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.
This comment section has gone way off topic.
There are times when I think this “forum” – or whatever it might be called – brings out the worst in EVERYbody and contributes very little.
Maybe shut it down ?
Dermot – nonsense. If this forum (what else would you call it, then?) had not kept on asking the awkward questions, keeping this issue alive, the whole question of who was responsible for the disgraceful destruction of the headstones would definitely have been swept under the carpet. Rob kept this question going, and now we are fairly close to at last knowing what happened.
Maybe you don’t care about the truth of this incident, but many local residents do – so don’t say that this forum contributes very little, please.
Shut it down? You’re kidding, surely – this is the only serious local forum regarding Greenwich affairs. None of the other local blogs wanted much to do with this important issue, which, yes, does get passions running a bit. Because we care. If it’s getting a bit rough for you on here, just stop logging on here.
Simples.
Priceless
So? What does that have to do with the park? Zilch, zero, nada, nichevo, diddly squat.
The PCC was (understandably) very quick to distance itself from the gravestones fiasco, and to make it clear that the church has nothing whatsoever to do with the park, which is owned and managed by the Council. It’s therefore ludicrous to suggest that parishioners have any more right to comment on the park than local residents, park users or former Friends.
You’re right Indigo. Let’s bring it back to the ‘on topic’ issues you’ve raised: Rwandan refugees, intellectual property rights, the sources of Christian kindness, telling people who are excited about moving here how terrible Greenwich is, and Pedro’s apparent illness.
I’m with Jack that the suggestion to “shut it down” is rather odd – although I disagree that this is the only serious local forum regarding Greenwich affairs – the competition is pretty good too.
The debates can get heated and unpleasant, I agree, and I wish that weren’t the case. But I also think it’s important to counter the more outlandish assertions that some commenters routinely make. Otherwise the local debate would be dominated by the nutters and naysayers, and people like Fatty Fatty BumBum – who I am sure is a very nice person – might be put off moving to Greenwich for no reason other than that – to paraphrase Burke – “good people did nothing”.
One of the pleasures of working for the park is that it’s a public space, open to all, without religious or political affiliation. So are the Friends. Many members, already over-committed and lacking the time or in some cases the strength to come and work, nevertheless supported us by paying dues, reading our newsletters, and turning up to our various meetings and events. Nobody cares, or in most cases knows, what religion or political party we follow or don’t follow. We’re all just part of the mix. One reason I keep chipping in here is that I get the feeling that banning the Friends serves party political aims without offering the park itself any more protection than could have been given by other means.
I’m sorry to disappoint Dermot but shutting the website is down is not an option.
I agree with Franklin – I enjoy all the Greenwich websites and blogs. Well, most.
I am deeply saddened that the arguments continue regarding events that took place in the Park. I am desperately keen to secure the support of those keen to get involved again. We all make mistakes but sooner or later we need to move on. I will use my best endeavours to work with those who want to restore a sense of pride in the Park. We have strengthened our policies in respect of the role of Parks Friends Groups.
It is now down to those residents who want to make a positive contribution. We will not stand in the way to allow the Friends to flourish again.
I agree, I think it would be such a shame not to keep up the good work that has been done in the park. Let us try to turn a negative into a positive. We can’t change the past but we can learn from it and move forward.
Councillor Fahy –
Thank you for weighing in. It is in your power to bring to an end the arguments about events that took place in the Park, by publishing a full and frank disclosure about who was responsible for those events.
The arguments have rumbled on because you and the Council have chosen to keep the voters and taxpayers of Greenwich in the dark on the vital question of who, if anyone, authorised the destruction of the gravestones, and who allowed that destruction to take place. If, as I suspect, the leader of the Community Payback Team is the party responsible for allowing the destruction to take place, following unclear or impartial instructions from Tim Delap, you have an opportunity and indeed a duty to make that known.
Finally, with regard to moving forward: are we to understand from your comments that you would be willing to allow the old Friends group to come out of hibernation, to continue their good work under the new policy framework that you have devised, and to permit members of the Committee (with the exception of Tim Delap) to serve as members of the Committee of the rehabilitated Friends group?
I will be asking Officers to arrange a meeting to establish the Friends Group and invite all those who want to be involved with the exception of Tim Delap. Tim has made some mistakes but he has also made an enormous contribution to the Park in the past. It would be foolish to suggest that we can put hand on heart and say we never made any mistakes.
“I am deeply saddened that the arguments continue regarding events that took place in the Park”
Councillor – you must know that these arguments would cease instantly if you issued an full, factual report on exactly how this chain of events came to occur.
We now know that Mr Delap went way beyond his authority and gave orders for the stones to be moved, whole if possible, otherwise “how you can”.
The question remains, amongst others, “Who ordered up the sledgehammers and broke up ALL the stones?”
Councillor – please also address the other points that Franklin has raised. There is no excuse for any further delay in getting these facts out into the light of day.
Councillor Fahy –
Your response is not very illuminating. To be clear, I have three questions:
1/ Will you publish a full and frank disclosure of who was responsible for the destruction of the gravestones in St Alfege’s Park, including who was responsible for destroying the large number of stones along the northern and eastern walls of the park which had not been selected by Tim Delap for removal?
2/ Will you allow the old Friends of St Alfege’s Park, which has gone into hibernation, still has assets in the bank, and has a funding pledge of £31,000 from the London Marathon Charitable Trust, to come out of hibernation and carry on their excellent work in the Park, subject to the new policy framework that the Council has adopted?
3/ Will you allow the committee members of the old Friends group to join and serve on the committee of whatever Friends group emerges from this process?
I would appreciate your answers to these three specific questions.
I also want to make two observations, to which it is not necessary for you to reply.
First, you have already asked the Officers “to arrange a meeting to establish the Friends Group”. That meeting has taken place, and indeed is the subject of this post. What is required now is not another meeting, but your decision on questions 2 and 3 above. Another meeting would be pointless until you have decided whether you will allow the old Friends group to come out of hibernation, and who can join and lead whatever Friends group emerges.
Second, I note a fundamental contradiction between your acknowledgment that you have made mistakes but want to move on, and your continuing condemnation of Tim Delap. If you believe that you have the right to be forgiven for your mistakes and to be allowed to move on, then Tim Delap should enjoy that same right.
I believe all of the issues have been fully aired. I repeat that it is time to move on. It is very unlikely that anyone on either side of argument will be persuaded by anything further I say. I will therefore not be making any further comment. I am moving on,how about you doing the same.
This won’t do Mr Fahy, and you know that you are stonewalling and looking increasingly obdurate.
Please have the courtesy to answer Franklin’s very clear questions. You may, somewhat arrogantly I feel, repeat that it is time to move on, but we are not children to be scolded and we want to know who destroyed the headstones in our park. Who are you protecting, please?
The cover-up must cease. The issues have not been fully aired, because the truth is still unclear.
Councillor Fahy –
If this is your idea of being “more open, transparent and accountable to local people” – the basis of your challenge to Chris Roberts’ leadership – then perhaps it’s a good thing that you lost the vote on Monday night.
At least Dear Leader doesn’t even pretend to favour more openness and transparency in the Council’s dealings with its constituents. I’d prefer to have an openly secretive leader of the Council than one who publicly and repeatedly declares his commitment to transparency and accountability while in reality having exactly the same authoritarian tendencies as his boss. Duplicitousness and hypocrisy personified.
Wow –
not been following this all that long but this is not even a cover up any more like I can see its a paid officail digging his heels in and sayimg just behave I’ve told you all you need to know move on. This is crap. What happened?
Interesting.
Not that I’m taking sides but… Tim Delap was, I believe, a volunteer. He made mistakes. Took too long, perhaps, to come out and say what was happening. But his role was that of a volunteer, who was paid nothing for the work he did, good or bad – and much of it was good.
Someone, somewhere: in the council? In the Community Payback team? Also messed up. But they were being paid while they messed up.
Now, Councillor Fahy is being free re information about what mistakes Tim Delap made. But what about the mistakes made by officials whose salaries WE are paying? Don’t we deserve explanations about THEIR role first? Or is Councillor Fahy content merely to point the finger of blame outside his own tent?
With all of this, we should point out that all of us are human. No-one necessarily thinks anyone should, say, lose their job for making a mistake. But as for covering up a mistake… that’s a different matter. How long do we have to wait for a sincere honest explanation of what’s been going on?
Pedro, I particularly agree with your last paragraph. Councillor Fahy is surely right that it would be desirable to “move on” — but not until the matter has been fully aired. I would like to know the council’s grounds for excluding Tim. As Councillor Fahy says, we all make mistakes. Tim has paid for his, and for some not his, by having to endure months of public and private vituperation and even threats. There may be a lot of background information, not necessarily sinister, that could shed light on what happened and why. We are all wounded by this affair, and the wound needs to be cleaned out. Vengeance isn’t necessary, but accountability is.
Good to hear that the present Friends will be welcome to join the council’s new group, but Chris Moody’s suggestion to build on the existing one is a more sensible approach. This would also mean that there will be no need to invent a same-but-different name for the council-approved group. Even if we hadn’t all learned a valuable lesson, surely the council’s new, strengthened policies will prevent similar mistakes in the future.
Councillor Fahy,
We have a strong body of support both here in this Forum and in the neighborhood wishing to do exactly as you ask, to get on with the buisness of looking after the park.
The obstacle is that currently Mr Delap is the only individual who has been blamed. He may be the only individual that was responsible but the lack of information to support that suggestion will leave any potential leader of such a group worrying about the backing they may get in the future.
This is clearly going to hold back future development of whatever friends group takes on the Park.
History brims over with examples of how openess brings harmony and progress whilst secrecy breeds distrust and confusion and stagnancy.
I can’t make the choice, much as I’d like to. It’s your choice which path we follow.
Darren
OK so I’ve been patient, I’ve waited yet another two months for the Council to make good on its promises.
So Councillor Fahy, when can I expect some of the promised action?
I appreciate that your experiences within the council suggest that you’ll never be removed but surely even you can’t outvote the aging process. Wouldn’t it be nice to make good on your word every once in a while, even if it was to just bolster the votes come election time.
PLease, you have the offers of help, could you not extend the olive branch and get on with the action.
Many thanks