London SE1 community website

Archbishop's Park

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 2 of 5
Friday 24 November 2006 9.15am
When I started this thread I noted that 'serial complainers need not respond'.

It is unfortunate that "Sarah 2" did not take note of either that request or the thread that James Hatts started on Tuesday on 'Maintaining the friendliness of the forum':
www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/3/61507

Fred the thread
Jac
Friday 24 November 2006 9.23am
Fred wrote:
When I started this thread I noted that 'serial complainers need not respond'.

With all due respect Fred I don't think it is you who should say who can post on this forum. I think it is very healthy to see the archbishop park thread at last being discussed by more than one side.
Friday 24 November 2006 10.10am
sarah2
Wouldn't more succinct points be better for forum users? I have to take you to task about the 'gravel pit', its a huge improvement for that site and will only continue to get more interesting, I've taken people to the park at lunch time (now that I'm writing on this forum) and so far everyone agrees with me. Don't trash something sarah because it doesn't fit in with your aesthetics, its an improvement people have spent a lot of time and effort on it and it should be applauded. The further plans (and action already taken) seem to want to make the park a safer and more intersting place to be in.
I also note that you didn't reply to my points about proxy voting.
I'm looking forward to meeting you all next week.
Friday 24 November 2006 10.38am
Jac wrote:
With all due respect Fred I don't think it is you who should say who can post on this forum.

The purpose of starting this thread was to stimulate a debate on the discussion forum that had hitherto been dominated by serial complaints about the Friends of Archbishop's Park (FoAP).

I am pleased to see the mostly constructive debate that has followed. I say ‘mostly' because nobody except Sarah2 has descended to personal abuse:

“consultation with local residents is limited to Helen Lees”

“I have asked a number of people and have yet to understand why Helen Lees seems to dislike the members of the original committee on such a personal level.”

It was the membership of FoAP that decided that Helen Lees should be chair of FoAP in June 2005, and on reading Helen Lees' two messages on this thread it seems apparent that she and her committee have done many positive things for the Park (and membership of FoAP has more than quadrupled since she became chair).

Until I started this thread there had not been a debate about the Park. Sarah2 recognised this with her comment “I'm pleased to see there is a debate at last”. But Sarah2 should ask herself why there had hitherto been no debate. Nearly all the posts about the Park are from Sarah2: they are numerous, lengthy and highly critical of nearly everything that FoAP has done since June 2005 (even the planting of four more trees with 1k raised by FoAP is criticised by Sarah 2). It is contributions like this that shut off debate which is why Sarah2 observes on two of her own threads:

“this is becoming a bit of a one person post” (Sarah2, 14/11/06, FoAP AGM)

“This is a bit of a Sarah only post” (Sarah2, 13/6/06, FoAP AGM)

People can say what they like on this forum but some contributions will shut down debate and others will open it up.
Jac
Friday 24 November 2006 11.04am
Fred this thread is more interesting because a debate is going on. The other threads I have tended not to read or just glossed over because they are one sided but it is not Sarah fault that no one has replied and she has as you say acknowledged that. I do not know the park well enough to comment on it since it is at the opossite end of SE1 to where I live. However Sarah should not be excluded from debates on a park she obviously feels passionate about jsut because she didn't start them. I can not say that I have noticed anything inparticularly nasty about sarah posts ( I do not look for hidden meanings in others posts)although I gather from hear say (not on this forum)that things to do with Archbishops park have got nasty in the past. I have many friends who do live near the park and I know not all of them have agreed with sarah. However Lets keep this thread friendly and open to all in which case I shall keep reading it with interest.
Friday 24 November 2006 11.12am
I'm also one who is pleased to see a wider group of people taking part in the discussions about Archbishops Park.

I don't know enough about the issues to comment on what has been said recently. However, I do recall that four or five years ago, Sarah2 was (at least it seemed to me) the sole, lone, driving voice in raising people's awareness of the park and its facilities.

I also know she raised a huge amount of money to support better facilities (by continually digging at people like me to get involved), as well as gave up lots of her time to get people like Lambeth engaged in the future of the park.

That is not to suggest she's the only person that should have a voice in the future of the park. But I think it does give her the right to express her views (along with everyone else) and be taken seriously. A lot of the current possibilities for the park are only there to be discussed because of her and people like her.

Her commitment, drive and passion for the park aren't in doubt and I do wonder if all that energy wouldn't be a really valuable asset, if everyone could just find a way to work together.
Friday 24 November 2006 11.37am
Jac wrote:
Sarah should not be excluded from debates on a park she obviously feels passionate about jsut because she didn't start them.

My comment was expressly aimed at contributions not contributors.

Far too many contributions on the FoAP issue have already been dominated with an obsession with ego rather than issues.
Friday 24 November 2006 11.39am
I just hope that we can have a civilised AGM on Monday, and that the democratically elected committee - whoever it may be - will then be free to decide, in consultation with park users, how to approach the many issues involved.

The meeting is being chaired by Peter Truesdale (former LibDem leader of Lambeth Council) who I know is a very fair and hardworking man. If everyone follows his guidance, we may at least reach the point of being able to move forward, rather than going round in circles.

Regards,

Loafer
Friday 24 November 2006 12.20pm
In reading past msgs, it would appear that it depends on whether those that stopped the meeting last time (because of the voting issues) carry on doing the same.
Jim
Friday 24 November 2006 12.47pm
Fred wrote:
My comment was expressly aimed at contributions not contributors.
Far too many contributions on the FoAP issue have already been dominated with an obsession with ego rather than issues.
If that is how you feel, why then have several of your posts focussed on criticising a particular contributor rather than giving your views on the specific questions that have been asked?

(BTW welcome to the forum; it's good to hear new voices)
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 2 of 5

This thread has been closed
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions