Comments on: Further Damning Evidence Against GoApe

By: David Pott

David Pott — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:46:16 +0000

Brian also mentions censorship on the site. Brian has previously posted highly critical comments here: http://www.leverpark.co.uk/2008/12/are-go-ape-winning/#comment-261

I think that puts the censorship issue to rest!

By: Phil Johnson

Phil Johnson — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:41:14 +0000

You see Brian that’s what democracy is all about. Your post won’t be removed, because democracy dictates that all shall have a say without fear or retribution, and your comments are just as relevant and valuable as anyone elses, that is why we invite people from both sides of the debate to give their name.
You are quite right to chastise us for what would appear to be a campaign against GoApe, but let us not forget, that whilst we thought initially we were campaigning against the apparent injustices of Chorley Borough Council, we never lost sight of the fact that we were up against an all conquering triumvirate.
We are not sure yet whether our case with the ombudsman will fall in our favour or not, but rest assured Brian, your treasured democracy is in an extremely fragile state and rests firmly on the LGO’s shoulders.
As for our claim that our campaign was never against GoApe, it wasn’t and we observed that doctrine throughout, however we also now observe the right to act as watchdogs, in order that further atrocities are not commited by any of the parties mentioned. Please note we do not single GoApe out, we are and always have been just as critical about UU. We are watching them all.
Finally, the reporting of the nudist and urinator was made by female persons, so I dont think that your implication is relevant, but you wern’t to know that. I agree that we cannot lay blame of the nudist at the door of GoApe and in reality we are treating her as a bit of diversionary fun.

By: David Pott

David Pott — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:18:27 +0000

I think Brian is suffering from a sense of humour failure.

Just in case anyone is in any doubt: we don’t think that the nudist had any connection with Go Ape. But the wider issue is a concern that the wires and platforms will be too easy a target for the young people who choose to drink by the side of the reservoir, usually long after the Go Ape course has closed. The big risk is that they will injure themselves on the equipment.

By: Ann Jones

Ann Jones — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:05:45 +0000

I must have been posting at the same time as Mr Brian Henderson or I would have included this.
I am sorry Mr Henderson if you think we ALL sound pathetic and hypocritical because that is just not the case. I have attended most of the Friends of Lever Park meetings and I can assure you that the argument is against Chorley Borough Council and United Utilities. Mr Bob Dootson, when interviewed at the beginning of the campaign at Rivington by Radio Lancashire, made it quite clear on air that the argument was not with Go-Ape. Unfortunately there are occasions when Go-Ape are their own worst enemy by making such claims as stated in my post. I have no argument with Go-Ape as a business but I maintain and always will that the small wood at Rivington is not the appropriate place for such an activity. It does not blend in, it dominates.
As for the nudist, I’m not a prude or a “crankpot” (whatever that is) but I believe there are laws in this country that prohibit people from shedding their clothes in places that are not designated as “naturist environs”. And if she was in the fenced off bird sanctuary area, she shouldn’t have been there in the first place, either clothed or unclothed. Perhaps she took her glasses off as well and didn’t see the signs.
You say that you hope democracy will prevail. Well your comments were posted so for you democracy did prevail. Unfortunately for the Friends of Lever Park we are still waiting because democracy was not served when Chorley Borough Council gave permission for Go-Ape’s planning application using delegated powers. We were not allowed to have our say as you have on this website.

By: Eileen Thomasson

Eileen Thomasson — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:53:26 +0000

We always said it was the wrong place to site Go Ape,and it seems all our concerns have been justified.Who wants to walk where people are urinating,swearing e.t.c.Go Ape told a lot of lies to get this application passed.They said they only intended to fell three trees,even though they knew it was nowhere near enough,they later illegally chopped down many more.they also destroyed all the bluebells in that area.The application was passed illegally by Chorley Council who did not follow the correct guidelines.Go Ape sell themselves by saying they are protecting the countryside.Chopping trees down and destroying the countryside is not what i would call protecting the countryside.Its more about exploiting it.

By: Ann Jones

Ann Jones — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:38:13 +0000

I agree David, posters on this website should at least provide a real email address. If they want to call themselves Gromit, Wallace or Nick Park that’s OK with me, I’m Swampy by the way!
Phil, loved your last post. Sock it to him.
Some people today just live for kicks and don’t care if those “kicks” damage the environment. It’s a case of me, me, me, instead of what kind of world will we be leaving for future generations. Why is it beyond some people to realise that we “share” this planet with a lot of other species and their right to live should also be respected and that our ever decreasing unspoiled green spaces should be treasured.
In Private Eye’s scathing comments about Chorley Borough Council and Go-Ape they stated that the Go-Ape ecologist had said that “breeding birds are not affected by people in trees”. The RSPB say that “people in trees DO affect birds and they will nest away from such disturbance”. It’s not rocket science to decide who is the expert on birds! Mind you I’ll bet there’s dipsy out there who believes that an ecologist employed by Go-Ape knows more about ornithology than the the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds! But if there is, this comment is wasted on them because they wont understand what ornithology means!

By: Brian Henderson

Brian Henderson — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:14:32 +0000

Do you realise how pathetic and hypocritical you all sound – you started this campaign all those months ago by saying that you were not anti-Go Ape and here you are doing anything you can to smear their name!

You truly are unbelievable -for a start, what in God’s name does a so called ‘nudist’ sunbathing on a beach have to do with Go Ape being there??? I’m quite sure that given the safety harness required to be worn that it would be one activity nudists would not have any connection with. You really are making fools of yourselves here – and who exactly saw this nudist?? More importantly, how long did they stand and stare at them.

First you say that you are not anti-Go Ape, then you try to defame them and their staff. Then you say that you want nature to be allowed to floorish in the area, yet you shout about someone baring their natural body in the sun! You REALLY are unbelievable, but keep it up because you are just making yourselves out to be the unwelcoming, prudish, crankpots that you seem to be.

I suspect that this post will be removed and deleted given the fact that you have said that you want everyone to have a voice on the subject – but here’s hoping commonsense (and democracy) will prevail!

Oh, and please note, that I am very happy to have my full name and email address on here so as webmaster you can’t use that excuse to delete or censor my message.

By: Phil Johnson

Phil Johnson — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:44:29 +0000

Gromit! You choose to reside in the twilight world of a pseudonym and for whatever reason, that is your right and I respect that.
In answer to your recent posting, I do not consider myself a researcher, good or otherwise and never have, but merely a concerned member of the public reporting on what I see and believe to be true. I will stand to be corrected if proved wrong, and I am prepared to concede on production of irrefutable evidence, however, in this case evidence would appear to support my claim.
Yes I did contact GCO on two occassions by email to daniel@redheadpr.co.uk enquiring about the GoApe GCO alliance. To date I have not received a reply.
Finally, your paragraph refering to the ‘alliance’ speaks for itself. How naive of you to believe that those who embark upon the GoApe experience are there for educational purposes, and come away with a deeper and more meaningfull appreciation of the woodland canopy and the biodiversity that it supports. It takes more than a sign board.
I do not deny you your loyalty to what may be your employer, but please allow yourself a morsal of objectivity and admit that no matter how hard GoApe try, they cannot masquerade as conservationists whilst they continue to expand their corporate might at such obvious cost to the environment.
We at Rivington have witnessed GoApe, rape 3.2 hectares of unspoilt woodland at the behest of United Utilities, with the consent of Chorley Borough Council. Misleading, false, I don’t think so.

By: David Pott

David Pott — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:27:20 +0000

A quick trawl through google reveals this document from the Charities Commission which details £5k given by GCO to Go Ape for ‘educational materials’

See http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends10%5C0001089110_AC_20060930_E_C.PDF

By the way, as webmaster, I’m tempted to require posters to use their real names and provide a real email address. Comments please!

By: David Pott

David Pott — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:26:24 +0000

Maybe someone from Go Ape would like to clarify the issue? I understand why some Go Ape employees might prefer to use a false name, but perhaps some top management from Go Ape might want to contact us officially?