Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (15th Sep 2007 - 12:06:27) Just to save us scrolling down the 10 yards to the bottom of the other one!!!! Please tell me there will be a new access road to the proposed facilities.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - sue (15th Sep 2007 - 14:46:01) I would think another access would have to be made, as the present one is very dangerous to exit!! Where exactly, would depend on which piece/peices of land premission is granted would access be. Find it strange that some councillors are against development for housing etc, but find some very ready to accept part of the offer for leisure facilities. Dont go getting heated, I too know there is a lack of facilities, but on reading the 'gossip mag' find that actually there is quite a lot already on offer - perhaps not enough for the impending 'building boom' that will come our way. Surely the trade off for building these suggested leisure facilities will be to allow further building of what ever nature the owner/developers wish!!

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Chris (16th Sep 2007 - 06:52:19) ... let's not start thinking that this Bohunt Manor building thing is going ahead because, no matter what half-baked, money-making scheme is proposed it will be opposed vehemently. Long though the other talkback entry may be, it exposes the landowners and their cohorts as nothing more than greedy opportunists wanting to make a fast and serious buck at the expense of our heritage, a heritage that the previous and well-meaning owners wanted preserved. Watch out for these people as they will use every trick in the book to get their proposals to a state of acceptability and will abandon any process that seeks local opinion (see Herald article) if local opinion does not go their way!

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (20th Sep 2007 - 09:30:20) Chris. I am not for a minute suggesting that no one reads the original thread. In fact I think a law should be made to force people to! LOL. I accept that feelings are running very high about this at the moment, and rightly so. However (playing devils advocate), wouldn’t it be nice to have a Doctors / dentist / school etcetera big enough to cope with the residents of Liphook, Passfield, Bramshott and other wards? Wouldn’t it be nice to get a doctors appointment when you are ill and not when you’ve recovered? Wouldn’t it be nice if parents didn’t have to got through the horrendously stressful and upsetting appeals procedure just to get their children into their local school? (Been there and can confirm it is the most awful thing to endure). Wouldn’t it be nice to have a school laid out correctly to allow working parents to drop their children off with out running the gauntlet of the Avenue? I know that all these things would involve great change and upheaval. I know that people who are comfortable with the status quo won’t accept that these things are needed at all. I know that great sacrifices would have to be borne by the green belt and that there would be loss of amenity. However, I still think that we should consider this proposal rationally without getting too emotional about things. We should look at the advantages and disadvantages of things in their entirely before making any decisions to support or object. I would like to point out that I am in no way connected to any of the proposals. I am just a local working mother who had to battle to get my children into their school, who still has to use the Doctors surgery from previous address, who can’t find an NHS dentist in Liphook and who has to sit through traffic chaos every morning trying to get the boys into school.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Niall (20th Sep 2007 - 13:19:40) Purplecurly, As one of the opponenets of developing the Bohunt Manor estate I felt I ought to respond to your very reasonable comments; firstly by assuring you that I/we don't object to all development, just to development that appears inappropriate, poorly thoought out, out of keeping or similarly likely to meet with strong opposition. I think any reasonable person would want to say 'yes' to all of the questions you raise, however my first question to you is why does resolving these problems have to start with development in the green belt - surely other options exist?

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (20th Sep 2007 - 13:54:42) I know, and I agree that loss of green belt should be fought if there are alternatives. However, I do not believe that a) any alternative site would be large enough to cope and b) the loss of amenity will affect a large number of people – most of whom didn’t even know the place existed before now – let alone visit it. Do you know of a big enough alternative site? Do you really believe that the negatives involved with this proposal will outweigh the positives? I don’t know any of the answers, but I don’t want sensible debate squashed just because it is green belt. That is not a good enough reason to stand on its own. Neither is it important to discuss who is making what profit from the deal. We have to act logically if we are to deal with the extremely fast rate of growth that the village is experiencing. All the facilities we have are bursting at the seams and sending people away because they can’t cope. It is certainly not acceptable that children who have moved into the newly built estates in the area can’t get into school without a fight on their hands. Give me a credible alternative to this and I am happy to discuss it – but I don’t think there is one.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Chris (20th Sep 2007 - 14:16:12) I believe that this should have been thought of when planning for Liphook's newer estates was granted. In other words build the infrastructure on some of the land designated for houses were to cope with the extra households. This comes down to bad planning and a lack of proper studies and accountability for them before permission to generate housing is granted. BTW, there is currently a large and derilict sight (part of the former OSU) which would be ideal.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (20th Sep 2007 - 16:55:10) Purplecurly There should be plenty of land available for football pitches and running tracks in the area should the army leave Bordon as planned. It's very sad if people (particularly children) are unaware of or have no appreciation of the beautiful countryside around the village - and that is certainly not a reason to spoil it. I think the reason a number of people on this site object to the development of greenfield land as they have happy childhood memories of the countryside and want to pass this on to future generations. Otherwise why live here?

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (20th Sep 2007 - 17:28:41) Liz, True, all true. I currently enjoy Passfield Common and Conford Common they are truly beautiful places. They are worth preserving and fighting for. We are in fact surrounded by very beautiful places worth fighting for and that is why we live here. However, the one in question is up for debate and not frequently used by the public such as the National Trust lands are. I just Don’t think we should stifle discussion based on the Greenbelt fact alone. I certainly don’t want to be driving into Bordon every day to take the children to school – otherwise – why not live in Bordon?

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (20th Sep 2007 - 17:44:08) Liz, thinking about it, this actually emphasis one of the points I was tyng to make. Amenitys on offer are all in other places Haslemere, Bordon, etc etc I don’t want a running track in Bordon – what I would like is a logical discussion about the land in question to see if we can have some amenities HERE not somewhere else. I mean, how would our young children get to these places………Mums Taxi of course as there is no transport available. Lets get local stuff going for local residents and support the local community.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (21st Sep 2007 - 08:24:21) Land available would not necessarily just be in Bordon, there is MOD land all around us. Kids would no doubt depend on Mum's taxi wherever the amenities are placed. - They are already driven to the existing schools in the village hence the high traffic volumes you were complaining about.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - yoop (21st Sep 2007 - 13:24:39) Fact is, this area needs development in order to grow and prosper.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (21st Sep 2007 - 15:38:06) Liphook has prospered for many years with slow, steady growth and retained its character. The OSU development was a major leap without adequate provision being made for such a large influx of people. There is now a need for extra facilities/infrastructure to adjust for this but no need for further huge speculative development which would massively change the character of the area. No doubt some will wish to take advantage of the fact that Liphook is likely to be just on the outside of the proposed National Park so will be less protected from development. No doubt these people will position themselves appropriately - some may have already done so.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - sue (21st Sep 2007 - 16:48:18) It would seem reasonable to ask other landowners in the area if they too would like to develop their land. Then we could see such leisure developments/schools etc on the land near Hill House Hill, or down Hewshott Lane, on land at Bramshott or actually anywhere we would find it most suitable for such, even the old Hospital site, where they have already been granted permission to build OAP complex - but to date nothing has happened, why was that not considered for the leisure facilities. As far as I can tell, if it is ok to accept Bohunt Manor fields - all others are fair game too!

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - rita (23rd Sep 2007 - 10:51:28) Further to my post on the previous thread, I have made an important discovery which I think everyone interested in this saga, and particularly all volunteers on the farm should be made aware of. I have looked at the website of the Bohunt Community Organic Farm and at its links to the Songololo Trust and the Bohunt Conservancy Trust. I can find no trace of the trusts and wonder whether they have any legal existence or if the names are simply an attempt to legitimise Paddy's activities. If the trusts do exist, I would be interested to know who the trustees are and whether they own any assets eg any of the Bohunt manor estate. More interestingly, I found the following comment on the farm's website ie, Paddy's, which I find most intriguing. I quote it verbatim : "...Meanwhile, we have also tried to secure the long term future of the community farm by purchasing the lease from the landowner who has unfortunately decided to put the property on the open market. Unless we can raise the funds to purchase the land outright, we have been notified to vacate the plot." This nasty landowner would be Paddy's brother, Brian! I suggest that if any local volunteers are approached for financial support, they ask Paddy why his brother is apparently throwing him off the plot. More importantly, elsewhere in the same posting Paddy refers to the farm as a charity. I HAVE CHECKED WITH THE CHARITIES COMMISSION AND NONE OF PADDY'S ORGANISATIONS, INCLUDING THE FARM ARE REGISTERED CHARITIES. I suggest that Paddy removes this reference from his site asap as it could be deemed to be deliberately misleading at best, particularly if he requests donations from the (unsuspecting) public to buy the site. As I have said before Paddy, your stated aims clearly are at odds with those of your brother. If you want the local community to support you, hold an open day. Be honest about the status of the organisations, who the trustees are etc and what assets they hold if you really want local people to believe that you are doing something worthwhile. Otherwise we might think that you are trying to mount some sort of rearguard action for your brother to facilitate development of the site via change of use and its benefit to the community.......

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Niall (23rd Sep 2007 - 21:50:14) Purplecurly, You asked for 'a logical and rational' examination of the problem, 'looking at the advantages and disadvantages', so here goes; You list the following as your requirements: * More GPs surgeries * More dentists * Easier children's appointments * A better school's admissions policy * And, improved traffic management, especially around schools. Your solution is - development - and you see 'no credible alternative'. You ask whether I agree with your approach, and I don't. This is for the simple reason that developers build houses, lots of houses, and under pressure from the Council will povide a small (as little as they can manage) 'development gain', ie 'grant'. So for the 150 properties going into King George's site Liphook will get ~£1m, not enough, or appropriate funding, to buy anything on your list, despite the increase in demand, especially on medical services, that it will bring. Simply put - developer's don't provide social services; this is the job of government. Also any quick check of government finances shows that above inflation cost rises means that services are being cut, not improved. So, unless you know of some other source of funding for these local services, that is the situation? Unfortunately, what you propose, in simply terms, 'adds to the demand side of the equation' and does nothing for 'the supply side', so I have to agree with you that you don't have an answer, and say that I think your aspirations are overly optimistic. Is 'green belt' a factor - yes it is. There are guiding principles for development that have been built up over generations, and the countryside is not only part of our cultural heritage (ask any foreign visitor), but also why many of us choose to move to live here. You also say developer's profit hould not be a factor - I couldn't disagree more - why should someone with no interest in Liphook make a lifetime's fortune at the expense of local people?! However, profit IS an inportant factor - because it drives all of the unpleasant behaviour you are complaining about - and if you support it unchecked in local development, it will make all of the problems worse, not better. BTW, a 'systems view' of this problem provides a useful model - the M25 was the most 'desperately needed' ringroad in its day, but its development has created the greatest traffic congestion in the country, and every lane added adds a disproportionate volume of new traffic - contrary to expectations, but creating a viscious spiral of cause and effect. This is now accepted analysis. You ask for credible alternatives, and there are some - to the problems you describe. But they lie with government departments, specifically health, education and transport, and their Council equivalents, not with developers. Also, some others on this forum have suggested we throw all our protected areas open to developers - this comment may have been being ironic, or trouble making, you never can tell with the internet. However, if anyone does want development on that sort of scale I think they are simply living in the wrong place. The English countryside is unique, let's bequeath it to future generations - if you live for development then you should move to one of the towns with 100% growth targets, or ore - they do exist, but their social problems are worse than most. Or move to Dubai, it's one big building site, if that's what you want. But let's not turn Liphook into one, not in my name anyway!

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - sue (24th Sep 2007 - 16:54:36) Naill Just been catching up - and spotted a remark that was probably aimed at me. Firstly, i totally agree with your post - and assure you that I DO NOT think all greenbelt (or any) should be developed. You have been following this thread from the beginning and would have thought it obvious that I wasn't advocating 'build where ever you can'. And certainly not to cause trouble. It was a comment based on PC's reaction that as Bohunt is not accessed by the public as much as Passfield Common, it should be acceptable to build on it. Basically, if this goes ahead, all other 'fields' would be up for future development.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (25th Sep 2007 - 12:26:18) The fact that threads based on this go on for so long just goes to show how we are all wanting something different and are all concerned at the same time. I am not advocating that the land should definitely be built on, I am just saying that if it is inevitable lets get it done right, and right the first time to avoid later hassle. Liphook schools have been looking for a new site for years and years, this as far as I know is the first viable one. If the schools were big enough for the pupils of Liphook and surrounding villages then that would resolve one of the main problems facing parents in this area. Also, I don’t think it is of any use to fight ALL development. It will happen whether we like it or not and the more input we have at the beginning the less we will have to moan about later. We must face up to facts. Liphook is haemorrhaging. It is bursting at the seams with the influx of new families. And yet, we are told by government that we still need more new houses. All the time central government follow this line, then developers will get the go ahead to build – it is a simple as that. No one likes it – but we all have to lump it. So lets lump it in the best method available – by being proactive about what we will and won’t stand for and try to fight things that are bad for the community as a whole. This community WILL grow bigger. We need infant and junior schools big enough to cope. And we need infrastructure in place to support all the newcomers.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - sue (25th Sep 2007 - 20:04:59) PC I do not think anyone has ever said on this that NO further development should happen in Liphook, (That will just never happen, nor should it), only that at present, ‘greenfield’ sites should be avoided until we come to the point of exhausting all other 'brown' fields and unused land first. Its funny, not too long ago they built Victoria Way (about 4 years ago), right NEXT to Bohunt and its fields - should that not have been considered then? Too late now, but it does show perhaps the lack of foresight on behalf of those who should have been more 'on the ball'. Also prior to that development was the Firs, still near to Bohunt, and Silent Garden the large house at the end of the firs has been purchased by developers, perhaps this should be looked into first, and you could actually have another school linked to Bohunt through a 'shared sports field' - rather than accept greenfield sites. As I have said earlier to build what we need/want as a community you would have to accept what they want. Then the benefit of increased classes would be reduced by the influx of large numbers of families. I remember when my kids were small, they built the whole new estate off Conde Way in Bordon/Whitehill, put great strain on the existing schools. So they built one on the estate, extended the estate and completely filled the school and it still left the existing schools bursting at the seams - and there was a great deal of fighting for anyone from the immediate area to ever get a place. The problem is complex and should be thoroughly chewed over, and not just grabbed because a moneymaking person dresses it up for 'our communities benefit' - beware of any such noble gestures! Sue

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Mike Grimes (25th Sep 2007 - 23:37:22) PC. "We must face up to facts. Liphook is haemorrhaging. It is bursting at the seams with the influx of new families. " I really cannot accept this as fact. I have not checked upstairs yet but I do not expect to find that another family has moved in up there. If new families are moving in they need somewhere to move in to FIRST.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (26th Sep 2007 - 09:15:48) Mike I would assume the point was that the families have already found places to live but due to lack of planning there are not sufficient facilities/infrastructure to cope. Or, if there is, it is 'close to bursting'.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (26th Sep 2007 - 13:29:31) I like a little bit of humour with my cornflakes! did you check in next doors' garden though Mike?

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Phil MN (26th Sep 2007 - 17:15:26) Possibly the best bit of humour in this thread is the joke about proprty developers engaging the local community so as to influence their profits, er sorry development!

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Rita (1st Oct 2007 - 10:45:31) Sorry to bang on about this but the name of this thread is still Bohunt Manor not the redevelopment of Liphook. Bohunt Manor (the land at least ) is still in private hands and all of this talk of redevelopment, as if it was a done deal, is only going to play into the hands of those who would like to build over every bit of available green space in our area. The redevelopment of Liphook, if it happens, should be the subject of another thread. I am still concerned about what is happening at Bohunt Manor farm and the use of volunteers. Please see my previous comment. The land is still in private hands and local volunteers are being asked to work on a farm that is allegedly a trust but for which no evidence exists that this is the case. Private landowners can clearly use their land as they see fit (subject to local planning laws etc!) but to describe it as a charity when it is not registered as such with the charities commission is deliberately misleading and I think we should be concerned about this. Charitable status is only granted if rigorous criteria are met and I doubt whether the farm meets these. Paddy has removed the comment about the landlord and the threat of eviction from the farm since I pointed out that said evil landlord would be his brother, Brian. Clearly they do talk to each other. If your farm is registered as a charity, Paddy, then put the registered charity number on your website. If not, then please stop misleading the people of Liphook. If anyone reading this knows anyone who volunteers at the farm, please pass this on.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Editor (2nd Oct 2007 - 11:13:04) We have today received a request to remove various posts from this thread. In answer to the questions from the letter writer - 1) Posts will be erased, once reviewed. 2) We retain the connection details BUT will not give them to you, only to a validated Police request. 3) We will not ourselves post an apology, but invite other people to apologise to you if they feel it is required.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (2nd Oct 2007 - 15:21:41) We all see things about ourselves we don't like but don't go whinging to the editor about comments in a local forum. Liphook is a friendly place despite the odd 'spat' . Shame if that is spoiled.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - sue (2nd Oct 2007 - 18:48:40) Editor, You have been sent a letter. In the details you mention that those who wish to apologise can do so themselves. Without seeming too stupid, who is asking and what is it they are asking an apology for? [editor - I'm trying to ascertain the exact details from the letter writer who for now I won't reveal. I am seeking legal advice about the posts above. Until then, the posts will stay visible. What exactly requires an apology remains a mystery.]

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (2nd Oct 2007 - 21:07:13) I can't image why you would need to seek legal advice when people are expressing their opinions? I take it there is still free speech in this country? I am now going to trawl very carefully through the whole thread to see if I can spot any credible defamation. I might point out that there is never legal aid for defamation cases which are notoriously long drawn out affairs and very very expensive to bring as a claimant. On the other hand, as a defendant in a defamation claim, the person on the receiving end would have very little expenditure. Even then, if it a matter in the public interest upon which a valid view is expressed - it cannot ever be proved to be defamatory [save a few exceptions re:chastity of women and incompetance in the workplace]. The truth can never defame. PC

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - purplecurly (2nd Oct 2007 - 21:26:47) OK, the nub of it seems to be this…….. In the humble opinion of a poster, Brian is a nasty landowner and an evil landlord; the landowners are generally greedy & propose to make money at the expense of heritage and the public have been deliberately misled re: charity status. Although this is a bitter pill to swallow for anyone, opinions truly held are seriously difficult to establish as libel. The fact that if they make money it will undoubtedly be at the expense of heritage would be thrown out as truth - and whether there is a misleading statement re: charity status is a genuine matter of public interest. The only thing that would not get thrown out on the claim form are the terms ‘nasty’ and ‘evil’. Neither of these imply that the persons concerned are incompetent in their professions and if anything amount merely to personal slur. To go up to the Crown for a mere slur would cost serious wads of cash and quite frankly, the Master would likely chuck it out via CPR rules prior to any hearing.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Paddy (3rd Oct 2007 - 10:59:32) For clairification purposes The Bohunt Manor Conservancy and the Bohunt Community Organic Farm are NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMMUNITY GROUPS as stated on the title pages of their respective websites. These are quite different organisations from Registered Charities (which often exist to distribute funds) and I would not and have not claimed such status here (although others in this forum wrongly assume so) [editor - Paddy on bohuntcommunityfood.blogspot.com 14 September 2007 you still state "for a small local charititable organisation such as ours", and on bohuntmanorconservancy.blogspot.com 16 September 2007 "Our September meeting was used to discuss how best to promote the conservation objectives of our charitiable organisation" - it is very clear why people are confused when you put out such contradicting messages]

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (3rd Oct 2007 - 11:58:53) Paddy I note that the Songololo Trust today describes itself as "an environmental organisation with charitable objectives". Just yesterday the text in the same spot said "an environmental charity". Thanks for the clarification - but we had already realised.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - Niall (3rd Oct 2007 - 21:09:39) Paddy, 'For clarification purposes' you are a prize pl0nker! And no, you can't sue or tell on me to the Police - it's called freedom of speech.

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - sue (3rd Oct 2007 - 22:00:16) Leaving aside who owns what, who said what, who seeks an apology for this and that, I feel that residents of LIPHOOK are owed a huge apology - basically the 'trust' however funded printed :- " Our AUGUST poll asked whether people in Liphook get involved in nature conservation Only 18% of respondents (less than 1 in 5) considered that we do, even if just lending moral support for others who look after the environment This leaves a massive 81% who thought that Liphook people were either too busy in their lives or did not think that conservation was important enough to spend time actively caring for their local environment. Although this reflects rather badly on Liphook, it is not that different from more extensive, scientific surveys etc.. Closer to Home, the Bohunt Manor Conservancy witnessed an initial surge of interest in conservation by local people (or possibly just curiosity at the changes happening in the village?). Over the following year and a half, Liphook people generally did not wish to get actively involved and most of our conservation work was undertaken by a small group of dedicated volunteers. Having said that, we have had terrific interest in our organised events, whether it be a community tree planting, a night survey of bats or a mammal trapping survey by the local Guides. These conclusions will obviously effect our forward planning at the Conservancy. As a small charity without any external funding sources, it is important that we focus all our resources on the land itself and on keeping the support of local land owners in our cause.. (it goes on) There is a huge task ahead to persuade local people that the environment on their own doorstep is the most important one etc. So, Liphook people, prove the polls wrong and make a commitment to do something worthwhile, rewarding and fun." Now from recent posts, the wording seems to be altered daily, this was taken from the printed information that I did on the 30.8.07. How many people were asked? Where was the information obtained? I certainly have not been asked - nor has anyone I have spoken to. It is a shame that people can print what ever they like on these sites, and without this subject being raised very few of us would have known about it either. Very misleading to the Liphook community. If there is no external funding - and you are not a 'charity' and do not receive monies, How do you pay for the work carried out? Are you expecting a large 'donation' from the landowner once the development is accepted - or do you have other ways of supporting the trust? I am not having a 'go' at you, but I feel things are rather sketchy. And as you have not taken up my offer to discuss this personally, I have to ask these question here in open!. Paddy, perhaps you should alter your figures, as there are obviously a few more who do care about the environment and nature - enough to try to stop development on it!! Sue

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - liz (4th Oct 2007 - 11:24:02) Sue I doubt you'll get an apology for the comments on the trust blogspot. - I drew attention to them some time ago (see my post of 29 August - sorry, it is a while ago. )Also asked for more details of the Songololo Trust. Just curious. Didn't get a response of course. Now we know it is a ' Not for profit organisation' well, so's the Residents Association where I live but we don't consider ourselves a 'charitable organisation' (although we are quite nice!) - perhaps that's why we have to pay for our own restoration and gardening. Perhaps if I gave talks on environmental issues......... (I am quailfied!).

Re: Bohunt Manor Estate II [The Sequel] - rita (4th Oct 2007 - 12:36:00) Thank you to all of the posters who defended the right to free speech after I rattled Paddy's cage. For the purposes of clarification Paddy, my primary interest in all of this is simply to understand the basis on which you are attracting participation in the your projects. It's now clear that none of them are charities or charitable organisations - as far as the general public are concerned they are one and the same thing. What you now seem to be saying is that they are non-profit making community projects with charitable objectives, which is somewhat different, but we can run with that. As I have maintained throughout, if you wish to involve the local community in these projects I would suggest that you have a duty to publish the organisation's objectives and how they are funded. I cannot see how this can be unreasonable. Given that it is land privately owned by your brother, as I have said before, you and he can do what you like with it, subject to local planning laws. However, since it is you yourself who have placed your projects in the public domain by inviting local people to become involved, you really cannot complain if those local people would like more openness and information about the organisations' objectives and funding. The reason why this issue has run and run is because of the lack of transparency, and the fact that in the past, certain statements on your website have proved to be misleading. In an earlier posting on the community farm website you maintained that the landowner might force you to leave unless you could pay for the land, without making it clear that the landlord is your brother. In addition, referring to the community farm as a charity is very misleading, as this is a precise legal term with a clear meaning and which confers a particular status on an organisation. Paddy, you may be doing the community a great service; but possibly inadvertently you have created a number of misleading impressions, and until you are more open about your objectives, funding and the tenant/landlord relationship between you and your brother, you cannot be surprised if people are suspicious of your motives. As I have said on previous occasions, you could end this speculation once and for all by making a small presentation at one of your local meetings and addressing all of these issues. You started this, Paddy, by placing the community farm and the conservation trust in the public domain, so I'm afraid you cannot escape public scrutiny. The ball's in your court.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home