If I may be so bold I would like to offer you all a few points to consider regarding the wider issues raised with this whole campaign. I would like this post to be used for discussion of the wider implications. As I am sure you are all aware I think the City of London has made a terrible mistake of judgement over this facility and you will also be aware that I have been as neutral in stance as I can with personal feelings in the roll of Admin of this page with regards to letting all but a very small number of posts stay on here in the interests of free speech and opinion. I have stated this is all about us not me but I would like this chance at presenting you with some points I feel are important to consider. As I said in my opinion the City have made a bad decision, I believe that the response to our concerns was not handled in a manner to which it should have been and I believe that due consideration to our wishes is important and somehow they need to accommodate them. However I do have to look at the fact that this institution has managed and will continue to do so one of the most important assets to our community and the wider community at large and that is one of management of the Forest. I believe that on this issue they have looked after something I hold dear in a decent and honourable fashion with a firm commitment and for that I do thank them. The more recent budget cuts have caused serious issues for the Forest. With mounting pressure for green space usage from neighbouring boroughs the Forest management has taken a very defensive line and rightly so. Maybe this defensive line has become to firm and fixed, habitual and not realised as detrimental to the good of other aspects of the forest and its users. We are at a stage now where the need for public consultation, clear explanation and due consideration is clear for all. To move forward and take a positive out from this we need to recognise this on all sides. This issue is bigger than just the hut issue in that regard. The consequences of the decision needed to be made once our petition is delivered is that cuts will have to be made regardless. This is no mean task and they should have turned to the communities and groups that use the forest and should have realised that some of the large expenditure that has been made recently would be seen in a bad light. Much of that expenditure would I assume have been grants for one purpose whilst cuts are made elsewhere and that is always going to be a PR nightmare. They did not get the message across properly. I realise that if these cuts are not made correctly and income not brought into the forest that the very forest its self is under threat in small but key areas and the most likely way cuts are always implemented is with jobs. I would be devastated if someone lost their job because of the poor decisions made from above in any effort to appease this issue and offset the need for increased revenue elsewhere. Every Keeper, Woodsman, dustman and office staff is an important part of the care system of the forest. Every other business that revolves round the forest and its use will also have the same threat and this issue could compromise the handling of other cases. On that basis I recognise we have a moral duty of care as passionate forest users to support as well as condemn. For example the biggest form of demonstration we could do in my opinion would be to be prepared to make small on going donations towards the direct upkeep of the forest. A voluntary community commitment, I would have been happy over the years to have put a little money in the pot as so to speak. 50 pence here and a pound there from thousands upon thousands of people who use the forest by way of small donations could have provided a necessary income stream and allowed people to support and be seen to support the whole concept of the peoples forest. Yet with modern board room business style initiatives the relationship between the users of the forest and the City of London has now reached a crisis point focussed and compounded into this one issue. There are so many different ways that this relationship between us could be addressed but it involves recognition of strength of feeling and consideration from bottom up as well as top down. Do not for one minute think I am showing weakness here and have any intention of backing down from this call to hear our voice because this is now a key focus point for all to see just how well the forest users are regarded by those who make the decisions and the message as always is clear. LEAVE THE HUT ALONE. The secondary message is that due consideration of lessons learned from this process is also needed now because we have a continuing relationship to move forward with after this is done. The City of London will still run the Forest and we will most certainly be the users of the Forest and this could end up being a long lasting stand off every time a change is made if we are not all prepared to consider each others position. These huts need to be recognised as the biggest asset you have in regards to public consultation and the front line in engagement with the general public in the areas they exist. You do not need to spend fortunes in consultation exercises when its right there on your doorstep and all that is needed is to let the huts run as they are and view their existence as community hubs. Its the cheapest form of public relations exercise I can think of. Where else are you ever going to get such diverse, widespread public engagement with all the various user groups within the area. Horse riders, walking groups, Bikers, cyclists, conservationists and other general forest users? For that I would recommend offsetting the loss of a small profit from stopping tenders in the interests of public engagement, consultation, public relations and most of all common sense. That is my ten pence worth anyway, what do you think?
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:44:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015