Panopticon Poll
- Thread starter Gayle
- Start date
Well Gayle, on here you can only vote once......unless of course you have more that one identity. When I come on here to check how things are going.......it tells me that i have already voted in this poll.
Oh I thought that you meant on here Gayle.....sorry, my misunderstanding.
But then maybe if there are other polls being conducted it should be made clear that if you have voted on here that you are ineligible to vote again.
I certainly did not expect anyone to take notice of our threads and posts......but I am glad that they did!
But then maybe if there are other polls being conducted it should be made clear that if you have voted on here that you are ineligible to vote again.
I certainly did not expect anyone to take notice of our threads and posts......but I am glad that they did!
Margaret Pilkington said:
I can assure you people definitely do pay attention to the things on here. Also, I didn't say that people who'd already voted couldn't vote again because I did want to get the general opinion of users of this site. And there's always the possibility that some of the 'yes' voters voted here and at the public exhibitions too.
Anyway, I will keep you all informed of things that are going on.
Post 17>> I hope no one is attempting to skew the figures by voting more than once!<<
Post 25>> Also, I didn't say that people who'd already voted couldn't vote again <<
Selective memory too!
Post 25>> Also, I didn't say that people who'd already voted couldn't vote again <<
Selective memory too!
Isn't it interesting that there are five options in the poll and that only one of those options is an actual "Yes" vote which at this point in time has 13.64% of the vote.
The "No" vote has been split between 4 different options of "No" by choosing 4 different possible alternative reasons for voting "No" and I for one felt I was in a bit of a dilemma because I have more than one objection but couldn't decide which was the most important so eventually chose the first one, although I feel equally strongly on the second point also. I wouldn't like the present design even if it were located elsewhere.
I know where you're coming from A-b. Gayle Knight's interpretation of the vote is that only 27.27% of the people object the the entire rationale behind the project so theoretically that can be made to say that the other 72.73% of us are in favour. On the other hand the way I see it is that only 13.64% of the voters are actually in favour and even if you add that to the 25% who do not object to the overall rationale but still feel we have a long way to go (or in Gayle's words it still needs further development) that still only gives a total of 38.64% which is hardly a majority.
Makes you wonder how the other 75% figure (quoted) was arrived at doesn't it?
The "No" vote has been split between 4 different options of "No" by choosing 4 different possible alternative reasons for voting "No" and I for one felt I was in a bit of a dilemma because I have more than one objection but couldn't decide which was the most important so eventually chose the first one, although I feel equally strongly on the second point also. I wouldn't like the present design even if it were located elsewhere.
I know where you're coming from A-b. Gayle Knight's interpretation of the vote is that only 27.27% of the people object the the entire rationale behind the project so theoretically that can be made to say that the other 72.73% of us are in favour. On the other hand the way I see it is that only 13.64% of the voters are actually in favour and even if you add that to the 25% who do not object to the overall rationale but still feel we have a long way to go (or in Gayle's words it still needs further development) that still only gives a total of 38.64% which is hardly a majority.
Makes you wonder how the other 75% figure (quoted) was arrived at doesn't it?
It is clear that the poll options are the same questions which were asked at the public meetings. Thus alllowing MidPennine Arts to claim the same level of support as deduced from the poll held here. If you ask leading questions, you get the answers you want, which is why leading questions are not allowed in courts of law.
For all the pretence of public consultation MidPennine and NWRDA are not in the least bit interested in what we have to say, unless of course we happen to agree with the proposal. This has been just one more of the procedural hoops through which they have to jump and as such, it is about as meaningless and vapid as the second-hand design they are eager to foist on us.
If this proposal is given planning permission we will, sooner or later, regret it. But by then it will be too late to do anything about it and a valuable and intrinsic part of Accrington's history will have been damaged beyond repair. I agree that the Coppice is in need of attention but, this sort of attention it can well do without.
For all the pretence of public consultation MidPennine and NWRDA are not in the least bit interested in what we have to say, unless of course we happen to agree with the proposal. This has been just one more of the procedural hoops through which they have to jump and as such, it is about as meaningless and vapid as the second-hand design they are eager to foist on us.
If this proposal is given planning permission we will, sooner or later, regret it. But by then it will be too late to do anything about it and a valuable and intrinsic part of Accrington's history will have been damaged beyond repair. I agree that the Coppice is in need of attention but, this sort of attention it can well do without.
It has gone suspiciously quiet on this front - makes you wonder what they are up to, doesn't it?
A-B, I was only thinking that last night.
Please tell me you are joking! How dare they! 
He's Joking willow. What ever happens you have to remember that the Coppice was given to the town. You could keep HBC in court for years if they try to do this without the consent of the town’s people. You need an official objection put in place and push for a public enquiry to establish if HBC have the right to do this. Think on nothing as happened up there for near on 100 years?
So how do you account for the trees and the A56 slicing through the back?
I meant on a localised structural level. The trees are a mistake there is no doubt about that, but they only cling to the side of the hill willow and remain superfical, they aren’t changing the shape or nature of the plateau, the Panopticon will be a construction and will change the surface?
The road skirts the lower reaches of the landscape and is not actually on the coppice. I went up Fern Gore today to get a perspective on the view point of the coppice that I grew up with. All I could see was bloody trees. When I grew up in Accrington the coppice was almost barren moorland, it’s still very much untouched on top. What I always remembered and was disappointed not to be able to see was what we called her scar. That in itself was like a beacon whatever the weather.
The road skirts the lower reaches of the landscape and is not actually on the coppice. I went up Fern Gore today to get a perspective on the view point of the coppice that I grew up with. All I could see was bloody trees. When I grew up in Accrington the coppice was almost barren moorland, it’s still very much untouched on top. What I always remembered and was disappointed not to be able to see was what we called her scar. That in itself was like a beacon whatever the weather.
Last edited:
I did, and I agree with you Chav, if it's possible it should be restored. I fear that the trees roots will have caused irreplaceable damage now; however an archeological survey might pick out a trace of the original face but that would be bloody expensive. When they planted trees up there they eradicate generations of memories. However, if you look at photographs over the years it does change.chav1 said:
Very well said Chav. They should have simply let nature have control.