A PUBLIC meeting almost boiled out of control last night as local residents met to discuss the future of St Alfege Park.
The normally tranquil setting of West Greenwich Library became the scene of accusations, recriminations, a walk-out and finger jabbing at the meeting – the first such meeting since the controversial smashing of headstones in St Alfege Park last year.
The meeting, which attracted about twenty people was attended by council officers, Cllr John Fahy, local ward councillor Maureen O’Mara and former Chair of the Friends of St Alfege Park, Tim Delap.
Cllr Fahy, who is the cabinet member in charge of parks in the borough, used his opening remarks to explain that the “situation regarding the headstones has caused enormous difficulties for us all.” He added that the council has “learnt some lessons in how we manage the parks and the controls we need to exercise.”
Matthew Wall, Chair of the Friends of East Greenwich Pleasaunce, was drafted in to be an independent Chair for the meeting and had to threaten to abandon it early on as voices were raised and attendees tried to talk over one another.
He attempted to set out the agenda, saying the purpose of the meeting was to work out a “positive way forward” rather than get in to the details of the headstones incident.
“Really?” interrupted one resident. “I find that quite extraordinary, I might as well leave now if that’s the case” It soon became clear there was an appetite in the room to discuss the headstone controversy.
Cllr Fahy was challenged to reveal who authorised the work on the headstones, and read an extract from an email that prompted audible gasps:
“In a letter dated the 15th September from Tim Delap to Lee Beasley [a council officer in the parks department], Tim said this:
‘My instructions to the Payback Community Team Leader were to get the stones out, whole where possible, so that we could use them for paving. But if they couldn’t, they were to remove them, however they could.’
“That’s the fact.”
Mr Alan Bradley, who was a committee member with the Friends group, said those instructions from the Friends’ Chair had not been discussed with the rest of the committee.
“Had it been discussed at committee meetings we would have objected and not allowed it to have gone ahead. The fact is that the committee were not consulted… and yet we were blamed,” he said.
Cllr Fahy revealed that a contract had been issued for work on restoring the headstones. A resident who lives next to the park asked if the council would also repair gravestones it had itself broken on previous occasions, claiming they had on occasion used a sledgehammer too. A council officer said he wasn’t aware of the council ever having done so.
Reverend Chris Moody of St Alfege Church pointed out that damage had been done to people as well as headstones in the controversy. “A great deal of good work done has been done by the Friends in the Park. That ought to be recognised and it’s a shame that is being obscured,” he said.
A lady walked out of the meeting after declaring that moving to Greenwich had been the “worst mistake of her life”, adding it was the “most aggressive place” she’d ever lived.
A new group?
With the meeting steered back on to the future, the Chair looked for expressions of interest in creating a new group as the council was refusing to work with the existing group.
“I would very much like to be involved in a new group and am prepared, as I have done in the past with lots of people in this room, to go out and do the work which is about putting the wellies on, pulling up weeds and planting stuff, ” said Cllr Maureen O’Mara.
But there was confusion when residents seemed to move away from the council’s plan of establishing a brand new group and instead put forward the idea of forming a new management committee within the existing organisation which has cash assets in the bank.
Council officers said they would need to seek policy guidance from councillors to see if that would be acceptable.
Tim Delap urged the council to consider its position “quickly”. He pointed out that the London Marathon Charitable Trust had donated £31,000 towards a new outdoor gym in the park which would have to be returned if a brand new Friends organisation was being formed.
“If you don’t do it quickly I’ll write back and say ‘sorry we can’t use it’,” he said.
“It does seem farcical that if they [the existing group] have money a new group would be set up but I do understand why certain people should not be involved in it, ” another resident commented.
By the end of the meeting, which lasted just over an hour, it was unclear how a new Friends group will be structured but the council was left with seven names of people willing to help set it up and they resolved to meet again soon to plan the way forward.
Fascinating. Many thanks for this.
So, now all the dust has settled, it was Tim Delap who authorised the destruction, if that precis is accurate.
I’m sure he is a well-meaning man, but it would have been helpful to the Friends Group in particular if he’d admitted to those instructions to the Payback Community Team, back when this furore first surfaced.
Pedro, Tim is much more than well-meaning: he’s well-doing. He rolled up his sleeves and worked his guts out to improve the park for all of us. Not a single one of the improvements the Friends made in the park would have happened without him. Not one.
When I reported on this site on 12 November that Deputy Chief Executive Chris Perry had told the Friends not to issue a statement, Councillor Fahy responded “There has not been any attempt to prevent the Friends commenting on their position with regard to the destruction of the headstones. That decision was theirs alone.” Councillor Fahy was either lying or, like Rupert Murdoch, didn’t know what was going on. Last night the councillors admitted that Chris Perry had indeed told us not to comment. In response to accusations of a coverup, Councillor O’Mara said it was done “to protect people”. I feel that it was to protect certain people (council-related) and to harm others (the Friends). They repeated the false accusation that Tim was supervising the Community Payback Team during the destruction. They did not say who actually was. They seem to have calculated that because Tim had previously cut corners they could protect the real culprit by hanging the whole scandal around Tim’s neck. They also have not made any attempt to explain why so many stones beyond the area of the intended garden were disturbed and broken up.
Tim’s statement, quoted by Councillor Fahy, that Tim had instructed the Community Payback Team to get the stones out “whole if they could, but if not then to get them out any way they could” [this is the actual form of the statement that I have seen] meant that he had ordered the breaking up of the stones. When it was pointed out that “whole if they could” meant that most of the stones could have been removed whole, Mr Fahy argued that all this was just nuance. He seemingly subscribes to the Humpty Dumpty principle of meaning: words mean just what he chooses them to mean. I understand that anyway that statement was one in a string of seven emails to a council official in which Tim was attempting to get the conservation of gravestones placed on a proper footing. The council itself has broken and moved many, many stones over many years — for example, in order to repair crumbling walls — and many of these stones are fragile and easily broken, by children or plants. There is a respectable, widespread tradition of laying gravestones down as paving, and while the Friends accept that permission should have been sought, there is no reason to think that in a calmer atmosphere this could not have been done here.
At last night’s meeting, the claim was made that Tim had not sought permissions. Tim pointed out that he had been liaising with Alan Pett, then of Parks and Open Spaces (now retired). At this, Councillor O’Mara gave a snort or sigh, suggesting that this was untrue. I cannot speak for many of the projects, but I was working in the park when Alan Pett and Tim walked around the park discussing the greenhouse and community garden, and Alan Pett chose the positioning of the greenhouse. To get the charity grant for that, Tim had to show the charity Alan Pett’s letter giving permission for the greenhouse. I also was present on another occasion, when there was a possibility of applying for money to keep bees; Tim took Mr Pett’s advice that it could lead to bee stings and did not apply for the grant. I cannot attest personally to permission for the other projects, including the removal of the stones, but I know who I believe in this affair, and it isn’t Humpty Dumpty.
Councillor Fahy admitted that the council had made mistakes, that it accepted full responsibility, that it had learned some lessons, that it had revised its procedures in the light of all this, and that he personally did not know much about the history of the park. The same possibility of learning lessons was not afforded the Friends. When Tim admitted his mistake and offered to resign early in October, the council ignored him. When the Friends’ committee radically revised their management structure at our October meeting and forwarded that to the council on request, the council again ignored us. In Greenwich, it seems, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
As for the poor woman who found our meeting so aggressive, I can only say that for aggression she should have attended the last meeting of the council. It was my first time, and I was shocked at the hatred and invective that the Leader of the Council spewed over the chamber. The Dear Leader thus sets a tone from the top, which may have been reflected in the cold and scornful attitude shown by both councillors towards some of us at the meeting last night.
It was left to the vicar of St Alfege Church, Chris Moody, to note the human cost here. He pointed out that not only were stones damaged, but people were hurt. (These, of course, would be the people the council doesn’t like, not their own.)
He suggested that the present group (fifty-some people), minus those banned by the council (the committee of the present group), might be permitted to continue, forming a single group with those who expressed an interest last night. That seems to me to be a sane solution. The council has gone away to think about it.
Suzanne, thanks for that; personally, I hope the solution suggested by Chris Moody is followed.
There have been mistakes, but many of the people baying for blood wouldn’t dream of being there with a spade and a bag of compost when it’s time to get some work done.
Rob (& Suzanne) Thanks for the report, sadly the lack of notice and time chosen prevented me from attending, I can’t help feeling that what i have heard from you both has left me with more questions than answers. Not least why it has taken the council so long to provide an explanation (however accruate) about the stones.
I hope that we can now move forward using Chris’ plan and the existing structures for the Friends organisation. Hopefully the Councillors will make a swift and positive decision this time.
In the mean time I can’t help being left with an overwhelming desire to see the National Political Parties removed from local government altogther. Maybe then we would get a responsive council that serves its electorate rather than itself.
Darren
Suzanne, you say:
“There is a respectable, widespread tradition of laying gravestones down as paving, and while the Friends accept that permission should have been sought…”
This implies the Friends were involved in the decision to lay gravestones as paving and now accept permission should have been sought but in the article above Alan Bradley who I assume was on the committee says it wasn’t discussed by the committee.
Is Alan wrong? At what meetings did the committee of the Friends discuss laying gravestones as paving before Mr Delap gave his instructions? When did you personally become aware of this project?
Read the story, “stillshocked” – the committee said they weren’t aware that the stones might be broken up, but they were aware they would be used as paving. As were the council. And, by the council’s own admission, for all their washing of hands they knew some of the stones might be broken.
I also share that resident’s conviction, from my walks in the park over the years, that stones have been broken up, certainly by the Bardsley Street entrance – by the council.
I’ve read the story, Pedro.
Where does it say the committee were aware that the stones would be used as paving? Alan Bradley doesn’t appear to have been aware of it.
I’m not sure if this provides any clarity or not but here’s Mr Bradley’s comments in their entirety:
“We had regular committee meetings leading up to this event. This business of instructing the payback team to pull out those stones was never discussed at committee meetings. Never discussed at all. Had it been discussed at the committee meeting, we would have objected and not allowed it to go ahead. That is the simple fact. The fact is the committee were not consulted. So why weren’t we consulted is the question because that action went ahead without our knowledge and yet we were blamed. The Friends got the bloody blame for this but we weren’t involved at all.”
Thanks, Rob. The plot thickens, still.
I find this really interesting: “A lady walked out of the meeting after declaring that moving to Greenwich had been the “worst mistake of her life”, adding it was the “most aggressive place” she’d ever lived.”
My partner and I are currently considering a move from Brockley to Greenwich and last week when we popped down to SE10 to view a house on Woodlands Park Road and to get some fish on Royal Hill we both got a really unfriendly vibe from people generally. It was just silly stuff which bugged us like rude pedestrians not acknowledging us giving them priority, aggressive drivers looking like they wanted to kill us for not parking quickly enough, ignorant shop staff barking at us etc… we were just a bit surprised about the general level of aggression we encountered on a quiet Saturday morning. Anyway, it hasn’t put us off our move, we just hope SE10 is as welcoming as one would expect!
Thanks, Rob, for the transcription of Alan’s comments. I agree that, as far as I remember, the committee didn’t discuss the removal of any stones or their being used for paving. My post doesn’t imply otherwise: the remarks about the tradition of re-using gravestones addresses the broader, general question. The comment about accepting that permission should have been sought simply acknowledges that as a fact. Tim may well have asked Mr Pett’s permission to move those gravestones — I don’t know (though in any case neither Mr Pett nor anybody else in the council would have had the power to grant or deny permission; there is a specialist body that does that). Tim had at various times mentioned to me and others in passing that he hoped we could eventually create a meditation area or some such place in what he called the island site (the area next the the Bardsley Lane entrance), to be paved with reused gravestones, which would have been consistent with the tradition I mentioned. He had also vaguely mentioned the possibility of reusing gravestones for pathways. He did not specify when, or what stones would be used, and I assumed that this project would require a lot of consultation about location, design, etc. The committee were probably all aware of this but I don’t think we discussed it, at least not in any detail or with any sense that the project was imminent, as we already had too much work on our plate.
By the way, Rob, thanks for the wonderful picture of the library — emblematic, somehow, of the light-giving haven that a library can be.
Thanks Suzanne for your continued time in contributing to the site and thanks for kind words on photo. Just a snap before I walked in. It was nice to meet you, by the way, and hopefully next time we meet it will be a less controversial setting.
Dear Fatty,
I’m really sorry that you felt an unfriendly vibe when you visited Greenwich last weekend.
We’ve lived in SE10 for seven years, and in our experience Greenwichians are generally friendly, welcoming and genteel.
Of course, like anywhere in London, the UK or indeed the world, Greenwich does have its share of gits and louts – and it sounds like you bumped into more than your fair share of them!
But please don’t let your bad experience put you off – Greenwich is a brilliant place to live. Come, meet your neighbours, get involved with your local community and civic groups, and I promise that you will be welcomed!
Correction: Greenwich used to be a brilliant place to live. (I have lived here for 35 years.)
Thank you, Suzanne. I think the local councillors’ treatment of Tim Delap is disgusting.
Dear Ms/Mr BumBum – Just to echo Franklin’s encouragement: I’ve lived in Greenwich since 1980, and my husband’s ancestors here go back, we think, to 1645. Can’t speak for the first 340-some years after that, but for the past 32 I’ve adored or at least liked most of the people I’ve met here. Many many changes over the years, and it still feels like a proper, evolving community. Being far from genteel myself (though neither a lout nor — usually, I hope — a git), I’ve found many non-genteel ones to be delightful too. (As you may have gathered, the party politics can be grim, but luckily there’s more to life …)
Rob, I comment because it’s easy for folks to get the wrong end of the stick, and I think it’s important to try to clarify misconceptions where I can. That I wanted to amplify on matters most concerning to me is of course no reflection on your admirably fair and accurate reporting. Glad to have found this site, which enhances our life in Greenwich.
Hi fatty, do bear in mind many of the drivers don’t come from here, and some of the pedestrians are a bit angsty at the mo’, as there are huge number of cars coming down small streets due to roadworks.
Sorry if you found ignorant shop staff – anyone can have an off day, and there is the odd gruff personality, but we are lucky to have some of the best small food shops, with the nicest staff, in the area. I’ve been going round in the last few days asking for help with a community project, and I was genuinely touched at how helpful the block of shops on Royal Hill were, in one case volunteering competition prizes merely when I’d asked for some info. My section of Greenwich seems to be filled with kind people, and terrific shops, and just about every day I reflect how lucky I am.
And I haven’t even mentioned the pubs – although there’s one, mentioned on this site, that falls short, there’s at least two blinders.
@ Bumbum.
I must echo the comments mentioned already. I find just two sources of stress: the poor and frosty service from Greenwich Inc owned places, and the traffic and occasional grief from visitors at times. Sunny days can be a bit tense, and I think this meeting is an exception rather than the norm!
Having lived further away and visited regularly before moving here, I am sure that you too will find it great to have all that we on your doorstep, rather than facing buses, traffic and horrendous parking charges to just to visit. Welcome.
I am not a member of the friends of st alfege, but i had the pleasure of being involved in some of thier projects, as well as trying to organise a day of doggyness. This would have invoved dog behavioruists, dog training, free veterinary advice, agilty, free micro chipping courtesy of pets at home and many other dog related activities. I also had on board the police dog team. Unfortunatly the council did not respond to any of my many many calls and letters, and as the date came closer i spoke to tim and discovred that the friends of st alfege had been ‘banned’ due to the destruction of the grave stones. Since then the care and maintenance of the park has gone downhill. The bird feeders are not cleaned or filled, the dog poo has once again mounted up, the bins are not emptied, the litter is not picked up. These are just a few of the things the friends maintained. I feel that this whole situation has gotten out of hand and become a mud slinging venture aimed at the previous friends group. As to the experience that ‘fatty bum bum’ had when they came to greenwich, it does not surprise me, unfortunatly it is so overcrowded here now that there is no room to breath, let alone find time to have a friendly chat. The locals i know from over 20years ago are still here, but have been swallowed up by the recent influx of humanity, most of whom only care about making money. Very sad. Greenwich used to have a village feel, now it feels as impersonal and as hostile,noisy,smelly,dirty as central london. Too much too soon has robbed the area of its charm and friendliness, its now no different from anywhere else, except we have a big ship.
alan, I see where you’re coming from. The unresponsiveness and unanswerability of the council is fairly typical and points to a wider problem of how democracy works, or doesn’t, in Greenwich. It can make even good people grumpy.
St Alfege Park was a place of good cheer and a good counter to overcrowding. It is dispiriting to realize, for instance, that birdseed has been left to mould in the feeders. We need it to be revived, for the sake of our mental, physical, and social health. It could also give a little boost to wildlife.
If you move to Woodlands Park Road you’ll be near East Greenwich Pleasaunce, a brilliant park full of cheerful people and with a cafe where you can sit inside on dull days and outside on bright ones. Do come.
My last paragraph is addressed to Fatty Fatty BumBum, of course.
I forgot to say how disappointed I was that the day of doggyness didn’t happen. As a lover of dogs since childhood, I was looking forward to it. It could have taught us all a lot, doggy and dogless alike. Dog-walkers are among the most important users of the park — they can make or break it.
Thanks guys, I am really looking forward to moving down to SE10 so glad to hear its a friendly place to live and as I suspected, last week was just a flash in the pan. Royal Hill is like a hidden oasis with such a good offering, wish I could afford West Greenwich however East Greenwich is pretty good too so happy days. After 8 years living next to Greenwich it will be nice to come home to it every evening 😉
All these comments just serve as a reminder of how desperately we need to get ST. Alfege Park up and running again.
PLease Greenwich council, see sense, you have a group all set up with money in the pot. Elect a new leadership and get going.
Have I got this right? At a public meeting, Councillor Fahy read aloud from a private communication from a member of the public, Tim Delap, without first either warning him or obtaining his permission to read it out? Breach of Tim’s intellectual property rights.
Not only that, the private communication was taken out of context, with – it would appear – the express intention of ambushing, misrepresenting and discrediting Tim Delap. Attempt to defame Tim Delap? Actually, Councillor Fahy has already done that, I seem to remember, using this web site’s comments section to demand that a member of the public “consider his position”.
Evil and disgusting. If I were Tim, I would not be taking this lying down but Tim is a lot older than I am. I also think that the church should have done more to publicise all that Tim does. Tim is always being called in to do little tasks, like fixing the central heating, without thanks, and it is he alone who is responsible for the churchyard having been tidied up and kept tidy.
Tim and his wife have also shown extraordinary kindness to a refugee from the Rwandan genocide, supporting him in every sort of way. Whether or not the reader of this comment is a Christian, Tim’s behaviour has been self-evidently an example of Christian love and self–sacrifice. Unlike that of the councillors.
I think East Greenwich is great — lots of interesting little corners, not too touristy, and beginning come up a bit. (A commercial building there that my husband and I decided not to buy some 20 years ago has been vacant all these years but came to life just recently.) Here’s hoping it doesn’t get too up itself.
Indigo
Intellectual property rights? What? You quite simply haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. No such thing in relation to an email read out at a meeting.
And what does being kind to a Rwandan refugee have to do with anything? People of whatever faith do not hold the moral high ground and I think we’ve all been made fully aware of what Christian love and self sacrifice entails.
Anything written by Tim is his intellectual property – I should have thought that was obvious to everyone. Councillor Fahy also breached Tim’s data privacy rights.
As to Tim’s kindness to a refugee – a bit of balance is overdue in this slagging off egged on by Councillor Fahy, which has gone on for months.
Then we learned that Councillor Fahy had political ambitions to be Leader of the Council, so perhaps this on-line bullying and then ambushing a local resident is his idea of “showing leadership”.
Indigo
What utter, utter tosh. It might come as a surprise to you but you don’t know everything about everything and you quite clearly don’t know what a balanced argument is based on your numerous and varied posts on every subject on most local blogs.
Take a break, or better still, give us all a break!
There is a lot of special pleading going on here, and quite a lot of nonsense too.
Indigo, I doubt that any of us has the specialist legal knowledge to know if any of Mr Delap’s rights are being breached, but an impartial observer might say that he has brought things, at least partly, upon himself.
His refusal to explain what occured, and accept responsibility, and his failure over months to admit that he gave the payback team orders to remove the stones have brought things to the stage where, when a meeting is finally held, a councillor has to read out an email to explain things to an angry audience.
Mr Delap’s comments, in a leaked e-mail, that he “surmised” that the payback team broke up the stones amounts to lying by omission in my personal opinion, since he knew perfectly well that he had given them orders “to get the stones out, whole where possible, so that we could use them for paving. But if they couldn’t, they were to remove them, however they could.”
Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that Mr Fahy has organised or encouraged a campaign against Mr Delap, and neither does Mr Fahy’s remark that Mr Delap should consider his position amount to defamation. This does not mean that I believe that Mr Fahy has had no part in the cover-up, or has behaved in an upright fashion here.
Indigo, when you say “the private communication was taken out of context”, into what possible context could these words of Mr Delap’s be put to make to make them any different? They are orders way beyond his authority, particularly since he had, apparently, been specifically told not to move any headstones, and particularly since he hadn’t discussed them with the Friends’ committee.
It is utterly irrelevant what good deeds Mr Delap has done in the past, to whom he has shown kindness or to which faith he subscribes.
What is relevant here is that a man who started out with good intentions got to the stage where he started to act and think as if he owned the Park. He then issued orders that were totally ultra vires and possibly illegal, without clearing them with anyone. When the balloon went up, he refused to explain what had happened, and is apparently so delusional that he is amazingly still trying to tell people what to do regarding the future of the Park and the Friends.
“the people baying for blood wouldn’t dream of being there with a spade and a bag of compost when it’s time to get some work done.”
Firstly, I don’t hear anybody baying for blood, but I am hearing a great deal of special pleading for a man who made a huge mistake and has completely refused to accept responsibility for his actions, or even admit to them.
Secondly, it is totally irelevant whether people who comment have ever done any work in the Park. I can’t comment upon the destruction of headstones in my local park, because I am/was not a member of the organisation in whose name they were destroyed? What a strange world you live in!
I am a local resident, council tax payer and user of the Park – of course I can comment.
Darren –
the whole truth has not yet come out – you’re right.
“In response to accusations of a coverup, Councillor O’Mara said it was done “to protect people”. ” Well, of course a cover-up is done to protect people, Councillor, we worked that out all by ourselves – the questions are “Who?” and “Why?”
Rob –
thank you – this is key. You can’t blame the committee – This decision was Mr Delap’s alone. Suzanne Miller’s comments over the months also make this very clear, and thanks to both of you.
Let’s hear a little less about how Mr Delap is a fine upstanding Christian gentleman from his apologists and a little more of the facts. Please.
Understood, Rod, but my point wasn’t that you shouldn’t criticise Delap – he is obviously worthy of it- but that we are now at the point where we need to move forward and rebuild. And it would be good if as much energy were applied to rebuilding the park, as to kicking a man when he’s down.
Pedro –
I wouldn’t argue with that at all, but it was always going to be hard to learn lessons and move on from this without knowing how this incident happened in the first place. That seems very much to have been the mood of the meeting (I had to work and couldn’t attend), and now we are nearer to knowing.
Why don’t you leave then, Indigo? It could be your little contribution to making Greenwich brilliant once again.
Tosh, Suzanne! You’re the most genteel person in Greenwich!! 😉
I nominate Suzanne Miller to head the new/old Friends of St Alfege’s Park!
Suzanne has shown a remarkable – although, for those who know her, not surprising – degree of openness, honesty and level-headedness throughout this unfortunate affair.
I repeat my earlier argument that it is completely barmy for the Council to “ban” members of the committee of the old Friends group from taking part in the new/reformed Friends. The committee members were the most active, engaged and hard-working members of the old Friends. It would be simply insane to prevent them from taking an active part in the new/reformed Friends.
As it now seems to be established as fact that the committee (beyond Tim Delap) had no role whatsoever in the destruction of the headstones, there should be no reason that they should now be prohibited from taking an active role in the new/reformed Friends.
Suzanne for Chairperson of the Friends of St Alfege’s Park!
Indeed. Greenwich is a friendly, varied place, the departure of Indigo – who dislikes foreigners, accusing them of being terrorists – would make it all the more so.
Clearly the park and the stones in particular is a very emotive issue. There seems to be isolated chunks of sense from everyone here but then the passion kicks in and head get a bit misplaced.
I don’t think we can accuse Mr Delap of failing to appologise or accept responsibility given his email that appears to do both of those things. However passionate we are about this Mr Delap doesn’t owe us either an appology or an explanation (he owes that to the Friends group and the council as their reporting body).
Equally we can’t accuse the council of covering up and then critise them when they tell us PART of what has happened. My issue is that they conducted a full report into this incident and as yet all we have to show for it is an appology from Councilor Fahy and an exert from Mr. Delap’s email. I cannot understand the reason for witholding the full report and this will only raise peoples concerns that Mr. Delap has been scapegoated. Clearly the council are not acting to protect the reputation of Mr Delap so who are they trying to protect?
Finally I too want to move on but I don’t see how anyone can have the confidence to run a Friends group with the sheer volume of suspicion that has been created by the lack of a full explanation.
In summary
1- PLease release the report so we have clarity on the events of the Summer
2- Allow the friends group to resume work in the park, under new leadership and tighter goverance
3- Allow Suzanne to undetake whatever role she and the Friends want her to take
4- Try not to hound Indigo out of his home whilst desperately telling Fatty how nice we all are. Its a little bit contradictory 🙂
Sorry to be squeamish but I’m a little bit uneasy about this comment. Could we try to be a little kinder to each other?
Is Franklin a member of this Friends group? I am impressed, too, with Suzanne but isn’t it for the members to nominate a chairperson?
And, in answer to Pedro’s comment, above, elsewhere on this web site I have mentioned the voluntary work I did in a reconciliation centre in Northern Ireland, and the summer school and travelling that I have done in the Republic of Ireland.
I don’t “dislike foreigners” – I was born and brought up in East and Northern Africa – and I would move to Brittany tomorrow if it was affordable.
Ah well, we’ll leave what’s on the record to speak for itself. It’s good that NoGoe have apologised for the remarks in question. Like many, I had a lot of sympathy for the aims of Nogoe, and it’s a shame some of their supporters are so insular and negative – which is not, and never has been, what Greenwich is about.
Sorry to make you feel uneasy, Rob, but Indigo’s relentless negativity over recent years – including her comment here – does make me think that Greenwich would be better off without her. I’ve tried to be kind, but it’s been met with a torrent of abuse and fantasy, so have rather lost patience.
I was a member of the former Friends group, although to my shame I was not an active member (I paid my dues but never rolled up my sleeves to clip hedges or dig for victory).
So, whether I am a member of “this Friends group” rather depends on whether the Council allow the old Friends group to reassemble and continue, doesn’t it?
Were/are you a member Indigo? I rather doubt it, as you don’t live locally. So why do you believe that you have more of a right to express your views on what has happened or should happen with the Friends than those of us who have lived near St Alfege’s for many years?
Rob, greenwich is a great place to hang out, both online and real life. Indigo’s bizarre conspiracy theories, and her accusations of being “part of the conspiracy’ to anyone who disagrees with her, are often part of the entertainment. But her recent tweets, equating Irish people with “Republican Terrorism”, and invoking the spectre of the Woolwich bombings to further inflame the atmosphere, are not entertaining, they go beyond negativity, they’re simply vile. It’s nasty, poisonous stuff, and although loathe to speak ill of my fellow humans, I agree with Franklin that we’d be better off without it.
Pedro alleged, “her accusations of being “part of the conspiracy’ to anyone who disagrees with her”. This is a complete fabrication. I think Pedro must be ill.
Franklin alleged, “I’ve tried to be kind, but it’s been met with a torrent of abuse and fantasy”. Completely untrue.
I have been a member of the St Alfege congregation for nearly 20 years.
OK, so people who disagree with Indigo are “ill” . Well done Indigo, a new insult!
Just in case any normal people have dropped in on this admittedly bizarre spat, here’s a taste of Indigo’s work in PR:
http://853blog.com/2012/02/22/no-horses-no-irish-nogoe-go-back-to-the-70s/
Notice Indigo has never apologised for equating Irish people with terrorists – she simply keeps telling us how she once worked with them and is a Christian.