Accrington Web - View Single Post

gondola · 03-04-2007, 10:23

Gayle wrote: I thought you said you wouldn't need funding.

A little jest for purposes of illustrating a point. The pedant in you took it quite literally. I gave an example of how integration can be achieved without the need for funding. Why is it that none of the so called community do gooders do not undertake such exercises if they are so concerned about integrating different communities?

Gayle wrote: 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 referring 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?

I am questioning the benefits of awarding such funds to projects that I think do not need funding, as I have pointed out above. In my view the needs of these projects, if they are deemed necessary, can be met through current facilities that exist, or by using a fraction of the money that is awarded . I think integration does not necessarily require funds, certainly not in anything like the magnitude currently being directed towards such ventures.

Gayle wrote: 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.

For the last time, questioning the benefit of a project does not infer fraudulent activity. Unless of course you know something and you are wanting to let me know.

Gayle wrote: 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.

I am extremely delighted that such money is being directed to a magnificent landmark for this country. The governments blunder on project planning for the Olympics has meant that lottery money shall be directed to what, in my view, is a far more deserving cause than what it otherwise would have been intended for. The Olympics shall serve to put Britain on a better platform in terms of a commitment to sporting excellence, will regenerate a deprived part of the capital, will create jobs in numerous industries (such as construction and retail), will boost tourism, and will be something to remember for generations to come.
Roll on the Olympics!

03-04-2007, 10:23	#68
gondola I am Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 202 Liked: 0 times Rep Power: 0	Re: Teen clash in race brawl! Gayle wrote: I thought you said you wouldn't need funding. A little jest for purposes of illustrating a point. The pedant in you took it quite literally. I gave an example of how integration can be achieved without the need for funding. Why is it that none of the so called community do gooders do not undertake such exercises if they are so concerned about integrating different communities? Gayle wrote: 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 referring 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? I am questioning the benefits of awarding such funds to projects that I think do not need funding, as I have pointed out above. In my view the needs of these projects, if they are deemed necessary, can be met through current facilities that exist, or by using a fraction of the money that is awarded . I think integration does not necessarily require funds, certainly not in anything like the magnitude currently being directed towards such ventures. Gayle wrote: 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. For the last time, questioning the benefit of a project does not infer fraudulent activity. Unless of course you know something and you are wanting to let me know. Gayle wrote: 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. I am extremely delighted that such money is being directed to a magnificent landmark for this country. The governments blunder on project planning for the Olympics has meant that lottery money shall be directed to what, in my view, is a far more deserving cause than what it otherwise would have been intended for. The Olympics shall serve to put Britain on a better platform in terms of a commitment to sporting excellence, will regenerate a deprived part of the capital, will create jobs in numerous industries (such as construction and retail), will boost tourism, and will be something to remember for generations to come. Roll on the Olympics!