were under threat from the nasty socialists, things don't change. He was made Lord Mayor in the very year that he gave the city the first part of the park. Interestingly JG Graves made his money out of mail order catalogue sales with buy now pay later. Just in case you are not aware about that, consider a combination of Amazon and Wonga, you did not need to visit a shop and you could buy the things you did not need on the never never, and they blame the internet for the demise of the High Street.

 

Mind you, any group that gets support from Penistone999 can't be all bad.

Remember, no matter who you vote for the council always get in.

If you would like to find out more about JG Graves I recommend you contact Mike Spick as he does a very good talk on him. http://www.sheffieldhelpyourself.org.uk/full_search_new.asp?group=25461

Edited July 23, 2014 by Blackbeard
I have been told off for my bad spelling

[taxman 12]

St Luke's Facebook site 3413 likes, friends of Graves Park FB site likes 217, no contest.

 

Maybe that measure should be used for all public policy

[Cyclone 10]

Councillors or council officials? Councillors do not have much control over the every day running of departments, that's why they employ people to run departments.

 

Right, so when you demand that people should have contacted the council, and I point out that they have indeed contacted the leaders of the council, the ones we elect to represent us.

You then respond to say that those are the wrong people to contact

 

They are responsible for their departments, they have complete authority over them, they are precisely the correct people to contact.

[Blackbeard 10]

Maybe that measure should be used for all public policy

 

I will be the first to admit that it is not a very scientific approach but it is a interesting way to illustrate my point. "My" point being that there are more people/families in the whole of the Sheffield area that have received help and support from St Luke's than they have from a small group of local activists that are fighting for more money and support from ever diminishing "council" funds.

This money comes from a "council" that they have no respect for and did not vote for.

Remember, no matter who you vote for the council always get in.

[pandorra 10]

The council shouldn't be using it for anything other than for the benefit of Graves Park charity. How does the charity benefit from being used as a tip for the waste from other council land?

The sooner the land is restored to parkland the better.

 

It is very strange how a city that likes to claim it has more green spaces than any other city shows every intention of trying to destroy them.

The image the city portrays via the media is one of neglected and abused parkland, burned down ski village and knocked down athletics stadium. Is it any wonder the developer pulled out of 7stones?

Most of the city's parks have friends groups who can and do attract grants for the improvement of parks. Yet the council would rather fight these groups than work with them with the consequence that £100s of thousands go begging and Look North feature dog muck being tipped in Graves Park.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2014 at 08:43 ----------

 

Maybe that measure should be used for all public policy

 

I seem to remember rather a lot of polls on the subject at the time, in the papers, on this forum and some even conducted by St Lukes. I don't remember a single one that came out in favour of St Lukes being allowed to build in Graves Park.

[john carr 10]

A polite, concise, informative post - a refreshing change to the rude tripe I have witnessed being flung in your direction, Blackbeard.

A credit to you.

[Blackbeard 10]

A polite, concise, informative post - a refreshing change to the rude tripe I have witnessed being flung in your direction, Blackbeard.

A credit to you.

 

Thanks John, are you sure you are not me as it has been claimed?

[Jonny5 10]

A polite, concise, informative post - a refreshing change to the rude tripe I have witnessed being flung in your direction, Blackbeard.

A credit to you.

Really? Because I've read all this thread and wouldn't say that any of it could be described as that.

 

Odd that you think dumping a pile of dog poo in a public park is A-OK but people offering an opinion opposed to yours is rude tripe.

 

Very suspect posting.

[barpen 10]

I'm not sure that St Luke's would like this raking up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackbeard View Post

St Luke's Facebook site 3413 likes, friends of Graves Park FB site likes 217, no contest.

Maybe that measure should be used for all public policy

 

 

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=303223&highlight=st+lukes

 

the city council want to move st luke into graves park

 

View Poll Results: Do you support St Luke's bid?

 

Yes ...........70 .................14.40%

No ............ 416 .............. 85.60%

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2014 at 09:23 ----------

 

Really? Because I've read all this thread and wouldn't say that any of it could be described as that.

 

Odd that you think dumping a pile of dog poo in a public park is A-OK but people offering an opinion opposed to yours is rude tripe.

 

Very suspect posting.

 

Also pretty odd that he joins the forum just to make sycophantic posts regarding blackbeard.

Edited July 22, 2014 by barpen

[Blackbeard 10]

 

 

 

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=303223&highlight=st+lukes

 

 

Also pretty odd that he joins the forum just to make sycophantic posts regarding blackbeard.

 

I need every friend that I can get, we were talking about Facebook, I joined in 2008 and until last November I did not have a single "friend" on Facebook I now have 14. I am the first to admit I must be a very sad person on Facebook but I do have a lot of "real" friends.

[SHYTOT 10]

I'm not sure that St Luke's would like this raking up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackbeard View Post

St Luke's Facebook site 3413 likes, friends of Graves Park FB site likes 217, no contest.

 

 

 

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=303223&highlight=st+lukes

 

the city council want to move st luke into graves park

 

View Poll Results: Do you support St Luke's bid?

 

Yes ...........70 .................14.40%

No ............ 416 .............. 85.60%

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2014 at 09:23 ----------

 

 

Also pretty odd that he joins the forum just to make sycophantic posts regarding blackbeard.

 

If folk want to make this a statistical popularity contest I will add a poll.

[wellyman 10]

I don't think we have to catch them doing anything. The Friends of Graves Park have told me the Council have admitted doing it and think it's OK. So that's alright then!

 

I can't imagine how anyone who isn't on the council could think this a smart idea or a proper use for our parks.