Majority of the responses have been negative?

This has recently appeared on Facebook:


If you're reading this it's probably because you're tagged and that you live in/around Newbury. As some of you know I'm working at the council at the moment (well... until Friday) and one of my jobs here has been to input data from surveys. One of the ones I've been doing at the moment is on the new proposed Newbury Pavilion.

For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a redevelopment in Victoria Park to remodel it, put in a new pond, a new kids play area, and a brand spanking new building full of top of the range facilities in terms of rehearsal studios, music studios, cyber cafe, bar, an outdoor screen (think film festivals and sports events etc) and such like.

Problem is, at the moment a majority of responses to the project have been negative - mostly from the over 60 age quadrant (and Friends Of Victoria Park league) all banging on about using a bit of green space in a park that's hardly used anyways.

What I'm writing this for is to ask you all to have a look at the proposals (links below) and then send back a comment form. You might think it's a bad idea, but personally I think it's a great idea and when we were all at school/ college would have loved facilities like this.

So first, heres the link to some pretty pictures of the proposal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8342000/8342757.stm

And second, here's a link to the West Berkshire Council website with more information and more importantly - a feedback/ comment form. Details of who to send it to are at the bottom of the form.
http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18467

PLEASE! PLEASE! Take a look at it and send it back in (hopefully with positive comments) - tell your friends, tell your family, your nieghbours because Victoria Park is fairly pants and this gives a use to it - sod 2.5% of grass being taken up, think outdoor film festivals, more dramatics productions, touring bands/film fests/open air theatre companies, a cyber cafe, better playing facilities for the kids, a pond that doesn't look like a dog bowl, conference facilities, exhibition space and so on. This is a good thing.
Well, I'm enthusiastic for it.

Just a reminder:

VICTORIA PARK FRIENDS GROUP MEETING

SATURDAY 28TH NOVEMBER

The Victoria Park Friends Group are looking for willing volunteers to help Newbury Town Council with its plans to refurbish and enhance Victoria Park.  A Friends Group meeting is being held in the Town Hall Chamber on Saturday 28 November at 10.30am.  If you require further information please contact Fiona Walker on: 01635 40720 or email: fkwalker64@btinternet.com

Interesting to hear that WBC are not getting it all their own way on this one - perhaps they should accept that they can't win them all.

That is blatantly encouraging people who have no knowledge of, and no interest in Newbury whatsoever, to make positive comment on a scheme for which they have no perception of.

"If you're reading this it's probably because you're tagged and that you live in/around Newbury"

I am sure the poster of this, although suggesting that you "probably" live in/around Newbury, is hoping for a much wider audience, from those that scan facebook etc.

Whether that is true or not, it certainly is not impartial.  ...."hopefully with positive comments"

Quoted from LocalRes

That is blatantly encouraging people who have no knowledge of, and no interest in Newbury whatsoever, to make positive comment on a scheme for which they have no perception of.

"If you're reading this it's probably because you're tagged and that you live in/around Newbury"

I am sure the poster of this, although suggesting that you "probably" live in/around Newbury, is hoping for a much wider audience, from those that scan facebook etc.

Whether that is true or not, it certainly is not impartial.  ...."hopefully with positive comments"

It seems to me that there is a breach of confidentiality here. Having priviileged information and attempting to alter the result of the poll is surely against WBC terms of employment.

Anyone got any ideas of confidentiality clauses in WBC employment contracts?

For those of you who don't know what that is, it's a redevelopment in Victoria Park to remodel it, put in a new pond, a new kids play area, and a brand spanking new building full of top of the range facilities in terms of rehearsal studios, music studios, cyber cafe, bar, an outdoor screen (think film festivals and sports events etc) and such like.
..........
Victoria Park is fairly pants and this gives a use to it - sod 2.5% of grass being taken up, think outdoor film festivals, more dramatics productions, touring bands/film fests/open air theatre companies, a cyber cafe, better playing facilities for the kids, a pond that doesn't look like a dog bowl, conference facilities, exhibition space and so on. This is a good thing.

This stuff is taken more or less directly from the WBC "Pavilion for Victoria Park" hype. page 5 although she has missed the promise of recording and editing facilities and whilst they all may be admirable items for inclusion, they will need a full management team to hold it all together, let alone the expertise required to run a recording studio. Vicky has missed the point that whilst the park needs a makeover, most of the proposals for the building have no relationship to the park and would be much better served from a refurbished or rebuilt Waterside centre. We could then have a smaller park related building which would be less intrusive and which will blend rather than being so far out of place.

There are a few additions that Vicky has made which do not appear in the WBC leaflet such as Film Fests and by this I suppose that means open air, and open air theatre companies. Neither of these can be accomodated as far as I can see within the building unless changes are made to the front elevation.

On the subject of the leaflet, there are a couple of statements which might be worth taking on board.
Quote...
Victoria Park is Newbury's primary green space for recreation and leisure. In order to keep attracting visitors it is a proposal that the park needs updating to create facilities which are fit for the 21st century..

Accentuate the 'green area' ... calls for a living wall to blend it into the existing landscaping adjacent to the A339. The pavilion will provide a visual and acoustic screen from the A339 allowing people to enjoy the park.
(In other words, a wall facing the A339 covered in grass or moss will look nicer from the A339 rather than the unobstructed view across the park)

Works access will be via an existing bridge from Faraday Road and not across the park.
(Excuse me, what bridge is that)

Won't building the Pavilion encourage future development of the Park?
No, Planning law protects public green space.
Oh, that last is funny.

Quoted from Bartholomew

It seems to me that there is a breach of confidentiality here. Having priviileged information and attempting to alter the result of the poll is surely against WBC terms of employment.

Anyone got any ideas of confidentiality clauses in WBC employment contracts?

But they are attempting to change it in WBC's favour rather than the public who employ them and pay the bill! So that will be alright then!!

Quoted from Nobby

But they are attempting to change it in WBC's favour rather than the public who employ them and pay the bill! So that will be alright then!!

We are only talking about raw data here. There may be a totally different result when this has been manipulated by West Berks Strategic Command.

"75% of those who voted were discovered to be over 65 and 25% of these won't be around by the time the building is completed, so their comments don't count"

You may remember a petition signed by over 3,000 people which included their names addresses and post codes, objecting to the closure of Wharf Street to traffic. When it came to the crunch, this petition was counted as ONE objection.

Quoted from Bartholomew

It seems to me that there is a breach of confidentiality here. Having priviileged information and attempting to alter the result of the poll is surely against WBC terms of employment.

Anyone got any ideas of confidentiality clauses in WBC employment contracts?

They can't make her sign the official secrets act and as she is leaving their employ on Friday, it's tough. So long as she doesn't use the information for financial gain, insider trading, she's OK I think.

Is not her actions in violation against data protection laws, or laws designed to protect against perversion of democratic process. Or some combination there of?

I fail hard at legal. But it only seems sensible that there should be a full investigation into this matter. Having already acted out inappropriately like this. I'm concerned over the likelihood of her doctoring the existing responses to suit.

Maybe it would be appropriate to call the planning equivalent of a mistrial (Like when the jury are caught in an Star Trek marathon, rather that listening to evidence) due to this development and restart the consultation stage from the beginning?


Does anybody have a link to this girls profile?
I don't use failbook due to privacy concerns, so missed the thread and curious to check it out myself.

Quoted from Bartholomew

It seems to me that there is a breach of confidentiality here. Having priviileged information and attempting to alter the result of the poll is surely against WBC terms of employment.

Anyone got any ideas of confidentiality clauses in WBC employment contracts?

Isn't everyone attempting to alter the result of the poll when they express their views on it?

I think it's great she's taken a personal interest in it and is doing something about what she considers to be to be an important issue.

Are some people saying they don't want those that work for local organisations such as the council having a personal view on local issues?

Quoted from user23.3

Are some people saying they don't want those that work for local organisations such as the council having a personal view on local issues?

We are not saying they shouldn't have views. We are saying they should have the integrity not to fiddle or try and alter the outcome of surveys to suit their ot their leaders wishes.

It appears there is a lack of this within WBC and some of its employees are happy with this situation!

Quoted from user23.3

Are some people saying they don't want those that work for local organisations such as the council having a personal view on local issues?

Some people would consider it a conflict of interest.

Quoted from Nobby

We are not saying they shouldn't have views. We are saying they should have the integrity not to fiddle or try and alter the outcome of surveys to suit their ot their leaders wishes.

No one's trying to "fiddle" anything, she's expressing her personal point of view as is everyone who comments on the development.

Is brian trying to fiddle the result by setting up a Facebook group and trying to get people to comment on the development, of course not and neither is she.

Quoted from MoonPhoenix

Some people would consider it a conflict of interest.

Not any more if she no longer works for the council.

Surely we want people who are passionate about the area working for our councils or are you really advocating that they should all be mindless automatons with no opinions on anything local?

[quote=1]Majority of the responses have been negative?

This has recently appeared on Facebook:

Problem is, at the moment a majority of responses to the project have been negative - mostly from the over 60 age quadrant (and Friends Of Victoria Park league) all banging on about using a bit of green space in a park that's hardly used anyways.


I filled out one of the comment forms - I don't remember seeing a section asking for my age. Something's not quite right here.

I didn't get a chance to go along to the Friends of Victoria Park meeting held at the Town Hall yesterday. Anyone know how it went?

Quoted from John Ruskin

[I filled out one of the comment forms - I don't remember seeing a section asking for my age. Something's not quite right here.

Interesting point - the response forms available on the WBC website and given out at the library did not collect information on the age of respondees.

Are we getting a preview of the spin they intend to put on a negative response?

Quoted from John Ruskin

[quote=1]Majority of the responses have been negative?

This has recently appeared on Facebook:

Problem is, at the moment a majority of responses to the project have been negative - mostly from the over 60 age quadrant (and Friends Of Victoria Park league) all banging on about using a bit of green space in a park that's hardly used anyways.


I filled out one of the comment forms - I don't remember seeing a section asking for my age. Something's not quite right here.

That's probably just how she's interpreted the responses I would guess.

Quoted from user23.3

That's probably just how she's interpreted the responses I would guess.

I'd say to is a clear attempt to inspire youngsters to react to conservative 'fuddy duddies'.  The way the passage is written, I'd say she could have been put up to it.

At the end of the day, this pavilion plan hasn't gone down well and I think the steering group are largely to blame.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I'd say to is a clear attempt to inspire youngsters to react to conservative 'fuddy duddies'.  The way the passage is written, I'd say she could have been put up to it.

At the end of the day, this pavilion plan hasn't gone down well and I think the steering group are largely to blame.

Put up to it by who? Did you miss the line

"I'm working at the council at the moment (well... until Friday)"

Problem is, at the moment a majority of responses to the project have been negative - mostly from the over 60 age quadrant (and Friends Of Victoria Park league) all banging on about using a bit of green space in a park that's hardly used anyways.


I filled out one of the comment forms - I don't remember seeing a section asking for my age. Something's not quite right here.

Quoted from user23.3

That's probably just how she's interpreted the responses I would guess.

The leopard's spots are changing again!

I wonder what User23.3's response would have been if she was promoting a negative return!

Quoted from user23.3

Put up to it by who? Did you miss the line "I'm working at the council at the moment (well... until Friday)"

It is just an assertion, that I think the person was put up to it.  The language used on that post was also unfortunate and will do little to help the cause.

Quoted from LocalRes

Problem is, at the moment a majority of responses to the project have been negative - mostly from the over 60 age quadrant (and Friends Of Victoria Park league) all banging on about using a bit of green space in a park that's hardly used anyways.


I filled out one of the comment forms - I don't remember seeing a section asking for my age. Something's not quite right here.




The leopard's spots are changing again!

I wonder what User23.3's response would have been if she was promoting a negative return!

I've already commented on brian promoting a negative (as you put it, I'm sure he doesn't see it as negative) return.

To add to it, I think it's good that he's getting people to take an interest in local matters.

I'd say to is a clear attempt to inspire youngsters to react to conservative 'fuddy duddies'.  The way the passage is written, I'd say she could have been put up to it.

At the end of the day, this pavilion plan hasn't gone down well and I think the steering group are largely to blame.


Surely there's nothing wrong in getting reaction from youngsters - after all parts of the new pavilion are designed specifically for them, as a replacement for the Waterside.

But I think we need to see the results of the latest consultation before it's agreed that the pavilion plan hasn't gone down well - after all the 2007 Consultation was clearly in favour! And I remember listening to arguments for and against the plans at the library a couple of weeks ago.

Quoted from John Ruskin

I'd say to is a clear attempt to inspire youngsters to react to conservative 'fuddy duddies'.  The way the passage is written, I'd say she could have been put up to it.At the end of the day, this pavilion plan hasn't gone down well and I think the steering group are largely to blame.Surely there's nothing wrong in getting reaction from youngsters - after all parts of the new pavilion are designed specifically for them, as a replacement for the Waterside.

I didn't say to was wrong, only that I am sceptical of the motive.

The subtext to the facebook page seems to me to be, 'come on everyone, let's not let some silly old people (some of which will be dead soon) stop us from getting a decent build in the park'.

Quoted from John Ruskin

But I think we need to see the results of the latest consultation before it's agreed that the pavilion plan hasn't gone down well - after all the 2007 Consultation was clearly in favour! And I remember listening to arguments for and against the plans at the library a couple of weeks ago.

While on the subject of 'something for the kids'; I think I read somewhere that youths were largely overlooked in the consultation process - until now, when the steering group see that they have 'got it wrong'.

I think that you may find that the person sending out the message on Facebook was just on "work experience" from a local school.

Quoted from user23.3

Isn't everyone attempting to alter the result of the poll when they express their views on it?

I think it's great she's taken a personal interest in it and is doing something about what she considers to be to be an important issue.

Are some people saying they don't want those that work for local organisations such as the council having a personal view on local issues?

By using privileged information (ie knowing the current results) and then attempting to influence the result, she(?) is clearly in breach of the trust given to WBC. If she had agreed with the results, she probably would not have publicised this.

By working for the council she is required to be impartial. Having a personal view is another matter. As long as information gained in the job is not used, it is acceptable.

Quoted from user23.3

I've already commented on brian promoting a negative (as you put it, I'm sure he doesn't see it as negative) return.

To add to it, I think it's good that he's getting people to take an interest in local matters.

User23, assume for a minute that you are an employee of West Berkshire Council. Would you use confidential information obtained in your job to influence any decisions in progress by West Berkshire Council?

This person was working for WTC on work experience and was just told to input information, and no one explained the "official secrets act" in fact some members of permanent staff were aware and agreed that they could "facebook" the item

Quoted from brian newman

This person was working for WTC on work experience and was just told to input information, and no one explained the "official secrets act" in fact some members of permanent staff were aware and agreed that they could "facebook" the item

If this is the case then this shows how little impartiality WBC employees have in dealing with privileged information.

This is not a case of the "official secrets act". It is a case of common and legal sense. Remember that the Council should be impartial as they act for the public. Thats why they are called civil servants. By using this information innapropriately, they are putting themselves at risk of legal action.

Quoted from Bartholomew

Remember that the Council should be impartial as they act for the public.

There is no such think as an impartial politician. It is council policy to get this pavilion built - which means it is the duty of their employes to push it.

Quoted from Bartholomew

Thats why they are called civil servants.

Strictly speaking civil servants are members of the Civil Service - the people who work for central government departments, not local government.

Quoted from Bartholomew

If this is the case then this shows how little impartiality WBC employees have in dealing with privileged information.

This is not a case of the "official secrets act". It is a case of common and legal sense. Remember that the Council should be impartial as they act for the public. Thats why they are called civil servants. By using this information innapropriately, they are putting themselves at risk of legal action.

The comment form requested no personal details, so what information can be used inappropriately?  And what form of legal action are you suggesting?

Quoted from Bartholomew

If this is the case then this shows how little impartiality WBC employees have in dealing with privileged information.

This is not a case of the "official secrets act". It is a case of common and legal sense. Remember that the Council should be impartial as they act for the public. Thats why they are called civil servants. By using this information innapropriately, they are putting themselves at risk of legal action.

I'm assuming what brian says is correct. I guess he must know the poster of the information in some capacity.

Council employees aren't civil servants and this person seems to have been on work experience anyway, not an employee.

The biggest question here is, why do you assume this information to be correct? You keep mentioning "privileged information", how do you know it's not been fabricated by them? Perhaps it was put in to get extra exposure on forums like these? Who knows, just don't assume it to be correct.

What it all boils down to is that you're having a go at some kid for expressing their views to their friends on Facebook because you don't agree with them.

Quoted from John Ruskin

The comment form requested no personal details, so what information can be used inappropriately?  And what form of legal action are you suggesting?

It has already been used inapropriately by the council allowing confidential information to be used to bias the results of the survey. As a member of the public, I would not be allowed to see these results while collection is still in progress for exactly these reasons.

Quoted from Bartholomew

It has already been used inapropriately by the council allowing confidential information to be used to bias the results of the survey. As a member of the public, I would not be allowed to see these results while collection is still in progress for exactly these reasons.

It's not a question of allowing it to be used, I don't see what they could have done to stop the poster from sending the message to their friends.

This is assuming the information is correct of course, and not put in to get it extra publicity.

Quoted from user23.3

I'm assuming what brian says is correct. I guess he must know the poster of the information in some capacity.

Probably true

Quoted from user23.3

Council employees aren't civil servants and this person seems to have been on work experience anyway, not an employee.

Council employees work on behalf of the public. Whether on work experience or not, the same basic concepts of confidentiality apply

Quoted from user23.3

The biggest question here is, why do you assume this information to be correct? You keep mentioning "privileged information", how do you know it's not been fabricated by them?

I am basing the information on what has been posted on facebook. Maybe its not correct. By working for the Council, all information that is unavailable to the public is confidential and by definition pirvileged.
Are you suggesting that the council has made up all the survey replies? If so, you probably know more about the council than I do.

Quoted from user23.3

What it all boils down to is that you're having a go at some kid for expressing their views to their friends on Facebook because you don't agree with them.

I most certainly am not having a go at some kid. I am questioning the methods and procedures of the council and the way they handle affairs on behalf of the public. I believe from what I read that this work placement was not properly controlled and from what Brian says, the permanent staff encouraged the leak of information.

You have no idea whether or not I agree with the ideas posted on facebook. You are simply trying agin to deflect the discussion.

The facebook posting was not a public posting. It is now that the content has been published on Newbury.net though. A site which is public and which carries a similar message but without the bit about the survey, is run by "Vicky Park". Obviously not a real name but the anonymous author has identified her gender as female although that may also be a fabrication.
This facebook is titled 'We want a pavillion in the park'.

It has no responses at the moment but it is right that it should be there to gather opinion.

So, the old people fill in the form, the young people use facebook. Is that the council logic to the entries by form or does everybody who scribbled on them indentify their age by their handwriting.

Yes, perhaps the facebook poster assumed the age of the people who filled in the forms, because they use fully formed words and sentences, and not text speak!  

Quoted from Bartholomew

I most certainly am not having a go at some kid. I am questioning the methods and procedures of the council and the way they handle affairs on behalf of the public. I believe from what I read that this work placement was not properly controlled and from what Brian says, the permanent staff encouraged the leak of information.

You have no idea whether or not I agree with the ideas posted on facebook. You are simply trying agin to deflect the discussion.

This person isn't and wasn't a council employee. How do you suggest this work placement should have been "controlled". Should the council be monitoring their personal communications with their friends and acquaintances? Perhaps they still know "privileged information", should the council be "controlling" them even now?

As has been pointed out the only person who has put this information in the public domain is BrianB, and he's perfectly within his rights to do so in my view. What do you suggest should happen to him, should he also be "controlled", should legal action be taken against people who disclose this sort of information as you have suggested?

I believe Pangbourne Pam (Commissar for Cartergrad) is taking a close interest in the 1000 responses WBC got from the  consultation - as around 60% are agin Patrick's The People's Pavilion.

I agree with User on this. You credit WBC with cunning and a wiliness I doubt exists. The pro-pavilion campaign seems aligned to the dance music collective Keep off the Grass. I see User is a member of the FB group, which may explain his vigorous defence.

Quoted from user23.3

This person isn't and wasn't a council employee.

That's irrelevant, 'the person' would have had to abide by the organisations rules. One of them being confidentiality.

The 'person' must understand confidentiality because they themselves are anonymous on FB

Quoted from Meddler

I agree with User on this. You credit WBC with cunning and a wiliness I doubt exists. The pro-pavilion campaign seems aligned to the dance music collective Keep off the Grass. I see User is a member of the FB group, which may explain his vigorous defence.

Notwithstanding, I don't remember user23.3 ever being critical of WBC.  I also suspect him to have an affinity with the 'KOTG collective'.

Quoted from user23.3

This person isn't and wasn't a council employee. How do you suggest this work placement should have been "controlled". Should the council be monitoring their personal communications with their friends and acquaintances? Perhaps they still know "privileged information", should the council be "controlling" them even now?

As has been pointed out the only person who has put this information in the public domain is BrianB, and he's perfectly within his rights to do so in my view. What do you suggest should happen to him, should he also be "controlled", should legal action be taken against people who disclose this sort of information as you have suggested?

Every organisation has confidentiality regulations. These may be explicit as in the form of a contract or implicit by the organisations overall regulations. Part of the condition of working (whether permanent, temporary, contract or placement) both during and after employment are these regulations. By publishing confidential information these conditions have been breached.

I don't use facebook but as far as I understand, facebook is available to anyone after registering. I believe that the main method of getting new contact and information is by searching for certain keywords. Search for Newbury and this information is available. It is therefore my understanding that it is in the public domain prior to being published here.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I don't use facebook but as far as I understand, facebook is available to anyone after registering. I believe that the main method of getting new contact and information is by searching for certain keywords. Search for Newbury and this information is available. It is therefore my understanding that it is in the public domain prior to being published here.

Not quite right, FB is only public if it it so designated by the author. Stuff between members of a group are only visible if you are in that group.

The Pavilion group in question, is categorised as public content.

Has it just been assumed that the author of this is female because they have called themselves Vicky Park? I reckon it's by a male

Quoted from 133

Has it just been assumed that the author of this is female because they have called themselves Vicky Park? I reckon it's by a male

You're not thinking what we are thinking are you?  

Quoted from 133

Has it just been assumed that the author of this is female because they have called themselves Vicky Park? I reckon it's by a male

That's more than possible but as I said earlier, Gender female. If it is male, I wonder who it could be....

Quoted from Greenham Common

The Pavilion group in question, is categorised as public content.

No, I don't think it is unless you can link to it. The 'we want a pavilion in the park' is public.

Quoted from brian

No, I don't think it is unless you can link to it. The 'we want a pavilion in the park' is public.

That is what I was on about.  The group that inspired the OP is a public group.  One has to register first mind.

Quoted from Bartholomew

Every organisation has confidentiality regulations. These may be explicit as in the form of a contract or implicit by the organisations overall regulations. Part of the condition of working (whether permanent, temporary, contract or placement) both during and after employment are these regulations. By publishing confidential information these conditions have been breached.

I don't use facebook but as far as I understand, facebook is available to anyone after registering. I believe that the main method of getting new contact and information is by searching for certain keywords. Search for Newbury and this information is available. It is therefore my understanding that it is in the public domain prior to being published here.

You're mistaken as far as Facebook goes, this information was obviously only sent to a select few who knew the sender, the only person who has published this to the public is BrianB. What do you suggest is done to him for doing so? My suggestion would be absolutely nothing, good on him for passing on the message and giving the issue more exposure.

brian newman seems to know the most about this other than admin and I suspect the know the identy of the sender, so perhaps he could tell us whether the sender of the mail was male or female.

Quoted from user23.3

You're mistaken as far as Facebook goes, this information was obviously only sent to a select few who knew the sender, the only person who has published this to the public is BrianB. What do you suggest is done to him for doing so? My suggestion would be absolutely nothing, good on him for passing on the message and giving the issue more exposure.  brian newman seems to know the most about this, so perhaps he could tell us whether the sender of the messages was male or female.

The group in question is easily searchable, I have seen it.  This is as public as FB gets.  One only has to register, like some forums, and one can read it.  What BrianB has done, is expose this issue so that others (the untintended audience) might also respond.  What the FB group has done is reveal that the response to the Pavilion has allegedly been negative.

Unless you are registered and a friend or contact of the person you would not be able to be tagged and read any post by them.

The author of this item tagged many people who are friends and therefore it is not in the public domain.

The author is male and is a contact of mine and friends of many of my driving school students, he has at least 480 friends on Facebook, i have also received this information and passed it on to the 367 contacts on my facebook list.  

To read what someone has put on Facebook you would have to register as a friend and be accepted by them.

Quoted from brian newman

Unless you are registered and a friend or contact of the person you would not be able to be tagged and read any post by them.

The author of this item tagged many people who are friends and therefore it is not in the public domain.

The author is male and is a contact of mine and friends of many of my driving school students, he has at least 480 friends on Facebook, i have also received this information and passed it on to the 367 contacts on my facebook list.  

To read what someone has put on Facebook you would have to register as a friend and be accepted by them.

That's what I thought.

The only place the information is publicly available is on this forum.

I'm sure the people calling for legal action to be taken against anyone making it public will now quickly change their tune.

Quoted from user23.3

You're mistaken as far as Facebook goes, this information was obviously only sent to a select few who knew the sender, the only person who has published this to the public is BrianB. What do you suggest is done to him for doing so? My suggestion would be absolutely nothing, good on him for passing on the message and giving the issue more exposure.

No you are wrong. This is information which should be within WBC until the results are published. It is in the public domain albeit not all members of the public have access to it.

WBC are responsible for the control of the information and the person concerned should have been made aware of his/her responsibilities. Appropriate legal action should be taken against those concerned.

This is what it says at the moment, has it been edited since the OP, or is the OP an extended/privilaged/different version?

Information

Category:
    Entertainment & Arts - General
Description:
    Seen the plans for Vicky Park? They include a new pavilion for live music which will also have a recording studio and much more. Imagine some of Newbury's local bands or events like KOTG playing here.

    Some people in Newbury don't want this to be built so it's important that everyone who's interested in this happening lets those in power know that they want it to go ahead. If you have time please send in the comments form letting them know that you support this or we'll loose the chance to have a something like this in our town at last.

    Please join this group if you support the building of this pavilion and also make everyone you know aware that this group exists and urge them to join to show their support for a venue we in Newbury can be proud of.

    View what it will look like here: http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=21048 or more information here: http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18467 (read less)
    Seen the plans for Vicky Park? They include a new pavilion for live music which will also have a recording studio and much more. Imagine some of Newbury's local bands or events like KOTG playing here.

    Some people in Newbury don't want this to be built so it's important that everyone who's interested in this happening lets those in power know that they want it to go ahead. If you have time please send in the comments form letting them know that you support this or we'll loose the chance to... (read more)
Privacy type:
    Open: All content is public.

Admins

    * Vicky Park (creator)

What is important to understand, isn't that this is built, but where it is built.

Quoted from Nobby

It is in the public domain albeit not all members of the public have access to it.

Then it's not in the public domain!  

Quoted from Greenham Common

This is what it says at the moment, has it been edited since the OP, or is the OP an extended/privilaged/different version?

Vicky Park (creator)

I think, as I said before that what you are talking about is the one that is in the public domain for Facebook members.
There are two.

Save Victoria Park from development

and

We want a pavilion in Newbury

The latter is the one by Vicky Park and has no real similarity to the initial Facebook entry copied and posted by Admin other than the stuff that Vicky wants in her listing is similar but could be construed as coming directly from the WBC leaflet which is available for anyone to view on the WBC site. You have the links already. It is interesting that the link to the 9 pager appeared so quickly as I have been looking for it and not found it

If you haven't done so already, join facebook, it's free, and you can still be anonymous if you want and have a look at the two differing views and then make your points.
I suggest that whilst the original had some real topics for us to get hot under the collar about, it won't appear on a public Facebook so we can all sleep comfortably tonight.
This has to be spin from within I suggest but maybe not at an official level. We will never know I suspect unless Brian Newman gives us a bit more. Sort of spy in the cab I guess, trust me, I'm a driving instructor.

Quoted from Greenham Common

This is what it says at the moment, has it been edited since the OP, or is the OP an extended/privilaged/different version?


Privacy type:
    Open: All content is public.

Admins

    * Vicky Park (creator)

So we are looking for someone who has access to WBC buildings, likes going against public opinion and alters their posts!

I wonder who it could be!!!!!!!!

Quoted from Nobby

So we are looking for someone who has access to WBC buildings, likes going against public opinion and alters their posts!

Not necessarirly, it could be two separate and apart from the content, different Facebook messages. One sent privately to his or her own group and NOT visible to a casual member of Facebook. You certainly cannot look at someone elses wall unless you have been accepted as a friend. The other is there to start a public debate and the wall, because it has been made public, can therefore be viewed by any Facebook member.

Quoted from brian

Not necessarirly, it could be two separate and apart from the content, different Facebook messages. One sent privately to his or her own group and NOT visible to a casual member of Facebook. You certainly cannot look at someone elses wall unless you have been accepted as a friend. The other is there to start a public debate and the wall, because it has been made public, can therefore be viewed by any Facebook member.

Brian Newman has already posted details of who it is and though obviously he should not reveal their name it's fairly apparent it would have been someone at Newbury College or a local 6th Form if they're on work experience and taking driving lessons. We should be applauding someone of that age for getting involved in local issues and I hope they continue, not saying they should be prosecuted and that the council should be monitoring their communications with their friends. What sort of a Police state do some seem to want to live in?

Well done on your comments on Facebook too, no trumpet blowing for the group you set up, just a call to go there read the opinions and make your own mind up.

Quoted from user23.3

Brian Newman has already posted details of who it is and though obviously he should not reveal their name it's fairly apparent it would have been someone at Newbury College or a local 6th Form if they're on work experience and taking driving lessons. We should be applauding someone of that age for getting involved in local issues and I hope they continue, not saying they should be prosecuted and that the council should be monitoring their communications with their friends. What sort of a Police state do some seem to want to live in?

Well done on your comments on Facebook too, no trumpet blowing for the group you set up, just a call to go there read the opinions and make your own mind up.

You really do try and misinterpret postings. There has been no indication in any post I can see that says that anyone would be monitoring communications with friends. What was said is that the council is at fault for not making clear to anyone with access to confidential information that they should keep it that way and certainly not use it for personal reasons.

Quoted from brian

Not necessarirly, it could be two separate and apart from the content, different Facebook messages. One sent privately to his or her own group and NOT visible to a casual member of Facebook. You certainly cannot look at someone elses wall unless you have been accepted as a friend. The other is there to start a public debate and the wall, because it has been made public, can therefore be viewed by any Facebook member.

You are correct, there are 2 seperate messages, the one posted by admin is the one privately sent by the "male" person to his group.
The post by this male has not once mentioned the name or indeed used the name "Vicki Park".
I am assuming that the second post on Facebook is one that is open to the public, and was probably set up by someone from the "friends of Victoria Park"

Quoted from brian newman

You are correct, there are 2 seperate messages, the one posted by admin is the one privately sent by the "male" person to his group.
The post by this male has not once mentioned the name or indeed used the name "Vicki Park".
I am assuming that the second post on Facebook is one that is open to the public, and was probably set up by someone from the "friends of Victoria Park"

Are the Friends of Victoria Park group in favour of the pavilion?  Anyone go to their meeting last weekend?

Quoted from Bartholomew

You really do try and misinterpret postings. There has been no indication in any post I can see that says that anyone would be monitoring communications with friends. What was said is that the council is at fault for not making clear to anyone with access to confidential information that they should keep it that way and certainly not use it for personal reasons.

How else would they know that supposedly "privileged information" was being communicated between friends on Facebook (as it has in this case) or via email if they didn't monitor the accounts?

Quoted from user23.3

How else would they know that supposedly "privileged information" was being communicated between friends on Facebook (as it has in this case) or via email if they didn't monitor the accounts?

Because it gets openly published by one of the friends who passes it to other people. Can you see the parallels with whats happened here?

It is not "supposedly privileged information". It is confidential information that has been inappropriately used.

Quoted from Bartholomew

Because it gets openly published by one of the friends who passes it to other people. Can you see the parallels with whats happened here?

It is not "supposedly privileged information". It is confidential information that has been inappropriately used.

So it's OK to share it as long as it's not made public?

The only person who's openly published it is BrianB.

For me it doesn't matter how this got out.  The only thing that matters is that people who reply to the request for support are genuine.  Why should boring stuck in the mud old farts have it all their own way, if the Youth are enthusiastic about this project, then they should be heard.

Having said all that, I think it is the wrong place for this thing and I think it is ugly.  I also think it is grandiose and I have no confidence in its sustainability.

The thing I don't like the look of out of all this, is it looks as if the council and the steering group are going to attempt to spin themselves out of a hole they appear to have dug.

Quoted from Greenham Common

For me it doesn't matter how this got out.  The only thing that matters is that people who reply to the request for support are genuine.  Why should boring stuck in the mud old farts have it all their own way, if the Youth are enthusiastic about this project, then they should be heard.

Having said all that, I think it the wrong place for this thing and I think it is ugly.


The thing I don't like the look of out of all this, is it looks as if the Council are going to attempt to spin themselves out of a hole.

I agree that those that are genuine should be heard. I am fully in favour of real views being properly debated. What worries me about the whole saga of Newbury redevelopment is that the decisions are not being based on open and genuine views. From what has come out of this, I also now have concerns that council employees are not as neutral as they should be.
I accept your views that this is now the wrong place for this. I have made my point and will be taking this up with the council and won't continue on this forum.

Quoted from user23.3

So it's OK to share it as long as it's not made public?

The only person who's openly published it is BrianB.

I see no point in attempting any further conversation with you since you insist on deliberatley misinterpreting everything that is said

Quoted from Bartholomew

I see no point in attempting any further conversation with you since you insist on deliberatley misinterpreting everything that is said

I'm not misinterpreting anything, you've just come to the end of trying to justify your flimsy argument having exhausted all possible points to support it and are using this as an exit.

You clearly said that it's the making it public that's the problem but only because you couldn't justify people's personal accounts being monitored for the use of "privileged information".

The problem for you is there's only one person who's made it public and he started this thread so the more you argue your point the more you argue against what BrianB has done, which I believe to be perfectly legitimate.

Quoted from user23.3

I'm not misinterpreting anything,

Oh yes you have. The issue is the release of confidential information on the percentage of votes against (it could equally been the other way around) outside the offices of WBC in order to influence the outcome of the consultation.


Had this youth (as it appears the person must be) made his comments at the beginning of the consultation with no reference to the privileged information that they hold their actions could be applauded - to try and change the outcome mid-stream even if it is just one person contacted is wrong.

Re. spin, a good way to undermine WBC would be to publish something on Facebook which looked like the leaked post.   If the results of the consultation were in favour of the pavilion objectors could then say 'that's only because hundreds of people were asked to etc. etc.'.

Just thought I'd mention it.  For the record, I'm not in favour of the proposed pavilion.   We need a dedicated facility for young people with safe and easy access from Northbrook St. which includes Adventure Dolphin, not the occasional use of a few rooms and a 'cybercafe' in an ugly looking building which ruins one of  the best views in Newbury with Adventure Dolphin located separately.  If a new dedicated facility isn't affordable, the Waterside should be retained.  

Incidentally, as of now the Save Victoria Park FB group has 22 members and We Want a Pavilion in Newbury group has 6.  My guess is that the vast majority of residents don't have strong feelings about this either way.  

Quoted from noobree

Incidentally, as of now the Save Victoria Park FB group has 22 members and We Want a Pavilion in Newbury group has 6.  My guess is that the vast majority of residents don't have strong feelings about this either way.  

Someone wanted a facebook site set up, so that is what I did to give people who dont write on any of the three local boards an opportunity to make their own observations. It is open to anybody with a facebook account but as most of the dialogue seems to be on Newbury.net and Newbury today, I suspect potential facebookers (is that a correct description) have taken the view that it has all been said already. That is one of the reasons that new members on here sometimes don't have anything to say because the regular posters have said it for them. However, as far as I am concerned, it will host opinions only and not he said/you said/they said bickering.
Because we now have an alternative facebook and I am one of their six members but I will only reply to anybody else if I believe they have made an incorrect assumption or statement and I would expect the same on the 'Save the park' wall

Quoted from noobree

...  We need a dedicated facility for young people with safe and easy access from Northbrook St. which includes Adventure Dolphin, not the occasional use of a few rooms and a 'cybercafe' in an ugly looking building which ruins one of  the best views in Newbury with Adventure Dolphin located separately.  If a new dedicated facility isn't affordable, the Waterside should be retained.  

Well said - the sacrifice of the Waterside to fund a big watery hole in the Wharf is not worth it.  The young need their own place, not one shared with the 'golden oldies' and arty set.

Also, I have no confidence that the pavilion wouldn't just end up neglected either.

Quoted from noobree

Re. spin, a good way to undermine WBC would be to publish something on Facebook which looked like the leaked post.   If the results of the consultation were in favour of the pavilion objectors could then say 'that's only because hundreds of people were asked to etc. etc.'.

Just thought I'd mention it.  For the record, I'm not in favour of the proposed pavilion.   We need a dedicated facility for young people with safe and easy access from Northbrook St. which includes Adventure Dolphin, not the occasional use of a few rooms and a 'cybercafe' in an ugly looking building which ruins one of  the best views in Newbury with Adventure Dolphin located separately.  If a new dedicated facility isn't affordable, the Waterside should be retained.  

Incidentally, as of now the Save Victoria Park FB group has 22 members and We Want a Pavilion in Newbury group has 6.  My guess is that the vast majority of residents don't have strong feelings about this either way.  

Good point. There's nothing to verify the authenticity of this. It could just be anti-development spin. Perhaps Factfile was trying to tell us all something?

Quoted from 133

Has anyone checked this story out with the town council? Things are rarely what they seem are they?

Quoted from Nobby

Oh yes you have. The issue is the release of confidential information on the percentage of votes against (it could equally been the other way around) outside the offices of WBC in order to influence the outcome of the consultation.


Had this youth (as it appears the person must be) made his comments at the beginning of the consultation with no reference to the privileged information that they hold their actions could be applauded - to try and change the outcome mid-stream even if it is just one person contacted is wrong.

I find it interesting that User23 has assumed that any reference to this leak is a negative response to the pavilion proposal. The point here as you have said is the action of the council allowing the release of confidential information.

I asked Mr D Appleton for clarification of answers to two of the questions in the WBC recently released 9 page document
Q. Won't building the pavilion encourage future development in the park.
A. No. Planning law protects public green space.
Reply from D.A.
Planning law does protect public open space. However, there are a number of circumstances under which some development can be allowed. In this case it is proposed that the loss of 22,000 square feet of public open space for the bullding footprint will be compensated for by the provision of at least 22,000 square feet of new public open space immediately to the east of the A339. At the moment this land forms part of the football club and is not currently available for unrestricted public access. The football club will move to a new site elsewhere in the town as part of the redevelopment of the London Road industrial estate.

Q. What will be the access to the Pavilion site during construction and maintenance
A. Works access will be via an existing bridge from Faraday Road and not across the park.
Reply from D.A.
The access referred to is the existing path that runs alongside the canal towpath as it passes under the A339. I can assure you that ...I have been under that bridge many times but I am not the designer or engineer of this project. The architects assure me that it will be possible to construct and maintain this building without the need to construct an access road across the park. Although the project is not yet at the point where detailed construction details and method statements are being considered, I am told that a range of solutions, such as crane off loads from the A339 during off peak traffic flows, will be incorporated into the project plan. I also understand that the surface under the arch will be lowered to allow access for vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes when the project is complete.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I find it interesting that User23 has assumed that any reference to this leak is a negative response to the pavilion proposal. The point here as you have said is the action of the council allowing the release of confidential information.

We covered this, I'll ask you again though as you avoided the question as usual; without monitoring citizen's communications 24 hours a day how could they prevent the "release" of this information to friends of whoever sends it. Also should action be taken this forum for making it public?

Unless you want to live in a police state the answer to both should be no.

Be very careful about what you wish for too. Calling for the council to release less information to the public (not that's what they've done here) may have unintended consequences.

Quoted from user23.3

We covered this, I'll ask you again though as you avoided the question as usual; without monitoring citizen's communications 24 hours a day how could they prevent the "release" of this information to friends of whoever sends it. Also should action be taken this forum for making it public?

If this person was 'merely' a data entry clerk, how did that person come by the knowledge about the alleged age and percentage of respondents?  That would be information I wouldn't expect a 'temp' to have exposure to.

It also concerns me that a person with such an opinion, being charged with compiling the information anyway.  It would make the more cynical amongst us wonder how thorough this person was with transferring the information.  I'd say this person is in danger of bringing the process into disrepute, if nothing else.

I think it is immaterial anyway.  This is simply a process towards what is going to happen anyway.  There has been too much investment in this for there to be a significant change in the plan now.

Quoted from user23.3

Brian Newman has already posted details of who it is and though obviously he should not reveal their name it's fairly apparent it would have been someone at Newbury College or a local 6th Form if they're on work experience and taking driving lessons. We should be applauding someone of that age for getting involved in local issues and I hope they continue, not saying they should be prosecuted and that the council should be monitoring their communications with their friends. What sort of a Police state do some seem to want to live in?

Well done on your comments on Facebook too, no trumpet blowing for the group you set up, just a call to go there read the opinions and make your own mind up.

I have never said that the author of the Facebook message is a student or taking driving lessons people other than youngsters take on work experience.

Quoted from user23.3

We covered this, I'll ask you again though as you avoided the question as usual; without monitoring citizen's communications 24 hours a day how could they prevent the "release" of this information to friends of whoever sends it. Also should action be taken this forum for making it public?

Unless you want to live in a police state the answer to both should be no.

Be very careful about what you wish for too. Calling for the council to release less information to the public (not that's what they've done here) may have unintended consequences.

See reply 61 which was "You really do try and misinterpret postings. There has been no indication in any post I can see that says that anyone would be monitoring communications with friends. What was said is that the council is at fault for not making clear to anyone with access to confidential information that they should keep it that way and certainly not use it for personal reasons."

Whatever the rights and wrongs of VickyGate, it looks like the objections will be summarily ignored:

http://www.newburysound.co.uk/uncertainty-over-feedback-i-3769.php

Quoted from Bartholomew

What was said is that the council is at fault for not making clear to anyone with access to confidential information that they should keep it that way and certainly not use it for personal reasons."

How do we know that they didn't make it clear to those with such access, and that the person concerned didn't just choose to ignore what they were told and release the info anyway?

Quoted from 171

Whatever the rights and wrongs of VickyGate, it looks like the objections will be summarily ignored:

http://www.newburysound.co.uk/uncertainty-over-feedback-i-3769.php

That's not how I see it, and I'm as cynical as the next man.

Councillor Jones from WBC says:

"Well the whole idea of a consultation was to see what people thought of the ideas.

"Some people are exceedingly positive towards the proposal, some people very negative and a whole range of different opinions in between.

"I think we have had quite a number of comments which we feel we can accommodate, it's just a case of analysing now and talking to the other bodies involved to see what's going to fit best".

Seems quite reasonable, bearing in mind the support for the plans back in 2007.

Quoted from John Ruskin

That's not how I see it, and I'm as cynical as the next man.

Councillor Jones from WBC says:

"Well the whole idea of a consultation was to see what people thought of the ideas.

"Some people are exceedingly positive towards the proposal, some people very negative and a whole range of different opinions in between.

"I think we have had quite a number of comments which we feel we can accommodate, it's just a case of analysing now and talking to the other bodies involved to see what's going to fit best".

Seems quite reasonable, bearing in mind the support for the plans back in 2007.

I agree with Torchy (Councillor Jones is speaking 'polit-speak', i.e. verbiage).  With comments like "a number of comments which we feel we can accommodate (in the new pavilion we build)", it's a a cert.

Quoted from massifheed

How do we know that they didn't make it clear to those with such access, and that the person concerned didn't just choose to ignore what they were told and release the info anyway?

See Brian Newman (reply 21) "This person was working for WTC on work experience and was just told to input information, and no one explained the "official secrets act" in fact some members of permanent staff were aware and agreed that they could "facebook" the item"

Quoted from Bartholomew

See reply 61 which was "You really do try and misinterpret postings. There has been no indication in any post I can see that says that anyone would be monitoring communications with friends. What was said is that the council is at fault for not making clear to anyone with access to confidential information that they should keep it that way and certainly not use it for personal reasons."

You're dodging the questions again and again. You can't keep playing the "I'm not really wrong you've just misinterpreted what I said" card every time someone shows you up.

Quoted from Greenham Common

If this person was 'merely' a data entry clerk, how did that person come by the knowledge about the alleged age and percentage of respondents?  That would be information I wouldn't expect a 'temp' to have exposure to.

How would anyone know the alleged aged if it wasn't on the comments form?

No percentages were mentioned, however if you're entering all the data it wouldn't take a genius to work out them roughly.

Quoted from user23.3

You're dodging the questions again and again. You can't keep playing the "I'm not really wrong you've just misinterpreted what I said" card every time someone shows you up.How would anyone know the alleged aged if it wasn't on the comments form?

No percentages were mentioned, however if you're entering all the data it wouldn't take a genius to work out them roughly.

The question was perfectly answered and the reasons explained - unless of course you don't have the intelligence to understand English.

Perhaps you feel the official secrets act doesn't apply to you and your colleagues when it suits them. Which of course would be typical of the attitude you so frequently display of "WBC should serve the needs of itself rather than the public!"

Quoted from John Ruskin

Seems quite reasonable, bearing in mind the support for the plans back in 2007.

But the plans were different in 2007, to the extent that there is no valid reason for building this large building in the park. Apart from the cafe, a small store, and the big TV there is nothing in this building that could not be built in a far more convenient spot on one of the car parks behind the library or museum.

In 2007 they told us the pavilion would be it - no more buildings on the park. Now they are saying that they will be adding another building to provide changing facilities (which were part of the original proposal). A changing facility will need toilets - so why not add a cafe and build a far smaller structure in a central (more convenient) location?

The only reasons this building in being put in the park are 1) financial - the land is cheap (free) and 2) vanity - they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.

Quoted from blackdog

But the plans were different in 2007, to the extent that there is no valid reason for building this large building in the park. Apart from the cafe, a small store, and the big TV there is nothing in this building that could not be built in a far more convenient spot on one of the car parks behind the library or museum.

In 2007 they told us the pavilion would be it - no more buildings on the park. Now they are saying that they will be adding another building to provide changing facilities (which were part of the original proposal). A changing facility will need toilets - so why not add a cafe and build a far smaller structure in a central (more convenient) location?

The only reasons this building in being put in the park are 1) financial - the land is cheap (free) and 2) vanity - they are simply incapable of admitting they are wrong.

I haven't seen one suggestion for where it should go if not in the park. Any ideas?

It needs to be in the centre of town by the canal.

Quoted from user23.3

I haven't seen one suggestion for where it should go if not in the park. Any ideas?

It needs to be in the centre of town by the canal.

Why does it need to be by the canal? Nothing going on inside it has anything to do with the canal.

If it were my decision to make I would put it behind the museum and incorporate the extension/storage space the museum needs.  An arts centre and museum would fit well together.

Quoted from blackdog

Why does it need to be by the canal? Nothing going on inside it has anything to do with the canal.

If it were my decision to make I would put it behind the museum and incorporate the extension/storage space the museum needs.  An arts centre and museum would fit well together.

For water based activities like canoeing, run from the centre.

Quoted from user23.3

For water based activities like canoeing, run from the centre.

The canoeing etc is being moved to Northcroft - there are no watersports facilities in the pavilion plans.

Yes from the time of the sketchy plans, to now, the project has been hijacked.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Yes from the time of the sketchy plans, to now, the project has been hijacked.

No it hasn't - the same people are pulling the strings. The difference is that the 2007 consultation didn't need to worry about the cost so much.  Inevitably the proposals were a) too expensive and b) generated concern at such a large structure in the park.  

So they water it down, shrink it 30% (moving some of the functionality to a second building - remember the pavilion was to be the only building on the park, no more would be needed). Then they leave out the popular feature that would have allowed live outdoor events to be staged there.  

Of course they leave in the OTT costs of an architecturally unusual building - but, what the heck, it will be a nice addition to Sutton Griffin's portfolio.

The reason I say hijacked, is that New Greenham Park seem to have 'moved in'.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The reason I say hijacked, is that New Greenham Park seem to have 'moved in'.

Is there something wrong with people from Greenham wanting to have a say in how things in Newbury are run?

Quoted from user23.3

Is there something wrong with people from Greenham wanting to have a say in how things in Newbury are run?

No, what do you think?

Quoted from user23.3

I haven't seen one suggestion for where it should go if not in the park. Any ideas?

It needs to be in the centre of town by the canal.

Let me see, where is there a building which would be ideally suited for most of the activities planned for the Pavilion, Oh and is close to the canal.

EUREKA!!!!  It's the Waterside.

Quoted from user23.3

Is there something wrong with people from Greenham wanting to have a say in how things in Newbury are run?

It wouldn't be if their motives were not so commercial, getting rid of the arts from their portfolio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-92nzxaIJIs


Threep.


newbury.net is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Quoted from Threepwood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-92nzxaIJIs


Threep.

Oh no, yet another downfall video

http://vodpod.com/watch/2158209-hitler-finds-out-about-another-downfall-parody-from-dawsonbros-video

Der Untergang spoofs are all over 'net like a rash........but only this one is relevant to WBC and Co. though



Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-92nzxaIJIs

Threep.

That is excellent...very funny (expecting a reciprocal clip any time soon)!  

Quoted from blackdog

The canoeing etc is being moved to Northcroft - there are no watersports facilities in the pavilion plans.

Quite, and this is one of the worst aspects of the plan as I mentioned in my earlier post.  For anyone who is familiar with the Waterside and how it works, the idea of separating Adventure Dolphin from the other facilities is very much a backwards step.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The reason I say hijacked, is that New Greenham Park seem to have 'moved in'.

WBC always had to find a 'partner' for the arts centre - NGP were the inevitable choice. Not only do they have an arts centre in an out of the way location that would love to move into town, but they also have shedloads of dosh to  provide the seed funding needed for most grant applications.

Quoted from user23.3

Is there something wrong with people from Greenham wanting to have a say in how things in Newbury are run?

New Greenham Park is not representative of the people of Greenham, indeed, most of them are not from Greenham (where does Sir Peter live?). They are another of those self appointed bodies - originally set up by WBC (or NRDC) but now autonomous albeit with seats on the Board reserved for WBC councillors etc. In some ways they are like the TCP with money.  

Haven't checked in for a while - the original post mentioned that the over 60s were the main objectors - the questionaire I completed did not ask for my age - so where is this mis-information coming from?
I agree with Blackdog move it to run parallel with the museum - makes a lot of sense and its not a million miles to carry a canoe to the canal - especially if the wharf bit is built (which I doubt will happen).

Frankly, I'm surprised the New Greenham Trust are daft enough to countenance the building of this new facility in the park, rather than south of the river. I worked for Sir Peter many years ago, and I always thought he was a smart cookie. I'm beginning to wonder if there is an element of "Vanity Project" in this for the NGT as well...

Quoted from Saveourpark

Haven't checked in for a while - the original post mentioned that the over 60s were the main objectors - the questionaire I completed did not ask for my age - so where is this mis-information coming from?
I agree with Blackdog move it to run parallel with the museum - makes a lot of sense and its not a million miles to carry a canoe to the canal - especially if the wharf bit is built (which I doubt will happen).

You're not totally in agreement with me - I'd leave the youth facilities in the Waterside, I can't think of a better location for them.  Kids need a space where they can feel ownership, not somewhare they have to share (and no doubt conflict from time to time) with other interest groups.

Keeping The Waterside means no Basin, nor the rest of the development.  It would also mean New Greenham Trust would possibly 'loose interest' in sponsoring something they couldn't mutually benefit from (no arts centre).

Quoted from Greenham Common

Keeping The Waterside means no Basin, nor the rest of the development.  

If that is the case then I suspect it is worth it. However, I question that the Waterside site is the only asset that WBC can get rid off to fund the wharf basin (part of the funding is already coming from building a pub and a restaurant on the wharf).

The current scheme envisages relocating the football club and some of the land to create green space to replace that lost in the park.  Why not keep the green space in the park and use some of the football ground to raise the funds for the wharf basin?  What about all the S106 dosh sloshing around in WBC's coffers - why not spend some of that on the basin?

Quoted from Greenham Common

It would also mean New Greenham Trust would possibly 'loose interest' in sponsoring something they couldn't mutually benefit from (no arts centre).

What?  The arts centre is the bit I see attached to the museum.  The arts centre and the youth centre are separate things - keeping them apart seems a great idea. Okay some kids will get involved in the arts centre and some oldies might want to use the music recording, band practice, etc facilities in the Waterside - I have no problem with that.

The current plan for the museum is to demolish the bit between the Granary and the Cloth Hall to provide a nice entrance, shop, lifts and toilets. They will not change the footprint of the Museum - apparently because development on the car park is not in the Vision (lets face it there is nothing in the Vision beyond 2010 apart from all the bits they have failed to get done to plan before 2010).

Why not use the opportunity to make a nice entrance to a museum / arts centre?  Build behind the museum to provide the arts centre and a museum store - with sharing of facilites for performance/lectures - they could even share some of the new exhibition space. Arts exhibitions interchanging with temporary exhibitions from the museum.

Of course they could also build the arts centre as part of an extension to the library - which would also be far better than the current plan!

Quoted from Threepwood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-92nzxaIJIs

Threep.

What a surprise, the West Berkshire Council sycophants have removed this link that was posted on the Newbury Weekly News's, NewburyToday forum.

Awesome link to an hilariously subtitled extract.......well done well done.......haven't laughed so much in a long while.

Quoted Text

What about all the S106 dosh sloshing around in WBC's coffers - why not spend some of that on the basin?

No they can't. That money was extorted to mitigate specific environmental impact of development (unless you're a cheap German supermarket, when Cllr Vickers will help you bend the rules). It's not 'sloshing around', in any case, WBC is creaming off the interest to support other pet projects.  

Quoted Text

Of course they could also build the arts centre as part of an extension to the library - which would also be far better than the current plan!

[/quote]

Nice thought, but you should know by now that your ideas don't count.  

Quoted from blackdog

Of course they could also build the arts centre as part of an extension to the library - which would also be far better than the current plan!

That is a most excellent suggestion. The library has almost turned itself into a cyber cafe already, but without the coffee, so extending it as an arts centre, internet cafe and the like would fit very well with a 21st century library. Perhaps Costa's from up the top of the hill would support the franchise, the tourists who pile into Newbury by the coachload and who never leave the wharf would have a nice modern cafe to use. The arts are vaguely related to the library function so I suspect the two would blend together nicely.
Worth further thought perhaps.

I agree, this seems like an good idea.

Far too sensible, so it won't happen.

Quoted from 171

Whatever the rights and wrongs of VickyGate, it looks like the objections will be summarily ignored:

http://www.newburysound.co.uk/uncertainty-over-feedback-i-3769.php

According to that article the results of the consultation will be made available before Christmas. Anyone seen them yet?

Or are they still figuring out how apply a spin that will convince us that they still have a public mandate to build this monstrosity?

Quoted from blackdog

According to that article the results of the consultation will be made available before Christmas. Anyone seen them yet?

Or are they still figuring out how apply a spin that will convince us that they still have a public mandate to build this monstrosity?

Like User, I am aware that only 40% of comments are supportive so far.

I understand there's going to be another survey in the new year.

Quoted from Meddler

Like User, I am aware that only 40% of comments are supportive so far.

Doesn't sound like User.

Quoted from Meddler

I understand there's going to be another survey in the new year.

Haven't heard that - just that the result was 'inconclusive' and a headache to the WBC committee that is running the show. It was going to be submitted to planning in January, I guess that may be delayed.

I would imagine that the jist of any other survey will be along the lines of have it (in the park), or lump it (have it nowhere).

Quoted from Greenham Common

I would imagine that the jist of any other survey will be along the lines of have it (in the park), or lump it (have it nowhere).

Well, lump it might be a good conclusion and then NTC can perhaps get on with an improved parks grant application without major interference from WBC and we can have a restored park which we can all enjoy now and into the future as a green space.

That leaves Greenham Arts in a bit of a quandry as they want it out of Greenham Park. OK then rebuild the Waterside and stick all the spurious stuff in it. I'm sure the architects can rise to the occaison.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I would imagine that the jist of any other survey will be along the lines of have it (in the park), or lump it (have it nowhere).

You may be right - but I hope not.  If it goes against them it would be a great shame that we couldn't get an arts centre in town somewhere.

Quoted from blackdog

You may be right - but I hope not.  If it goes against them it would be a great shame that we couldn't get an arts centre in town somewhere.

If the pavilion scheme falls through, rest assured that Greenham will come up with, in conjunction with WBC and of course the favoured architect, a new plan. They want the arts stuff out of the way.
Anyway, WBC should be a bit more forthright with NGT as the trust is not actually doing us a favour. Despite all their 'good guys' posturing, Greenham belongs to us and we have a right to the surplus income.