![]() |
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Never believe anything the papers,they write what they want to write and dont care who they hurt in the process......i know all about that!!
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
According to the Telegraph 28/02/04) £1,000,000 was originally budgeted for the Panopticons Scheme. If all six projects cost £50,000 each, what happens to the remaining £700,000?
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
To those of you who are not aware, all government procurements wth a capital value just above 100,000pds have to be advertised in this weekly journal to allow for competitive tendering thoughout the EU. If this ain't been done, and the Panopticons combined are a single scheme, then to go ahead without abiding by EU rules would make it illegal. Any comments? |
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Even factoring in the designers fee of £10K each only brings the cost up to £360K. That still leaves an awful lot unaccounted for.
And you can hardly say that MPA have been lavish with the publicity material. |
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
On the subject of Access for the Disabled.........would you enlist the opinions and advice from people who understand the needs of the disabled ?..........especially wheelchair users.
My mum is a wheel chair user and I have been to some places that have advertised ease of access for wheelchairs and it has been a joke.........I need muscles in my spit to get the chair into some places that show the wheelchair icon |
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
I will reiterate that the budget for each one is £50,000 - that includes artists fees. The Telegraph keep printing that £1m figure - I can only assume that they are factoring estimates from what other funding will bring in. As it's already brought in extra £300k in Rossendale, I suppose £1m is a reasonable estimate for the entire project. |
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Thanks for all the time you have put in answering all the questions Gayle.Before I started reading this thread I was very anti-panopticon, but having read the views and questions in some of the posts I have changed my point of view. This, may I say, has nothing to do with any answers that you have given. It is down to some of the bigoted comments contained in the thread. Its almost enough to make one vote Conservative in the next election.
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
On the question of drainage, how much will this cost and is it coming out of the £50000. The Quote about 3 to 4 inches of standing water is quite alarming. Children have been drowned in ponds of that depth and kids love to explore away from their parents........
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
I’m sorry to be the one to p*** people off, but in regard to the safety aspects of between 4 and 6 ins of standing water. Are there not two bloody great big reservoirs over other side of the hill? My other thoughts are that young children who are of an age to be at risk shouldn’t be up there unsupervised, further more natural drainage should be possible without incurring costs…….
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Does anyone have any statistics for the number of children that have drowned in the trenches that are already up there?
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
I don`t think that the trenches or the lodges were put there to encourage visitors with children. Oh and no, natural drainage is not an option as drains were put in all around the Coppice about ten years ago. Go ask the residents of Pinewood Drive about drainage!! By the way, Gayle I hope you were joking.
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Lodges, that’s a word lost in my past. Uncle Mick I have to admit that it's a long time since I was up there, but I can remember that their was always a bit of standing water around during the wet season, which was almost anytime back then. I know where people are coming from but I think it’s easy to loose the gist of the point. Risks are all around us all the time and sometimes action must be taken to protect youngsters, but in an open semi wild environment like the coppice it shouldn’t be an issue. Like you point out the lodges are already there and it is unlikely that people would want to see them fenced off, filled in or cover over. Fighting against standing water in man made ditches is a bit like gilding the Lilly when there’s already so much around. By the way I lost two very young neighbours in the canal at church back in the early 60s and another mate to a drowning accident years later, When we where kids we use to swim in the lodge up Fern Gore almost every week without incident. So its not that I don’t understand or don’t care. I do Very much…….
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
I know I’m a cheeky sod, but is their anybody will to go up there with a camera a take a wide range of shots so that those lazy bu**ers amongst us can see how thing are today. I think some of those trees could come down an all. If HBC or the Forestry Commission where going to plant for ascetics they should have planted broad leaf native species
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
It's too late now Doug but I will get you some pics if nobody beats me to it.
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
I agree with you Doug, I don`t like the nanny state and it`s rules and regulations. I`ve enough scars to show I was a reckless youth once, however the Park at the bottom has had all it`s dangerous rides taken away ( Anyone remember the umbrella) and child friendly surfaces laid down. Its the law, its heath and safety. So if you are going to build a structure and you hav`nt considered the safety aspects with regard to the children you are trying to attract, then you are doing a very poor job indeed. Young children love exploring and so while the parent is admiring the magnificent view.... it might never happen but standing water ina steep sided ditch is not an ideal playground for children.
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
I concur Uncle Mick, Risks and Health and Safety are very much part of my working life, but a risk, but everyone, even children should be allowed to take reasonable risks. Jesus the Umbrella, I was scared s***less of that beast for years, Nobody I know in Blackpool knows what one is. I was 12 when I got to grips with it. I remember a friend of ours from Church lost her front teeth on Milnshaw Park after being hit by a swing. I wish my son had my opportunities to find out for himself the pain of a real childhood rather than sitting on his a***with a number of game consoles and bloody computer games. I digress I know. Yes I agree we must insure there safety today, but I do have to say, if this structure is supposed to encourage and support nature the little ****** shouldn’t be allow to play in it.
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
3 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Re: On Behalf of Gayle Night
I've finally managed to read the whole thread. (The board seems very slow loading for me tonight.) There's just one point I'd like to comment on from your last post Doug about "the little ****** shouldn't be allowed to play on it" because I thought the aim of this concentric circles idea was for people to walk up and over the ridges and into the centre. Hasn't it been said earlier that we aren't only supposed to view it from the air or some higher point (be it Hambledon or not) but also view it from within?
Actually you get quite a good view of the Coppice from Bullough Park and perhaps the panopticon could be visible from there? I voted in the pole thread but there's one possibility I'd like to ask about. Does it have to be an earthwork? Perhaps some other structure on the Coppice more like a sculpture or statue would be more acceptable to people? The Angel of The North has been mentioned elsewhere and that has become accepted but that is more like art. It has also been said that an earthwork can't be vandalised but spraypaint and fire would surely harm the wildlife flora/fauna which we are told is to be encouraged by "high form". That's before considering the damage which quad bikes etc could cause. Putting a fence round it all would seem to defeat the original object. I can't see many people wanting to go and spend much time up there with no loo as it's quite a trek. (particularly if picnic tables are being considered) It's a pity that the LET assumed that disabled access would be a foregone conclusion because now many disabled people who have not previously been able to get up there will be deluded into thinking that the panopticon itself is going to ensure them access. That would have been a great idea to send a questionaire out with the Council Tax bills. What a sadly missed opportunity. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com