[Gayle]

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

I thought you said you wouldn't need funding.

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

Yes it is getting a bit repetitive but I think you might be getting close to actually answering my question.

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

Fair enough, that's a repeat of what you said before but I'm not disputing that bit.

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. However, I don't think money should be thrown at it needlessly, so may be there is some middle line where we would agree.

Originally Posted by gondola

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 getting to it.

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

As you keep pointing out your response is not directed at any particular group in Hyndburn, yet you seem to have an issue with 'community leaders' in Hyndburn. Why do you believe that the chance of yielding dividents is limited? Surely if they have been tried and tested in larger urban centres there should be more chance of success in smaller towns. Also, whilst you are trying to talk 'generally' you do keep refering to Hyndburn, and this is where I keep repeating myself, what evidence do you have that any groups in Hyndburn are obtaining funding and not using it correctly?

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

Without knowing much about that project I can not say but I am quite sure that it will have conformed to the standard requirements regarding a project and that fitted the remit of the project fund or it wouldn't have got funding. As for whether it has been spent appropriately or not, I don't know but every project is assessed and evaluated after the event. If you have doubts about any project then I'm sure you can ask Lancashire County Council for the relevant documentation under the Freedom of Information act.

Originally Posted by gondola

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.

I am extremely frustrated by the fact that London and the south of the country will benefit from the Olympics. They are taking £112m out of the Arts this year and £77m out of the lottery in general. This is not acceptable that one part of the country will get rich at the expense of other areas.