Marple Glass and Glazing

Author Topic: Sign E-Petition against withdrawl of Support for Friends of Park Groups  (Read 20467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
The whole "Big Society" thing was a joke, imo, and it clearly was a way of getting the people to mend the damage done by the government.


I  agree Mr Marple except I would say "damage done by the PREVIOUS Government"

Mr Marple

  • Guest
Thankfully the "Big Society" has died a death many of us saw it I think as a self appointed busy bodies charter. It was well and truly dumped in 2010

The whole "Big Society" thing was a joke, imo, and it clearly was a way of getting the people to mend the damage done by the government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-society-is-a-sham-thats-hurting-the-small-charities-sector-says-report-9571816.html

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/11/local-government-cuts-society

http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/big-society-is-a-sham-thats-hurting-the-small-charities-sector-says-report/381219/

In general, these links provide interesting reading about the "Big Society".

Dave

  • Guest
Yes, I think its demise was about two years ago, and coincided with the sacking of this guy from Cameron's office:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hilton

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
It's hardly a coalition problem, the coalition are very much in favour of big society stuff.



Thankfully the "Big Society" has died a death many of us saw it I think as a self appointed busy bodies charter. It was well and truly dumped in 2010

Dave

  • Guest
It's hardly a coalition problem, the coalition are very much in favour of big society stuff.

They used to be, but not any more.  When was the last time we heard any government minister use the phrase?  Months ago, if not years! 

It's the council being unable to work efficiently.

Indeed. 

Duke Fame

  • Guest
I don't get it. In the Local Events section there is a photograph of the Friends of Marple Park in May. Fifteen people and I see four or five of the six Marple councillors (and who knows, maybe some of the others come from the group who put the LibDem leaflets through the letterboxes). I would not be so cynical as to say that they just turned up for the photo. I feel sure that most contributed a few hours voluntary work not only to practice the Big Society to replace council staff politics they are preaching but also because they are prepared to get their hands dirty as volunteers because they may not like the massive cuts any more than the rest of us but is it really true that the LibDems of Marple are pressing for withdrawal of this local initiative plus no public toilets, no Stockport in Bloom, no more carnivals, no trimming of the verges on Cross Lane/Woodville Drive, Triffids growing through and destroying the pavement of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores ? Is this just Marple Park, is it attempt to cut the 'Friends of' initiatives in Stockport or is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land  just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?

It's hardly a coalition problem, the coalition are very much in favour of big society stuff.

It's the council being unable to work efficiently.

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8422
    • The Marple Website
I don't get it. In the Local Events section there is a photograph of the Friends of Marple Park in May. Fifteen people and I see four or five of the six Marple councillors (and who knows, maybe some of the others come from the group who put the LibDem leaflets through the letterboxes). I would not be so cynical as to say that they just turned up for the photo. I feel sure that most contributed a few hours voluntary work not only to practice the Big Society to replace council staff politics they are preaching but also because they are prepared to get their hands dirty as volunteers because they may not like the massive cuts any more than the rest of us but is it really true that the LibDems of Marple are pressing for withdrawal of this local initiative plus no public toilets, no Stockport in Bloom, no more carnivals, no trimming of the verges on Cross Lane/Woodville Drive, Triffids growing through and destroying the pavement of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores ? Is this just Marple Park, is it attempt to cut the 'Friends of' initiatives in Stockport or is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land  just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?

To address a couple of point in this ramble:

Marple's councillors were invited to join Friends of Marple Memorial Park for the raising of our flag to commemorate 10 Years in the Park because they have been very supportive of the Friends of the Park's activities since the group was formed. There are 5 of Marple's 6 councillors in the photo - Kevin Dowling had another engagement and sent his apologies. The rest of the people in the photo are Friends of the Park volunteers, non of whom distribute leaflets for the LibDems. It is not my place or intent to defend local councillors on all the other issues you mention but without our local councillors support Friends of Marple Memorial Park would have achieved much less than we have over the last 10 years.

The original subject of this thread is not about an "initiative" to withdraw support - support for friends of park group Task Days HAS been withdrawn in all parks across the borough. The petitioners are seeking to have support for Task Days reinstated.

I'd have thought they should pass over all the maintenance to the 'friends of' group and the parks will be all the better for it.
 
There have been a number of comments / suggestions about Friends of Memorial Park taking over management of the park. This is not a viable or practical proposition, not least because despite its success the group is too small and does not have enough volunteers to undertake a management role or to take on the responsibility of running the park on a day to day basis. 
Mark Whittaker
The Marple Website

Dave

  • Guest
is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land  just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?

Of course it is, but SMBC should have been capable of finding a more sensible way of making the necessary savings from from the 30% of their budget which is discretionary.  At times like this, the council needs all the volunteers it can get! 

marplerambler

  • Guest
I don't get it. In the Local Events section there is a photograph of the Friends of Marple Park in May. Fifteen people and I see four or five of the six Marple councillors (and who knows, maybe some of the others come from the group who put the LibDem leaflets through the letterboxes). I would not be so cynical as to say that they just turned up for the photo. I feel sure that most contributed a few hours voluntary work not only to practice the Big Society to replace council staff politics they are preaching but also because they are prepared to get their hands dirty as volunteers because they may not like the massive cuts any more than the rest of us but is it really true that the LibDems of Marple are pressing for withdrawal of this local initiative plus no public toilets, no Stockport in Bloom, no more carnivals, no trimming of the verges on Cross Lane/Woodville Drive, Triffids growing through and destroying the pavement of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores ? Is this just Marple Park, is it attempt to cut the 'Friends of' initiatives in Stockport or is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land  just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?

My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
If you were honest you would be saying I expect this funding to come from say Adult Social Care. Anything else is dishonest and intellectually lazy. So tell me which service should bear the burdon of these savings. Given 70% of the Councils spending is on statutory service you limited to the other 30% for the savings. I am not even saying I don't support this petition but before I sign it I need to know the effect on other services, some of which might be more valuable.
Instead of asking this question on here perhaps it would be more useful to ask it of the people who deal with it.


My login is Henrietta

  • Guest
The point I really make is that this sort of petition divides communities and sets people against each other. Its not a way forward in a democracy
Ermm - exactly HOW does it do this?  Surely in a democracy everyone has the right to express his or her opinion.opinion.

marplerambler

  • Guest
Watch very hard for any hints of the closure and sale or development of any area of park owned by Stockport MBC. The parks often contain useful footpath links from one place to another (a good local example is the Midshires Way route on the western bank of the River Goyt all the way from the Jim Fearnley Footbridge north of Holiday Lane all the way past Woodlands and Woodbank Park to the Vernon Park entrance at Stockport  Road West - none of this route has a legal status of public right of way). When the legal maps and lists of public rights of way were drawn up in the early 1950s these Definitive Maps and Definitive Statements never contained routes through open land owned by the Council because it was believed at the time that the paths across council parkland would remain remain in public ownership as parks in perpetuity. I am aware of the sale of an area of park in Cheadle with a very well used footpath along Poise Brook, the land was sold, the land search carried out for the purchasers did not (correctly) show the existence of a right of way and the locals went to walk their dogs one morning to find the whole area blocked by eight foot high barriers. This path was saved and the obstructions removed only because the Ramblers Association immediately liaised with the regular users and made a successful legal claim that the route should have a legal status of a public right of way. An applicant has to provide user statement proving twenty years continuous usage of the route during which the route has been used in good faith by users who believed that they had a right to walk there without being challenged by a landowner/tenant or the existence of a 'private - do not enter' sign. NB. this legislation applies to the specific line of a path/bridleway which is a route which crosses a piece of land, it does not apply to wandering around an area of open space walking a dog. If you do have a problem on an area which was a park let me know and I will bring the matter to the attention of the Footpaths Officer of Stockport Ramblers Association.

amazon

  • Guest
Sell it to a hire company who can have it running 24/7

'Friends can hire it out of their budget.

I think the machinery that stockport MBC use is hired anyway ..

Duke Fame

  • Guest
Does that include machinery . If so that's a expensive item to maintain servicing etc .petrol parts .insurance .
Don't think friends of the park could aford that and look after the park as well .

Sell it to a hire company who can have it running 24/7

'Friends can hire it out of their budget.

Dave

  • Guest
I'd have thought they should pass over all the maintenance to the 'friends of' group and the parks will be all the better for it.

I'm tempted to agree with Duke, but on reflection I think it would be a mistake, partly for the reasons put forward by amazon, but mainly because it would leave park maintenance as a lottery.  If the Stockport parks (and there are a lot of them, some quite big) were to be handed over to independent community organisations such as the Friends of Marple Memorial Park, some would probably respond well to the challenge, raise additional funds, set themselves up with charitable status to maximise their income (e.g. through collecting gift aid on donations), and generally make a success of it.  Others would be less successful, and their parks could fall into disrepair and disuse.

Parks are a vital and valuable community asset.  We should treasure them and look after them for future generations, and we should be prepared to pay for them through general taxation.