Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
Do any local Southport councillors actually 'care' about our countryside or are they using it as a convenience weapon to foster their political agendas on the rest of us?
Southport GB website has kindly uploaded several threads regarding our concerns about the destruction of wildlife and countryside at the so-called Kew Business Park/Southport Commerce Park. Sadly, this concern has drawn the attention of local Council planning supporters that apparently want development at all costs to go ahead and apparently have little concern for the devastation that will ensue via losing more Kew grasslands to the bulldozer.
One Southport councillor in particular has taken the business developments to heart and has created quite a stir on a SGB thread (see below link) which started off about the local Southport Party’s admirable desire for more trees to be planted in the region. Cllr. Simon Shaw’s apparent yearning for our countryside to be concreted over has also won him the title of ‘Concrete Defender’ on this particular thread. If the cap fits?
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45651
Mr Shaw is also criticised on an extremely revealing Southport Party page (see below link) ergo we ask does he therefore berate the Southport Party, via attacking their fair-mended eco-support on SGB, because they have significantly embarrassed him by mentioning his disgraceful expulsion from a local public meeting? The meeting in question was generated to oppose hospital cuts in local children’s services yet Mr Shaw brought the event to chaos as he would not permit members of the audience or the committee to speak - which resulted in his later ejection.
http://www.thesouthportparty.co.uk/text-Elections%202005.htm
Please also read this page for clarification of this situation.
Mr Shaw, in the pink top, is seen below first perhaps asleep at the meeting in question.
Secondly, he is starting to shout at others and the last shot depicts him being told to be silent and let others have their say. Mr Shaw would not oblige and was later removed from the meeting due to his odious behaviour.
Cllr Shaw’s public eviction was also reported on SGB forums wherein an administrator stated:
“Simon Shaw an ex Lib Dem Cllr, was very vociferous and refused to let the spokesperson on the Committee complete the answers to the questions he was asking.”
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24967
Whatever is the point of 'asking' questions if you do not permit others to 'answer' in a fair manner?
Shaw’s eviction was also mentioned on this CARES (anti-hospital cuts pressure group) page:
http://www.cares.ukhome.net/trinity24thsept.htm
Shaw’s objections to the campaign to save Southport’s countryside appears to be largely aimed at promoting the idea that SSGB wants to save beautiful parts of the countryside which he apparently believes should be used for creating business profits and a few more jobs; jobs that are in fact created have no guarantee of long term durability. For example Experian, one of the companies with its finger into the Kew landscape, has recently stated that it is to close three call centres in Preston, Bolton and Widnes over the next two years, with the loss of 850 jobs.
Experian relocated its MCL Software division and 75 staff to a new £3m office complex at Kew in March 2005 claiming 25 new jobs would be created. The point is that it is rather easy to level the countryside with the promise of numerous amazing new job opportunities but if and when all the glitter fades away (as frequently occurs in business realms) then we are left with empty metal sheds that look even 'worse' than when they were first built. Burnt out monstrosities that attract countless vandals, junkies and graffiti artists; if you don’t believe us then take a look at the colossal eyesore in Formby on the banks of the River Alt which is now derelict and very dangerous.
The Council (and its smug supporters) must realise that the land at Kew is now a natural sanctuary for all manner of wonderful wildlife (some which are legally protected species) as our website shows. It does not matter that it was originally expected to be used for development and entitled Strategic Employment Site. What matters is that it now has a great biodiversity value and trashing it further is deplorable in the extreme. Such draconian Council measures have no place in a modern, forward thinking and eco-conscious society.
Jobs of course represent money in pockets and big profits for fat cats but land also means life and death for scores of indigenous species that need the land to simply survive!
Do we not have a duty to protect these creatures and their habitat?
We strongly urge the Council to rethink this controversial land scheme before it’s too late. Please, if you must, go and create your business sheds somewhere else where they will not do so much damage to Southport's fast-disappearing eco-system and its fragile inhabitants. Stop acting like the self-righteous authorities that took our vital children’s A&E services away and the out-of-touch, grey-suit politicians that continue to tell us what’s ‘best’ for us in every avenue of life.
Wild countryside under threat at Kew with the gasworks in the background.
Cllr. Shaw recently stated that the gasworks site was "contaminated. land."
This wild land is priceless, it is an essential piece of 'Old Southport' – and once you have substituted it with your soulless concrete car parks and yet more incredibly hideous business sheds then you cannot replace it.
Addendum:
We also note that one of our supporters ‘Linnet’ recently went on the SGB website and after much serious debate was eventually ‘threatened’ by a development supporter. The thread in question, ‘Benthams Way Cycle Paths’ was instantly closed with all serious data removed soon after she complained and mentioned possibly contacting the police.
This is what Linnet said:
I have recently been involved within a serious debate on developmental impact on our countryside on the thread:
‘Benthams Way Cycle Paths’
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45711&page=3&pp=30
Whilst this issue of seeking to save what’s left of our countryside was being discussed a later poster, who was apparently in favour of land development at Kew, came on and threatened my confidentiality and to take “retribution” against me for my eco-minded stance. I feel that other posters have a right to know about this deplorable situation.
Quote:
‘significant one’
Fri. 5th August. 2005
“Ian you may not know all the butterflies, but we know one of the identities of the two above, retribution will be sweet.”
End of quote
--------------------------------------
“We” know?
“Retribution will be sweet?”
I would have thought the only body with insider information on posters’ personal details was SGB itself. If true, does this mean that confidentiality is at risk of being breached on SGB by SGB staff?
Posters certainly do have a right to know!
The latter part of this comment has caused me some concern. What type of “retribution” am I to expect from this poster who claims to know my (or others) identity? For all I know ‘significant one’ is threatening me with physical violence, blackmail or even perhaps terrorism simply because I oppose the destruction of our countryside and its wildlife and I do NOT take this matter lightly. The administrator ‘pedoja’ has several times on the thread in question spoken out in ‘favour’ of destroying Kew countryside and supported the highly vocal political activist Cllr. Simon Shaw and others; ergo I cannot perhaps get any fair play by taking up this concern with her ‘personally’ on this thread due to her one-sided stance/bias (political or otherwise) against my desire to help save Southport's precious countryside. I can and may however contact the police office about this plain threat to my person forthwith. I believe that in the current climate they do now also take such matters very seriously.
It is a great pity when posters have to stoop to such dirty tactics to apparently scare off any person who disagrees with destructive council plans to flatten our lovely countryside. Moreover, 'if' Cllr. Shaw or pedoja are in anyway behind this disgusting state of affairs then our town is in a worst state than I could ever have imagined. Agree with us ‘or else’ seems to be the message we are being given!
I would be grateful if SGB management could address my concerns regarding this unnecessary yet worrying threat before I decide what action to take. For the record, the retribution and confidentiality threat is on this thread (as highlighted below) unless it is of course later removed or ‘closed’ (as I would fully expect) by the SGB site for obvious reasons. Fun and light-hearted rivalry on chat rooms are one thing but threats like this are quite another thing altogether.
‘Benthams Way Cycle Paths’
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45711&page=3&pp=30
--------------------
Linnet also started a new thread on the SGB site to accentuate this disgusting situation:
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46490
This thread was soon after closed when Linnet pointed out that an administrator called 'pedoja' who had previously taken Shaw's corner on the destruction of Kew (and referred to the land therein as "a mess") was inconsistent in her content. For the record we shall include the content of the next thread which shows how badly some eco-campaigners do get treated when they press too hard. Clearly home truths are too much for some people to take on board!
Thread named:
Pedoja’s way of dealing with home truths?
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46502
Sat 6th Aug 2005, 05:33 PM
------------------
Linnet:
"pedoja, you said clearly to me on this thread marked below":
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46490
Quote pedoja: I have never spoken to Simon Shaw
linnet: "My answer, which you immediately deleted, was something like as follows":
"Really pedoja, this is untrue as you once said this when talking about Mr Shaw":
Quote pedoja: They then continued the discussion/argument with James Grundy, and myself, in the Foyer before leaving the building.
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24967
Linnet: "This valid comment, which shows without doubt (please go
and check the threads YOURSELF) that you were not telling the truth, was later
removed and the thread closed - presumably by you.
What sort of way is this to run a site? At least please admit when you have been
proven wrong!
My original concerns at being threatened with “retribution” and possible
breaches of confidentiality on SGB were the main content of that particular
thread yet you incredibly deleted the thread when your own inconsistencies were
pointed out to readers, which is in itself most disconcerting.
I am shocked at this from admin!"
-----------------------------
Pedoja’s reply and immediate action was................
“I do not answer to you.
thread closed”
--------------------------------------------
Again, for the record, pedoja changed her above statement minutes later to read:
“I do not answer to you.
"Matter closed "
This thread was reopened for some odd reason followed by a torrent of abusive postings against Linnet.
That really says it all. Dictatorial, bully boy tactics against people who only care for the fragile environment is a terrible thing indeed.
What is the world coming to?
bravenet.com