Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Right, I'm exhausted. I am leaving for this evening but I will return to pick up any loose questions that you feel I may not have answered.

I don't know how to post a poll or I would do. Perhaps someone could advise me.

Thank you all for your time, Goodnight.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

I'm Sorry Gayle, this is not a personal dig even though it might read that way. But nothing you have said this evening convinces me that this is good idea or that anyone involved has the least idea of what they are doing. Accrington will end up with another white elephant, all concerned will pat themselves and each other on the back and then walk away. While the rest of us will just have to be damned grateful because at least we got some "art" out of it.

Thanks for taking the time to come and answer our questions. It is very much appreciated.

Perhaps you might like to persuade Peter Beard to join in our discussions?

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

l'm sorry A-B I didn't mean to contradict you, [this time,] l didn't know where Moleside starts and Hambledon ends, but from where l said there is a great view of the Coppice.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Thankyou Gayle it has been interesting and given us lot's to think about. I'm sure there will be more questions arise when other members return and read over the posts.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Start a new thread and click on thread tools at the top of the post and select poll

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Many thanks for all your time and answers Gayle. Good night and I hope we see you on again soon.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Well done gail for saying what you know and answering members's questions!

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

I'm sure many of us feel the same way Gayle. Thank you for your time, I'm not convinced but your comments have helped and I'm sure I'll have something to say once I've seen the plans in more detail.....:)

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Again thanks, still don't like the sighting or what's going to be there though.

All art is subjective, what people think of as 'nice' art, [involving craftsmanship,] was also once contemporary, and a lot of it provoked a bigger reaction than this has here.

It's a good job everything isn't open to public debate, Rome wouldn't be much of a place to visit if it was. :)

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

not everone has internet or knowledge of how to approach you

however there are over 500 members here and i think its safe to say most dont want this so i depend how popular it is depends where you look

we have a run down park called milshaw park would that not benifit more from a scheme like this as you mentioned earlier they are using a park in burnley so why not use a park in accrington that desperatly needs some help rather than deface the coppice

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

From Chav1 on a different thread.

i know there are possibly other places but milnshaw park sprung to mind becayse i went there recently and was dismayed at how much in ruin it was compared to 10-15 years ago

edit:

from what i read in gayles thread they are using a park in burnley so why not in accy..?

could it be the desighners ego insisting that it be on the coppice having his creation looking down on all of us or is he open to other locations

i for one would back it if it somthing was done on milnshaw park te only objection i have to the scheme is that they want to use the coppice

Reply from Gayle Knight

Firstly, there are two in parks - one in Corporation Park, Blackburn and the other at Wycoller Country Park in Pendle. These two sites were selected because they afford incredible views of the towns and surrounding countryside. That is the main criteria for a Panopticon site and I'm not sure but I don't think Milnshaw Park fulfills that criteria.

The designer is not insisting on that site at all. He was asked to design something with that site in mind. The site was selected long before Peter Beard was involved.

Finally, could I say, I have pulled this over from another thread - if you have any questions to ask me please keep it to this thread. I will set up a poll myself (it will have to be on yet another thread as technically I didn't start this thread myself).

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Actually, I don't think it's safe to say that as there are only a small number of you who have been anti it all evening. Perhaps the poll will give us a clearer idea.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Acrylic-Bob I have a couple of questions for you as I have answered so many of yours.

Firstly, in one of your later questions you state that the people who attended the meeting is only 0.001% of the population of the town. If that is the case, does that not mean that only 0.00025% of the town are protesting against it? And doesn't it mean that over 99.999% either don't know or don't care enough to make their views known either way?

Secondly, I think it's an old trick to try and discredit someone's entire argument on a minor technicality like the name of the over looking hill. But I have already asked you this question twice and not received an answer, so for the third time - is it true that the Coppice is overlooked by a hill which will give you a view of the Panopticon from a higher point?

I doubt that Peter Beard will join the discussion but I would be interested to see if Peter Britcliffe would be willing to. Or perhaps even the editor of the Accrington Observer who seems to have very strong opinions in opposition to the scheme.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Oh they do, do they. I did a bit of research and came up with an aerial photograph from the 1940's (courtesy Lancs.CC). It shows the area of the coppice and the layout of the trenches. I have imposed a circle of 100metres (approx) on the photograph to give you some idea of the number of trenches that will be obliterated by this project.

This is the second claim that Gayle and midpennine arts, whom she speaks for, have made that is FALSE. How many more of their amazing claims will turn out to be equally false. I am thinking about all the benefits that will come flooding into the borough. I am also thinking about the suggestions of additional funding, none of which is certain.

Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
 

Hi Gayle,

I hadn't noticed that you were online this morning too, addictive isn't it.

To answer your questions: I agree with you that by and large the population of Accrington either do not know anything about the proposal or could not care less what happens to the Coppice. Most have more important things to worry about. It must also be said that the people of Accrington are perhaps not as culturally aware as the majority of the population and do have a reputation for Artistic Philistinism. However you have to deal with people who express an interest or concern. I cannot argue with the fact that from this limited number of people you achieved an approval rating of 75%, but I think that it is highly improper and misleading to suggest that this in any way equates to what the majority of the population actually think. If anything it suggests your polling strategy is aimed to achieve the required result.

I'm sorry that I missed your second question and will answer it now. In your reply to my five questions posted earlier in the thread you said that the design would be visible from Hameldon Hill. This is not the first time you have made this claim. It was only my posting of photographic evidence in refutation of your claim that compelled a hasty rethink. Yes the Coppice can be seen from Moleside Moor, and Moleside is higher than the Coppice, by some 74 metres according to the Ordinance Survey. One would have thought however, that a Press Officer would be aware of the salient features of a proposal he or she was trying to promote or explain to a sceptical audience. But we all make mistakes, I know I make more than my fair share. But you then go on to compound your mistake by stating that the proposal will not damage any of the trenches. My last post in this thread proves otherwise.


It is called research Gayle, and it may, as you say, be an old trick, but it is still remarkably effective.