Archbishop's Park

I hope this thread will not lose sight of the real issue which is Archbishop's Park. In order to start a debate in a forum which had hitherto been dominated by criticism (nearly all from the same person) of the Friends of Archbishops Park I wrote:

"As a regular user of Archbishop's Park I am struck by the significant improvements it has undergone over the last 18 months or so. The landscaped area in the south is interesting, the exercise equipment is useful, the new children's play area is great and the planted areas in the north look good."

Here Here Fred - surely the issue isn't who is reponsible for the improvements - the issue is that the park has drastically improved in the past months - I am a regular user of the park with 2 young children and am delighted with the improvements as are my children. So, to anyone who has been involved - well done and keep up the good work.

FWIW, I understand why the Founders Place development is a sensitive issue - but personally I think, if the development is carried out sensitively, it will improve the park and make it feel less cut off and isolated. If you look at the park at the end of Fentiman Road (SW8) there has been development of residential accommodation alongside the park there and it has definitely improved the "feel" of the park and has certainly encouraged me to become a more frequent user as I feel safer being overlooked.

The Lady Miss Jo Jo wrote:

Personally, I'd be interested to see your responses to the "negative messages" you mention.
Most of the critisms posted here have been very specific, so maybe you could respond to them in the specific threads?

I agree with TLMJJ. It is all very well complaining that things have been posted on here that you don't agree with (or deem 'negative' or 'criticism'), but let's hear WHY you don't agree.

Otherwise people will draw their own conclusions - fairly or unfairly - as to why questions remain un-addressed.

LottieNancyB wrote:

FWIW, I understand why the Founders Place development is a sensitive issue - but personally I think, if the development is carried out sensitively, it will improve the park and make it feel less cut off and isolated.

Surely that is the big 'if'. No-one has said that there shouldn't be development, just that it is important to get it right. If it is not got right, and it adversely affects the park and the trees there will be a high price to pay for future generations.

And that's before you consider the question of how the tenants have been treated.

i often take my son to Archbishops park even though I don't live too close to it as it has such nice play equipment and would agree the park is much better than it was. I do not know all the details of the Founders place development and the Friends role but from the past postings on the forum it is clear that Sarah and others have done a sterling job in telling people what is going on and trying to raise awareness and get things done in the park. It may have been just one point of view as up until now no one has been putting a different point of view nor debating the issues raised and as Jim and TLMJJ have pointed out they are still not doing so.

Thanks Jim for the welcome, however to critise me for critising the critisisers seems a bit odd, I've supported the great change, want to see more of the same and for everyone to be positive about what has happened - in the small amount that I've seen of this there is one clear desenting voice! I won't go on but why go on about mending something when it isn't broken!

medic2007 - I think Jim was responding to one of Fred's earlier posts (at least that was the one he quoted), rather than you. Nevertheless, welcome !

thanks siduhe, but was referring to his comment at the bottom of page 2.
anyway its great that the majoity appreciate what has been done, lets talk about the other nice things that can be done for the park.

medic2007 wrote:

... to critise me for critising the critisisers seems a bit odd...

As Siduhe said above, Jim's post (the one at the bottom of page 2 that you reference above)seemed to be directed at Fred, rather than you. Although, of course, it's always possible you and Fred are the same person. (You do seem sure the post was levelled at you, which is the only reason I thought that would be a possibility.)

But, back to the subject of criticisers and critism, to criticise someone purely because they are being critical is odd, IMO. Either the criticisms are valid, or not. If they are not valid, explain why. If they are valid, accept them.

Sarah's criticisms have been very specific, and none of them personal. However, I still haven't seen any response to the points she's raised.

Instead, I am seeing lots of personal remarks that seem to be portraying Sarah as an unreasonable, critical woman, who complains about everything. And that therefore her posts can be ignored because that's just Sarah, she's a complainer, don't pay any attention to her.

Is it a coincidence that this thread has been started just before the AGM? It all seems a bit fishy to me.

You're absolutely right TLMJJ, the timing of this thread and all the rest of it stinks. Seems to me that lots of stuff was done prior to 2005 and the new committee are trying to claim it was them all along
What utter crap

I've read most of Sarah2's posts and think the only thing she can be accused of is being a serial campaigner rather than a serial complainer. Why have people suddenly felt the need to attack her when they couldn't muster any sort of response to previous posts - maybe TLMJJ is right, it is fishy - funny how many newly registered users are suddenly making such one sided contributions.