Girders for Potters Fields Park

Rust in peace.

absolute disgrace and nimbyism at its worst - this should be in potters field!

It's funny how people are always accused of nimbyism if they object to something. It's an easy insult but doesn't make much sense in the context. I don't live in Potters Field and I don't think it belonged there. I do think it belongs in the Olympic Park or Mary Harmsworth.

It's disgraceful though that Boris has allowed it to sit rusting on a farm, I am genuinely shocked by that, he is making Britain look bad.

It never made any sense being at Tower Bridge, the Olympic Park is a better fit given it has other public sculpture on display.

It shouldn't be anywhere. It's just horrible.

kellandj wrote:

absolute disgrace and nimbyism at its worst - this should be in potters field!

It should be in pieces, ready to be scrapped and turned into something useful.

The only thing that's good about putting it in the Olympic park is that no one's going to go there and be bothered by it, but it's still a waste of raw materials.

Ivanhoe wrote:

kellandj wrote:

absolute disgrace and nimbyism at its worst - this should be in potters field!

It should be in pieces, ready to be scrapped and turned into something useful.

The only thing that's good about putting it in the Olympic park is that no one's going to go there and be bothered by it, but it's still a waste of raw materials.

What is your objection to it Ivanhoe?

IIRC, I made my objections (hopefully) clear pages ago when this was first mooted.

There are needless, violent, deaths every day. Some caused by the Wonderful Western powers, some by "terrorists". I struggle to see that only some of those deaths are worthy of memorials, and I'm truly puzzled that an awful event in the US should be commemorated in central London. Where would we stop? Would there be any space left once we'd commemorated every needless death?

I suspect that the response to the Twin Towers has resulted in several times more deaths than the original event, on both sides, and that this will continue for years to come. I'd rather see a memorial to remind people of how stupid, short-sighted, and downright dangerous human beings of all sympathies can be when they get carried away by fanaticism, whether they be "terrorists" or heads of state.

still an absolute disgrace and nimbyism at its worst - this should be in potters field! ... and it would have been if ALL residents had had their say and not just the rich riverside incommers with far too much influence on potters field leaseholder unrepresentative body.

Kellandj. Potters Fields is a small family park and, in the opinion of many (I would suggest the vast majority), TOTALLY unsuited as a memorial site. It IS a memorial, despite claims at the time of it being a "work of public art". All residents had an opportunity to express views. I consulted the 100+ flat owners here and the view was very much against Potters Fields as a site -- it would change the whole feeling of the place. Other resident associations said the same. A more suitable site locally would have been by the Imperial War Museum. I visited the memorial when it was in Battersea Park for a short time -- it made me feel very sombre and sad, particularly in view of the little candles and flowers (long dead) that people had placed there. I am sure most local residents will be very pleased the original proposal to use Potters Fields was successfully defeated. I have no involvement with the management of Potters Fields.