Comments on: About Us

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:58:05 +0000

Firstly let me say i have absolutely no axe to grind on this matter but feel this arguement is a touch un balanced.
I have travelled quite a lot and have a host of experience in life…secondly on the grounds of right and wrong I hope the friends of the park have been or will be successful.Because safeguards have been overlooked (by sounds of it with a hidden agenda)
For those who keep harping on about hedonism, how many of you would be in arms if the local council gave permission for a textile free park (naked/naturist) next to your local primary school ?
much of my life I was in the western isles and we openly welcomed other facilities of any kind there (sorry guys we had areas of OUTSTANDING BEAUTY there the term the home office has used not just flippantly handed to it by any tom dick or harry….on the other hand I don’t see the neccessity of building this zip line complex in that location there are many pre industral areas near public transport links that could be used and developed to the advantage of the area it was put in.
As in many of these arguements and heated comments a little standing back and thinking would make these arguements less heated and more productive

By: Ann Jones

Ann Jones — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:29:15 +0000

Thanks Ed for your response and would ask you to note that I do not speak for the Friends of Lever Park.
Mine is a personal objection and has always been that Go-Ape is in the wrong location. I do not object to Go-Ape per se, they are a successful and fast growing business giving pleasure to many and employment to some. I appealed to the Ombudsman because Chorley Borough Council used delegated powers to approve the application thus giving no-one the opportunity to object or have a debate of any kind. In a democracy this is unfair. I do not say that the outcome of the application would have been any different if it had gone to full Committee but at least we would have had the chance to marshall support from the people of Bolton and other environmental bodies
Chorley Borough Council denied us this opportunity and have been found guilty of maladministration by the Ombudsman. They have tried, in the press, to minimise this by saying it was “administrative errors which would be tightened up”. That doesn’t alter the fact that we were presented with a fait accompli and no matter what your point of view, in a democracy, this is unacceptable.

By: bob dootson

bob dootson — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:43:19 +0000

Ed.
Your last word “Democracy”. That’s what started it, but try telling that to the planning department who conveniently forgot forgot to send out neighbour consultation letters as required under their constitution, and also forgot that anything over 1 hectare cannot be delegated and must go to full committee.
Anyone can make a mistake, but not on this scale.
No one will ever know the reason as to why the Council ignored all the rules and regulations, fortunatly the Ombudsman accepted all the evidence put before her and delivered her decision against the Council. It didn’t help Chorley’s case by using hearsay as evidence for their defence.
Seeing that you are a democratic person, how would you react if you asked for something under “The Freedom of Information Act” and recieved a document that had been altered to cover up previous errors.
Would you accept this document as fact, or would you make an attempt to find out the reason for it’s production?, please don’t insult my intelligence by saying you would accept a document knowing it had been falsified.
You mention about winning the debate, how could jo public win the debate when they where excluded from participating by the ruling bodies within the planning department.
If it had gone to full committee with proper consultation, and the application had been successful, that would have been the end of it as far as I’m concerned. Believe you me, I have far better things to do with my life.
Like yourself, I believe in democracy and debate, but there was something wrong with the way this application was dealt with, even councillors have expressed concern.
I’ll finish by stating that you are are bang out of order by insinuating that I have a problem with Go-Ape. You couldn’t be further from the truth, you obviously don’t know me.

By: Ed Page

Ed Page — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:43:39 +0000

Sorry, forgot to mention. I have no axe to grind on this either way. I stumbled across the report in the Bolton Evening News and it raised my interest. I don’t have connections with Go Ape, CBC or any other party involved. I admire the tenacity you have shown but, as you can see, we’re at odd’s over values and ideas. I’ll leave my points there and let you get on with it. Good luck chaps – and I hope the only winner in this is democracy.

By: Ed Page

Ed Page — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:37:35 +0000

Bob, Phil & Ann
Allow me to make a few points:
Bob and Phil are at pains to stress your attack is on CBC not Go Ape.

Fair enough to a point, but whilst you’re right to point out that there’s no direct condemnation of Go Ape, they are widely attacked for their profit motives.

Bob thinks I may support a police state and ignore public opinion.

As a democrat I take exception to that. To me there are 2 options on the table. 1. To highlight bureaucratic deficiencies and 2. To develop coherent political arguments, win the debate and overturn the decision. My challenge is that you’re using cowardly bureaucratic tactics because you can’t get sufficient numbers on your side to win via the ballot box. At the end of the day the councillors are democratically elected and should act in accordance of the will of the electorate. That’s where you should be taking the fight – not trying to get local officials sacked for poor admin or appealing to higher and higher level of state bureaucracry to get your own way.

The attack on hedonism

What I find most disturbing are the views that the natural, historic, and traditional and finer hedonistic pursuits than the crass consumerist modern hedonistic pursuits of the masses. Who are you to lecture people about how they spend their leisure time? Who are you to tell people to hop off to the Trafford Centre, Alton Towers, Blackpool Pleasure Beach? Isn’t it revealing that all these places are places where the great unwashed congregate? And doesn’t that reveal the true ideology behind your campaign? Why can’t you appreciate the great outdoors and the thrill of the ride in equal measure? Feels to me that you don’t like the fact that the wrong type of people are attracted to the wrong type of place, and in my book thats simple good old fashioned cultural snobbery.

If Chorley Council had abided by their Constitution and National guidelines in the first place, non of this would have happened.

That’s disingenuous Bob and you know it. Look at Ann’s post and tell me that’s true. Clearly if CBC had followed the rules you’d stall have objected. Admit it – you hate the project. It’s not about CBC maladministration; it’s because you value the natural world over modernity. If you just admit that it would save a lot of people at lot of time. I think you’d come across better by stating the real reasons for your objections instead of hiding behind the argument over broken rules. Now I fundamentally disagree with Phil and Ann when they embellish the worth of nature over human aspiration, as a humanist through and through I think we make the world in our eyes and shouldn’t value anything over and above our human centred desires. But let’s have an open debate about values and morality rather than rules.

What about the rights of the people who desire and derive enjoyment from what was once a beautifully unspoilt area of woodland?

That’s a good point. And I say let the people decide. Make your case for protection, have the debate, organise public meetings, join political parties and make your case, get twittering, set up a facebook site, run for council and seek to win the arguments. Then let’s see where democracy takes us. But if you lose at the ballot box, don’t moan about broken rules and maladministration.

By: Ann Jones

Ann Jones — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:55:41 +0000

You are right Ed, some of us do value wildlife more than “human hedonism”. In other words we should keep space for the other creatures that we share this planet with whereas hedonists are only interested in their own pleasure and really don’t care about anything else. If they did they wouldn’t be hedonists.
Old and young alike, walkers, hikers and bikers have patronised Lever Park in their thousands over the years and most went just to enjoy the open spaces and woodland and meet up with friends – all free of charge which is such a bonus in these recession filled times! To actually get something for free! Wow! And Ed, guess what, all this was going on long before anyone had heard of Go-Ape. At weekends you couldn’t find a parking spot unless you were up with the birds, and there were plenty of them around then.
Let folk have some fun and enjoy the great outdoors for pete’s sake, you say. How sad that people have to “be entertained” while in the “great outdoors” instead of just appreciating what is there all around them. And you don’t have to pay admission.
Lever Park is called a park because it is parkland. Not a forest where activities like Go-Ape are best sited. They do not impinge dramatically on the environment in a forest so everyone is happy. But in a small wooded area like Lever park it dominates. There is no getting away from it. If you want to see wildlife, other than the human kind in trees, you have to go when Go-Ape is closed. There is an official bridle path running through the wooded area but riders can no longer use it because, surprise surprise, people shouting and screaming with excitement in trees spook the horses and that is unsafe for everyone.
I will happily agree that Go-Ape is a fantastic outdoor activity which does give a lot of hedonists a quick fix and good luck to them. But I will never agree that a small wood in Lever Park is the right place for this activity.

By: Phil Johnson

Phil Johnson — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:37:19 +0000

Ironically Ed, having accused Friends of Lever Park and its supporters of probably all the ‘isms’ you could find in the dictionary, you seem to have completely missed the point. If you care to look back at the original posting that your comments relate to, you will note that this campaign has never been targetted towards GoApe as a company or indeed its activities in principle. I’m sorry to say that if you feel we are wrong in our defence of wildlife and all things natural over ‘human hedonism’, then I for one reserve the right to fight for the protection of an area that flora and fauna rely upon totally for their very existance, as opposed to human beings persuit of pleasure. Your comments and ideology, apart from being somewhat miguided, belong way back in the gladiatorial arenas of the mighty Roman Empire when hedonism undoubtedly ruled, (Whatever happened to that empire?)
For your information Ed, a general meeting was called on the 10th December last to inform all concerned of the findings by the Local Government Ombudsman with regard to our complaint about the way Chorley Borough Council conducted the planning process on receipt of GoApes application. CBC were found guilty of maladministration on 6 counts and injustices on 2 counts, unprecedented. Whilst you are championing the cause of hedonism for the downtrodden, recession riddled masses ( who are probably now either unemployed or desperately short of cash and can’t afford a GoApe experience) what about the rights of the people who desire and derive enjoyment from what was once a beautifully unspoilt area of woodland. Me thinks you are but an ill informed nave and a provoker of fine folk and should be banished with best wishes from this fine land, to the Isle of Hedon where wildlife no longer exists and all who are there persue their enjoyment to the full at the expense of each other.

By: bob dootson

bob dootson — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:29:47 +0000

I forgot to mention, do you want a full copy of the final decision, were Chorley were found guilty of maladministration and injustice and with no mention of a complaint against Go-Ape.

By: bob dootson

bob dootson — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 20:24:04 +0000

You might be attempting to be clever with words, but it’s obvious you haven’t a clue what it’s all about.
1) It’s not about go-ape.
2) It’s not about UU.
3) It’s about Chorley Borough Council not sticking to it’s own Constitution and Planning guidelines.
4) No-body has made one complaint about go-ape and UU, the only complaint made was because they had breached planning regs.
5) It’s Chorley Council that was reported to the LGO and ICO, no-body else.
6) It appears with your sarcastic tone that you support Local Government doing what they want. (in other words throw the rule book away)
7) I suppose you would support a police state, and to hell with public opinion.
May I suggest that you contact Go-Ape and ask as to whether “Friends of Lever Park” have ever made a complaint about their company, to themselves or in the press.
9) It is people like yourself who give Go-Ape a bad name, because you keep dragging them into arguments that don’t concern them.
10) If Chorley Council had abided by their Constitution and National guidelines in the first place, non of this would have happened.
The planning decision would have been reached democratically and nobody could have complained about anything.
11) We’re sick of telling everyone, it’s not about Go-Ape, it could have been Tesco or Asda. If the Council hadn’t abided by their own constitution and national guidelines, they would still have been reported to the LGO and ICO.
12) Ask the LGO (ombudsman) whether Chorley Council where found guilty of maladministration and injustice in the final decision of the investigation.
13) Ask the LGO whether Go-Ape were reported to them.
14) Don’t bother, you know what that answer is……..NO!

By: Ed Page

Ed Page — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:02:32 +0000

I see these objections as a nasty bout of nimbyism, infected with a hint of misanthropy and finished off with a garnish of hoi polloi loathing. Let’s say the council had followed all the procedures to the letter, you’d still be outraged wouldn’t you? Because you seem to value wildlife and nature more than human hedonism. Those wanting to have a bit of fun away from their recession filled lives are being denied the opportunity to let their hair down by a bunch of illiberal misanthropes. Life is tough enough without having to contend with the miserabilism of the outraged vocal minority. Let folk have some fun and enjoy the great outdoors for pete’s sake.