Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle
I am at a loss of how to answer you. I'm sure your idea would be a wonderful one, if you're so interested in community relations why don't you try it?
Once again, though, I will return to the point that you seem to struggle to be answering. If you are so sure that you don't need the money to work on community cohesion and yet you seem to believe that a lot of money has been given to the wrong projects and community centres, could you please identify which groups - in your mind - have been wrongly gaining funding?
|
I’m glad you think my idea a ‘wonderful one’. Hence I am sure you will earmark some funding for myself and those that shall benefit from such an exercise to ‘celebrate’ such a wonderful idea.
In relation to your other question, it is becoming akin to an echo. I have answered it several times yet you insist on asking the same but with a different tilt. However, being such a magnanimous fellow, I shall answer it yet again. My view is that integration or community cohesion or whatever phrase you wish to apply to such a concept, requires little in terms of funding but a lot in terms of desire. All the funds in the world without the necessary desire to support them will not yield an integrated society. On the other hand, thinly spread funds coupled with a strong commitment to make a good society into a better one would, in my considered view, generate tremendous impact in terms of a more integrated, harmonious society . The net import of this is that there is not a great need for funds to assist community cohesion. There is a far greater need for a change of mindset. On this basis, therefore, it is my view that a lot of money has been inappropriately directed to futile projects and irrelevant centres.
This is not specific to Hyndburn but part of a more significant trend. Hyndburn is, broadly speaking, a microcosm of a macrocosm. In fact most of the ideas thought up by ‘community leaders’ in Hyndburn in terms of types of projects, initiatives, community centres etc have at one stage been tried elsewhere, in places like Oldham and Bradford. Thus the anticipated outcomes hoped for from such initiatives are not even localised, and thus their chance of yielding dividends for the community in it’s broadest sense are limited. Hence I think these types of projects and initiatives ought to become increasingly moribund, whilst projects like the Olympics, or the other alternatives I proposed on here earlier ought to be the desired destination for such funds.
By way of example, I submit an actual example of where funds are going at the moment and there are an untold number of such outfits in Hyndburn (and most other places up and down the country too, the cumulative cost for which must be colossal and far outstrips the 10 million sterling in the article I pasted earlier about tackling the pandemics):
‘’The project aims to improve volunteering opportunities for women of Asian heritage
The volunteers will also be assisted in CV preparation, job searching and investing in their personal development’’.
This is just from one community centre in Hyndburn, assisted by the Lancashire County Council Grants for Growth. I reiterate there are numerous such outfits, doing exactly the same and all funded by the LCC. My question is this. Why is the Job centre not sufficient for such a purpose? Is it the case then that those of Non Asian Heritage also ought not to refer to the Job Centre and instead set up numerous centres sourcing funding from the LCC top enable CV preparation and job searching.
I would far rather see the money go to the Olympics or tackling pandemics than such a cause. Others may see it differently, hence why it takes two to make a market.
Over to you.