Pool review costs thousands

Nigel Gibson asked a High Court judge to review the decision to close Temple Cowley Pools

Nigel Gibson asked a High Court judge to review the decision to close Temple Cowley Pools

First published in News

OXFORD City Council has revealed it spent more than £7,500 on contesting the judicial review against its decision to build a new swimming pool in Blackbird Leys.

Plans to build the pool were approved in July 2011 but it has been hit by setbacks, including two judical reviews.

The Leys pool project would see Temple Cowley Pools closed and the land sold off to part-fund building the new pool.

Campaigners against the planned closure launched several petitions in a bid to halt the plans and last October Headington resident Nigel Gibson asked a High Court judge to review the decision.

Under the Freedom of Information Act the city council is revealed to have spent £7,570 on counsel’s and court fees to date.

In August Mr Gibson was refused permission to apply for another judicial review by a High Court judge.

He appealed and a hearing will take place to decide the matter in December.

The council estimates that its officers across all departments have spent a total of 55 hours working on its defence since the application was lodged, but this is described as a “conservative” estimate.

Related links

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:46pm Sat 13 Oct 12

AmandaJP says...

The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?
The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet? AmandaJP
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

AmandaJP wrote:
The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?
Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past.

To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from "The Oxford Times" back in 2006:-

"Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."
[quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?[/p][/quote]Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from "The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms." Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 2

10:24pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

Let's hope the High Court also throw out the appeal (and require the group to pay full costs).

Just like the Ombudsman did, as reported in "The Oxfrord Mail", a few weeks back.

**Among the cases thrown out by the ombudsman was a claim from Save Temple Cowley Pools campaigner Jane Alexander that the council failed to investigate her claims she was assaulted by councillor Bryan Keen. The council had previously found the claim to be false.**
Let's hope the High Court also throw out the appeal (and require the group to pay full costs). Just like the Ombudsman did, as reported in "The Oxfrord Mail", a few weeks back. **Among the cases thrown out by the ombudsman was a claim from Save Temple Cowley Pools campaigner Jane Alexander that the council failed to investigate her claims she was assaulted by councillor Bryan Keen. The council had previously found the claim to be false.** Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Sat 13 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Two Judicial Reviews? More inaccurate information - did the Oxford Mail get this from the Council? Perhaps they should ask Mr Gibson and get the facts. The Campaign has demonstrated time and again that all the evidence the Council provides on this issue is a combination of misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and untrue.

Mr Gibson has applied for a Judicial Review of the decision the Council made in July last year, as stated in the article. The Administration Court decided to side with the Council, but did not give any reasons. Mr Gibson has asked for the application to be heard in Court on 7th December - it is not an appeal, and it is not a second Judicial Review.

All this cost and delay could have been avoided if Mr Sloman, the Chief Executive of the Council, had discussed the matter with the Campaign when he was invited to after the decision to go ahead with the proposed new pool was made in July 11. He didn't, so the only thing left for the Campaign was to ask for the Judicial Review.

The two points in the Judicial Review are that the Council did not consult with the public properly (no-one was asked if they wanted a new pool, or if they wanted Temple Cowley Pools closed), and did not consider what would happen to the different groups of people using Temple Cowley Pools if it was closed.

The article mentions "several petitions" - there have actually been five in total, the last one was debated at a Council meeting last Monday. Each petition needs at least 1,500 signatures to force the Council to debate, and this number of petitions shows how strongly the public of Oxford feel about the issue. It's a shame that the Council and the controlling Labour group has decided to ignore the public.

Anyone can find the real information on http://savetemplecow
leypools.webs.com
Two Judicial Reviews? More inaccurate information - did the Oxford Mail get this from the Council? Perhaps they should ask Mr Gibson and get the facts. The Campaign has demonstrated time and again that all the evidence the Council provides on this issue is a combination of misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and untrue. Mr Gibson has applied for a Judicial Review of the decision the Council made in July last year, as stated in the article. The Administration Court decided to side with the Council, but did not give any reasons. Mr Gibson has asked for the application to be heard in Court on 7th December - it is not an appeal, and it is not a second Judicial Review. All this cost and delay could have been avoided if Mr Sloman, the Chief Executive of the Council, had discussed the matter with the Campaign when he was invited to after the decision to go ahead with the proposed new pool was made in July 11. He didn't, so the only thing left for the Campaign was to ask for the Judicial Review. The two points in the Judicial Review are that the Council did not consult with the public properly (no-one was asked if they wanted a new pool, or if they wanted Temple Cowley Pools closed), and did not consider what would happen to the different groups of people using Temple Cowley Pools if it was closed. The article mentions "several petitions" - there have actually been five in total, the last one was debated at a Council meeting last Monday. Each petition needs at least 1,500 signatures to force the Council to debate, and this number of petitions shows how strongly the public of Oxford feel about the issue. It's a shame that the Council and the controlling Labour group has decided to ignore the public. Anyone can find the real information on http://savetemplecow leypools.webs.com SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

Has anyone else noticed that the only "N Gibson" in Oxford, on the (publically available) voters roll lives in the *OX2* postcode area.

I suppose it might be handy for work.
Has anyone else noticed that the only "N Gibson" in Oxford, on the (publically available) voters roll lives in the *OX2* postcode area. I suppose it might be handy for work. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Sat 13 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Andrew - your posts might have more merit and weight if they were not so full of personal attacks and insinuations.Please stick to the article topic.
Andrew - your posts might have more merit and weight if they were not so full of personal attacks and insinuations.Please stick to the article topic. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

7:49am Sun 14 Oct 12

Christine Hovis says...

£7500 is remarkably good value for having to hire lawyers to defend against the campaigners continued battle against this. The campaign has already cost us having a new pool up and ready - which could have been done by now.

If we're going to have a new pool for the east of the city, it has to be built somewhere where there's space.
£7500 is remarkably good value for having to hire lawyers to defend against the campaigners continued battle against this. The campaign has already cost us having a new pool up and ready - which could have been done by now. If we're going to have a new pool for the east of the city, it has to be built somewhere where there's space. Christine Hovis
  • Score: 1

7:53am Sun 14 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Andrew - your posts might have more merit and weight if they were not so full of personal attacks and insinuations.Please stick to the article topic.
Do you deny that members of the SaveTCP group campaigned to prevent the locker rooms being refurbished?

Do you deny that Jane Alexander was quoted in the "Oxford Times" as saying "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."?

Do you deny that the only "N Gibson" listed on the (publically available) voters roll living in Oxford, lives in the OX2 postcode area?

Factually accurate posting is key, even though it doesn't meet the official SaveTCP board PR message.

It would be interesting to know, of the 17500 signatures over a handful of petitions, how many signatures are unique and how many people either live overseas or outside Oxfordshire?

With the court date set for 7th December, it can't be long until the pool is closed and drained for emergency repair work. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Andrew - your posts might have more merit and weight if they were not so full of personal attacks and insinuations.Please stick to the article topic.[/p][/quote]Do you deny that members of the SaveTCP group campaigned to prevent the locker rooms being refurbished? Do you deny that Jane Alexander was quoted in the "Oxford Times" as saying "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."? Do you deny that the only "N Gibson" listed on the (publically available) voters roll living in Oxford, lives in the OX2 postcode area? Factually accurate posting is key, even though it doesn't meet the official SaveTCP board PR message. It would be interesting to know, of the 17500 signatures over a handful of petitions, how many signatures are unique and how many people either live overseas or outside Oxfordshire? With the court date set for 7th December, it can't be long until the pool is closed and drained for emergency repair work. ;-) Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

7:56am Sun 14 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Andrew - your posts might have more merit and weight if they were not so full of personal attacks and insinuations.Please stick to the article topic.
Missed this one... Do you also deny this quote from "The Oxford Mail"?

**Among the cases thrown out by the ombudsman was a claim from Save Temple Cowley Pools campaigner Jane Alexander that the council failed to investigate her claims she was assaulted by councillor Bryan Keen. The council had previously found the claim to be false.**
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Andrew - your posts might have more merit and weight if they were not so full of personal attacks and insinuations.Please stick to the article topic.[/p][/quote]Missed this one... Do you also deny this quote from "The Oxford Mail"? **Among the cases thrown out by the ombudsman was a claim from Save Temple Cowley Pools campaigner Jane Alexander that the council failed to investigate her claims she was assaulted by councillor Bryan Keen. The council had previously found the claim to be false.** Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

10:37am Sun 14 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Christine : the original estimate presented to Council for the new pool (and remember, it's just a new pool) was £3-5.5m. The Council was forced to admit at a recent meeting that the costs are now over £11m - for a swimming pool that's no bigger than what we have now is just crazy. The existing facilities can be refurbished for £3m. The Council has never asked anyone what they want. Not in Cowley, or Blackbird Leys, or anywhere else in the City.

If the Council had listened to what people wanted, and publicised all the relevant information, there could have been open and transparent decision making. There hasn't been.

The Campaign is not simply about opinion, it's backed up with evidence. And mostly evidence that we've uncovered that the Council is willingly telling us.

See http://tiny.cc/savet
cp for real information.

And a single new pool instead of what we have now - two pools, diving pool, gym, sauna/steam room, exercise studio - in the wrong place means that thousands of people will lose the opportunity to maintain their health, fitness and quality of life where they want it, in Temple Cowley.
Christine : the original estimate presented to Council for the new pool (and remember, it's just a new pool) was £3-5.5m. The Council was forced to admit at a recent meeting that the costs are now over £11m - for a swimming pool that's no bigger than what we have now is just crazy. The existing facilities can be refurbished for £3m. The Council has never asked anyone what they want. Not in Cowley, or Blackbird Leys, or anywhere else in the City. If the Council had listened to what people wanted, and publicised all the relevant information, there could have been open and transparent decision making. There hasn't been. The Campaign is not simply about opinion, it's backed up with evidence. And mostly evidence that we've uncovered that the Council is willingly telling us. See http://tiny.cc/savet cp for real information. And a single new pool instead of what we have now - two pools, diving pool, gym, sauna/steam room, exercise studio - in the wrong place means that thousands of people will lose the opportunity to maintain their health, fitness and quality of life where they want it, in Temple Cowley. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

10:44am Sun 14 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Andrew : It's entirely unclear in what way you feel your multiple postings are relevant. Saying that as far as science is aware, the earth is an oblate spheroid is factually accurate, but has no bearing on the Council misleading the public with lack of information, or not consulting properly, or not looking after the thousands of existing users whose health, fitness and quality of life will be affected by spending over £13m for a facility in a place where there is no evidence of demand. The question to ask is more why the Council has such a dodgy argument to put forward that it is not prepared to give all relevant information openly and transparently?
Andrew : It's entirely unclear in what way you feel your multiple postings are relevant. Saying that as far as science is aware, the earth is an oblate spheroid is factually accurate, but has no bearing on the Council misleading the public with lack of information, or not consulting properly, or not looking after the thousands of existing users whose health, fitness and quality of life will be affected by spending over £13m for a facility in a place where there is no evidence of demand. The question to ask is more why the Council has such a dodgy argument to put forward that it is not prepared to give all relevant information openly and transparently? SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Geoff Roberts says...

Christine Hovis wrote:
£7500 is remarkably good value for having to hire lawyers to defend against the campaigners continued battle against this. The campaign has already cost us having a new pool up and ready - which could have been done by now.

If we're going to have a new pool for the east of the city, it has to be built somewhere where there's space.
Looks like The Oxford Mail are now joining in on kicking our community when it's down along with some of the commenters. By use of some dodgy reporting.

All of the points I've made previously still stand and haven't really been addressed. Meanwhile this kind of reporting is serving to further divide people.

Why is it that some people seem determined to put the boot in? Surely if you're on the side of the council then you are getting what you wanted and there's no need to start attacking individuals who have been helping the campaign?

I don't see how it's the campaigners fault for the legal costs of trying to save a community pool from a council that has neglected it and it was the council that neglected it, not the campaigners. So why now attack the campaigners?

The campaign hasn't cost us a new pool up and running. If you move a facility out of the community and into another one it ceases to exist full stop. The new pool would not be a new pool for the community because it would no longer be in the community, it would be in another community.
[quote][p][bold]Christine Hovis[/bold] wrote: £7500 is remarkably good value for having to hire lawyers to defend against the campaigners continued battle against this. The campaign has already cost us having a new pool up and ready - which could have been done by now. If we're going to have a new pool for the east of the city, it has to be built somewhere where there's space.[/p][/quote]Looks like The Oxford Mail are now joining in on kicking our community when it's down along with some of the commenters. By use of some dodgy reporting. All of the points I've made previously still stand and haven't really been addressed. Meanwhile this kind of reporting is serving to further divide people. Why is it that some people seem determined to put the boot in? Surely if you're on the side of the council then you are getting what you wanted and there's no need to start attacking individuals who have been helping the campaign? I don't see how it's the campaigners fault for the legal costs of trying to save a community pool from a council that has neglected it and it was the council that neglected it, not the campaigners. So why now attack the campaigners? The campaign hasn't cost us a new pool up and running. If you move a facility out of the community and into another one it ceases to exist full stop. The new pool would not be a new pool for the community because it would no longer be in the community, it would be in another community. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Geoff Roberts says...

As I've said previously: The policies and bad management of the council have left us arguing over the scraps of what is left. If we're desperate enough that we haven't got the money to keep a community facility in repair and in the community then it's clear that the council have failed to do their jobs properly.

The councillors involved have time and time again under performed, they have not used land to it's full advantage, they've not handled any revenue our communities have well, they've allowed a drain of money to occur, they've failed to even simply stand up and declare they will fight. Instead they've just given in and spent their time justifying giving in whilst the communities that are being deprived not only suffer but now are taking the flack for the whole thing.

If the council were a business it would be one that has performed exceptionally badly, it's councillors who are managers for their areas/departments are underperforming in their jobs. Not unless their jobs are solely about cutting costs, which they aren't.

Normally there'd hopefully be a system where their performance can reviewed properly and we, the employers of the councillors, the ones who voted them in (well, a minority of us who voted them in!) to look after our communities (not to cut costs) would be able to have some leverage over their performance or cause another election so we can effectively sack them and employ some people who will actually fight for our communities.
As I've said previously: The policies and bad management of the council have left us arguing over the scraps of what is left. If we're desperate enough that we haven't got the money to keep a community facility in repair and in the community then it's clear that the council have failed to do their jobs properly. The councillors involved have time and time again under performed, they have not used land to it's full advantage, they've not handled any revenue our communities have well, they've allowed a drain of money to occur, they've failed to even simply stand up and declare they will fight. Instead they've just given in and spent their time justifying giving in whilst the communities that are being deprived not only suffer but now are taking the flack for the whole thing. If the council were a business it would be one that has performed exceptionally badly, it's councillors who are managers for their areas/departments are underperforming in their jobs. Not unless their jobs are solely about cutting costs, which they aren't. Normally there'd hopefully be a system where their performance can reviewed properly and we, the employers of the councillors, the ones who voted them in (well, a minority of us who voted them in!) to look after our communities (not to cut costs) would be able to have some leverage over their performance or cause another election so we can effectively sack them and employ some people who will actually fight for our communities. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Geoff Roberts says...

So, next time we all head to the polling station perhaps we should actually have some evidence to support why we're voting for the people we're about to vote for.

There should be a clear mandate there, a clear job description and we should be able to compare that job description against their actual performance in the job.

Instead of doing that many people just vote for the colour/brand or local character that they've always voted for because they seem like a nice chap, or because they aren't as bad as the other chap or because your family has always voted for that colour or because you can get a free lift to the polling station or because of what's happening at a national level (that's what tends to happen when the general election and local elections coincide). People have a tendency to vote in local elections for what is popular at a national level, without actually assessing what that party has been doing at a local level.
So, next time we all head to the polling station perhaps we should actually have some evidence to support why we're voting for the people we're about to vote for. There should be a clear mandate there, a clear job description and we should be able to compare that job description against their actual performance in the job. Instead of doing that many people just vote for the colour/brand or local character that they've always voted for because they seem like a nice chap, or because they aren't as bad as the other chap or because your family has always voted for that colour or because you can get a free lift to the polling station or because of what's happening at a national level (that's what tends to happen when the general election and local elections coincide). People have a tendency to vote in local elections for what is popular at a national level, without actually assessing what that party has been doing at a local level. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: -1

1:01pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Geoff Roberts says...

There may be an argument to suggest that the councillors hands were tied, that they are forced into privatising our land and had no control over that.

I can't see what that argument may be, particularly since I was corrected in my knowledge about how council tax is distributed.

If there is an argument then I have seen no evidence from councillors to show for it. If there are no external forces or forces that the council cannot have influence over then it stands to reason that the council are responsible for the mismanagement of an entire city.

If there are things that the council has no influence over, which means they have to do the anti social (for that's what they amount to) things they are doing then perhaps the councillors should have made this clear to us all and joined forces with each other and our communities to fight those external influences or at least be honest about it. I suspect many of them are too proud to admit that position though so instead they pretend to be in control and in doing so they should accept the responsibility and stop trying to push it on to other people whose jobs it isn't and who are in effect suffering from their political impotence.
There may be an argument to suggest that the councillors hands were tied, that they are forced into privatising our land and had no control over that. I can't see what that argument may be, particularly since I was corrected in my knowledge about how council tax is distributed. If there is an argument then I have seen no evidence from councillors to show for it. If there are no external forces or forces that the council cannot have influence over then it stands to reason that the council are responsible for the mismanagement of an entire city. If there are things that the council has no influence over, which means they have to do the anti social (for that's what they amount to) things they are doing then perhaps the councillors should have made this clear to us all and joined forces with each other and our communities to fight those external influences or at least be honest about it. I suspect many of them are too proud to admit that position though so instead they pretend to be in control and in doing so they should accept the responsibility and stop trying to push it on to other people whose jobs it isn't and who are in effect suffering from their political impotence. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Andrew : It's entirely unclear in what way you feel your multiple postings are relevant. Saying that as far as science is aware, the earth is an oblate spheroid is factually accurate, but has no bearing on the Council misleading the public with lack of information, or not consulting properly, or not looking after the thousands of existing users whose health, fitness and quality of life will be affected by spending over £13m for a facility in a place where there is no evidence of demand. The question to ask is more why the Council has such a dodgy argument to put forward that it is not prepared to give all relevant information openly and transparently?
I'm glad you accept my postings are accurate.

All the information out there - unfortunately the content of the information doesn't match the aspirations of the SaveTCP group.

Here's a hint though. Did you know that if each time one of the signatories had signed the various petitions they had donated £12 - the SaveTCP group could have leased the former Lord Nuffield Club for an entire year!

SaveTCP could have their own community operated gym co-operative - probably a first for the country - you'd even be able to choose which postcodes or parishes were suitable for members. You'd even be able to have a cubicle free locker room if that was the committee preference!

Sadly too busy trying to stop a new facility being built for everyone in the community of South Oxford.
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Andrew : It's entirely unclear in what way you feel your multiple postings are relevant. Saying that as far as science is aware, the earth is an oblate spheroid is factually accurate, but has no bearing on the Council misleading the public with lack of information, or not consulting properly, or not looking after the thousands of existing users whose health, fitness and quality of life will be affected by spending over £13m for a facility in a place where there is no evidence of demand. The question to ask is more why the Council has such a dodgy argument to put forward that it is not prepared to give all relevant information openly and transparently?[/p][/quote]I'm glad you accept my postings are accurate. All the information out there - unfortunately the content of the information doesn't match the aspirations of the SaveTCP group. Here's a hint though. Did you know that if each time one of the signatories had signed the various petitions they had donated £12 - the SaveTCP group could have leased the former Lord Nuffield Club for an entire year! SaveTCP could have their own community operated gym co-operative - probably a first for the country - you'd even be able to choose which postcodes or parishes were suitable for members. You'd even be able to have a cubicle free locker room if that was the committee preference! Sadly too busy trying to stop a new facility being built for everyone in the community of South Oxford. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -1

1:32pm Sun 14 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Andrew : read and inwardly digest what Geoff has said - he is totally on the point. You are adding nothing by making personal attacks. Quoting the press out of context, insinuating but not quite saying something... And also using text that is no longer on the web. Do you copy the whole OxMail web content, or do you reserve that for selected Campaigns?

The Oxford communities are littered with dismal tales of how public subscriptions financed public facilities, believing that the Council would maintain them. Time and again proved wrong, as the Council simply grabs what cash it can from anywhere to prop up its policies, while not listening to the public.

We read elsewhere that the Council and Princes Trust are going to spend 18 months in Blackbird Leys listening to the public. Great. What's started them listening now? Why not wait to build anything there (like a proposed new pool) until they've consulted. What the public really wants is for the current swimming pool in Blackbird Leys to be improved and added to. Instead of a few water sprays, have a flume like at the Didcot Wave, a wave machine like Didcot, Reading.... Facilities that people would actually use. There is no evidence that Blackbird Leys wants a competition pool - otherwise they'd be asking for the current pool to be open more.

The Council is actively running down public facilities such as TCP and Blackbird Leys - they need to maintain public assets like this for the good of the communities they serve now, and can continue to serve. And Geoff is absolutely correct, closing TCP down would mean taking away community facilities for that community, which is not just Temple Cowley, but everyone who wants to walk/cycle there, go in their lunchtime from round the corner, visit before/after work etc etc etc. And the distance is not the point. Even from Rose Hill you have to take two buses to get to Pegasus Road - the additional time means that people won't go as frequently. And Labour will be responsible for closing down another public asset, and reducing the quality of life of thousands of people.

And by building a proposed new pool in the centre of Blackbird Leys, it's actually Labour restricting access to certain postcodes - the 10,000 they claim within 15mins walking distance are only BBL residents!
Andrew : read and inwardly digest what Geoff has said - he is totally on the point. You are adding nothing by making personal attacks. Quoting the press out of context, insinuating but not quite saying something... And also using text that is no longer on the web. Do you copy the whole OxMail web content, or do you reserve that for selected Campaigns? The Oxford communities are littered with dismal tales of how public subscriptions financed public facilities, believing that the Council would maintain them. Time and again proved wrong, as the Council simply grabs what cash it can from anywhere to prop up its policies, while not listening to the public. We read elsewhere that the Council and Princes Trust are going to spend 18 months in Blackbird Leys listening to the public. Great. What's started them listening now? Why not wait to build anything there (like a proposed new pool) until they've consulted. What the public really wants is for the current swimming pool in Blackbird Leys to be improved and added to. Instead of a few water sprays, have a flume like at the Didcot Wave, a wave machine like Didcot, Reading.... Facilities that people would actually use. There is no evidence that Blackbird Leys wants a competition pool - otherwise they'd be asking for the current pool to be open more. The Council is actively running down public facilities such as TCP and Blackbird Leys - they need to maintain public assets like this for the good of the communities they serve now, and can continue to serve. And Geoff is absolutely correct, closing TCP down would mean taking away community facilities for that community, which is not just Temple Cowley, but everyone who wants to walk/cycle there, go in their lunchtime from round the corner, visit before/after work etc etc etc. And the distance is not the point. Even from Rose Hill you have to take two buses to get to Pegasus Road - the additional time means that people won't go as frequently. And Labour will be responsible for closing down another public asset, and reducing the quality of life of thousands of people. And by building a proposed new pool in the centre of Blackbird Leys, it's actually Labour restricting access to certain postcodes - the 10,000 they claim within 15mins walking distance are only BBL residents! SaveTCP
  • Score: 1

2:08pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Andrew : read and inwardly digest what Geoff has said - he is totally on the point. You are adding nothing by making personal attacks. Quoting the press out of context, insinuating but not quite saying something... And also using text that is no longer on the web. Do you copy the whole OxMail web content, or do you reserve that for selected Campaigns?

The Oxford communities are littered with dismal tales of how public subscriptions financed public facilities, believing that the Council would maintain them. Time and again proved wrong, as the Council simply grabs what cash it can from anywhere to prop up its policies, while not listening to the public.

We read elsewhere that the Council and Princes Trust are going to spend 18 months in Blackbird Leys listening to the public. Great. What's started them listening now? Why not wait to build anything there (like a proposed new pool) until they've consulted. What the public really wants is for the current swimming pool in Blackbird Leys to be improved and added to. Instead of a few water sprays, have a flume like at the Didcot Wave, a wave machine like Didcot, Reading.... Facilities that people would actually use. There is no evidence that Blackbird Leys wants a competition pool - otherwise they'd be asking for the current pool to be open more.

The Council is actively running down public facilities such as TCP and Blackbird Leys - they need to maintain public assets like this for the good of the communities they serve now, and can continue to serve. And Geoff is absolutely correct, closing TCP down would mean taking away community facilities for that community, which is not just Temple Cowley, but everyone who wants to walk/cycle there, go in their lunchtime from round the corner, visit before/after work etc etc etc. And the distance is not the point. Even from Rose Hill you have to take two buses to get to Pegasus Road - the additional time means that people won't go as frequently. And Labour will be responsible for closing down another public asset, and reducing the quality of life of thousands of people.

And by building a proposed new pool in the centre of Blackbird Leys, it's actually Labour restricting access to certain postcodes - the 10,000 they claim within 15mins walking distance are only BBL residents!
I have a *very* good memory, which some people can find a bit irritating particularly when it involves that which they hope that others have forgotten.

Have you tried using Google? Everything I've mentioned is still on the internet. It's also still available in the Bod - probably forevermore!

Purely to be helpful, why not search Google using the following text?

"jane alexander sex in pool 2006" - this should return the story about the past attempt at locker room refurbishment.

"jane alexander fuzzy ducks" - should return the story concerning the false claim.

To search for an "N Gibson" living in Oxford, you'll need access to a search engine storing the publically available voters role.

Here's another handy story, evidencing that at one time a senior member of the SaveTCP board would happily cross the ring-road to use a swimming pool - still on the internet and she called it "my local swimming pool"!

Search Google using

"jane alexander peers school reprieve"

For the google searches, just copy and paste without the quotes. Other search engines such as Yahoo and Bing are also available.

Always happy to be helpful when asked.
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Andrew : read and inwardly digest what Geoff has said - he is totally on the point. You are adding nothing by making personal attacks. Quoting the press out of context, insinuating but not quite saying something... And also using text that is no longer on the web. Do you copy the whole OxMail web content, or do you reserve that for selected Campaigns? The Oxford communities are littered with dismal tales of how public subscriptions financed public facilities, believing that the Council would maintain them. Time and again proved wrong, as the Council simply grabs what cash it can from anywhere to prop up its policies, while not listening to the public. We read elsewhere that the Council and Princes Trust are going to spend 18 months in Blackbird Leys listening to the public. Great. What's started them listening now? Why not wait to build anything there (like a proposed new pool) until they've consulted. What the public really wants is for the current swimming pool in Blackbird Leys to be improved and added to. Instead of a few water sprays, have a flume like at the Didcot Wave, a wave machine like Didcot, Reading.... Facilities that people would actually use. There is no evidence that Blackbird Leys wants a competition pool - otherwise they'd be asking for the current pool to be open more. The Council is actively running down public facilities such as TCP and Blackbird Leys - they need to maintain public assets like this for the good of the communities they serve now, and can continue to serve. And Geoff is absolutely correct, closing TCP down would mean taking away community facilities for that community, which is not just Temple Cowley, but everyone who wants to walk/cycle there, go in their lunchtime from round the corner, visit before/after work etc etc etc. And the distance is not the point. Even from Rose Hill you have to take two buses to get to Pegasus Road - the additional time means that people won't go as frequently. And Labour will be responsible for closing down another public asset, and reducing the quality of life of thousands of people. And by building a proposed new pool in the centre of Blackbird Leys, it's actually Labour restricting access to certain postcodes - the 10,000 they claim within 15mins walking distance are only BBL residents![/p][/quote]I have a *very* good memory, which some people can find a bit irritating particularly when it involves that which they hope that others have forgotten. Have you tried using Google? Everything I've mentioned is still on the internet. It's also still available in the Bod - probably forevermore! Purely to be helpful, why not search Google using the following text? "jane alexander sex in pool 2006" - this should return the story about the past attempt at locker room refurbishment. "jane alexander fuzzy ducks" - should return the story concerning the false claim. To search for an "N Gibson" living in Oxford, you'll need access to a search engine storing the publically available voters role. Here's another handy story, evidencing that at one time a senior member of the SaveTCP board would happily cross the ring-road to use a swimming pool - still on the internet and she called it "my local swimming pool"! Search Google using "jane alexander peers school reprieve" For the google searches, just copy and paste without the quotes. Other search engines such as Yahoo and Bing are also available. Always happy to be helpful when asked. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: -2

3:11pm Sun 14 Oct 12

MrSooty says...

Document no. CD 8.16.7.33 from the recent Sites & Housing DPD hearings states the council's policy towards TCP is: "The decision to close TCP has been made as a political decision of the City Council independent of the sites plan".Just around the corner,the ex Cowley Community Centre gets a mention in CD 8.16.7.6 : 6.2 "The area has a poor quality public realm so a key aim of the redevelopment of this site is to improve the public realm".So what we in Cowley have to look forward to is the loss of the pool for 26 houses,and an empty space where where community facilities used to be.I guess they'll be after the library next and then the health centre too .
Document no. CD 8.16.7.33 from the recent Sites & Housing DPD hearings states the council's policy towards TCP is: "The decision to close TCP has been made as a political decision of the City Council independent of the sites plan".Just around the corner,the ex Cowley Community Centre gets a mention in CD 8.16.7.6 : 6.2 "The area has a poor quality public realm so a key aim of the redevelopment of this site is to improve the public realm".So what we in Cowley have to look forward to is the loss of the pool for 26 houses,and an empty space where where community facilities used to be.I guess they'll be after the library next and then the health centre too . MrSooty
  • Score: 1

3:14pm Sun 14 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Andrew : And exactly how is this persistent searching for one individual relevant to the article?
Andrew : And exactly how is this persistent searching for one individual relevant to the article? SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Andrew : And exactly how is this persistent searching for one individual relevant to the article?
Well, you falsely stated that these historically significant articles were no longer on the internet. You clearly expected me to evidence otherwise.

When you undertake a search on Google for articles (or any search engine), you need to think about what text may have been in the article and how a search engine operates. Look for key phrases. For SaveTCP Jane and Nigel are fairly ubiquitous in the articles with Jane providing the majority of quotes. The next stage is to recall a key factor of the story that doesn't appear in many internet articles - eg "fuzzy ducks". So searching for "Jane Alexander Fuzzy Ducks" will bring up the article within the top 3 or 4 returns on Google.

The county council offers a number of courses to help you to get to grips with the internet:- www.oxfordshire.gov.
uk/adultlearning

The articles relate to the overall SaveTCP story which has gone over many years. The individuals are the "frontmen" of the group, often pictured in the paper and ready to provide a quote in the paper or in other media outlets. These quotes are clearly important, otherwise they would never have been said in the first place! So it is important that people who are new to the story are brought up to date.

Oh, and I went for a walk this afternoon. Parked at the Templars Square shopping centre Car Park, through the centre and to the old post office.

From the site of the former post office to the site of the new Pool is exactly 15 minutes walk - but I am a lean 6'4". It took the same time to walk back and was perfectly safe.
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Andrew : And exactly how is this persistent searching for one individual relevant to the article?[/p][/quote]Well, you falsely stated that these historically significant articles were no longer on the internet. You clearly expected me to evidence otherwise. When you undertake a search on Google for articles (or any search engine), you need to think about what text may have been in the article and how a search engine operates. Look for key phrases. For SaveTCP Jane and Nigel are fairly ubiquitous in the articles with Jane providing the majority of quotes. The next stage is to recall a key factor of the story that doesn't appear in many internet articles - eg "fuzzy ducks". So searching for "Jane Alexander Fuzzy Ducks" will bring up the article within the top 3 or 4 returns on Google. The county council offers a number of courses to help you to get to grips with the internet:- www.oxfordshire.gov. uk/adultlearning The articles relate to the overall SaveTCP story which has gone over many years. The individuals are the "frontmen" of the group, often pictured in the paper and ready to provide a quote in the paper or in other media outlets. These quotes are clearly important, otherwise they would never have been said in the first place! So it is important that people who are new to the story are brought up to date. Oh, and I went for a walk this afternoon. Parked at the Templars Square shopping centre Car Park, through the centre and to the old post office. From the site of the former post office to the site of the new Pool is exactly 15 minutes walk - but I am a lean 6'4". It took the same time to walk back and was perfectly safe. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Sun 14 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Andrew : Still not addressing the article, and any link you might be attempting to draw is extremely tenuous indeed. And it looks like you are wilfully overinterpreting things - there was no statement that everything was off the internet. What was expected was that you would return to the subject in hand, which is that the Council has refused to consult with the public, or consider what will happen to the many thousands of people who will be unable to continue their health and fitness activities in the same way if Temple Cowley Leisure Centre is replaced by 26 houses.
Andrew : Still not addressing the article, and any link you might be attempting to draw is extremely tenuous indeed. And it looks like you are wilfully overinterpreting things - there was no statement that everything was off the internet. What was expected was that you would return to the subject in hand, which is that the Council has refused to consult with the public, or consider what will happen to the many thousands of people who will be unable to continue their health and fitness activities in the same way if Temple Cowley Leisure Centre is replaced by 26 houses. SaveTCP
  • Score: 1

8:04pm Sun 14 Oct 12

paul from Kennington says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Andrew : And exactly how is this persistent searching for one individual relevant to the article?
Because this one person has been very vocal, including making false criminal accusations about a councillor, in your campaign. If you wish her to be a spokesperson for you then you must also accept that her lies, and past follies with swimming pools be also mentioned. Andrew has been the most accurate commenter on here since the pool was planned. I also seem to feel that now it is whatever means to deprive the people of Oxford of a new pool is the goal of STCP. The town green bid is proof of that as it would only have stopped the new pool and not the closure of TCP. Imagine if you had, had your way and one that one, and then TCP is shut down as it is going to be anyway. No pool for anybody.
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Andrew : And exactly how is this persistent searching for one individual relevant to the article?[/p][/quote]Because this one person has been very vocal, including making false criminal accusations about a councillor, in your campaign. If you wish her to be a spokesperson for you then you must also accept that her lies, and past follies with swimming pools be also mentioned. Andrew has been the most accurate commenter on here since the pool was planned. I also seem to feel that now it is whatever means to deprive the people of Oxford of a new pool is the goal of STCP. The town green bid is proof of that as it would only have stopped the new pool and not the closure of TCP. Imagine if you had, had your way and one that one, and then TCP is shut down as it is going to be anyway. No pool for anybody. paul from Kennington
  • Score: -47

9:28pm Sun 14 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Hi Paul: An interesting post.

Unless you were at the Area Meeting where the incident took place, or involved in the council investigation, or attended the particular Standards Committee, then you are in no position to state whether there were "false criminal accusations" about a councillor. The article on which you are commenting only mentions one Campaign member, and the person you are referring to isn't even mentioned. That's the point - stick to what is relevant.

For your information (and you are welcome to attend any Campaign meeting to find out for yourself) there are no spokespeople, everyone simply says what they want. What evidence have you that Andrew has been the "most accurate commenter"? Since the pool was planned? Ten years ago? Are you serious?

And if you really feel that the "goal of STCP" is to deprive anyone of anything, suggest you read the website and come to a meeting to find out for yourself - whatever you have chosen to read or have heard about the Campaign seems to be inaccurate.

The Town Green application is a separate issue, but does make some similar points. For example, the infrastructure in Blackbird Leys is not designed to take 400,000 visits (800,000 journeys) into a facility. Neither you, or the Council, has any idea how many people would travel from anywhere to visit the new pool regularly. Even a small proportion of that number using a car would clog up Pegasus road and the surrounding area. Remember, the Council has determined that only people in Blackbird Leys could walk to the proposed new pool.

And why do you want to deprive the thousands of current users of Temple Cowley Pools by having it closed?

The Campaign has highlighted how it simply doesn't make sense to spend £13m on what is only a 25m swimming pool in an area where there is no evidence of demand, especially when £3m would refurbish and improve the existing Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool and Temple Cowley Leisure Centre.

The Judicial Review is perfectly legal, and simply challenges the Council decision because they didn't consult properly, or consider the impact on the users of the existing facility. And the only reason it's being brought is because the Council wasn't prepared to explain its decision with evidence that was open and transparent.

The people who will benefit are the property developers who will get the TCP site at knock down price, and Fusion who will get rid of over 30 jobs and so increase their profits.
Hi Paul: An interesting post. Unless you were at the Area Meeting where the incident took place, or involved in the council investigation, or attended the particular Standards Committee, then you are in no position to state whether there were "false criminal accusations" about a councillor. The article on which you are commenting only mentions one Campaign member, and the person you are referring to isn't even mentioned. That's the point - stick to what is relevant. For your information (and you are welcome to attend any Campaign meeting to find out for yourself) there are no spokespeople, everyone simply says what they want. What evidence have you that Andrew has been the "most accurate commenter"? Since the pool was planned? Ten years ago? Are you serious? And if you really feel that the "goal of STCP" is to deprive anyone of anything, suggest you read the website and come to a meeting to find out for yourself - whatever you have chosen to read or have heard about the Campaign seems to be inaccurate. The Town Green application is a separate issue, but does make some similar points. For example, the infrastructure in Blackbird Leys is not designed to take 400,000 visits (800,000 journeys) into a facility. Neither you, or the Council, has any idea how many people would travel from anywhere to visit the new pool regularly. Even a small proportion of that number using a car would clog up Pegasus road and the surrounding area. Remember, the Council has determined that only people in Blackbird Leys could walk to the proposed new pool. And why do you want to deprive the thousands of current users of Temple Cowley Pools by having it closed? The Campaign has highlighted how it simply doesn't make sense to spend £13m on what is only a 25m swimming pool in an area where there is no evidence of demand, especially when £3m would refurbish and improve the existing Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool and Temple Cowley Leisure Centre. The Judicial Review is perfectly legal, and simply challenges the Council decision because they didn't consult properly, or consider the impact on the users of the existing facility. And the only reason it's being brought is because the Council wasn't prepared to explain its decision with evidence that was open and transparent. The people who will benefit are the property developers who will get the TCP site at knock down price, and Fusion who will get rid of over 30 jobs and so increase their profits. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Hi Paul: An interesting post.

Unless you were at the Area Meeting where the incident took place, or involved in the council investigation, or attended the particular Standards Committee, then you are in no position to state whether there were "false criminal accusations" about a councillor. The article on which you are commenting only mentions one Campaign member, and the person you are referring to isn't even mentioned. That's the point - stick to what is relevant.

For your information (and you are welcome to attend any Campaign meeting to find out for yourself) there are no spokespeople, everyone simply says what they want. What evidence have you that Andrew has been the "most accurate commenter"? Since the pool was planned? Ten years ago? Are you serious?

And if you really feel that the "goal of STCP" is to deprive anyone of anything, suggest you read the website and come to a meeting to find out for yourself - whatever you have chosen to read or have heard about the Campaign seems to be inaccurate.

The Town Green application is a separate issue, but does make some similar points. For example, the infrastructure in Blackbird Leys is not designed to take 400,000 visits (800,000 journeys) into a facility. Neither you, or the Council, has any idea how many people would travel from anywhere to visit the new pool regularly. Even a small proportion of that number using a car would clog up Pegasus road and the surrounding area. Remember, the Council has determined that only people in Blackbird Leys could walk to the proposed new pool.

And why do you want to deprive the thousands of current users of Temple Cowley Pools by having it closed?

The Campaign has highlighted how it simply doesn't make sense to spend £13m on what is only a 25m swimming pool in an area where there is no evidence of demand, especially when £3m would refurbish and improve the existing Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool and Temple Cowley Leisure Centre.

The Judicial Review is perfectly legal, and simply challenges the Council decision because they didn't consult properly, or consider the impact on the users of the existing facility. And the only reason it's being brought is because the Council wasn't prepared to explain its decision with evidence that was open and transparent.

The people who will benefit are the property developers who will get the TCP site at knock down price, and Fusion who will get rid of over 30 jobs and so increase their profits.
Oh dear, did you miss the posting about the decison of the Ombudsman? I can repost it if you like.

I would also point out that, according the minutes of the BBLF (BlackBird Leys Fourteen), Nigel Gibson spoke at the meeting concerning the Parish Green application as did Sietske Boeles of the CPRE - so there was definitely some SaveTCP involvement.

As my earlier posting shows, the former post off at Cowley is within 15 minutes walk of the new pool.

Just to clarify that 400,000 visits a year is around 61 users an hour. At peak times there are 1050 seats on public transport going past. So even at peak times if everyone travelled by public transport - only around 6% of bus seat capacity will be used. Far less if you discount the claims that the 1000s of current users just won't travel there - so the primary users will be within the 15 minutes walk.

I appreciate that you are not finance people, but will you please stop falsely claiming that a non-profit organisation can make a profit! It's a surplus!
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Hi Paul: An interesting post. Unless you were at the Area Meeting where the incident took place, or involved in the council investigation, or attended the particular Standards Committee, then you are in no position to state whether there were "false criminal accusations" about a councillor. The article on which you are commenting only mentions one Campaign member, and the person you are referring to isn't even mentioned. That's the point - stick to what is relevant. For your information (and you are welcome to attend any Campaign meeting to find out for yourself) there are no spokespeople, everyone simply says what they want. What evidence have you that Andrew has been the "most accurate commenter"? Since the pool was planned? Ten years ago? Are you serious? And if you really feel that the "goal of STCP" is to deprive anyone of anything, suggest you read the website and come to a meeting to find out for yourself - whatever you have chosen to read or have heard about the Campaign seems to be inaccurate. The Town Green application is a separate issue, but does make some similar points. For example, the infrastructure in Blackbird Leys is not designed to take 400,000 visits (800,000 journeys) into a facility. Neither you, or the Council, has any idea how many people would travel from anywhere to visit the new pool regularly. Even a small proportion of that number using a car would clog up Pegasus road and the surrounding area. Remember, the Council has determined that only people in Blackbird Leys could walk to the proposed new pool. And why do you want to deprive the thousands of current users of Temple Cowley Pools by having it closed? The Campaign has highlighted how it simply doesn't make sense to spend £13m on what is only a 25m swimming pool in an area where there is no evidence of demand, especially when £3m would refurbish and improve the existing Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool and Temple Cowley Leisure Centre. The Judicial Review is perfectly legal, and simply challenges the Council decision because they didn't consult properly, or consider the impact on the users of the existing facility. And the only reason it's being brought is because the Council wasn't prepared to explain its decision with evidence that was open and transparent. The people who will benefit are the property developers who will get the TCP site at knock down price, and Fusion who will get rid of over 30 jobs and so increase their profits.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, did you miss the posting about the decison of the Ombudsman? I can repost it if you like. I would also point out that, according the minutes of the BBLF (BlackBird Leys Fourteen), Nigel Gibson spoke at the meeting concerning the Parish Green application as did Sietske Boeles of the CPRE - so there was definitely some SaveTCP involvement. As my earlier posting shows, the former post off at Cowley is within 15 minutes walk of the new pool. Just to clarify that 400,000 visits a year is around 61 users an hour. At peak times there are 1050 seats on public transport going past. So even at peak times if everyone travelled by public transport - only around 6% of bus seat capacity will be used. Far less if you discount the claims that the 1000s of current users just won't travel there - so the primary users will be within the 15 minutes walk. I appreciate that you are not finance people, but will you please stop falsely claiming that a non-profit organisation can make a profit! It's a surplus! Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

11:04pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Christine Hovis says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
Christine Hovis wrote:
£7500 is remarkably good value for having to hire lawyers to defend against the campaigners continued battle against this. The campaign has already cost us having a new pool up and ready - which could have been done by now.

If we're going to have a new pool for the east of the city, it has to be built somewhere where there's space.
Looks like The Oxford Mail are now joining in on kicking our community when it's down along with some of the commenters. By use of some dodgy reporting.

All of the points I've made previously still stand and haven't really been addressed. Meanwhile this kind of reporting is serving to further divide people.

Why is it that some people seem determined to put the boot in? Surely if you're on the side of the council then you are getting what you wanted and there's no need to start attacking individuals who have been helping the campaign?

I don't see how it's the campaigners fault for the legal costs of trying to save a community pool from a council that has neglected it and it was the council that neglected it, not the campaigners. So why now attack the campaigners?

The campaign hasn't cost us a new pool up and running. If you move a facility out of the community and into another one it ceases to exist full stop. The new pool would not be a new pool for the community because it would no longer be in the community, it would be in another community.
It's an interesting argument, used by various different campaigners, that the legal costs of defending public bodies against legal action is outrageous.

The point is that those of us who want a new pool aren't getting it, are we? We're getting more objections and delays. TCP is falling apart. Time to move on.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Christine Hovis[/bold] wrote: £7500 is remarkably good value for having to hire lawyers to defend against the campaigners continued battle against this. The campaign has already cost us having a new pool up and ready - which could have been done by now. If we're going to have a new pool for the east of the city, it has to be built somewhere where there's space.[/p][/quote]Looks like The Oxford Mail are now joining in on kicking our community when it's down along with some of the commenters. By use of some dodgy reporting. All of the points I've made previously still stand and haven't really been addressed. Meanwhile this kind of reporting is serving to further divide people. Why is it that some people seem determined to put the boot in? Surely if you're on the side of the council then you are getting what you wanted and there's no need to start attacking individuals who have been helping the campaign? I don't see how it's the campaigners fault for the legal costs of trying to save a community pool from a council that has neglected it and it was the council that neglected it, not the campaigners. So why now attack the campaigners? The campaign hasn't cost us a new pool up and running. If you move a facility out of the community and into another one it ceases to exist full stop. The new pool would not be a new pool for the community because it would no longer be in the community, it would be in another community.[/p][/quote]It's an interesting argument, used by various different campaigners, that the legal costs of defending public bodies against legal action is outrageous. The point is that those of us who want a new pool aren't getting it, are we? We're getting more objections and delays. TCP is falling apart. Time to move on. Christine Hovis
  • Score: 1

2:28pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Niko Bellic says...

I wasn't going to comment until I read SaveTCP's comments about the lack of facilities at the new pool and then the following comments about factual accuracy... I assume SaveTCP has ignored the plans for BBL?

So, SaveTCP, when you said that TCP has a diving pit, we're you lying < TCP's diving pit has been closed for years due to safety reasons

SaveTCP, were you lying when you said there won't be a gym at BBL < there is already one there

SaveTCP, is it fair to say you made up the statement about there not being a steam/sauna? < there is clearly one on the new plans

The evidence says yes, indeed you ate lying. Please respond, although I'd prefer an honest reply if possible. Thanks!
I wasn't going to comment until I read SaveTCP's comments about the lack of facilities at the new pool and then the following comments about factual accuracy... I assume SaveTCP has ignored the plans for BBL? So, SaveTCP, when you said that TCP has a diving pit, we're you lying < TCP's diving pit has been closed for years due to safety reasons SaveTCP, were you lying when you said there won't be a gym at BBL < there is already one there SaveTCP, is it fair to say you made up the statement about there not being a steam/sauna? < there is clearly one on the new plans The evidence says yes, indeed you ate lying. Please respond, although I'd prefer an honest reply if possible. Thanks! Niko Bellic
  • Score: 2

4:14pm Mon 15 Oct 12

colinsfew says...

I assume most of the campaigners are people that live near TCP and cant be ar5ed to get off their backsides and travel the short distance to the proposed new pool?? selfish or what???
I assume most of the campaigners are people that live near TCP and cant be ar5ed to get off their backsides and travel the short distance to the proposed new pool?? selfish or what??? colinsfew
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Mon 15 Oct 12

AmandaJP says...

As as local from Cowley who now lives in Blackbird Leys, I can honestly say I don't want a new pool at BBLeys? And I know others like me! Also as a nurse in the local area, I know lots of people, already disadvantaged, who will not be able to make the journey to this or other pools, due to disability and money! Who's selfish then...? There is already a pool at Blackbird Leys which could be used more, especially if it is refurbished!

I don't think it is at all selfish to try to save the council (and local people) money, approx 8 million pounds (if the current pools are refurbished), that could be spent on other services!
As as local from Cowley who now lives in Blackbird Leys, I can honestly say I don't want a new pool at BBLeys? And I know others like me! Also as a nurse in the local area, I know lots of people, already disadvantaged, who will not be able to make the journey to this or other pools, due to disability and money! Who's selfish then...? There is already a pool at Blackbird Leys which could be used more, especially if it is refurbished! I don't think it is at all selfish to try to save the council (and local people) money, approx 8 million pounds (if the current pools are refurbished), that could be spent on other services! AmandaJP
  • Score: -1

6:42pm Mon 15 Oct 12

AmandaJP says...

Could I just put a challenge to those who want Temple Cowley to close....go to the TCP meetings and discuss it face to face. At least you may resolve some differences?!
Could I just put a challenge to those who want Temple Cowley to close....go to the TCP meetings and discuss it face to face. At least you may resolve some differences?! AmandaJP
  • Score: -1

6:44pm Mon 15 Oct 12

AmandaJP says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
AmandaJP wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?
Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from &quot;The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."
Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?[/p][/quote]Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from "The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."[/p][/quote]Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point? AmandaJP
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Mon 15 Oct 12

paul from Kennington says...

AmandaJP wrote:
As as local from Cowley who now lives in Blackbird Leys, I can honestly say I don't want a new pool at BBLeys? And I know others like me! Also as a nurse in the local area, I know lots of people, already disadvantaged, who will not be able to make the journey to this or other pools, due to disability and money! Who's selfish then...? There is already a pool at Blackbird Leys which could be used more, especially if it is refurbished!

I don't think it is at all selfish to try to save the council (and local people) money, approx 8 million pounds (if the current pools are refurbished), that could be spent on other services!
Amanda I have 2 brothers and a sister that live on the Leys and they and their neighbours cannot wait for it to open, and also the view when they go to the pub and speak to others from all round the estate, this is the view of the majority of Leys residents. Also do not believe the figures from STCP they are based on using cowboy builders, and tenth rate materials with a few million even cut off that figure. For the true figures ask the experts at the council.
[quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: As as local from Cowley who now lives in Blackbird Leys, I can honestly say I don't want a new pool at BBLeys? And I know others like me! Also as a nurse in the local area, I know lots of people, already disadvantaged, who will not be able to make the journey to this or other pools, due to disability and money! Who's selfish then...? There is already a pool at Blackbird Leys which could be used more, especially if it is refurbished! I don't think it is at all selfish to try to save the council (and local people) money, approx 8 million pounds (if the current pools are refurbished), that could be spent on other services![/p][/quote]Amanda I have 2 brothers and a sister that live on the Leys and they and their neighbours cannot wait for it to open, and also the view when they go to the pub and speak to others from all round the estate, this is the view of the majority of Leys residents. Also do not believe the figures from STCP they are based on using cowboy builders, and tenth rate materials with a few million even cut off that figure. For the true figures ask the experts at the council. paul from Kennington
  • Score: -55

7:22pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

colinsfew wrote:
I assume most of the campaigners are people that live near TCP and cant be ar5ed to get off their backsides and travel the short distance to the proposed new pool?? selfish or what???
Well, at least one of the campaigners chose her house specifically because it was near Temple Cowley Pools.

Here is the quote from "The Oxford Times"

**Petition organiser Jane Alexander, 53, of Dean Road, Headington, said: “I chose my house specifically because it was near Temple Cowley Pool, it was that important to me. Question one was ‘is it south-facing?’. Question two was ‘is it near a pool?’ “There has been a pool on the site since 1839 and I will fight tooth and nail to keep it open.

“If it closed, I would have to take the bus to Blackbird Leys, which would probably take an hour.

“I don’t want it moving outside the ring road and I believe there are plenty of other people who think like me.” **

According to Traveline, the quickest bus service between the new pool site and Hollow Way currently takes just 15 minutes.
[quote][p][bold]colinsfew[/bold] wrote: I assume most of the campaigners are people that live near TCP and cant be ar5ed to get off their backsides and travel the short distance to the proposed new pool?? selfish or what???[/p][/quote]Well, at least one of the campaigners chose her house specifically because it was near Temple Cowley Pools. Here is the quote from "The Oxford Times" **Petition organiser Jane Alexander, 53, of Dean Road, Headington, said: “I chose my house specifically because it was near Temple Cowley Pool, it was that important to me. Question one was ‘is it south-facing?’. Question two was ‘is it near a pool?’ “There has been a pool on the site since 1839 and I will fight tooth and nail to keep it open. “If it closed, I would have to take the bus to Blackbird Leys, which would probably take an hour. “I don’t want it moving outside the ring road and I believe there are plenty of other people who think like me.” ** According to Traveline, the quickest bus service between the new pool site and Hollow Way currently takes just 15 minutes. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 1

7:38pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

AmandaJP wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
AmandaJP wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?
Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from &quot;The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."
Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?
It's definitely true.

The campaign was to stop refurbishment of the locker rooms as it would introduce "Village Style" changing areas - just like at Barton and at the Vale of the White Horse pool. Allowing children and adults alike to change and shower with privacy and dignity.

Have a look back through the text and you'll find the text you need to search for on Google.

Trouble is, the main problems in the local area with teens engaging in such activities have been at Temple Cowley Pools - where they don't have Village style changing areas!

To quote the Oxford Times:-

**In what was described as one of the worst incidents, about ten boys and girls were found by a female worker involved in "sexual activity" in the female changing rooms at Temple Cowley Pool.**
[quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?[/p][/quote]Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from "The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."[/p][/quote]Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?[/p][/quote]It's definitely true. The campaign was to stop refurbishment of the locker rooms as it would introduce "Village Style" changing areas - just like at Barton and at the Vale of the White Horse pool. Allowing children and adults alike to change and shower with privacy and dignity. Have a look back through the text and you'll find the text you need to search for on Google. Trouble is, the main problems in the local area with teens engaging in such activities have been at Temple Cowley Pools - where they don't have Village style changing areas! To quote the Oxford Times:- **In what was described as one of the worst incidents, about ten boys and girls were found by a female worker involved in "sexual activity" in the female changing rooms at Temple Cowley Pool.** Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Geoff Roberts says...

So we now have a violent character from Grand Theft Auto IV commenting on this issue! Funny.

Meanwhile in Southampton 2 Labour councillors are actually fighting against cuts to one of their local council pools, they've refused to support their party and have stood against them, forming their own group and telling the council they shouldn't be implementing government cuts, they should be fighting them.

So yes, leave our local pool lying face down in the road dying, it's past it, Walk on by.

Let the land be sold off for a tiny amount of it's worth, to be in the hands of private owners so they can make a profit.

Make the fat and lazy and campaigners go to another community to use another pool. Along with everyone else who isn't directly part of the campaign.

Those that don't use the pool should just shut up 'cos it doesn't matter to them. Thinking about it, let's stop paying national insurance an tax, I rarely use the NHS so why should I care.
So we now have a violent character from Grand Theft Auto IV commenting on this issue! Funny. Meanwhile in Southampton 2 Labour councillors are actually fighting against cuts to one of their local council pools, they've refused to support their party and have stood against them, forming their own group and telling the council they shouldn't be implementing government cuts, they should be fighting them. So yes, leave our local pool lying face down in the road dying, it's past it, Walk on by. Let the land be sold off for a tiny amount of it's worth, to be in the hands of private owners so they can make a profit. Make the fat and lazy and campaigners go to another community to use another pool. Along with everyone else who isn't directly part of the campaign. Those that don't use the pool should just shut up 'cos it doesn't matter to them. Thinking about it, let's stop paying national insurance an tax, I rarely use the NHS so why should I care. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: -1

1:56pm Tue 16 Oct 12

AmandaJP says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
AmandaJP wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
AmandaJP wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?
Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from &quot;The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."
Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?
It's definitely true. The campaign was to stop refurbishment of the locker rooms as it would introduce "Village Style" changing areas - just like at Barton and at the Vale of the White Horse pool. Allowing children and adults alike to change and shower with privacy and dignity. Have a look back through the text and you'll find the text you need to search for on Google. Trouble is, the main problems in the local area with teens engaging in such activities have been at Temple Cowley Pools - where they don't have Village style changing areas! To quote the Oxford Times:- **In what was described as one of the worst incidents, about ten boys and girls were found by a female worker involved in "sexual activity" in the female changing rooms at Temple Cowley Pool.**
I'm not sure why teenagers causing problems constitutes the close down of Temple Cowley? Again this matter could be fixed with better monitoring and refurshment...also, teenagers behaving badly is not unsual anywhere?? Again, still don't get your point Andrew? This is not a reason to close Temple Cowley
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?[/p][/quote]Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from "The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."[/p][/quote]Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?[/p][/quote]It's definitely true. The campaign was to stop refurbishment of the locker rooms as it would introduce "Village Style" changing areas - just like at Barton and at the Vale of the White Horse pool. Allowing children and adults alike to change and shower with privacy and dignity. Have a look back through the text and you'll find the text you need to search for on Google. Trouble is, the main problems in the local area with teens engaging in such activities have been at Temple Cowley Pools - where they don't have Village style changing areas! To quote the Oxford Times:- **In what was described as one of the worst incidents, about ten boys and girls were found by a female worker involved in "sexual activity" in the female changing rooms at Temple Cowley Pool.**[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why teenagers causing problems constitutes the close down of Temple Cowley? Again this matter could be fixed with better monitoring and refurshment...also, teenagers behaving badly is not unsual anywhere?? Again, still don't get your point Andrew? This is not a reason to close Temple Cowley AmandaJP
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Andrew:Oxford says...

AmandaJP wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
AmandaJP wrote:
Andrew:Oxford wrote:
AmandaJP wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?
Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from &quot;The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."
Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?
It's definitely true. The campaign was to stop refurbishment of the locker rooms as it would introduce "Village Style" changing areas - just like at Barton and at the Vale of the White Horse pool. Allowing children and adults alike to change and shower with privacy and dignity. Have a look back through the text and you'll find the text you need to search for on Google. Trouble is, the main problems in the local area with teens engaging in such activities have been at Temple Cowley Pools - where they don't have Village style changing areas! To quote the Oxford Times:- **In what was described as one of the worst incidents, about ten boys and girls were found by a female worker involved in "sexual activity" in the female changing rooms at Temple Cowley Pool.**
I'm not sure why teenagers causing problems constitutes the close down of Temple Cowley? Again this matter could be fixed with better monitoring and refurshment...also, teenagers behaving badly is not unsual anywhere?? Again, still don't get your point Andrew? This is not a reason to close Temple Cowley
The reason to close Temple Cowley is that it is no longer fit for purpose. It is also in a very poor state of repair with a diving pit that has been derelict for over a decade and locker rooms that no longer meet the expectations of people who rightfully expect to be able to change and shower with dignity and privacy.

Mixing adult gym users with childrens fun sessions and private hire doesn't meet the expectations of the average adult who is familiar with child welfare.

Part of the reason it is in this state is because members of the group who are demanding that it remain open were successful in demanding that it was not refurbished last decade.

Different people have different values though and there are differing views on child welfare.
[quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmandaJP[/bold] wrote: The council may have spent less (if it has spent this amount at all), if it actually worked democratically, followed a 'proper' consultation and actually sat down with the protestors (with an external adjudicator) to discuss the situation. The issue is...MANY MANY people do not want Temple Cowley closed but have asked for it to be refurbished at a much lower cost to the tax payer (evidenced with refurbishment specialists) - I suspect the bigger issue for the council is that Oxford Brookes aren't happy that they have been unable to build yet more student accomodation yet?[/p][/quote]Leadership of the Save Temple Cowley Pools campagin successfully campaigned to *stop* the pool being refurbished in the past. To quote Jane Alexander, the campaign leader, from "The Oxford Times" back in 2006:- "Cubicles are especially worrying with the reports of teenagers causing trouble and having sex in pool changing rooms."[/p][/quote]Andrew, I'm not sure that is true. It would be very worrying in any pool if teenagers are causing trouble (and this probably does happen in many pools, all over the place). I am not sure of your point?[/p][/quote]It's definitely true. The campaign was to stop refurbishment of the locker rooms as it would introduce "Village Style" changing areas - just like at Barton and at the Vale of the White Horse pool. Allowing children and adults alike to change and shower with privacy and dignity. Have a look back through the text and you'll find the text you need to search for on Google. Trouble is, the main problems in the local area with teens engaging in such activities have been at Temple Cowley Pools - where they don't have Village style changing areas! To quote the Oxford Times:- **In what was described as one of the worst incidents, about ten boys and girls were found by a female worker involved in "sexual activity" in the female changing rooms at Temple Cowley Pool.**[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why teenagers causing problems constitutes the close down of Temple Cowley? Again this matter could be fixed with better monitoring and refurshment...also, teenagers behaving badly is not unsual anywhere?? Again, still don't get your point Andrew? This is not a reason to close Temple Cowley[/p][/quote]The reason to close Temple Cowley is that it is no longer fit for purpose. It is also in a very poor state of repair with a diving pit that has been derelict for over a decade and locker rooms that no longer meet the expectations of people who rightfully expect to be able to change and shower with dignity and privacy. Mixing adult gym users with childrens fun sessions and private hire doesn't meet the expectations of the average adult who is familiar with child welfare. Part of the reason it is in this state is because members of the group who are demanding that it remain open were successful in demanding that it was not refurbished last decade. Different people have different values though and there are differing views on child welfare. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 5

9:52pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Niko Bellic says...

Hi Geoff! I see you've googled me...

Didn't respond to any of my points though. Never mind. I didn't think anyone would
Hi Geoff! I see you've googled me... Didn't respond to any of my points though. Never mind. I didn't think anyone would Niko Bellic
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 17 Oct 12

paul from Kennington says...

Geoff Roberts wrote:
So we now have a violent character from Grand Theft Auto IV commenting on this issue! Funny.

Meanwhile in Southampton 2 Labour councillors are actually fighting against cuts to one of their local council pools, they've refused to support their party and have stood against them, forming their own group and telling the council they shouldn't be implementing government cuts, they should be fighting them.

So yes, leave our local pool lying face down in the road dying, it's past it, Walk on by.

Let the land be sold off for a tiny amount of it's worth, to be in the hands of private owners so they can make a profit.

Make the fat and lazy and campaigners go to another community to use another pool. Along with everyone else who isn't directly part of the campaign.

Those that don't use the pool should just shut up 'cos it doesn't matter to them. Thinking about it, let's stop paying national insurance an tax, I rarely use the NHS so why should I care.
Geoff, one thinks that you are turning into a parody of yourself, Niko is just a user name (as you know) and in Southampton the campaign is against the cuts to a pool, not the building of a state of the art new one as is STCP's goal. You have your gripes against the council as we all can see by reading your posts, but by introducing ridiculous arguments, you only negate any value that they may have had. Also the two main STCP vocalist live outside the ward of the pool in very exclusive areas with house prices above £500,000, so maybe this is why they do not wish to travel to a council estate for their physical recreation.
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Roberts[/bold] wrote: So we now have a violent character from Grand Theft Auto IV commenting on this issue! Funny. Meanwhile in Southampton 2 Labour councillors are actually fighting against cuts to one of their local council pools, they've refused to support their party and have stood against them, forming their own group and telling the council they shouldn't be implementing government cuts, they should be fighting them. So yes, leave our local pool lying face down in the road dying, it's past it, Walk on by. Let the land be sold off for a tiny amount of it's worth, to be in the hands of private owners so they can make a profit. Make the fat and lazy and campaigners go to another community to use another pool. Along with everyone else who isn't directly part of the campaign. Those that don't use the pool should just shut up 'cos it doesn't matter to them. Thinking about it, let's stop paying national insurance an tax, I rarely use the NHS so why should I care.[/p][/quote]Geoff, one thinks that you are turning into a parody of yourself, Niko is just a user name (as you know) and in Southampton the campaign is against the cuts to a pool, not the building of a state of the art new one as is STCP's goal. You have your gripes against the council as we all can see by reading your posts, but by introducing ridiculous arguments, you only negate any value that they may have had. Also the two main STCP vocalist live outside the ward of the pool in very exclusive areas with house prices above £500,000, so maybe this is why they do not wish to travel to a council estate for their physical recreation. paul from Kennington
  • Score: -80

5:35pm Wed 17 Oct 12

A.Realist says...

Tragedy or Travesty? I am really not sure which word describes best the delays and costs incurred because of the actions of a group of short term thinkers and protestors who when gathering support offer only part of the real picture. Is it right to be asked to sign a petition to save TC without informing people that it is with a view to replace with a new build in BBLeys? I was asked to sign this petition and interestingly was not given the full story even when I asked. I wonder how many people who did sign it did so without knowing the whole story? Oxford is a growing city with growing needs. In the relentless pursuit of their cause, it seems that a minority, with complete lack of vision, have now put us in a position where there is a real risk that we will end up with no pool in the area at all. Have they become so engrossed in their fight they have lost sight of the cause? The existing pool at BBLeys is also in an unfit state alot of people in the area don't even know it exists! The current pool at TC is now in such a state of disrepair, that there is now a genuine risk of it failing in the next few months. I wonder if the STCP swimmers will head to BBLeys then? I recently read that TC pool was built in 1938 when there was no Greater Leys estate, and although I fully appreciate local attachment to the memories it holds for many of us. Oxford has grown, and its a real shame that some people haven't and don't appear to see beyond their own doorstep. The new pool would be easily accessible to more people, as it is on an existing bus route and in area which has already seen investment in infrastructure. Surely it's time to say a fond farewell to TC thank it for all it gave us and invest in the future and provide Oxford and it's residents with facilities to be proud of in an area where it will be better utilised For too long now we have let the minority control and voice their opinions on this point and jeopardise what is potentially an incredible opportunity for a new pool/facility for Oxford to be proud of and a safe environment for our children to swim in. All too often we see expensive delays due to lack of vision. Come on STCP it's time to stand down and let the people of Oxford have a pool to be proud of and one they deserve in an area which will be accessible to more.
Tragedy or Travesty? I am really not sure which word describes best the delays and costs incurred because of the actions of a group of short term thinkers and protestors who when gathering support offer only part of the real picture. Is it right to be asked to sign a petition to save TC without informing people that it is with a view to replace with a new build in BBLeys? I was asked to sign this petition and interestingly was not given the full story even when I asked. I wonder how many people who did sign it did so without knowing the whole story? Oxford is a growing city with growing needs. In the relentless pursuit of their cause, it seems that a minority, with complete lack of vision, have now put us in a position where there is a real risk that we will end up with no pool in the area at all. Have they become so engrossed in their fight they have lost sight of the cause? The existing pool at BBLeys is also in an unfit state alot of people in the area don't even know it exists! The current pool at TC is now in such a state of disrepair, that there is now a genuine risk of it failing in the next few months. I wonder if the STCP swimmers will head to BBLeys then? I recently read that TC pool was built in 1938 when there was no Greater Leys estate, and although I fully appreciate local attachment to the memories it holds for many of us. Oxford has grown, and its a real shame that some people haven't and don't appear to see beyond their own doorstep. The new pool would be easily accessible to more people, as it is on an existing bus route and in area which has already seen investment in infrastructure. Surely it's time to say a fond farewell to TC thank it for all it gave us and invest in the future and provide Oxford and it's residents with facilities to be proud of in an area where it will be better utilised For too long now we have let the minority control and voice their opinions on this point and jeopardise what is potentially an incredible opportunity for a new pool/facility for Oxford to be proud of and a safe environment for our children to swim in. All too often we see expensive delays due to lack of vision. Come on STCP it's time to stand down and let the people of Oxford have a pool to be proud of and one they deserve in an area which will be accessible to more. A.Realist
  • Score: 3

10:42pm Wed 17 Oct 12

Usernamehere says...

One of the points the Save TCP Campaign has made in the past against village changing facilities is that it is allegedly harder for schools to manage their pupils.

I'm intrigued by this: I didn't grow up in Oxford and had school swimming lessons at a pool with village changing. There was never a problem maintaining discipline. Surely teachers in the North East are no more competent in this regard than their Oxfordshire colleagues?

In the same vein, do the facilities at Barton elicit complaints and frustration from schools?
One of the points the Save TCP Campaign has made in the past against village changing facilities is that it is allegedly harder for schools to manage their pupils. I'm intrigued by this: I didn't grow up in Oxford and had school swimming lessons at a pool with village changing. There was never a problem maintaining discipline. Surely teachers in the North East are no more competent in this regard than their Oxfordshire colleagues? In the same vein, do the facilities at Barton elicit complaints and frustration from schools? Usernamehere
  • Score: 1

9:51pm Thu 18 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Well now, we've all been very busy haven't we!

Niko : you weren't going to comment, but decided "factual accuracy" should play a part? Good.

The Campaign very carefully examined the plans, at all stages. Especially the ones submitted as part of the Planning Application that the Council made to itself, and, not surprisingly, approved.

Temple Cowley Pools has a diving pool - fact (and accurate). It's not been open to the public, but has been used for training staff. It can be fixed. The Council's own estimate is £65,000 to bring it back into use.The Council doesn't want to do that, because people might then want to use it. If TCP is closed, there will be no prospect of a public diving pool in Oxford ever again. That's wrong - we shouldn't be closing a public facility because of dogma.

We have never said there isn't a gym at Blackbird Leys, of course there is. And it's underused. But the Council is only proposing to build a new 25m swimming pool, not another gym. Fact (and accurate).

Since the Campaign pointed out that there was no plan for a Sauna/Steam room suite, the Council has found a hole and filled it with a sauna. Only a sauna. If you look at the plans, it's very much an afterthought. No cold showers, no separate areas. And no steam room, which is something that users say they value at Temple Cowley Pools.

And Niko, you will always get an honest reply from the Campaign.
Well now, we've all been very busy haven't we! Niko : you weren't going to comment, but decided "factual accuracy" should play a part? Good. The Campaign very carefully examined the plans, at all stages. Especially the ones submitted as part of the Planning Application that the Council made to itself, and, not surprisingly, approved. Temple Cowley Pools has a diving pool - fact (and accurate). It's not been open to the public, but has been used for training staff. It can be fixed. The Council's own estimate is £65,000 to bring it back into use.The Council doesn't want to do that, because people might then want to use it. If TCP is closed, there will be no prospect of a public diving pool in Oxford ever again. That's wrong - we shouldn't be closing a public facility because of dogma. We have never said there isn't a gym at Blackbird Leys, of course there is. And it's underused. But the Council is only proposing to build a new 25m swimming pool, not another gym. Fact (and accurate). Since the Campaign pointed out that there was no plan for a Sauna/Steam room suite, the Council has found a hole and filled it with a sauna. Only a sauna. If you look at the plans, it's very much an afterthought. No cold showers, no separate areas. And no steam room, which is something that users say they value at Temple Cowley Pools. And Niko, you will always get an honest reply from the Campaign. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Thu 18 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Colinsfew : Your assumption is incorrect. We have asked the Council to consult properly, find out exactly how people would be affected by the closure of Temple Cowley Leisure Centre. They have refused. The Campaign did a survey, with more respondents than the Council's attempt. And we talk to people all the time. It's not only the distance, it's the way people get there and it's the time to do it.65% of people walk or cycle to TCP, and don't want to take a bus or car. Others would have to take more than one bus to get to BBL. People go on their way to and from work, and wouldn't have time to go out to BBL. Or they go in their lunchtimes. There are lots of reasons. And, there is simply no evidence of demand for a new swimming pool at BBL.
Colinsfew : Your assumption is incorrect. We have asked the Council to consult properly, find out exactly how people would be affected by the closure of Temple Cowley Leisure Centre. They have refused. The Campaign did a survey, with more respondents than the Council's attempt. And we talk to people all the time. It's not only the distance, it's the way people get there and it's the time to do it.65% of people walk or cycle to TCP, and don't want to take a bus or car. Others would have to take more than one bus to get to BBL. People go on their way to and from work, and wouldn't have time to go out to BBL. Or they go in their lunchtimes. There are lots of reasons. And, there is simply no evidence of demand for a new swimming pool at BBL. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Thu 18 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Paul from Kennington : you seem to have remarkable insight into the figures - can you justify your statement about "cowboy builders", "tenth rate materials", and a "few million" cut off? Evidence please. And "true figures" from "experts" at the council? We have exposed how the Council has fed the public and councillors with information that is a combination of misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and untrue. What they put out is biased to what they want to see. It is wrong to waste public money in this way.
Paul from Kennington : you seem to have remarkable insight into the figures - can you justify your statement about "cowboy builders", "tenth rate materials", and a "few million" cut off? Evidence please. And "true figures" from "experts" at the council? We have exposed how the Council has fed the public and councillors with information that is a combination of misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and untrue. What they put out is biased to what they want to see. It is wrong to waste public money in this way. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Thu 18 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Andrew : the ONLY reason that TCP is in the state that it is is because that's what the Labour controlled council wants. They are actively running it down, and have been trying to do so for many years, as admitted by a Labour councillor. The council wants to sell off the land, and enable Fusion to increase its profits by getting rid of over 30 staff.

And Fusion is only registered with not for profit status simply so it can claim back tax. It has nothing to do with being a charity, which it isn't in the sense that any member of the public would expect. Fusion doesn't do charitable works. It uses the tax savings to run operations 'profitably', and to invest in bidding to take over other centres as part of running its business.
Andrew : the ONLY reason that TCP is in the state that it is is because that's what the Labour controlled council wants. They are actively running it down, and have been trying to do so for many years, as admitted by a Labour councillor. The council wants to sell off the land, and enable Fusion to increase its profits by getting rid of over 30 staff. And Fusion is only registered with not for profit status simply so it can claim back tax. It has nothing to do with being a charity, which it isn't in the sense that any member of the public would expect. Fusion doesn't do charitable works. It uses the tax savings to run operations 'profitably', and to invest in bidding to take over other centres as part of running its business. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Thu 18 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

A.Realist : Lots written here, let's try and unpick some of it.

Any delays have been because the Campaign has asked for, and not been shown, compelling evidence that can be validated about the state of the buildings. What we have found is information that the Council has not willingly shared with the public, or councillors, that gives a much more complete view. Asking, completely democratically and legally, for the Council to find out what people think, and take account of the impact that closure would have on people who use a facility is surely what the Council should have done in the first place?

And cost? Without any building taking place, the cost of this 25m non-Olympic pool has gone up from £3-5.5m in 2010 to over £11m in 2012 by the Council's own admission. Why? Not because of the Campaign, they just didn't do the estimate properly in the first place, or perhaps didn't want to reveal the total anticipated cost. Perhaps if the Council had been told two years ago that the real cost would be over £11m, they might have considered refurbishment more seriously. But they were fixated on the proposed new pool. There were pressures from Labour to have another prestige project in their Blackbird Leys heartland that their MP could be seen with; there was the Swimming Club declaring that unless they were given a new pool their club would close (how many Galas have they held recently in TCP?). And the pressure that was not so obvious. If Fusion only had one centre to run instead of three, they could get rid of over 30 staff and increase their profit (or "surplus" as their propaganda would have it).

Short term thinking? The Council's own survey of TCP said that it was 'mid-life' ie could operate for another 25 years. The managing consultants of the new pool project, MACE, and their architect, have both said that new swimming pools nowadays are only designed for a 25 year life - so a new pool wouldn't last any longer than TCP will from this point, so why do it?

Completely agree about not being given information - no idea why. But the Campaign can be contacted at any time - if you'd like to email savetcp@gmail.com we'll look into it. When we have ensured that people get given as much information as they want, the vast majority do not want TCP closed. And closure doesn't have to depend on the new pool being built; the Council has recently said that it has secured independent funding for the new pool project - which, looked at another way, means cuts in other areas at some point.

Agree about growing needs - so why is Labour cutting services?

What is the basis for your statement on the Blackbird Leys pool? We have seen no evidence that it is not in a 'fit state'. People don't know it exists because no-one tells them! Nothing to do with the Campaign; we have spoken to the different groups that use the BBL pool, who won't have the warm water they appreciate at a new pool, or the seclusion they want. And the canoe club, who have been using BBL pool for over 20 years, will not be able to use the new pool at all. The council hasn't bothered speaking to them. And there is no published plan showing how all the schools will be able to use the new pool, and give the swimming club the time it needs, or have the same amount of public swimming.

What "disrepair" at TCP do you mean? What is this 'genuine' risk, and who gave you that information? The Council has committed to keeping TCP open until the proposed new pool is built, and has not said anything publicly about the current state of the building. You many not be aware, but when the Council originally told the public how bad a state TCP was in, we asked to be shown around to see the evidence - the Council refused...

The latest rebuild of TCP was in 1987, not 1938, with an anticipated 50 year + lifespan, according to the architect. It could run for that long if the Labour council wasn't actively trying to run it down.

When you say accessible to more people, what do you mean? Being on one bus route rather than the 20+ that run through Temple Cowley (designated a transport hub by the Council) can't make it more accessible, surely? And what about the existing TCP users? How will it be more accessible to them, when not even the Council knows who they are, or has tried speaking to them, or assessed the impact closure would have? This is actually what the Campaign is asking for.

Also interested in what you mean when you talk about investment in infrastructure - what and where?

Better utilised? How do you, or the Council, know?

Minority voicing their opinion? The Campaign welcomes opinions of any sort. Thing is, when we ask for evidence to support opposing views, there isn't any - not on popularity, state of the buildings, likely future usage, carbon emissions, accessibility, support for Council policies, transport.... nothing. The Campaign has examined very aspect it has been allowed to, and found no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that building a new non-Olympic only-25m swimming pool in an area where there is no demand is worth it.

The Campaign exists, and has persisted, simply because of the support from the people of Oxford. We would not exist otherwise. A group that is anything under about 75,000 is a minority in Oxford, but this particular 'minority' represents a huge number of people who consistently tell us to carry on, and how much they appreciate the Campaign acting on their behalf.

So, give the Campaign evidence, and on behalf of that huge number we will stand down. The Campaign inbox is open and waiting!
A.Realist : Lots written here, let's try and unpick some of it. Any delays have been because the Campaign has asked for, and not been shown, compelling evidence that can be validated about the state of the buildings. What we have found is information that the Council has not willingly shared with the public, or councillors, that gives a much more complete view. Asking, completely democratically and legally, for the Council to find out what people think, and take account of the impact that closure would have on people who use a facility is surely what the Council should have done in the first place? And cost? Without any building taking place, the cost of this 25m non-Olympic pool has gone up from £3-5.5m in 2010 to over £11m in 2012 by the Council's own admission. Why? Not because of the Campaign, they just didn't do the estimate properly in the first place, or perhaps didn't want to reveal the total anticipated cost. Perhaps if the Council had been told two years ago that the real cost would be over £11m, they might have considered refurbishment more seriously. But they were fixated on the proposed new pool. There were pressures from Labour to have another prestige project in their Blackbird Leys heartland that their MP could be seen with; there was the Swimming Club declaring that unless they were given a new pool their club would close (how many Galas have they held recently in TCP?). And the pressure that was not so obvious. If Fusion only had one centre to run instead of three, they could get rid of over 30 staff and increase their profit (or "surplus" as their propaganda would have it). Short term thinking? The Council's own survey of TCP said that it was 'mid-life' ie could operate for another 25 years. The managing consultants of the new pool project, MACE, and their architect, have both said that new swimming pools nowadays are only designed for a 25 year life - so a new pool wouldn't last any longer than TCP will from this point, so why do it? Completely agree about not being given information - no idea why. But the Campaign can be contacted at any time - if you'd like to email savetcp@gmail.com we'll look into it. When we have ensured that people get given as much information as they want, the vast majority do not want TCP closed. And closure doesn't have to depend on the new pool being built; the Council has recently said that it has secured independent funding for the new pool project - which, looked at another way, means cuts in other areas at some point. Agree about growing needs - so why is Labour cutting services? What is the basis for your statement on the Blackbird Leys pool? We have seen no evidence that it is not in a 'fit state'. People don't know it exists because no-one tells them! Nothing to do with the Campaign; we have spoken to the different groups that use the BBL pool, who won't have the warm water they appreciate at a new pool, or the seclusion they want. And the canoe club, who have been using BBL pool for over 20 years, will not be able to use the new pool at all. The council hasn't bothered speaking to them. And there is no published plan showing how all the schools will be able to use the new pool, and give the swimming club the time it needs, or have the same amount of public swimming. What "disrepair" at TCP do you mean? What is this 'genuine' risk, and who gave you that information? The Council has committed to keeping TCP open until the proposed new pool is built, and has not said anything publicly about the current state of the building. You many not be aware, but when the Council originally told the public how bad a state TCP was in, we asked to be shown around to see the evidence - the Council refused... The latest rebuild of TCP was in 1987, not 1938, with an anticipated 50 year + lifespan, according to the architect. It could run for that long if the Labour council wasn't actively trying to run it down. When you say accessible to more people, what do you mean? Being on one bus route rather than the 20+ that run through Temple Cowley (designated a transport hub by the Council) can't make it more accessible, surely? And what about the existing TCP users? How will it be more accessible to them, when not even the Council knows who they are, or has tried speaking to them, or assessed the impact closure would have? This is actually what the Campaign is asking for. Also interested in what you mean when you talk about investment in infrastructure - what and where? Better utilised? How do you, or the Council, know? Minority voicing their opinion? The Campaign welcomes opinions of any sort. Thing is, when we ask for evidence to support opposing views, there isn't any - not on popularity, state of the buildings, likely future usage, carbon emissions, accessibility, support for Council policies, transport.... nothing. The Campaign has examined very aspect it has been allowed to, and found no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that building a new non-Olympic only-25m swimming pool in an area where there is no demand is worth it. The Campaign exists, and has persisted, simply because of the support from the people of Oxford. We would not exist otherwise. A group that is anything under about 75,000 is a minority in Oxford, but this particular 'minority' represents a huge number of people who consistently tell us to carry on, and how much they appreciate the Campaign acting on their behalf. So, give the Campaign evidence, and on behalf of that huge number we will stand down. The Campaign inbox is open and waiting! SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Thu 18 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Usernamehere : yes, we in the Campaign were intrigued by that one. But we have been told by teachers that they find it more difficult to control pupils because they can't be seen in a group. There is very little support for 'village' style changing, either at Barton or Ferry where they have it, and very positive support for keeping TCP as it is.

And before Andrew and his supporters start on about what happened years ago, let's be clear. In 2006 there were 'rumours' that the Council wanted to close TCP. When people started asking questions, the 'rumours' changed to say that all that would happen would be that the changing areas would be altered to village style. As a result of the petition and lobbying by users, this idea was dropped. There was never any intention by the Council to refurbish in any shape or form, and the campaigning then did not prevent any refurbishment of TCP.
Usernamehere : yes, we in the Campaign were intrigued by that one. But we have been told by teachers that they find it more difficult to control pupils because they can't be seen in a group. There is very little support for 'village' style changing, either at Barton or Ferry where they have it, and very positive support for keeping TCP as it is. And before Andrew and his supporters start on about what happened years ago, let's be clear. In 2006 there were 'rumours' that the Council wanted to close TCP. When people started asking questions, the 'rumours' changed to say that all that would happen would be that the changing areas would be altered to village style. As a result of the petition and lobbying by users, this idea was dropped. There was never any intention by the Council to refurbish in any shape or form, and the campaigning then did not prevent any refurbishment of TCP. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

8:39am Fri 19 Oct 12

AshHay says...

colinsfew wrote:
I assume most of the campaigners are people that live near TCP and cant be ar5ed to get off their backsides and travel the short distance to the proposed new pool?? selfish or what???
Actually, I don't live in Temple Cowley, I work there - and I don't drive because I don't see the need for a car in Oxford - I use TCP either during my lunch break or after work, something I couldn't do if the facility moved away from its current location. I'm certain that there are a large number of others who also use the facility in the same way.

Ultimately, I'm with the campaigners on this one. I would much rather see the renovation of current facilities and then the rest of the money used for something else - healthcare facilities, libraries, affordable housing, youth centres etc, I'm pretty sure the council could find plenty of worthy causes.

Possibly the most irritating thing about reading the comments made by some users on this particular article is the insistent use of inaccurate material - personally, I prefer to read the original documents rather than rely on what newspapers have reported or what its readers perceive as "truth".
[quote][p][bold]colinsfew[/bold] wrote: I assume most of the campaigners are people that live near TCP and cant be ar5ed to get off their backsides and travel the short distance to the proposed new pool?? selfish or what???[/p][/quote]Actually, I don't live in Temple Cowley, I work there - and I don't drive because I don't see the need for a car in Oxford - I use TCP either during my lunch break or after work, something I couldn't do if the facility moved away from its current location. I'm certain that there are a large number of others who also use the facility in the same way. Ultimately, I'm with the campaigners on this one. I would much rather see the renovation of current facilities and then the rest of the money used for something else - healthcare facilities, libraries, affordable housing, youth centres etc, I'm pretty sure the council could find plenty of worthy causes. Possibly the most irritating thing about reading the comments made by some users on this particular article is the insistent use of inaccurate material - personally, I prefer to read the original documents rather than rely on what newspapers have reported or what its readers perceive as "truth". AshHay
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Fri 19 Oct 12

A.Realist says...

Save TCP:
I guess you wanted a response especially as you have been so selective in yours…

you state “Any delays have been because the Campaign has asked for, and not been shown, compelling evidence that can be validated about the state of the buildings"

What evidence do you need? Have you actually been to TCP? A short walk around it will show you the place is falling apart. What facilities do you use there? When you are in a gym or reception there are buckets dotted around to catch the rainwater dripping through the roof and temperature control for the building or pool doesn't work.

you say “And cost? Without any building taking place, the cost of this 25m non-Olympic pool has gone up from £3-5.5m in 2010 to over £11m in 2012 by the Council's own admission. Why? Not because of the Campaign, they just didn't do the estimate properly in the first place, or perhaps didn't want to reveal the total anticipated cost. Perhaps if the Council had been told two years ago that the real cost would be over £11m, they might have considered refurbishment more seriously…..”

I guess so? I am not 100% sure on the facts here (and happy to admit when I don't know) but we are where we are, hindsight is always a wonderful thing I doubt it has won anyone any battles though, so lets get on with it. You ask why? then admit you don't know so if you have no idea why then perhaps a wise man would not comment or maybe just admit not knowing?

“But they were fixated on the proposed new pool. There were pressures from Labour to have another prestige project in their Blackbird Leys heartland that their MP could be seen with; there was the Swimming Club declaring that unless they were given a new pool their club would close (how many Galas have they held recently in TCP?)"

I'm not a huge fan of the right honourable either but do think it's an area that could do with more investment.
I think they have held a few galas I am not sure exactly how many but at least one as I was actually invited to one recently by a good friend who isn’t from Oxford and whose daughter swims for another club from out of Oxford. I have been to see her swim at her own club too and have to say I was more than embarassed at the difference of the facilties we offer our local club. I can recall actually asking her if she was sure when she told me it was being held at TC? I have seen the club swimmers some who look young enough to still be at primary school training training before school at 6am while I am at the gym. Surely they deserve better? You seem to have a not so well hidden political agenda here too?

you go on to say “If Fusion only had one centre to run instead of three, they could get rid of over 30 staff and increase their profit (or "surplus" as their propaganda would have it).”

They COULD does not mean they WOULD get rid of over 30 staff? I guess before you use this as an argument it would be a good fact to check? A clever wordsmith does not make a good case when challenged with the facts. Have you ever asked the staff about this? Are any of them on the Save TCP campaign?

and go on to say “Short term thinking? The Council's own survey of TCP said that it was 'mid-life' ie could operate for another 25 years. The managing consultants of the new pool project, MACE, and their architect, have both said that new swimming pools nowadays are only designed for a 25 year life - so a new pool wouldn't last any longer than TCP will from this point, so why do it?”

Operate? I guess again this term can be used loosely I am not sure the building around it will still be standing or that anyone would want to use it–I guess that would give us another outdoor pool though?

then you say you “Completely agree about not being given information”.. ??

What you agree it was wrong that I wasn't given the information or you agree that your campaign doesn’t give all the information?

and yes guess what you go on to say you have
“no idea why”

really? I doubt that. I think we probably are both intelligent enough to have an idea why the full story isn’t been given when seeking signatures for your campaign.

innocently (?) you then state “But the Campaign can be contacted at any time - if you'd like to email savetcp@gmail.com we'll look into it.”

Why do you want me to email you? I have raised my concern. If you want to know who I am just ask ;-)

I particulalry love this bit
“When we have ensured that people get given as much information as they want,”

Very clever use of words here are you in politics?? “as much information as they WANT” not “as much information as is available” how can people know how much information they want?
Tell them the truth and then see how many signatures you get instead of scaremongering busy people on busy streets into signing something because you are leading them to believe they are going to lose something and gain nothing.

brilliantly followed by “the vast majority do not want TCP closed”

The vast majority of what/where? This makes no sense you accept being a minority and now suddenly are a vast majority. If you mean those who signed your petition as above I believe like myself, who fortunately did not sign, then I believe the vast majority of these people who did sign were not told the whole story. The reason I am compelled to comment on this is that not only do I think we need a new pool but that I was offended at being treated with such a lack of respect/intelligence by your campaigners.

“And closure doesn't have to depend on the new pool being built; the Council has recently said that it has secured independent funding for the new pool project - which, looked at another way, means cuts in other areas at some point.”

Surely if it’s independent funding it would not necessarily mean cuts? And again you make assumptions and try to scaremonger into suggesting we will lose something and gain nothing not fact based comment.

“Agree about growing needs - so why is Labour cutting services?”
Vague enough to be a political response again…. So can only answer ..no idea until you can be more specific which services. Is this a general anti labour rant or linked to the STCP campaign.

“What is the basis for your statement on the Blackbird Leys pool?”
I base my statement on what I have seen I have been there have you? If you have did you have your eyes open it’s dreadful?

“ We have seen no evidence that it is not in a 'fit state'.”
Again visit another region and you will see what a decent pool looks like with decent changing facilities etc I think you have forgotten what a fit state is! If it is in a fit state then why do you want it refurbished?

“People don't know it exists because no-one tells them!”
I’m not surprised!

“And there is no published plan showing how all the schools will be able to use the new pool, and give the swimming club the time it needs, or have the same amount of public swimming.”
I would have thought it would be extremely premature when the pool hasn’t even started being built yet and no doubt if they made any changes to plans would be another cause for you to complain.

“What is this 'genuine' risk, and who gave you that information? The Council has committed to keeping TCP open until the proposed new pool is built, and has not said anything publicly about the current state of the building. You many not be aware, but when the Council originally told the public how bad a state TCP was in, we asked to be shown around to see the evidence - the Council refused.”

I read that there was a risk and yes asked around too and again having used the place can only assume that without investment things will start to fail. There’s a big difference in the words “open” and “fully functioning.” BTW Why do you need to be shown around I thought you were frequent users of the place? you don’t have to look far to see what a state it’s in!”

“The latest rebuild of TCP was in 1987, not 1938, with an anticipated 50 year + lifespan, according to the architect. It could run for that long if the Labour council wasn't actively trying to run it down.”

Yes am sure it was given a “anticipated” 50 year+ lifespan by the architect I doubt he’d have got the job otherwise. You really think it could run to 2037? I am still concerned that you are going to, and campaigning about, a different TCP than the one I see and use.

“Being on one bus route rather than the 20+ that run through Temple Cowley (designated a transport hub by the Council) can't make it more accessible, surely? And what about the existing TCP users? How will it be more accessible to them, when not even the Council knows who they are, or has tried speaking to them, or assessed the impact closure would have? This is actually what the Campaign is asking for. Also interested in what you mean when you talk about investment in infrastructure - what and where?”

Not sure ref the 20+ bus routes I guess that could be why there are so many delays around it during normal hours. Fortunately I usually use it when it is quiet I wouldn’t go near it during busy hours as have tried to and it’s a nightmare on bus or by car. I wasn’t thinking of just the TCP users I was thinking of the children and families on the BBLeys and Greater Leys estates am sure they would welcome it. The infrastructure I was talking about was Greater Leys and the surrounding roads and facilities and the gym at BBLeys and indeed the development of the ring road by the retail park providing improved access to BBLeys.

“Better utilised? How do you, or the Council, know?”
I don’t know but I guess it’s not rocket science is it – you open a new pool in an area that is crying out for better facilities for it’s growing population and it’s a fair assumption that it will be better utilised.

“Minority voicing their opinion? The Campaign welcomes opinions of any sort. Thing is, when we ask for evidence to support opposing views, there isn't any - not on popularity, state of the buildings, likely future usage, carbon emissions, accessibility, support for Council policies, transport.... nothing. The Campaign has examined very aspect it has been allowed to, and found no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that building a new non-Olympic only-25m swimming pool in an area where there is no demand is worth it.”

You ask me for evidence and then state there is NO demand, really? you make no sense. And as I have already stated some of your support is based on inaccurate/diluted information.

“The Campaign exists, and has persisted, simply because of the support from the people of Oxford. We would not exist otherwise. A group that is anything under about 75,000 is a minority in Oxford, but this particular 'minority' represents a huge number of people who consistently tell us to carry on, and how much they appreciate the Campaign acting on their behalf.”

Does exist for that reason it or is it now simply a group of people who had a cause and lost sight of it while trying to drum up public support decided to provide only part of the truth and now like a dog chasing it’s tail refuse to see their own lack of direction. You flit from describing STCP as an undefined vast majority to a clearly defined minority. You respond asking for fact but it appears to be when it suits you as you use vague descriptions “huge number”

“So, give the Campaign evidence, and on behalf of that huge number we will stand down. The Campaign inbox is open and waiting!”
Again define “huge” I see no evidence that a huge number have been rallied. I’m all for fighting a good fight but lets be honest perhaps it’s time to turn and see your troops are they still there or were those who signed up misinformed and now beating a hasty retreat? Let me know when the next Save TCP meeting is I may come along, if there’s room of course. Oh and again love the invitation to contact you via email if you want to know who I am then just ask rather than asking me to contact your mailbox so you can see.
I have no interest in mailing you.
Have had my say and yes I do feel better for it, if only to have maybe made some people realise that they were misinformed when being asked to sign a petition to STCP. Maybe you should have a "and read the small print section"

Hope to see you all at the new pool in BBLeys! ;-)
Save TCP: I guess you wanted a response especially as you have been so selective in yours… you state “Any delays have been because the Campaign has asked for, and not been shown, compelling evidence that can be validated about the state of the buildings" What evidence do you need? Have you actually been to TCP? A short walk around it will show you the place is falling apart. What facilities do you use there? When you are in a gym or reception there are buckets dotted around to catch the rainwater dripping through the roof and temperature control for the building or pool doesn't work. you say “And cost? Without any building taking place, the cost of this 25m non-Olympic pool has gone up from £3-5.5m in 2010 to over £11m in 2012 by the Council's own admission. Why? Not because of the Campaign, they just didn't do the estimate properly in the first place, or perhaps didn't want to reveal the total anticipated cost. Perhaps if the Council had been told two years ago that the real cost would be over £11m, they might have considered refurbishment more seriously…..” I guess so? I am not 100% sure on the facts here (and happy to admit when I don't know) but we are where we are, hindsight is always a wonderful thing I doubt it has won anyone any battles though, so lets get on with it. You ask why? then admit you don't know so if you have no idea why then perhaps a wise man would not comment or maybe just admit not knowing? “But they were fixated on the proposed new pool. There were pressures from Labour to have another prestige project in their Blackbird Leys heartland that their MP could be seen with; there was the Swimming Club declaring that unless they were given a new pool their club would close (how many Galas have they held recently in TCP?)" I'm not a huge fan of the right honourable either but do think it's an area that could do with more investment. I think they have held a few galas I am not sure exactly how many but at least one as I was actually invited to one recently by a good friend who isn’t from Oxford and whose daughter swims for another club from out of Oxford. I have been to see her swim at her own club too and have to say I was more than embarassed at the difference of the facilties we offer our local club. I can recall actually asking her if she was sure when she told me it was being held at TC? I have seen the club swimmers some who look young enough to still be at primary school training training before school at 6am while I am at the gym. Surely they deserve better? You seem to have a not so well hidden political agenda here too? you go on to say “If Fusion only had one centre to run instead of three, they could get rid of over 30 staff and increase their profit (or "surplus" as their propaganda would have it).” They COULD does not mean they WOULD get rid of over 30 staff? I guess before you use this as an argument it would be a good fact to check? A clever wordsmith does not make a good case when challenged with the facts. Have you ever asked the staff about this? Are any of them on the Save TCP campaign? and go on to say “Short term thinking? The Council's own survey of TCP said that it was 'mid-life' ie could operate for another 25 years. The managing consultants of the new pool project, MACE, and their architect, have both said that new swimming pools nowadays are only designed for a 25 year life - so a new pool wouldn't last any longer than TCP will from this point, so why do it?” Operate? I guess again this term can be used loosely I am not sure the building around it will still be standing or that anyone would want to use it–I guess that would give us another outdoor pool though? then you say you “Completely agree about not being given information”.. ?? What you agree it was wrong that I wasn't given the information or you agree that your campaign doesn’t give all the information? and yes guess what you go on to say you have “no idea why” really? I doubt that. I think we probably are both intelligent enough to have an idea why the full story isn’t been given when seeking signatures for your campaign. innocently (?) you then state “But the Campaign can be contacted at any time - if you'd like to email savetcp@gmail.com we'll look into it.” Why do you want me to email you? I have raised my concern. If you want to know who I am just ask ;-) I particulalry love this bit “When we have ensured that people get given as much information as they want,” Very clever use of words here are you in politics?? “as much information as they WANT” not “as much information as is available” how can people know how much information they want? Tell them the truth and then see how many signatures you get instead of scaremongering busy people on busy streets into signing something because you are leading them to believe they are going to lose something and gain nothing. brilliantly followed by “the vast majority do not want TCP closed” The vast majority of what/where? This makes no sense you accept being a minority and now suddenly are a vast majority. If you mean those who signed your petition as above I believe like myself, who fortunately did not sign, then I believe the vast majority of these people who did sign were not told the whole story. The reason I am compelled to comment on this is that not only do I think we need a new pool but that I was offended at being treated with such a lack of respect/intelligence by your campaigners. “And closure doesn't have to depend on the new pool being built; the Council has recently said that it has secured independent funding for the new pool project - which, looked at another way, means cuts in other areas at some point.” Surely if it’s independent funding it would not necessarily mean cuts? And again you make assumptions and try to scaremonger into suggesting we will lose something and gain nothing not fact based comment. “Agree about growing needs - so why is Labour cutting services?” Vague enough to be a political response again…. So can only answer ..no idea until you can be more specific which services. Is this a general anti labour rant or linked to the STCP campaign. “What is the basis for your statement on the Blackbird Leys pool?” I base my statement on what I have seen I have been there have you? If you have did you have your eyes open it’s dreadful? “ We have seen no evidence that it is not in a 'fit state'.” Again visit another region and you will see what a decent pool looks like with decent changing facilities etc I think you have forgotten what a fit state is! If it is in a fit state then why do you want it refurbished? “People don't know it exists because no-one tells them!” I’m not surprised! “And there is no published plan showing how all the schools will be able to use the new pool, and give the swimming club the time it needs, or have the same amount of public swimming.” I would have thought it would be extremely premature when the pool hasn’t even started being built yet and no doubt if they made any changes to plans would be another cause for you to complain. “What is this 'genuine' risk, and who gave you that information? The Council has committed to keeping TCP open until the proposed new pool is built, and has not said anything publicly about the current state of the building. You many not be aware, but when the Council originally told the public how bad a state TCP was in, we asked to be shown around to see the evidence - the Council refused.” I read that there was a risk and yes asked around too and again having used the place can only assume that without investment things will start to fail. There’s a big difference in the words “open” and “fully functioning.” BTW Why do you need to be shown around I thought you were frequent users of the place? you don’t have to look far to see what a state it’s in!” “The latest rebuild of TCP was in 1987, not 1938, with an anticipated 50 year + lifespan, according to the architect. It could run for that long if the Labour council wasn't actively trying to run it down.” Yes am sure it was given a “anticipated” 50 year+ lifespan by the architect I doubt he’d have got the job otherwise. You really think it could run to 2037? I am still concerned that you are going to, and campaigning about, a different TCP than the one I see and use. “Being on one bus route rather than the 20+ that run through Temple Cowley (designated a transport hub by the Council) can't make it more accessible, surely? And what about the existing TCP users? How will it be more accessible to them, when not even the Council knows who they are, or has tried speaking to them, or assessed the impact closure would have? This is actually what the Campaign is asking for. Also interested in what you mean when you talk about investment in infrastructure - what and where?” Not sure ref the 20+ bus routes I guess that could be why there are so many delays around it during normal hours. Fortunately I usually use it when it is quiet I wouldn’t go near it during busy hours as have tried to and it’s a nightmare on bus or by car. I wasn’t thinking of just the TCP users I was thinking of the children and families on the BBLeys and Greater Leys estates am sure they would welcome it. The infrastructure I was talking about was Greater Leys and the surrounding roads and facilities and the gym at BBLeys and indeed the development of the ring road by the retail park providing improved access to BBLeys. “Better utilised? How do you, or the Council, know?” I don’t know but I guess it’s not rocket science is it – you open a new pool in an area that is crying out for better facilities for it’s growing population and it’s a fair assumption that it will be better utilised. “Minority voicing their opinion? The Campaign welcomes opinions of any sort. Thing is, when we ask for evidence to support opposing views, there isn't any - not on popularity, state of the buildings, likely future usage, carbon emissions, accessibility, support for Council policies, transport.... nothing. The Campaign has examined very aspect it has been allowed to, and found no evidence that stands up to scrutiny that building a new non-Olympic only-25m swimming pool in an area where there is no demand is worth it.” You ask me for evidence and then state there is NO demand, really? you make no sense. And as I have already stated some of your support is based on inaccurate/diluted information. “The Campaign exists, and has persisted, simply because of the support from the people of Oxford. We would not exist otherwise. A group that is anything under about 75,000 is a minority in Oxford, but this particular 'minority' represents a huge number of people who consistently tell us to carry on, and how much they appreciate the Campaign acting on their behalf.” Does exist for that reason it or is it now simply a group of people who had a cause and lost sight of it while trying to drum up public support decided to provide only part of the truth and now like a dog chasing it’s tail refuse to see their own lack of direction. You flit from describing STCP as an undefined vast majority to a clearly defined minority. You respond asking for fact but it appears to be when it suits you as you use vague descriptions “huge number” “So, give the Campaign evidence, and on behalf of that huge number we will stand down. The Campaign inbox is open and waiting!” Again define “huge” I see no evidence that a huge number have been rallied. I’m all for fighting a good fight but lets be honest perhaps it’s time to turn and see your troops are they still there or were those who signed up misinformed and now beating a hasty retreat? Let me know when the next Save TCP meeting is I may come along, if there’s room of course. Oh and again love the invitation to contact you via email if you want to know who I am then just ask rather than asking me to contact your mailbox so you can see. I have no interest in mailing you. Have had my say and yes I do feel better for it, if only to have maybe made some people realise that they were misinformed when being asked to sign a petition to STCP. Maybe you should have a "and read the small print section" Hope to see you all at the new pool in BBLeys! ;-) A.Realist
  • Score: 0

11:12am Sat 20 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Well, A.Realist, a comprehensive response, and a lot of criticism. I’m sorry you feel my last post was selective, it wasn’t intended to be. Although you haven’t said, as far as I can see, what you think I didn’t respond to. And any post here will be but a small part of all the information that the Campaign has collected over three years. Let’s take it in parts then:

Evidence on the state of the building – the Council has failed to maintain the building adequately for over ten years, by its own admission. Despite that, the Council commissioned two independent Condition Surveys by qualified engineers. It was extremely reluctant to release them to the public, but they are clear – the building is ‘mid-life’ and in ‘fair’ condition. It can be fixed if the Council wanted to do so. It doesn’t.

Costs – when a cost for a public service escalates by 100% there surely has to be a duty on the organisation concerned (ie the Council) to review any decision made previously, to check that it remains value for money. Previously the Council had argued that it would cost about £12m to rebuild TCP (although they have never presented any analysis of that estimate), and that that figure was not value for money. TCP is a complete leisure centre with a diving pool. Now the Council argues that despite costs rising to over £11m, and still rising, for what is only a 25m swimming pool (and a sauna), that remains value for money. This doesn’t make sense.

Investment – Blackbird Leys has been designated a regeneration zone by the City Council. There is an 18 month programme in place to consult with the public there about what they want, and develop facilities that are needed in a co-ordinated fashion. Great. But the proposed new pool is not part of that – it is actually outside the zone, and on green space that is at a premium on the estate. A new leisure facility will have a huge impact on the estate – the Council has said it will be a ‘citywide’ facility, so intends to draw people from all over into Blackbird Leys – surely this should be considered as part of the overall regeneration plans?

Embarrassment – there is no political agenda – the Campaign is completely apolitical, but it is only Labour that want to close TCP, so we need to make sure people know that, and don’t assume that Labour wouldn’t deprive poorer areas of services. And I have to repeat, the state of the building and its facilities is the responsibility of the Council, who could have maintained it properly if they wanted to. Suggest you ask them, and tell us if you get a different answer.

Getting rid of staff – let’s be quite clear – Fusion will cut at least 30 staff if TCP and the existing Blackbird Leys pool is closed. This has not been denied by either Fusion or the Council. Fusion won’t make them all redundant – they simply move the staff to a place they don’t want to go, the staff are forced to resign, so there are savings on redundancy payments and employment costs. More profit at the expense of local people.

You then talk about challenging with facts. All the Campaign has ever done is ask for real and complete information from the Council so that the public can see that any decision has been taken openly and transparently based on evidence. The public, councillors and the Campaign has consistently been fobbed off with partial information. Some accept this without question as they believe the Council must be ‘experts’. The Campaign has persisted in attempting to get more information (‘facts’) from the Council, and what we do find we put on the Campaign website http://tiny.cc/savet
cp - we are open and transparent in the information we provide, we have demonstrated time and time again that the Council is not.
Next part coming...
Well, A.Realist, a comprehensive response, and a lot of criticism. I’m sorry you feel my last post was selective, it wasn’t intended to be. Although you haven’t said, as far as I can see, what you think I didn’t respond to. And any post here will be but a small part of all the information that the Campaign has collected over three years. Let’s take it in parts then: Evidence on the state of the building – the Council has failed to maintain the building adequately for over ten years, by its own admission. Despite that, the Council commissioned two independent Condition Surveys by qualified engineers. It was extremely reluctant to release them to the public, but they are clear – the building is ‘mid-life’ and in ‘fair’ condition. It can be fixed if the Council wanted to do so. It doesn’t. Costs – when a cost for a public service escalates by 100% there surely has to be a duty on the organisation concerned (ie the Council) to review any decision made previously, to check that it remains value for money. Previously the Council had argued that it would cost about £12m to rebuild TCP (although they have never presented any analysis of that estimate), and that that figure was not value for money. TCP is a complete leisure centre with a diving pool. Now the Council argues that despite costs rising to over £11m, and still rising, for what is only a 25m swimming pool (and a sauna), that remains value for money. This doesn’t make sense. Investment – Blackbird Leys has been designated a regeneration zone by the City Council. There is an 18 month programme in place to consult with the public there about what they want, and develop facilities that are needed in a co-ordinated fashion. Great. But the proposed new pool is not part of that – it is actually outside the zone, and on green space that is at a premium on the estate. A new leisure facility will have a huge impact on the estate – the Council has said it will be a ‘citywide’ facility, so intends to draw people from all over into Blackbird Leys – surely this should be considered as part of the overall regeneration plans? Embarrassment – there is no political agenda – the Campaign is completely apolitical, but it is only Labour that want to close TCP, so we need to make sure people know that, and don’t assume that Labour wouldn’t deprive poorer areas of services. And I have to repeat, the state of the building and its facilities is the responsibility of the Council, who could have maintained it properly if they wanted to. Suggest you ask them, and tell us if you get a different answer. Getting rid of staff – let’s be quite clear – Fusion will cut at least 30 staff if TCP and the existing Blackbird Leys pool is closed. This has not been denied by either Fusion or the Council. Fusion won’t make them all redundant – they simply move the staff to a place they don’t want to go, the staff are forced to resign, so there are savings on redundancy payments and employment costs. More profit at the expense of local people. You then talk about challenging with facts. All the Campaign has ever done is ask for real and complete information from the Council so that the public can see that any decision has been taken openly and transparently based on evidence. The public, councillors and the Campaign has consistently been fobbed off with partial information. Some accept this without question as they believe the Council must be ‘experts’. The Campaign has persisted in attempting to get more information (‘facts’) from the Council, and what we do find we put on the Campaign website http://tiny.cc/savet cp - we are open and transparent in the information we provide, we have demonstrated time and time again that the Council is not. Next part coming... SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

11:52am Sat 20 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

So, back again. Continuing to respond to A.Realist’s post:

Information – the Campaign has collected a lot of information concerning what the Council is trying to do, and most of it is on the website. We can provide any information we have to people who ask; we are not going to simply ‘dump’ everything on each person we talk to. We direct people to the website, and if they want to look there, or email us with questions, before signing a petition or becoming more involved, then that’s absolutely fine. The Council on the other hand has kept information away from the public; the Campaign has demonstrated how what is on the Council website about closing TCP and the proposed new pool is a combination of misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and untrue. This is on the Campaign website, and we email it to anyone who asks.

And it’s not clear why you are so reluctant to contact us – we have no idea who you are, we are simply responding with information (‘facts’) to what you have posted. Which, I must observe, is actually highly fact-free, and full of your opinion – not a problem, but please don’t try and imply that a long-running Campaign run by members of the public that has been present at every decision-making meeting the Council has held publicly on this issue, has extracted so much information from the Council under Freedom of Information, and has actually spoken with many, many thousands of people that we don’t know what we are talking about – unless you want to present some new, real evidence.

Independent funding – I meant funding that does not depend on closing TCP. If you really want to play with words, play away.

Cutting services – yes, Labour is cutting services, and pretending it isn’t. The leisure centre in Temple Cowley will be closed if Labour and the Council get their way. People don’t want it to happen. The swimming pool in Blackbird Leys will be closed if Labour and the Council get their way. People don’t want that to happen either. If there is clear evidence that either facility should close, what will replace it? The Council hasn’t even tried to address this. And I repeat, this is not an ‘anti-Labour rant’, just pointing out that Labour is trying to do what no other party is, and not basing the decision on all the evidence it should.

Blackbird Leys swimming pool – yes, we have been there. And spoken to the people who use it, and want it kept open, and don’t want a new pool. And the staff. There is nothing wrong with the facility that means it has to close. And we don’t simply go by appearances – ‘dreadful’ is your opinion. We have seen swimming pools up and down the country in all sorts of different states of repair. The point is to have something that people want to use where they want to use it. Is it worth having a brand new swimming pool that will cost over £13m when £3m will refurbish what we have in the places where people want to use them?

Timetabling – if the Council spends over £9m building something that we then find can’t be used, then we believe that would not be value for money. The Council has said that all the schools, over 12, plus the Swimming Club (who have said they want more swimming time), plus other groups, plus the public, will all be able to comfortably use the proposed new pool. We’ve asked them to show how that will work. The Council and Fusion have refused. So we have to trust what they say. But that is no basis to make such a huge investment of public money. We believe, based on what we can work out, that there will be less public swimming time, less time for schools, and probably more time (and weekend closures for Galas) for the Swimming Club.

Risk – where exactly have you ‘read’ about this risk, and what exactly did it say? It’s not about what you can see – cosmetic repairs are straightforward. It’s what you can’t see. You haven’t provided any evidence. When the Council first decided to tell the public what they were planning, they presented a picture which focused on the column in the middle of the swimming pool hall which is surrounded by scaffolding. They implied that it would cost most of the £2.6m of back maintenance they estimate is needed to just fix that column. They said the column was about to fall down. We asked them exactly how much and to show where the problem was. They refused. So we spoke to engineers who had been in there and were able to see what the public couldn’t. And the architect. The centre is designed so that even if two of the six columns fail, the building will not collapse. The column in question actually goes through the floor into a chamber where the water returns to be reheated. That’s where the problem is – it’s called spalling, and can be fixed inexpensively without the drama of scaffolding being in place for years. And the scaffolding wasn’t put in place below the floor (!). We had to use Freedom of Information to get a list of the repairs comprising the £2.6m – these are apparently ‘vital’ repairs. Well, the list included £3,000 for repainting the lines in the car park – not that vital, and several people immediately volunteered to do that for free. And then the column? £30,000, not the millions implied by the Council.

Next part coming...
So, back again. Continuing to respond to A.Realist’s post: Information – the Campaign has collected a lot of information concerning what the Council is trying to do, and most of it is on the website. We can provide any information we have to people who ask; we are not going to simply ‘dump’ everything on each person we talk to. We direct people to the website, and if they want to look there, or email us with questions, before signing a petition or becoming more involved, then that’s absolutely fine. The Council on the other hand has kept information away from the public; the Campaign has demonstrated how what is on the Council website about closing TCP and the proposed new pool is a combination of misleading, inaccurate, incomplete and untrue. This is on the Campaign website, and we email it to anyone who asks. And it’s not clear why you are so reluctant to contact us – we have no idea who you are, we are simply responding with information (‘facts’) to what you have posted. Which, I must observe, is actually highly fact-free, and full of your opinion – not a problem, but please don’t try and imply that a long-running Campaign run by members of the public that has been present at every decision-making meeting the Council has held publicly on this issue, has extracted so much information from the Council under Freedom of Information, and has actually spoken with many, many thousands of people that we don’t know what we are talking about – unless you want to present some new, real evidence. Independent funding – I meant funding that does not depend on closing TCP. If you really want to play with words, play away. Cutting services – yes, Labour is cutting services, and pretending it isn’t. The leisure centre in Temple Cowley will be closed if Labour and the Council get their way. People don’t want it to happen. The swimming pool in Blackbird Leys will be closed if Labour and the Council get their way. People don’t want that to happen either. If there is clear evidence that either facility should close, what will replace it? The Council hasn’t even tried to address this. And I repeat, this is not an ‘anti-Labour rant’, just pointing out that Labour is trying to do what no other party is, and not basing the decision on all the evidence it should. Blackbird Leys swimming pool – yes, we have been there. And spoken to the people who use it, and want it kept open, and don’t want a new pool. And the staff. There is nothing wrong with the facility that means it has to close. And we don’t simply go by appearances – ‘dreadful’ is your opinion. We have seen swimming pools up and down the country in all sorts of different states of repair. The point is to have something that people want to use where they want to use it. Is it worth having a brand new swimming pool that will cost over £13m when £3m will refurbish what we have in the places where people want to use them? Timetabling – if the Council spends over £9m building something that we then find can’t be used, then we believe that would not be value for money. The Council has said that all the schools, over 12, plus the Swimming Club (who have said they want more swimming time), plus other groups, plus the public, will all be able to comfortably use the proposed new pool. We’ve asked them to show how that will work. The Council and Fusion have refused. So we have to trust what they say. But that is no basis to make such a huge investment of public money. We believe, based on what we can work out, that there will be less public swimming time, less time for schools, and probably more time (and weekend closures for Galas) for the Swimming Club. Risk – where exactly have you ‘read’ about this risk, and what exactly did it say? It’s not about what you can see – cosmetic repairs are straightforward. It’s what you can’t see. You haven’t provided any evidence. When the Council first decided to tell the public what they were planning, they presented a picture which focused on the column in the middle of the swimming pool hall which is surrounded by scaffolding. They implied that it would cost most of the £2.6m of back maintenance they estimate is needed to just fix that column. They said the column was about to fall down. We asked them exactly how much and to show where the problem was. They refused. So we spoke to engineers who had been in there and were able to see what the public couldn’t. And the architect. The centre is designed so that even if two of the six columns fail, the building will not collapse. The column in question actually goes through the floor into a chamber where the water returns to be reheated. That’s where the problem is – it’s called spalling, and can be fixed inexpensively without the drama of scaffolding being in place for years. And the scaffolding wasn’t put in place below the floor (!). We had to use Freedom of Information to get a list of the repairs comprising the £2.6m – these are apparently ‘vital’ repairs. Well, the list included £3,000 for repainting the lines in the car park – not that vital, and several people immediately volunteered to do that for free. And then the column? £30,000, not the millions implied by the Council. Next part coming... SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Sat 20 Oct 12

SaveTCP says...

Here we go, part 3 in response to A.Realist:

50 year planned lifespan for TCP – why are you deliberately missing the point? You have no way of knowing how the architect was selected in the early 1980s – but implying that he is making things up is totally unnecessary. The point is that both Mace, the managing consultants, and the architect for the proposed new pool, have said that the intended lifespan for the proposed new swimming pool is only 25 years. And over the same time, 25 years, two facilities can operate and at a much lower cost. Which option is actually value for the public purse?

Transport. Closing TCP would mean that those people who can will have to get to Pegasus Road in Blackbird Leys. The Council promotes walking as the preferred method of getting around to places in Oxford. Yet it wants to close TCP and have a new pool where only people living on the Blackbird Leys/Greater Leys estate can walk to it. Everyone else has to cycle (on very unmaintained cycleways across the ring road), take public transport or drive. Your fact-lite post casts aspersions on the numbers of buses – these are buses that come into the area, Temple Cowley, that the Council has designated a transport hub, and that their Executive Services Director, Tim Sadler, said in an open meeting in August 2010 would be an ideal place for a leisure centre – well, it’s there, and he wants to shut it! And only three buses go to Pegasus road from Temple Cowley, and they all follow the same route down the Cowley Road. Anyone else wanting to use public transport, even from somewhere as close as Littlemore or Rose Hill, has to use two buses – this costs more and takes longer. And cars? From the ring road to TCP is along a main road, 30 mph with only about 100m of residential housing. Getting to Blackbird Leys from the same place, along the Garsington and Watlington Road, means you have to go through a built up residential area at 20mph. And Pegasus Road itself is designed for light estate traffic, not the throughput that is likely with a new facility that is trying to attract people into Blackbird Leys. Residents there are appalled at the idea of so much traffic along what is essentially a single carriageway with passing places. And there is no improvement to this access planned as part of building the new swimming pool – they will develop a transport plan (like other plans that aren’t there at the moment, and about which nothing can be done if they don’t work) once the new pool is built. Do you know how they measured the likely increase in traffic? It’s in the planning application documents. They had people sat in the car park with the current facilities recording who came and went – absolutely nothing like what it will be like if the Council expectations are met, which will be hundreds of additional car journeys in and out of the estate every day.

“Crying out for better facilities” – how do you know this? The problem is that the Council hasn’t bothered asking anyone what they want, or where they want it. Most of the people we have spoken to in Blackbird Leys either don’t want a new facility for the whole of Oxford slap bang in the middle of their residential estate, or want ‘fun’ water – like slides, flumes and so on. No-one actually knows what the demand will be for a 25m competition pool, like the one we have now in TCP.

“Growing population” – really? The Council’s own most recent figures show that over the last ten years the population of Blackbird Leys/Greater Leys has increased by less than 2%. In contrast, in the Cowley Marsh area the population has seen an increase of over 25% - and this is the “growing population” that will be left without any leisure facilities in their community, abandoned by a Council which most people trust to look after them.

Information – I refute completely your accusation that the Campaign is based on “inaccurate/dilute
d information” – and you miss the point, again. The Council has produced no evidence that stands up to scrutiny for what it wants to do. There is simply no evidence of demand for a new swimming pool in Blackbird Leys. If we reported that a few people down the pub wanted TCP kept open, that would be no justification for the Campaign. Similarly you getting a pub opinion is hardly a justification for the Council to spend over £13m of our money.

Support – if you choose to ignore the information we put out, or selectively pick away at posts, or simply rubbish what is happening for whatever reason, that’s up to you. We are aware of the support we have, which is why we continue, we don’t need to justify anything to you. However, as you should be aware, the fifth petition has just been debated in the Council. And to do that we had to collect 1,500 signatures – if you have ever tried to do that, you will find out how difficult it is. Unless you have an issue that people feel strongly about. And building only a swimming pool (and sauna) that is 25m (non-Olympic, not 50m or bigger than TCP) in a place where there is no evidence of demand for over £13m when £3m will refurbish and improve what we have and what people want where they want to use it simply doesn’t make sense.

You, and anyone else, are welcome to come to the weekly meetings – Indian Room, on Marsh Road, every Sunday, 7-8pm. And anyone can catch up on the real information at http://tiny.cc/savet
cp or email savetcp@gmail.com
Here we go, part 3 in response to A.Realist: 50 year planned lifespan for TCP – why are you deliberately missing the point? You have no way of knowing how the architect was selected in the early 1980s – but implying that he is making things up is totally unnecessary. The point is that both Mace, the managing consultants, and the architect for the proposed new pool, have said that the intended lifespan for the proposed new swimming pool is only 25 years. And over the same time, 25 years, two facilities can operate and at a much lower cost. Which option is actually value for the public purse? Transport. Closing TCP would mean that those people who can will have to get to Pegasus Road in Blackbird Leys. The Council promotes walking as the preferred method of getting around to places in Oxford. Yet it wants to close TCP and have a new pool where only people living on the Blackbird Leys/Greater Leys estate can walk to it. Everyone else has to cycle (on very unmaintained cycleways across the ring road), take public transport or drive. Your fact-lite post casts aspersions on the numbers of buses – these are buses that come into the area, Temple Cowley, that the Council has designated a transport hub, and that their Executive Services Director, Tim Sadler, said in an open meeting in August 2010 would be an ideal place for a leisure centre – well, it’s there, and he wants to shut it! And only three buses go to Pegasus road from Temple Cowley, and they all follow the same route down the Cowley Road. Anyone else wanting to use public transport, even from somewhere as close as Littlemore or Rose Hill, has to use two buses – this costs more and takes longer. And cars? From the ring road to TCP is along a main road, 30 mph with only about 100m of residential housing. Getting to Blackbird Leys from the same place, along the Garsington and Watlington Road, means you have to go through a built up residential area at 20mph. And Pegasus Road itself is designed for light estate traffic, not the throughput that is likely with a new facility that is trying to attract people into Blackbird Leys. Residents there are appalled at the idea of so much traffic along what is essentially a single carriageway with passing places. And there is no improvement to this access planned as part of building the new swimming pool – they will develop a transport plan (like other plans that aren’t there at the moment, and about which nothing can be done if they don’t work) once the new pool is built. Do you know how they measured the likely increase in traffic? It’s in the planning application documents. They had people sat in the car park with the current facilities recording who came and went – absolutely nothing like what it will be like if the Council expectations are met, which will be hundreds of additional car journeys in and out of the estate every day. “Crying out for better facilities” – how do you know this? The problem is that the Council hasn’t bothered asking anyone what they want, or where they want it. Most of the people we have spoken to in Blackbird Leys either don’t want a new facility for the whole of Oxford slap bang in the middle of their residential estate, or want ‘fun’ water – like slides, flumes and so on. No-one actually knows what the demand will be for a 25m competition pool, like the one we have now in TCP. “Growing population” – really? The Council’s own most recent figures show that over the last ten years the population of Blackbird Leys/Greater Leys has increased by less than 2%. In contrast, in the Cowley Marsh area the population has seen an increase of over 25% - and this is the “growing population” that will be left without any leisure facilities in their community, abandoned by a Council which most people trust to look after them. Information – I refute completely your accusation that the Campaign is based on “inaccurate/dilute d information” – and you miss the point, again. The Council has produced no evidence that stands up to scrutiny for what it wants to do. There is simply no evidence of demand for a new swimming pool in Blackbird Leys. If we reported that a few people down the pub wanted TCP kept open, that would be no justification for the Campaign. Similarly you getting a pub opinion is hardly a justification for the Council to spend over £13m of our money. Support – if you choose to ignore the information we put out, or selectively pick away at posts, or simply rubbish what is happening for whatever reason, that’s up to you. We are aware of the support we have, which is why we continue, we don’t need to justify anything to you. However, as you should be aware, the fifth petition has just been debated in the Council. And to do that we had to collect 1,500 signatures – if you have ever tried to do that, you will find out how difficult it is. Unless you have an issue that people feel strongly about. And building only a swimming pool (and sauna) that is 25m (non-Olympic, not 50m or bigger than TCP) in a place where there is no evidence of demand for over £13m when £3m will refurbish and improve what we have and what people want where they want to use it simply doesn’t make sense. You, and anyone else, are welcome to come to the weekly meetings – Indian Room, on Marsh Road, every Sunday, 7-8pm. And anyone can catch up on the real information at http://tiny.cc/savet cp or email savetcp@gmail.com SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 7 Nov 12

A.Realist says...

wow a 3 part response I am flattered - and yes you are absolutely right you don't have to justify anything to me it's a democracy and we are all entitled to our opinions. Just for the record anyone can get 1500 signatures for a petition if they scaremonger people into believing they are just losing something as opposed to giving them the full picture. Thanks for the invite I may well join you one evening as I am intrigued at some of your replies and where you get your facts from? My understanding is that you have not spoken to the staff at TC or BBLeys so am interested in how you can comment on their behalf. Your reply simply repeats what you have said so doesn't really warrant any further comment - suffice to say am sure the powers that be will see sense. Good luck with your campaign I have a feeling you may need it !
btw when did I get a pub opinion? when was the diving pool in TC last used as a diving pool? and interestingly I have alot of friends who live in Greater Leys and Blackbird Leys who have never been asked by STCP anything - maybe you could check and see instead of making assumptions about what they want? . "Most of the people we have spoken to in Blackbird Leys either don’t want a new facility for the whole of Oxford slap bang in the middle of their residential estate, or want ‘fun’ water – like slides, flumes and so on" Exactly how many people in ~BBLeys did you actually ask? You quote numbers when it suits you but fail to provide them to substantiate your claims. Maybe there's a job in politics for you when all this is done? just a thought. ;-)
wow a 3 part response I am flattered - and yes you are absolutely right you don't have to justify anything to me it's a democracy and we are all entitled to our opinions. Just for the record anyone can get 1500 signatures for a petition if they scaremonger people into believing they are just losing something as opposed to giving them the full picture. Thanks for the invite I may well join you one evening as I am intrigued at some of your replies and where you get your facts from? My understanding is that you have not spoken to the staff at TC or BBLeys so am interested in how you can comment on their behalf. Your reply simply repeats what you have said so doesn't really warrant any further comment - suffice to say am sure the powers that be will see sense. Good luck with your campaign I have a feeling you may need it ! btw when did I get a pub opinion? when was the diving pool in TC last used as a diving pool? and interestingly I have alot of friends who live in Greater Leys and Blackbird Leys who have never been asked by STCP anything - maybe you could check and see instead of making assumptions about what they want? . "Most of the people we have spoken to in Blackbird Leys either don’t want a new facility for the whole of Oxford slap bang in the middle of their residential estate, or want ‘fun’ water – like slides, flumes and so on" Exactly how many people in ~BBLeys did you actually ask? You quote numbers when it suits you but fail to provide them to substantiate your claims. Maybe there's a job in politics for you when all this is done? just a thought. ;-) A.Realist
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Wed 7 Nov 12

A.Realist says...

brilliant just been on your website and read
"Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council."

Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered.
go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up?
Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one.
your second petition again very cleverly worded
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately."
again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website.
Roll on December !
brilliant just been on your website and read "Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council." Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered. go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up? Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one. your second petition again very cleverly worded "We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately." again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website. Roll on December ! A.Realist
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Wed 7 Nov 12

A.Realist says...

brilliant just been on your website and read
"Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council."

Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered.
go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up?
Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one.
your second petition again very cleverly worded
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately."
again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website.
Roll on December !
brilliant just been on your website and read "Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council." Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered. go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up? Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one. your second petition again very cleverly worded "We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately." again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website. Roll on December ! A.Realist
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Wed 7 Nov 12

A.Realist says...

brilliant just been on your website and read
"Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council."

Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered.
go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up?
Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one.
your second petition again very cleverly worded
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately."
again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website.
Roll on December !
brilliant just been on your website and read "Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council." Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered. go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up? Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one. your second petition again very cleverly worded "We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately." again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website. Roll on December ! A.Realist
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 7 Nov 12

A.Realist says...

brilliant just been on your website and read
"Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council."

Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered.
go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up?
Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one.
your second petition again very cleverly worded
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately."
again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website.
Roll on December !
brilliant just been on your website and read "Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council." Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered. go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up? Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one. your second petition again very cleverly worded "We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately." again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website. Roll on December ! A.Realist
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 7 Nov 12

A.Realist says...

brilliant just been on your website and read
"Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council."

Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered.
go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up?
Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one.
your second petition again very cleverly worded
"We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately."
again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website.
Roll on December !
brilliant just been on your website and read "Lack of Democracy The Save Temple Cowley Pools & Fitness Centre petition is the largest ever in the city of Oxford. This is a significant statement of what the people want – blatantly ignored by the council." Largest ever petition of course it was because it was factually incomplete and evasive! I know because I was asked to sign it and even when I challenged the detail on the petition and it's lack of completeness wasn;t told the whole story. Taken from your site your petition text "We the undersigned petition the council to keep publicly funded leisure facilities inside the ring road in East Oxford by carrying out the minimum maintenance required to keep Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre operational, instruct the operators Fusion Lifestyle to put on more classes, events and features to increase attendances, and to use income from the Gym to fund the improvements identified as necessary by the 2008 Condition Survey and the Save Temple Cowley Pools Action Group." this was backed by a vocal of save our pool from closure and a clear message that no alternative was being offered. go back to your original signatories and see if when they are given the whole picture that are still willing to sign up? Thanks for the mention of the Oxford swimming club petition though I didn;t know there was one and will make sure I sign up to that one. your second petition again very cleverly worded "We, the undersigned, are concerned that Oxford City Council has ignored the largest ever petition in Oxford, which called on the council not to close Temple Cowley Swimming Pool and Fitness Centre, and is continuing to pursue its plans to sell the Temple Cowley Swimming Pool land (for Oxford Brookes University student accommodation?) in direct opposition to this demonstration of democratic will. As a result we have lost confidence in the Labour administration running Oxford City Council, and call on all Labour councillors to resign immediately." again there's no mention of what will be offered as a replacement and where. You claim to be apolitical but give a very clear anti-labour message on your website. Roll on December ! A.Realist
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree