Fortunately CPFC2010 have announced they will not be submitting any planning apps but instead will invest in the land they actually own and that has been the home of the Eagles for 80+ years
Could you provide the source for this please. Where is this announcment ? I'd be interested in reading this.
And in spirit of taking up your invitation I "get to grips with the facts" could you clarify precisely who submitted in the recent court proceedings that the cost of the MP was now in excess of £100 million and the housing would raise less than £5 million - Was this a CPCA submission or by the LDA ?
And if , as you suggest this was accepted can you set out how - a formal admission by the LDA in a filed document ?
I ask because the judge still referred to the £68 million figure , as did Bromley as recently as October last year
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1574.html
I don't suppose you'll answer my questions because, as far as I acn see, it is pretty clear how you operate
1. Make an assertion dressed up as a fact
2. Don't source the information you rely on or publish it
3. When pressed to clarify , swiftly skirt over matters and avoid answering by making another load of assertions dressed up as facts
4. Don't source that information either or publish anything to support your claims
5. When pressed again , go route one, play the man and not the ball and resort to insults(and in some cases blatant untruths)
What was it I said about propaganda....
stepford wives bluster
?
If you are simply going to continue to demean the views of others , without actually any knowledge of what they are , how they developed and what "facts" they do and don't have then I am afraid it says rather alot more about you and your prejudices, than it does about theirs (or mine)
Like everyone else, including you, those engaed in the debate can only form a view on the information that is actually made available - if it's not made available then what are set out as facts remain what they actually are, unproven assertions which may not stand up to much scrutiny when tested.
A bit like this one
like me, are not CPCA members
-I suspect.
It's also a pity that you didn't attend the meetings or become involved in the issue much much earlier than you have because, had you done so, you might understand why ordinary members of the public who went to the public meeting at Anerley Town Hall walked out over the behaviour of a small minority who seemed hell bent on disruptive tactics which stifled any other opinion or questions from being raised. Unlike you I did attend that meeting (and others), as I have told you in the past , I am afraid that the behaviour, and other behavior exhibited by a small minority of the No campaign, was wholly couterproductive and - at leasts in my case - ened up losing support rather than gaining it .
Certainly in my case I slowly but surely went from being sympathetic to the no view (and in fact sympathetic to the CPCA) to a position where I had lost complete faith in the accuracy/impartiality and fairness of how the No point of view was being presented, how it was being conducted and how anyone, with a different view, was being treated.
So rather than swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker, and the repeat it polly parrot fashion without engaging my brain to verify it, I went off and did my own research and ultimately, over a three year period of extensively following the debate concluded that the argument was wrong and that , on balance, the trade off between some money from limited housing (on land not really used as park and in circumstanaces where other inaccessible land would be returne to park) and an MP was better than no MP and no money.
And before I get another volley of presumptive nonsense or thnly veiled insults from you Duke about how I think, my apparent lack of grasps of the facts and my intolerance of other opinions, such that of the CPCA - I can actually
prove how my opinion developed amd prove that i took steps to get involved and critically consider what was being said because a summary of my views (in my posts as jamesl) appears here
http://www.virtualnorwood.com/forum/top ... ge__st__30 -
Unlike you I don't believe in simply making sweeping assertions, dressed up as facts, and then not taking the trouble to prove them when asked. Far from holding an entrenched view and not listening I made up my own mind over time, and after actually enagaging with the process.
I supect I am wasting my breath with you but you may care to look at what I said in 2005 - such as post 114
Silver I think you are being a little unfair on the CPCA. My experience was that all they were trying to do was to encourage residents to approach the consultation with a more questioning mind. I don't agree with all of CPCA's stance because too my mind they focus too much on blocking the suggested solutions without offering any detailed alternatives. Equally some of the proposals appear quite reasonable (for example potentially losing the Caravan Park is no great loss in my opinion). However what they have done is point out what the LDA aren't saying which I think is very important.
I had the same experience as Axean's - namely that the second stage of the consultation is far more limited than the first and the presentation and questionairre appears driven towards encouraging one particular response. This was exactly what happened during stage one when LDA asked if you wanted "extensive improvement" but made no mention of the fact that funding this would entail selling parts of the park. Frankly I am beginning to suspect that the "consultation" is nothing more than a cosmetic measure and I am glad that CPCA are pointing out it's faults.
or this one
My preferred view on funding is direct funding from the Mayor's Office rather than a PPP arrangement because in my view it is the thin end of the wedge. Having established the principle of selling parts of the park to raise funding what happens when more money is needed - another sale of bigger parts of the park ?
And compare it with my view by 2007 such as this one (post 458)
[quoteThere was an uncomfortable lack of concrete suggestions on where to turn for funding. A list was given that included lots of lottery funding, private-public partnerships, etc, but it will take a lot of hard work to get those funds"
I thought lottery funding was a serious option ?
The park working groups report from 20/02/06 says
• "New source of funding has become available, £90m from Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
o This could help reduce the housing requirements for the park
o This may stop organisations from campaigning on a single issue (housing)
o Problems about how we apply for it though
o A lot of people have concerns about housing"
Nevertheless isn't the clear lack of other sources of investment precisely why Housing should be considered as an option to raise money?
I'd rather have £12 million towards some rejuvination that £0 million and nothing at all.
This is why I get so fed up with the No brigade - saying no is so easy when you don't come up with an alternative source of funding. I really wish the CPCA would expend the same amount of energy they do on the "No housing" campaign to identifying alternative forms of funding.
I'm also just not convinced that the case for no housing is as overwhelming as the CPCA claim it is.
If you actually read the analysis of the public consultation it is clear that it is only in CP that people (apparently) have such strong feelings. The opinions against housing around the Rockhill and Sydenham gate were far less strong. The numbers who voted on the Triangle gate area were only a few hundred so it's easy for a well motivated (but small in number) pressure group to vote on mass and give the impression that "no housng" is the "overwhelming view" (to quote CPCA) of the majority in CP.
I'm also not convinced that the much vaunted 7000 signature petition gives an accurate view. The constant gripe on the CPCA's website is that the consultation process is skewed and biassed without any acceptance that their own petition was hardly impartial. The petiition (when read carefully) actually only asks whether , as a point of principle, you are opposed to the selling off of parkland for housing.
I think most people would agree with the basic sentiment but I think you would get a very different view if the petition also mentioned "but in saying no you are risking the possibility of even basic rejuvination of the park"
It's so disappointing that a so called "community " association has become so entrenched and focussed on one issue that Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council felt compelled to say in a letter accompanying the Crystal Palace Main Group meeting agenda that "some dialogue members have found recent meetings frustrating or unpleasant and we have had frequent comments that they are dominated by a small number with others getting little opportunity to speak". Under the heading of 'Group representation' it said "I would like to remind you that groups attending the meeting should send no more than five representatives".
[/quote]
So as I said using inflammatory language, and refusing to leave room for other points of view is not helpful. It stops good (and bad) points, on both sides, from being articulated, presented and listened to. It turns a rational argument into abuse. It leads, in my personal view, to established community groups so polarising their relationships with others that they lose support from what should be their natural support base and it leads to critical detail being obscured by propaganda (on both sides).
