Back to square one for Ingleborough Field protestors (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Back to square one for Ingleborough Field protestors
1:32pm Friday 20th July 2012 in News Exclusive By Stephanie Cureton
Dean Johnson
PROTESTORS fighting against a war memorial field being sold off are “outraged” that they have to start their campaign from scratch.
Dean Johnson, who has pushed for plans to build houses on Ingleborough Road playing field to be scrapped, has told how previous objections no longer stand.
The news comes after Tranmere Rovers Football Club re-submitted their proposals to sell the former training ground to make way for almost 100 new homes.
The proposals, which go hand-in-hand with a revamp of Woodchurch Leisure Centre, were met with criticism from campaigners who wanted to retain the site’s historic meaning.
However Mr Johnson has now been told that his 200-strong petition is not valid in relation to the new plans but he claims that TRFC are not required to carry out another public consultation.
He said: “It seems unjust that we have to start all over again when there are no changes at all to the Ingleborough Road application.
“We managed to get more than 200 people to sign our petition and now it means nothing.
"I believe Tranmere’s consultation still stands despite the fact that it was carried out more than 12 months ago when local people were not completely aware of the site’s meaning.”
It is hoped that, if given the go-ahead, the club will be able to sell the former Birkenhead Institute land in a multi-million pound deal.
Tranmere Rovers Trust, which has thrown its weight behind the scheme, argued that the local community supported the plans.
Chairman Ben Harrison told the Globe earlier this year that if the plans were to be re-submitted and approved, the memorial plaque would be restored and moved to a more prominent location within the site.
But Mr Johnson is hoping to form a huge campaign against the plans and has even written to Prince Harry for support.
The prince has spoken in the past of preserving playing fields and of the importance of charity ‘Fields In Trust.’
Mr Johnson added: “We have got to go bigger this time and that is why I have written to Prince Harry to try to get more support.
"I think a lot more residents know about the field now and its history so it should be easier to get people on board.”
Comments(169)
hugo2008
says...
3:23pm Fri 20 Jul 12
What are the pros & cons, in all the locations that will be changed, and how will all this be of benefit to the population involved must be made clear.
Wirral public have had enough of misinformation, lies, deceit, poor management corruption and behind the scenes decisions by people in prominent positions.
Wirral Borough Council must begin to be Open, Honest, Clean and Fair.
Reremnart
says...
4:23pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
6:08pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Serena T
says...
6:26pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Tranmere Hall Residents
The original vote was taken in May/June 2011 prior to the planning application being submitted.
This vote is now over twelve months old.
During the campaign the residents were not fully informed of;
(1) The covenants contained within the sale of the Playing Fields in 1995 protecting them against:
• Sale of alcohol. Clause 6.3
• The field to be converted into football centre of excellence. Clause6.5
• No floodlighting. Clause 6.6
• Hiring out of the pitches for games. Clause 6.2
• Residents protection against litter ,nuisance and annoyance. Clause6.4
• Residents not informed they could use the fields for fairs, garden parties Clause 6.2.1
• Parking could be permitted on the playing fields for junior games. Clause 6.1
See appendices:
(2) Continuous attempt to deny the status over playing fields as a War Memorial despite all the evidence.
(3) The mortgage on the playing fields in the name of HSBC Bank, Allied Irish Bank to the value of approximately £6,000,000.00 (the club's debt) with no explanation as to where the £6,000,000.00 to develop the Woodchurch would come from.
(4) The Residents were not allowed representation at meetings to challenge the Residents Committee.
In view of this lack of information and propaganda the Residents vote should now be considered of no value.
Woodchurch Residents
Like wise the opinion of the Woodchurch Residents should be ignored for the following reasons.
• The sample number of returns to the questionnaire were to small.
• Residents were not fully informed as to where the money was to come from to develop the site.
• They were not informed of the substantial loss of the recreation area to Tranmere Rovers exclusive use.
Lurkinhead
says...
7:02pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:To be fair Ben, I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate the "arrogance of Tranmere Rovers supporters" from a couple of comments, any more that than the self-serving thoughts of Dean Johnson, or the occasionally hysterical rantings of Serena, should be construed as representative of the views of the anti's as a whole.
Well, if nothing else comes of Ingleborough Memorial Fields Round Two, at least it is flushing out the arrogance of Tranmere Rovers supporters, as evidenced by the above postings of Reremnart and TRFC4LIFE.
I said most of what I wanted to say on a couple of other threads, so I won't repeat it all again here, but if we are not careful, I fear this whole debate could descend into a futile bout of personality politics you have previously indicated you were so keen to avoid.
I fully accept this is a contentious and divisive issue, and there will inevitably be strong views aired on both sides.
Most of your previous posts on this whole subject, even if I don't personally agree with them, have been balanced, fairly argued, & on the whole gracious, and I would urge you to consider maintaining that quality of debate, and not to resort to generalizations and name calling.
uncatom
says...
8:03pm Fri 20 Jul 12
To be fair to Ben quite a lot of the response from TRFC fans in previous posts have shown themselves to be less than understanding and tolerant and in some cases obnoxious, which I might add flies in the face of claims of support for the community and says more about their blind support for the "club"above all else.
Lurkinhead
says...
9:31pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Clearly I don't get to speak for anybody but myself, and would contend that any other contributor to this forum does likewise.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the bigger picture, personally, I don't think it is particularly helpful, or accurate for that matter, to claim some comments on an internet forum are representative. We all have our motivations for posting, but am I representative? Are you? In reality, who's to say, as this clearly isn't a scientific poll and there are many strands to why anyone would feel the need to comment.
Ultimately, you will of course determine the level of debate you wish to have Uncatom, but as in my plea to Ben, I would urge you to debate this on the issues, rather than lower the bar unnecessarily.
prenton15
says...
10:11pm Fri 20 Jul 12
Serena T
says...
10:09am Sat 21 Jul 12
DODD, ALBERT, Lieut., Royal Air Force, 3rd son of Joseph (and Anna Maria) Dodd, of 304, New Chester Road, Port Sunlight. He was born 20 October 1898 in the parish of St Mary’s, Widnes, co. Lancaster. He completed his education at the West Bank Board Schools, Widnes, and was also educated at the Port Sunlight Schools, gaining a “Lever Scholarship” in July, 1911: continued his education at the Birkenhead Institute, and also gained an Oxford Junior and Senior Scholarship in 1914 and 1915. Certificates for the Lancashire and Cheshire Institute of Chemical Courses of 1915-16-17, and matriculated as a student of the London University in 1916. He was employed by Messrs’ Lever Brothers, Port Sunlight, as an Analytical Chemist. On 1 June 1917, at the age of 18 years and eight months, he joined the Artists’ Rifles OTC, and gained his commission to the Balloon Section, Royal Air Force, on 1 November 1917. He served with No.11 Balloon Section, British Expeditionary Force in France and Flanders, until 30 October 1918, when he was killed in action at Salache. Buried at Vicely, in a French cemetery. Lieut. Col. G F H Faithfull, command 3rd Balloon Wing, Royal Air Force, wrote: “Your son was a very promising officer and a good Observer, who had done a great deal of very valuable work during the strenuous times of the last few months,” and Major W Huxley: “He was one of my most keen young observers, and I was most interested in him, as he had shown great promise. He had, as you know, gained his Observer’s badge just before going.”
Lurkinhead
says...
10:23am Sat 21 Jul 12
As fine and brave a man as Albert Dodd no doubt was, do you think he, or any other of the BI fallen for that matter, are more deserving of public remembrance and commemoration than any of the other brave men from our borough, who made the ultimate sacrifice but who didn't attend BI?
Are you suggesting two-speed public remembrance, because personally, I find that a little distasteful?
Many schools and institutions have private memorials to fallen former pupils, but do these not in effect lapse as and when the school ceases to be?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate, and egalitarian, for the memory of the fallen from any given defunct school, to transfer to public memorials, in order that their memory can be publicly honored in equal measure to ALL of the fallen?
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
12:09pm Sat 21 Jul 12
Lurkinhead wrote:I entirely take your point, Lurkinhead.
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:To be fair Ben, I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate the "arrogance of Tranmere Rovers supporters" from a couple of comments, any more that than the self-serving thoughts of Dean Johnson, or the occasionally hysterical rantings of Serena, should be construed as representative of the views of the anti's as a whole.
Well, if nothing else comes of Ingleborough Memorial Fields Round Two, at least it is flushing out the arrogance of Tranmere Rovers supporters, as evidenced by the above postings of Reremnart and TRFC4LIFE.
I said most of what I wanted to say on a couple of other threads, so I won't repeat it all again here, but if we are not careful, I fear this whole debate could descend into a futile bout of personality politics you have previously indicated you were so keen to avoid.
I fully accept this is a contentious and divisive issue, and there will inevitably be strong views aired on both sides.
Most of your previous posts on this whole subject, even if I don't personally agree with them, have been balanced, fairly argued, & on the whole gracious, and I would urge you to consider maintaining that quality of debate, and not to resort to generalizations and name calling.
I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
12:15pm Sat 21 Jul 12
On the basis of her well-informed postings on this and previous threads, isn't Serena the more obvious person to offer a counter-argument to TRFC's proposals?
(PS-before anybody starts: don't know her, never met her, never spoken to her.)
Serena T
says...
1:16pm Sat 21 Jul 12
Would you prefer that Dean Johnson was silent?
You cant argue with the truth because it's the truth.
Serena T
says...
3:28pm Sat 21 Jul 12
This means an area of green space which incidedtly is "Greenbelt" and should not be developed ,will, be lost.
The net result would be loss of green space at Ingleborough + loss of green space at Woodchurch.
They would also get the land for a "peppercorn" rent
Where is the money coming from to develop the Woodchurch, can they prove deliverability and enter a legal binding agreement?
The planing department have spent the last five years helping TRFC over this.
Just so they can recover the £6 million debt.
And as for the residents of Tranmere Hall Estate
• Property blighted for two years while construction takes place.
• Loss of premium value to houses backing onto playing fields.
• Increase of up to 150 cars per day in and out iof the estate which already has congested roads.
The Woodchurch residents will be left looking at a exactly what they see today.
sample objection letter available here
http://www.planningh
elp.org.uk/improve-w
here-you-live/how-to
-comment-on-a-planni
ng-application/lette
r-of-objection
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
8:11pm Sat 21 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:I am looking to protect the integrity of the opposition case to this proposed destruction of a First World War Memorial.
It's a free country, Ben (thanks to the 88 and their brothers).
Would you prefer that Dean Johnson was silent?
You cant argue with the truth because it's the truth.
It is quite clear from the postings of those who support the destruction of the Inglebrorough Road Memorial Fields that they see Dean Johnson as somebody who has a vested interest in the 'anti' campaign.
Whether this is true or not, it may have a corrosive effect on our individual efforts to stop this redevelopment.
It is for that reason, and because Serena T posts so articulately and more broadly in terms of detail, that I ask why Dean is approached for a quote each time and not her.
It's purely strategic,nothing more.
Lurkinhead
says...
9:41pm Sat 21 Jul 12
The point being, like Dean Johnson, do you have a vested interest in this debate, and are you in a position to benefit financially, as is Dean Johnson, from promoting a musical about World War 1, or in any other way?
I'm not suggesting you are of course, merely asking the question.
Hiutsuri
says...
11:34pm Sat 21 Jul 12
It Appears We Forgot
Tranmere Rovers are pimping out our past, exchanging the blood given by our ancestors for a future players salary.
Lest We Forget
'The phrase later passed into common usage after World War I across the British Commonwealth especially, becoming linked with Remembrance Day observations; it came to be a plea not to forget past sacrifices, and was often found as the only wording on war memorials, or used as an epitaph.'
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Recessional
_(poem)
Let not this Cause become Tranmere's Shame.
Lurkinhead
says...
9:15am Sun 22 Jul 12
Hiutsuri wrote:I appreciate it is all about opinions, and differing perspectives, but come on ....... "pimping out our past, exchanging the blood given by our ancestors for a future players salary" is as cringeworthy a metaphor as I think I have ever seen used in this whole debate.
'Lest We Forget'
It Appears We Forgot
Tranmere Rovers are pimping out our past, exchanging the blood given by our ancestors for a future players salary.
Lest We Forget
'The phrase later passed into common usage after World War I across the British Commonwealth especially, becoming linked with Remembrance Day observations; it came to be a plea not to forget past sacrifices, and was often found as the only wording on war memorials, or used as an epitaph.'
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Recessional
_(poem)
Let not this Cause become Tranmere's Shame.
Hiutsuri, let me ask you this: If everyone on both sides of this debate resorted to this level of emotive interpretation, do you think that would be helpful in any way?
You must be embarrassed reading that back to yourself, no?
Serena T
says...
11:14am Sun 22 Jul 12
TRFC say this means Ingleborough Road Memorial (listed) Playing Field must be considered as such a site for housing under the new National Planning Policy Framework which came in to force in March this year.
If this is the case every sports field in Wirral is potentially under threat.
At least the thoughts and power of the future King Of England is against this tide of greed.
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2177016/Dont-sell-pl
aying-fields--childr
en-cooped-indoors-Pr
ince-Williams-reader
s-Jubilee-campaign.h
tml
Lurkinhead
says...
11:57am Sun 22 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Serena,
According to TRFC "Addendum Supporting Planning Statement June 2012", WBC are at fault for not demonstrating a 5 year supply of housing sites'.
TRFC say this means Ingleborough Road Memorial (listed) Playing Field must be considered as such a site for housing under the new National Planning Policy Framework which came in to force in March this year.
If this is the case every sports field in Wirral is potentially under threat.
At least the thoughts and power of the future King Of England is against this tide of greed.
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2177016/Dont-sell-pl
aying-fields--childr
en-cooped-indoors-Pr
ince-Williams-reader
s-Jubilee-campaign.h
tml
So are you going to reveal if you have any links to Dean Johnson, or a vested interest in the Wilfred Owen Museum, or musical theatre productions to promote?
Going slightly off-topic, but with the greatest of respect, and again I appreciate this is all about opinions, but to me, the future King of England, Price Harry, or any other members of the Royal Family have absolutely no basis for assuming their opinions are any more valid than any other person's in the country. They represent an undemocratic and anachronistic bygone age, and in my opinion, have no relevance in this debate.
If you choose to fawn over anybody who has gained their "status" merely by an accident of birth, that is of course your prerogative, but personally, I think the Royal Family are pimping our future, exchanging the blood of our ancestors who fought for democracy, for their continued undemocratic existence!
Wow, in hindsight, that use of unnecessary hyperbole is quite liberating - I may use it more often myself!
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
12:18pm Sun 22 Jul 12
"I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round."
Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did.
I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above.
This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks.
Serena T
says...
1:17pm Sun 22 Jul 12
Famous Footballer Bereaved (from the Lever brothers Archive)
The intelligence was received by Mrs Birch of 13 Planet Street, Rock Ferry on Wednesday morning that her brother, Pte, Fred Hancock of the Yorkshire Regt, had been killed in action on the 9th April. Pte, Hancock was very well known in the south end of the borough (more particularly by all his friends as “Zebhyr”) and enlisted last September. He only went out on the front in January, was 40 years of age, and had been employed at Port Sunlight in the Building Dept. He resided with his sister at the above address. His brother, Mr Harry Hancock is the well known half-back of Tranmere Rovers fame. In a letter received from his officer the writer says:- “Your brother was a very good soldier and his chums in the Company miss him very much. He was hit by a bullet whilst in the first line, and must have died immediately as he never spoke afterwards. We buried him along with some more of his comrades in a small British Cemetery behind the lines”.
sandhills
says...
1:54pm Sun 22 Jul 12
Just a thought.
Serena T
says...
2:26pm Sun 22 Jul 12
sandhills wrote:It's up to the discretion of the individual councillors. They do not have to declare an interest, even if they attend free games.
If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting?
Just a thought.
Positive thinker
says...
6:26pm Sun 22 Jul 12
more important things to do with there
time than protest about a few houses
getting buil,there are people out there
who protest for the sake of it.Have these clowns thought of the jobs it would create in the construction,then we
have the council tax and then we have
the familYs who will make them home,
so to all all the clowns out stop and think
who's really bothered
ordinary personn
says...
6:29pm Sun 22 Jul 12
TRFC4LIFE – I take it that you meant people did not know anything about the memorial fields? That is demonstrably incorrect, as I and many others who have previously posted on this subject have known about the memorial fields for many years. Also, just to put your mind at rest on the issue of it being a football supporters’ issue – I no longer support any football club (I have nothing against the game per se but do despise the greed associated with the game now and the poor example some players set) and, although I cannot speak for other posters who are against building on the memorial, I have not seen any of them state that the issue is about football. The issue for me is about respecting and remembering the men who gave their lives for us, never forgetting what they did and why. To advance we need to learn from the past and take what is good, reject what is not and try to avoid making the same mistakes as made in the past.
Lurkinhead
says...
7:30pm Sun 22 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:I can see what you are saying there Ben, but for my part, as the debate unfolded, there were some issues that in my opinion could not be ignored, and to some extent, like you, I too was firing off a warning shot regarding the conduct of the debate:
Yesterday I posted:
"I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round."
Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did.
I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above.
This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks.
(1) The use of over-emotive language, and condemnation of an alternative point of view as in some way morally repugnant - this to me is unacceptable as ultimately, it is merely a different opinion, which although some people may not agree with, it is entirely reasonably to hold. To balance that out, as you will be aware, I happen to disagree with many aspects of your perspective on the Ingleborough issue, but that said, I fully respect your right to hold those views, and don't condemn you for doing so. Does that make sense?
(2) Regarding the Royal Family, again, some people may find such institutions legitimate, whilst others, such as myself, do not. However, what I object to in the context of this debate is them being held up as some sort of trump card that will sway the argument one way or the other. It is often argued by pro-royalists that they are not an impediment to democracy as they do not seek to use their (rightly or wrongly) influential positions to comment on disputes or controversy, preferring to maintain a dignified & neutral stance. I trust that impartiality will be maintained in this instance, and to be honest, would find it wholly unacceptable if this was breached by any person who has attained their status via an accident of birth only, and has no legitimate part in the democratic process.
(3) Although I suspect I may stand accused of personality politics, as regards your earlier assertion that Dean Johnson has been subject to accusations of self-interest, and that this may have a corrosive effect, I raised the question as to Serena T's connections, as I believe these may also be relevant. I note that she has chosen not to answer my question, which may or may not prove to be telling.
In conclusion, as previously stated, I absolutely agree with you that this is a serious issue, and can reassure you that it was not my intention to engage in a "competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks".
Serena T
says...
10:43pm Sun 22 Jul 12
There is already a residents' parking scheme for match days and this could easily be extended to cover junior football matches.
The playing fields were mortgaged in 2007 to HSBC Bank, Allied Irish Bank to cover the club's debt, so where is the £4-5 million to come from for the Woodchurch Development?
Properties overlooking the playing fields would lose the fanancial advantage over the properties on the rest of the estate.
The Committee is already complaining about traffic, yet a development of houses would bring up to 100-200 vehicles per day, 365 days a year extra into the Tranmere Hall Estate with its consequences.
Only outline planning permission has been sought. This could mean the use for development could change in the future from housing to industrial petrol garages, shopping or a traveller site, etc .
Serena T
says...
10:45pm Sun 22 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Sorry for double posting... any responses to this?
Here is a moment when World War One sadly touched a TRFC player. Does anyone have any other stories like this or remember Harry Hancock? Does the club have any memorials at the ground and what do they have planned for 2014-18 commemorations?
Famous Footballer Bereaved (from the Lever brothers Archive)
The intelligence was received by Mrs Birch of 13 Planet Street, Rock Ferry on Wednesday morning that her brother, Pte, Fred Hancock of the Yorkshire Regt, had been killed in action on the 9th April. Pte, Hancock was very well known in the south end of the borough (more particularly by all his friends as “Zebhyr”) and enlisted last September. He only went out on the front in January, was 40 years of age, and had been employed at Port Sunlight in the Building Dept. He resided with his sister at the above address. His brother, Mr Harry Hancock is the well known half-back of Tranmere Rovers fame. In a letter received from his officer the writer says:- “Your brother was a very good soldier and his chums in the Company miss him very much. He was hit by a bullet whilst in the first line, and must have died immediately as he never spoke afterwards. We buried him along with some more of his comrades in a small British Cemetery behind the lines”.
siemanym
says...
11:12am Mon 23 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:How about you (Serena T) first respond to the question regarding your links to Dean Johnson, his so-called museum, his musical theatre activities and therefore your own vested interests in doing the job for which I am sure you are paid by Mr Johnson.
Serena T wrote:Sorry for double posting... any responses to this?
Here is a moment when World War One sadly touched a TRFC player. Does anyone have any other stories like this or remember Harry Hancock? Does the club have any memorials at the ground and what do they have planned for 2014-18 commemorations?
Famous Footballer Bereaved (from the Lever brothers Archive)
The intelligence was received by Mrs Birch of 13 Planet Street, Rock Ferry on Wednesday morning that her brother, Pte, Fred Hancock of the Yorkshire Regt, had been killed in action on the 9th April. Pte, Hancock was very well known in the south end of the borough (more particularly by all his friends as “Zebhyr”) and enlisted last September. He only went out on the front in January, was 40 years of age, and had been employed at Port Sunlight in the Building Dept. He resided with his sister at the above address. His brother, Mr Harry Hancock is the well known half-back of Tranmere Rovers fame. In a letter received from his officer the writer says:- “Your brother was a very good soldier and his chums in the Company miss him very much. He was hit by a bullet whilst in the first line, and must have died immediately as he never spoke afterwards. We buried him along with some more of his comrades in a small British Cemetery behind the lines”.
yogz66
says...
12:47pm Mon 23 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:get over yourself ben, no one resorted to name calling/slanging match between your initial 'fireing shot' and you 'i was proved right' post.
Yesterday I posted:
"I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round."
Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did.
I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above.
This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks.
sadly, it's the kind of indicitive post we see, with no basis for truth (you like the truth don't you-apply it next time), from those who feel that the sacrifice by 88 soliders is more important than ANY other sacrifice.
yogz66
says...
12:51pm Mon 23 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:tugging at the heart strings are we serena? or trying to, but brothers of people die ALL the time.
Here is a moment when World War One sadly touched a TRFC player. Does anyone have any other stories like this or remember Harry Hancock? Does the club have any memorials at the ground and what do they have planned for 2014-18 commemorations?
Famous Footballer Bereaved (from the Lever brothers Archive)
The intelligence was received by Mrs Birch of 13 Planet Street, Rock Ferry on Wednesday morning that her brother, Pte, Fred Hancock of the Yorkshire Regt, had been killed in action on the 9th April. Pte, Hancock was very well known in the south end of the borough (more particularly by all his friends as “Zebhyr”) and enlisted last September. He only went out on the front in January, was 40 years of age, and had been employed at Port Sunlight in the Building Dept. He resided with his sister at the above address. His brother, Mr Harry Hancock is the well known half-back of Tranmere Rovers fame. In a letter received from his officer the writer says:- “Your brother was a very good soldier and his chums in the Company miss him very much. He was hit by a bullet whilst in the first line, and must have died immediately as he never spoke afterwards. We buried him along with some more of his comrades in a small British Cemetery behind the lines”.
and, as an employee of levers, pte hancock will be remembered on the memorial in the centre of the village.
yogz66
says...
12:51pm Mon 23 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:tugging at the heart strings are we serena? or trying to, but brothers of people die ALL the time.
Here is a moment when World War One sadly touched a TRFC player. Does anyone have any other stories like this or remember Harry Hancock? Does the club have any memorials at the ground and what do they have planned for 2014-18 commemorations?
Famous Footballer Bereaved (from the Lever brothers Archive)
The intelligence was received by Mrs Birch of 13 Planet Street, Rock Ferry on Wednesday morning that her brother, Pte, Fred Hancock of the Yorkshire Regt, had been killed in action on the 9th April. Pte, Hancock was very well known in the south end of the borough (more particularly by all his friends as “Zebhyr”) and enlisted last September. He only went out on the front in January, was 40 years of age, and had been employed at Port Sunlight in the Building Dept. He resided with his sister at the above address. His brother, Mr Harry Hancock is the well known half-back of Tranmere Rovers fame. In a letter received from his officer the writer says:- “Your brother was a very good soldier and his chums in the Company miss him very much. He was hit by a bullet whilst in the first line, and must have died immediately as he never spoke afterwards. We buried him along with some more of his comrades in a small British Cemetery behind the lines”.
and, as an employee of levers, pte hancock will be remembered on the memorial in the centre of the village.
Carling404
says...
1:46pm Mon 23 Jul 12
The argument from my point of view is..........does the good of the people who remember and rightly hold the site in such high regards out weigh the potential benefits to others? Without sounding biased I'd suggest that the people who hold it in such high regard are in the lesser but because of the emotive nature obviously have a fair claim. What I can't understand is the total lack of openness to negotiate. It's obviously something that COULD happen is it not wise to have a contingency plan because if it does go ahead there might be less channels of communication if the bridges aren't built.
Another comment I'd like to know is that given the fact this was sold by the council in the first place was there ever an uproar when it was? Finally given the the fact it's such a special place for certain people I'd like to inquire have they attempted to get in touch with the commercial venture to rectify its derelict estate?
yogz66
says...
2:27pm Mon 23 Jul 12
Positive thinker
says...
4:15pm Mon 23 Jul 12
anybody's that the piece of land in question has a mortgage against it,
Or are we just putting down the first thing that comes into our head as for the comment about the extra traffic does that person not realise it's will not
even be noticed over the day,it's not a case of 200 vehicles turning up all at once what's that saying? something to
do with empty vessels
deadly_sub
says...
4:31pm Mon 23 Jul 12
1. I believe that Serena T runs Dean Johnson's various websites. She has certainly entered into correspondence with fellow TRFC fans on behalf of Dean before now.
2. Princes Harry and William have a campaign to protect playing fields linked to the Queens Jubilee. However, I believe that those who control or have influence of the use of the playing fields are supposed to nominate them for this campaign. From what I have read, there would be little legal protection offered by the scheme, it is a moral campaign. Therefore I do not think Ingleborough fits into the scheme.
3. The covenant on Ingleborough covers many things. However, most of the restrictions and stipulations only require that TRFC "consult with or inform" Wirral MBC of their plans. So the use of the site as a centre of excellence, or the addition of floodlights, bars, etc would be much easier to do than the housing, which requires a vote by the cabinet of the council.
4. Serena T mentions a specific fallen soldier in an earlier post and the fact that his tree will be felled to make way for an access road. Please could she show us the provenance of this claim. The tree survey in the planning application shows that there are far fewer trees than the alleged 88. In addition NONE of these trees are poplars. According to Dean Johnson's website, the trees planted were all poplars. So none of the original 88 trees remain and in any case, there are not 88 trees on the site. I would suggest that the anti campaigners, as has been suggested elsewhere,maybe come up with some suggestions to improve the proposed development as well as campaigning against it, such as ensuring that there are 88 trees around the boundary of the site.
5. Serena T again suggests that TRFC have a mortgage on Ingleborough of £6million. This is incorrect. TRFC have debts to Peter Johnson of around £5.3million. This debt is secured against the land at Ingleborough and part of the car park at Prenton Park. This was instigated by the Football League when it was revealed that Peter Johnson had an interest in both Everton and TRFC back in the 1990s.
This is very different to a mortgage. It is still possible that PJ will use some of the funds from Ingleborough to reduce the debt to himself, use the rest to develop Woodchurch (which will cost around £2.5million, NOT £5million as stated by Serena T) and then write off the rest of his debt when he sells TRFC. There is a rumour that PJ intends to develop some of the car park at Prenton Park to further reduce the club's debt to him, but this is not confirmed.
remember the past preserve the future
says...
6:26pm Mon 23 Jul 12
So she has a vested interest. Factn
ordinary personn
says...
8:07pm Mon 23 Jul 12
I also think that the confrontational stance taken by some of the posters on this thread is not the way to facilitate a compromise, neither is what I suspect the pro-side view as mawkishness from Serena T. Serena – all you are doing is winding up those who have different priorities from you – evidence yogz66’s post. That said, yogz66 – yes people’s brothers die all the time but these men sacrificed their lives for other people and that includes you and I. If they had not our lives may have been very different from how they are. I respectfully ask you to remember that and not be so dismissive of their deaths.
uncatom
says...
8:18pm Mon 23 Jul 12
And to yogz66 what a caring and compassionate person you are full of thought for others,a glowing example of a TRFC supporter and no doubt an icon in the community, you have put the case for your club perfectly.
Serena T
says...
10:49pm Mon 23 Jul 12
News - Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields redevelopment plans re-submitted
Posted: 23/07/2012 09:46
| News Home
The application to develop Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields in Birkenhead has been re-submitted.
Tranmere Rovers acquired the land, formerly the school playing field for Birkenhead Institute, from the Council in 1994. Wilfred Owen attended the Institute between 1900 and 1906.
The Wilfred Owen Association objects to the proposal and has submitted the following consultation response:
"Wilfred Owen Association (WOA) is disappointed to see that this application has been re-submitted without any consideration of our comments on the first proposal. The planning application does not give adequate consideration to the war memorial status of the whole site, or to the question of how best to sustain the memory of the young students of the Birkenhead Institute who were killed in the First World War. WOA views the application in its present form as ill-considered. It identifies only the tablet on the pavilion as the war memorial - without regard to the memorial status of the playing field, pavilion and trees - and the simplistic solution offered is that in moving the tablet off-site, the whole memorial status and meaning has been retained. This is not the case as the memorial was meant to be a facility for the young to enjoy sporting life. We, the Wilfred Owen Association, would like the planners to consider a way of sympathetically incorporating the memory of these young men by ensuring facilities for sport and recreation in any development and retaining the commeorative tablet as part of this. This is an important case, since whatever is decided may act as a precedent for future planning applications relating to war memorial playing field sites."
Carling404
says...
9:06am Tue 24 Jul 12
Anyway we move on and I totally believe that a compromise would be much more beneficial than mud slinging. I am Tranmere fan and can see both sides of the coin, the future needs to happen but it shouldn't ride shotgun over the past rather make the past a focal point of a new and exciting community.
Carling404
says...
9:08am Tue 24 Jul 12
Hiutsuri
says...
9:24am Tue 24 Jul 12
This could be that occassion.
The devil gives no refunds.
Lest We Forget
Did We Really or just turn a blind eye to self gratification, corruption and greed.
Carling404
says...
9:28am Tue 24 Jul 12
Hiutsuri wrote:What sort of chat is this really???
Tranmere can only sell its soul once.
This could be that occassion.
The devil gives no refunds.
Lest We Forget
Did We Really or just turn a blind eye to self gratification, corruption and greed.
Get some perspective.........
.....Tranmere aren't selling their soul they are trying to build a future not JUST for themselves but for the residents of the Wirral.
Carling404
says...
9:32am Tue 24 Jul 12
Any of you guys put a bid in to buy it?
uncatom
says...
9:33am Tue 24 Jul 12
deadly-sub
re; your post little legal protection offered by the scheme, it is a moral campaign.Therefore I do not think Ingleborough fits into the scheme,I take it that TRFC have no moral obligation then its just about the money.
Carling404
says...
9:37am Tue 24 Jul 12
"Tranmere can only sell its soul once.
This could be that occassion.
The devil gives no refunds.
Lest We Forget
Did We Really or just turn a blind eye to self gratification, corruption and greed."
uncatom
says...
9:51am Tue 24 Jul 12
Carling404 wrote:How can a morally bankrupt football club build a future for the residents of Wirral?Integrity,the need to be honest open and transparent are needed to build a foundation for the future, something which seem to be sadly lacking,perhaps people might be more understanding if they actually knew what was going on
Hiutsuri wrote:What sort of chat is this really???
Tranmere can only sell its soul once.
This could be that occassion.
The devil gives no refunds.
Lest We Forget
Did We Really or just turn a blind eye to self gratification, corruption and greed.
Get some perspective.........
.....Tranmere aren't selling their soul they are trying to build a future not JUST for themselves but for the residents of the Wirral.
Carling404
says...
10:54am Tue 24 Jul 12
As for being bankrupt well thats not true we have a multi million pound owner who whilst might be disenchanted with the club still has its best interests at heart. Furthemore we have numerous supporter clubs collecting large sums of cash from various fans in the hope that if PJ was to ever sell then they could step in.
Finally if this development was to go ahead it would make TRFC a lot more appealing to any potential investor.
Basically what I am saying is that is your opinion and its subjective but just because it's your opinion it doesn't mean its fact.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
11:43am Tue 24 Jul 12
Carling404
says...
1:21pm Tue 24 Jul 12
Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't seem to recall anything regarding the matter until plans were submitted.
uncatom
says...
1:34pm Tue 24 Jul 12
what happened to the future for all the residents of Wirral?
All I see from your interpritation of "morally bankrupt" is how it affects TRFC how much support and money is available and how it is more attractive on the investment market nothing about the benefits to the community.
A derelict piece of land, the truth emerges at last well at least your honest, no pretence.
Lurkinhead
says...
2:48pm Tue 24 Jul 12
Maybe this is the pedant in me surfacing, but wouldn't the term "morally bankrupt" imply a complete lack of morality in all circumstances?
When used in relation to Tranmere Rovers, I would contend your use of the term is inappropriate. Even if you passionately disagree with the club on this issue (and personally, I don't agree that it is a moral issue, but that's another debate) are you seriously suggesting that nothing about any aspect the club has any morality at all?
If so, I really think you ought to reconsider, and in hindsight, may wish to withdraw that accusation.
Ben B earlier requested that the tone of the debate be maintained at a decent level, and indeed you & I have had some passionate differences of opinion, which is fine, but I would ask you not to stoop to the unhelpful level of mawkish hyperbole as amply demonstrated by Hiutsuri above.
Outright condemnation of the opposing view, and lack of respect for it, on all sides of this debate, pro & anti, is not a decent or reasonable debating technique, in my view anyway, and I would encourage all participants to reflect on that.
Ordinary personn, you will appreciate that I have a much different perspective on this issue than yourself, and consequently, there are aspects of your posts in this thread that i don't agree with. However, I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say "the best way forward is to come to a compromise position".
Like you, I am not clear about what that position could be, but there is always a solution if all parties have the resolve to find one.
Carling404
says...
3:20pm Tue 24 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:Ridiculous It was simply a reply as to how some on one particular side of the fence might view it epsecially in reply to the comments of Tranmere being "morally bankrupt" and "selling their souls to the devil". If you are going to have a debate please keep things in context rather than just mashing qoutes together to suit your slanderish comments.
Carling 404, what happened to the future for all the residents of Wirral? All I see from your interpritation of "morally bankrupt" is how it affects TRFC how much support and money is available and how it is more attractive on the investment market nothing about the benefits to the community. A derelict piece of land, the truth emerges at last well at least your honest, no pretence.
Serena T
says...
7:30pm Tue 24 Jul 12
The residents of Ingleborough Road do not want it, neither do the Woodchurch residents.
A national newspaper is about to break the story, which will lead to TV and radio coverage bringing more bad publicity to The Wirral.
The best damage limitation is to restore the Memorial Field to its former glory.
uncatom
says...
8:04pm Tue 24 Jul 12
Yes I think you are being somewhat overly pedantic in claiming in all circumstances, you say you do not believe there is a moral issue involved, so it is alright to disregard Ingleborough Memorial field and treat it as a piece of meaningless land forgetting what it stands for and its history as part of the heritage of Birkenhead, TRFC havent even had the decency to keep it tidy, its just an asset to be sold.
uncatom
says...
8:41pm Tue 24 Jul 12
I am a bit puzzed as to the slanderous comments please explain,I basically rewrote your own words,I just find it strange that with your multi million pound owner and the large sums collected from the fans that you need to rely on sponsorship money from the pockets of the good people of Wirral.
Lurkinhead
says...
8:58pm Tue 24 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:Well Uncatom, that reply was disappointingly predictable.
Lurkinhead,
Yes I think you are being somewhat overly pedantic in claiming in all circumstances, you say you do not believe there is a moral issue involved, so it is alright to disregard Ingleborough Memorial field and treat it as a piece of meaningless land forgetting what it stands for and its history as part of the heritage of Birkenhead, TRFC havent even had the decency to keep it tidy, its just an asset to be sold.
(1) How do you define "morally bankrupt" then? Is it something short of how I would define it? They were your words after all.
(2) As regards morality, I just happen to have a different perspective to yourself, and personally believe that the honour & memory of The Fallen, and the history & heritage of Birkenhead for that matter, can be better served than by maintaining the field as is........ but then you already know that, and there's the rub. Why are some of the "anti's" either not capable, or not willing, to acknowledge that there are reasonable standpoints other than their own. I am more than happy to respect your view Uncatom, & gladly acknowledge that it is no doubt heartfelt & genuine, and yet you, for whatever reason, will not do me the same courtesy. As it goes, I am broadly comfortable with my understanding of morality, and whilst not decrying your right to hold your position, take a view which I firmly believe is morally acceptable.
So, no, to answer your question, I don't believe this is a moral question, in the context that one & only one position is morally justifiable, and any other position isn't.
I genuinely wish I was as confident and certain in life as you Uncatom, but then maybe that's my downfall - not assuming my views or beliefs are automatically and unequivocally correct.
spamfiend
says...
9:04pm Tue 24 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:I don't think TV and radio coverage will bring bad publicity - The Council themselves have done that...
This issue has become too much of a 'Hot Potato' for any local councillor to vote for (ask the Prenton Councillors - email addresses are on the WBC website).
The residents of Ingleborough Road do not want it, neither do the Woodchurch residents.
A national newspaper is about to break the story, which will lead to TV and radio coverage bringing more bad publicity to The Wirral.
The best damage limitation is to restore the Memorial Field to its former glory.
As for you quote 'The best damage limitation is to restore the Memorial Field to its former glory' - that's fine but who exactly is going to foot the bill to do it?? You or Mr D. Johnson???
Lurkinhead
says...
9:09pm Tue 24 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:I shouldn't even really bite, but I'll ask anyway: On what basis do you claim the residents of Ingleborough Road, & the residents of Woodchurch, do not want this? I do not believe there is a credible basis for you to make this claim.
This issue has become too much of a 'Hot Potato' for any local councillor to vote for (ask the Prenton Councillors - email addresses are on the WBC website).
The residents of Ingleborough Road do not want it, neither do the Woodchurch residents.
A national newspaper is about to break the story, which will lead to TV and radio coverage bringing more bad publicity to The Wirral.
The best damage limitation is to restore the Memorial Field to its former glory.
As regards possible bad publicity, well, I for one would be more than happy for any form of media, national or otherwise, to run a balanced story, reporting a broad range of views from all sides of the argument, which can then be judged on its merits.
Finally, are you ready to reveal your links to Dean Johnson, and therefore vested interest, yet Serena? There was a thread re Ingleborough Rd not so long ago where you were demanding every contributor identify themselves, and whilst that in itself was bizarre, you now choose not to comment on your conflict of interests.
yogz66
says...
12:34am Wed 25 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:laughing at you fella, laughing.but blesh that you think i'm uncaring, when all i did was point out to miss vested interest, that the name that she was using to try to make tranmere supporters feel guilty, a name that at no stage appears in tha anuls of tranmere rovers history, will be remembered on a war memorial, in port sunlight village. would you like directions to go and look for yourself?
Speaking of vested interests it would appear TRFC and its associates have the biggest vested interest, so to call somebody else is a bit pot and kettle dont you think?
And to yogz66 what a caring and compassionate person you are full of thought for others,a glowing example of a TRFC supporter and no doubt an icon in the community, you have put the case for your club perfectly.
it's ok uncatom, it's quite clear you have a dislike for tranmere rovers in general. but that field isn't yours. t was given to tranmere by the council in retrurn for some land that the club owned, but the council wanted. that land NOW has a sports facilty on it for teh use of the community. it's a stange word community, it means people, some that you may even get along with and may hold the same view(s) as you, and some that may not. likewise, tied into this, the deveelopment in woodchurch, which miss vested interest states is green belt (but already has a sports centre on - how does that work?) will also benefit the community.
it's also quite clear that distortion abounds in this matter. miss vested interest, who agin had posted with an attempt at heart string tugging, has still not answered a question that was aimed at her. ms torz has decided to ignore this. but she has a vested interest in this, and likes to distort stories to suit her agenda. like you do, with your pathetic 'compasionate/icon' angle.
yogz66
says...
12:45am Wed 25 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:no ms torz, if we look at the outcome, the best thing for you, personally, and mr johnson, is that you can bask in the satisfaction of sucess.
This issue has become too much of a 'Hot Potato' for any local councillor to vote for (ask the Prenton Councillors - email addresses are on the WBC website).
The residents of Ingleborough Road do not want it, neither do the Woodchurch residents.
A national newspaper is about to break the story, which will lead to TV and radio coverage bringing more bad publicity to The Wirral.
The best damage limitation is to restore the Memorial Field to its former glory.
but this isn't about 'the fallen', or their memory/legacy, it's not about some trees, or a playing field....it's about self publicity, for mr johnson's ventures and his music career, and the almost bastardisation of wilfred owen's poems to achieve this, a 'museum' that's barely ever open, that surprisingly almost coincided with the initial planning application.
but it's ok serena, i don't expect you to respond. you don't, do you, you'd rather ignore these sorts of posts and issue another flowery story....
deadly_sub
says...
6:02am Wed 25 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:The combined schemes will CREATE playing fields at Woodchurch for community use - 2 full-sized pitches, 3 junior pitches and an all-weather pitch, plus2 TRFC pitches, which can be used by others at certain times.
It would appear that the household curse thing gives justification for all the disrespectful and thoughtless comments posted by what has been described in an earlier post as some "younger supporters".
deadly-sub
re; your post little legal protection offered by the scheme, it is a moral campaign.Therefore I do not think Ingleborough fits into the scheme,I take it that TRFC have no moral obligation then its just about the money.
So in terms of William/Harry's campaign, I think TRFC's plans are morally sound.
I was not talking about the memorial status of Ingleborough - that is a completely different strand of the debate.
Serena T
says...
8:57am Wed 25 Jul 12
It was the first all-purpose centre of its kind built in the country, and as such in this Olympic year it should be protected and maybe listed with English Heritage.
ordinary personn
says...
9:02am Wed 25 Jul 12
Lurkinhead
says...
9:14am Wed 25 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:With respect, that really is a quite desperate effort, even for you Serena.
The Woodchurch Leisure Centre and running track was built as a response to a government enquiry into the poor performance by the UK at the Helsinki Olympics (a horse called Foxhunter won our only gold medal).
It was the first all-purpose centre of its kind built in the country, and as such in this Olympic year it should be protected and maybe listed with English Heritage.
Carling404
says...
9:28am Wed 25 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:Puzzled a person of such intelligence its quite simple really, you've taken a section of what I said the whole ACCURATE qoute would have read
Carling 404
I am a bit puzzed as to the slanderous comments please explain,I basically rewrote your own words,I just find it strange that with your multi million pound owner and the large sums collected from the fans that you need to rely on sponsorship money from the pockets of the good people of Wirral.
"Morally corrupt in your opinion in others its trying to develop a bit of derelict land............(not my words just saying that's how some see it)."
And you've manipulated it to suit your agenda after several of your chums had suggested TRFC and anyone associated to it was morally corrupt and we had signed our souls to the devil.
Its a simple concept really.
Anyway back to the point in hand please..........
Hiutsuri
says...
1:49pm Wed 25 Jul 12
If this corrupt scheme goes through Tranmere will fall and its supporters will beg for forgiveness and the return to less corrupt and more frugal times.
Serena T
says...
5:49pm Wed 25 Jul 12
If allowed access, volunteers from The Birkenhead Institute Old Boys and The Wilfred Owen Story would be willing to restore and maintain the pavilion as a drop-in centre for ex-servicemen and women, and launch an appeal to raise money to reinstate a replica of the Memorial Arch and clean the vandalised plaque.
Please post here if you would like to help.
Serena T
says...
5:50pm Wed 25 Jul 12
If allowed access, volunteers from The Birkenhead Institute Old Boys and The Wilfred Owen Story would be willing to restore and maintain the pavilion as a drop-in centre for ex-servicemen and women, and launch an appeal to raise money to reinstate a replica of the Memorial Arch and clean the vandalised plaque.
Please post here if you would like to help.
ordinary personn
says...
7:04pm Wed 25 Jul 12
Serena T
says...
8:04pm Wed 25 Jul 12
deadly_sub
says...
9:24pm Wed 25 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Are you serious????? Woodchurch leisure centre is so run down its untrue. The majority of the playing pitches are unplayable or covered in dog faeces. The building is tired and not fit for purpose.
The Woodchurch Leisure Centre and running track was built as a response to a government enquiry into the poor performance by the UK at the Helsinki Olympics (a horse called Foxhunter won our only gold medal).
It was the first all-purpose centre of its kind built in the country, and as such in this Olympic year it should be protected and maybe listed with English Heritage.
TRFC are proposing revamping the site and the bulding to make it fit for purpose, to increase the facilities, to increase the number of pitches and provide additional facilities for the local community.
To suggest keeping the status quo is fatuous in the extreme.
Serena T
says...
10:07pm Wed 25 Jul 12
deadly_sub wrote:I was talking about heritage assets. Also can the Leisure Centre be revamped without destroying a war memorial field dedicated to 88 fallen heroes (including Wilfred Owen)?
Serena T wrote:Are you serious????? Woodchurch leisure centre is so run down its untrue. The majority of the playing pitches are unplayable or covered in dog faeces. The building is tired and not fit for purpose.
The Woodchurch Leisure Centre and running track was built as a response to a government enquiry into the poor performance by the UK at the Helsinki Olympics (a horse called Foxhunter won our only gold medal).
It was the first all-purpose centre of its kind built in the country, and as such in this Olympic year it should be protected and maybe listed with English Heritage.
TRFC are proposing revamping the site and the bulding to make it fit for purpose, to increase the facilities, to increase the number of pitches and provide additional facilities for the local community.
To suggest keeping the status quo is fatuous in the extreme.
Where is the money coming from? How do TRFC deliver it? Will they enter into a legally binding contract?
Positive thinker
says...
10:45pm Wed 25 Jul 12
tesco's opening just over the road
Crackers3
says...
11:11pm Wed 25 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Residents of Ingleborough and Woodchurch do not want it? Factually incorrect on both counts.
This issue has become too much of a 'Hot Potato' for any local councillor to vote for (ask the Prenton Councillors - email addresses are on the WBC website).
The residents of Ingleborough Road do not want it, neither do the Woodchurch residents.
A national newspaper is about to break the story, which will lead to TV and radio coverage bringing more bad publicity to The Wirral.
The best damage limitation is to restore the Memorial Field to its former glory.
uncatom
says...
7:31am Thu 26 Jul 12
Sounds very nice about Woodchurch, so whats in it for TRFC? sorry to sound cynical but as the old adage goes you get out for nowt
Carling404
says...
8:38am Thu 26 Jul 12
This is my understanding anyway.
Positive thinker
says...
8:50am Thu 26 Jul 12
uncatom
says...
9:17am Thu 26 Jul 12
But would they be free to charge the general public for the use of the facilities and profit form any such charges?Basically would it be in fact a private enterprise not overseen by WBC? forgive me if I sound naive.
woodyres2
says...
9:19am Thu 26 Jul 12
sandhills wrote:Interesting comment from David Cameron on GMTV this morning.
If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting? Just a thought.
MP's and government officials have not been allowed any freebie tickets for the Olympic games.
Why then are our council officials happily accepting freebie tickets for TRFC games ?
Surely the same rules apply ? Or are WBC just pleasing themselves as usual ?
Carling404
says...
9:30am Thu 26 Jul 12
The same sponsorship that spends 100's of hours per month traveling the region giving speeches and training to young kids within the community.
I could go on but I won't bore you. Any other sponsorship deal with any other partner would include these sort of perks - i'd hazard a guess that any mp that turns up to Tranmere is more interested in chatting "business" rather than watching football - its not the premier league down at PP you know.
woodyres2
says...
9:55am Thu 26 Jul 12
deadly_sub wrote:Yes Deadlysub - it has been run into the ground for many years because this plan has been around for many years. Both the Leisure centre & community centre ( AKA the Tardis ) were earmarked for closure to make way for TRFC.
Serena T wrote: The Woodchurch Leisure Centre and running track was built as a response to a government enquiry into the poor performance by the UK at the Helsinki Olympics (a horse called Foxhunter won our only gold medal). It was the first all-purpose centre of its kind built in the country, and as such in this Olympic year it should be protected and maybe listed with English Heritage.Are you serious????? Woodchurch leisure centre is so run down its untrue. The majority of the playing pitches are unplayable or covered in dog faeces. The building is tired and not fit for purpose. TRFC are proposing revamping the site and the bulding to make it fit for purpose, to increase the facilities, to increase the number of pitches and provide additional facilities for the local community. To suggest keeping the status quo is fatuous in the extreme.
People are making a lot of comments on behalf of the residents of Woodchurch. Many comments are not aware of the actual situation, which I have mentioned in previous posts.
There needs to be another consultation with Woodchurch as the plans have completely changed.
For example, all of the "community" football pitches appear to be fenced off on the plans ??
The running track (despite it's state) is still well used by runners, we don't see why that could not be re-furbished with a 5 a side pitch in the middle. Sport England are concerned about the plans also.
Finally the asst transfer of the "Tardis" to community control has still not gone through and that was agreed last September by WBC. Volunteers are working hard to ensure a true asset for Woodchurch in that small run down building.
Open, honest and transparent - NO - anything but !!
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:28am Thu 26 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:As am I.
Thank you.
yogz66
says...
10:31am Thu 26 Jul 12
ordinary personn wrote:butt in by all means, than attribute the post that caused you to butt in and direct it to you as well.
Yogz66 – I know your post was directed at Uncatom but I am going to butt in – I too felt that your statement “brothers of people die ALL the time” was unfeeling and I, as I said, disrespectful. You then compound that by saying you were laughing at Uncatom and with “your pathetic ‘compasionate (sic)/ icon’ angle” statement. Are you so blinkered that you only see the personality politics of this issue or, more worryingly, are you totally devoid of empathy? Nothing in your posts indicates any real sense of respect or feeling about the fallen. I accept that this may be incorrect and you are not devoid of these emotions but look at your posts; their tone and contents have done you no favours. Indeed, they just reinforce the poor opinion some people have about football supporters and of the motives of TRFC in this issue
you say it's uncaring, but, and this is a fact, brothers of people die all the time, as do sisters of people. it's a fact, people die, some naturally, some not so. yet ms torz tried a 'tugging at the heart strings approach' by naming a fallen soldier, who happened to have a brother connected with the football club. the fallen soldier named was an employee of levers. the fallen soldier named is commenterated on the momument in the middle of port sunlight.
it's not uncaring, its stating facts, and pointed out the patheticness of an arguement. ms torz doesn't stick to the facts, she distorts them to suit an agenda. buy it by all means, but don't get offended when someone else doesn't.
and, if you think this justifies the 'poor opinion people have of fottball supporters', do you never think this is just a case of pre conceived ideas that people already hold because it;s something they neither like (or understand) being reinforced. it suits your agenda.
yogz66
says...
10:34am Thu 26 Jul 12
Hiutsuri wrote:Hiutsuri wrote:
The selfish few appear to be mocking the selfless many who made great sacrifice with this abhorrent scheme.
If this corrupt scheme goes through Tranmere will fall and its supporters will beg for forgiveness and the return to less corrupt and more frugal times.
The selfish few appear to be mocking the selfless many who made great sacrifice with this abhorrent scheme.
that's no way to talk about mr johnson and ms torz....
yogz66
says...
10:39am Thu 26 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:why didn't you approach the football club 18 years ago/15 years ago/10 years ago/5 years ago/2 years ago/1 year ago/6 months ago/1 month ago/last week?
Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields are not derelict. The groundsman assures us they are amongst the finest in the North West. It’s just the war memorial aspects that have been systematically neglected.
If allowed access, volunteers from The Birkenhead Institute Old Boys and The Wilfred Owen Story would be willing to restore and maintain the pavilion as a drop-in centre for ex-servicemen and women, and launch an appeal to raise money to reinstate a replica of the Memorial Arch and clean the vandalised plaque.
Please post here if you would like to help.
wasn't there any mileage to be gained in your business venture(s)?
wouldn't a drop in centre cause extra traffic and parking issues to the residents of ingleborough road. bearing in mind that's one of your avenues of 'attack' on this issue. consider also that you'd require planning permission, and as you keep reiterating, it's a war memorial. but then you've reiterated 88 poplar trees being planted, and there are neither 88 trees, or ANY that are poplars.
full of bluster again serena, aren't we....
yogz66
says...
10:42am Thu 26 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:no, there's no legally binding document serena. what they are going to do is blow up ballons with helium, inhale it all, and recite wilfred owen poems in squeaky voices.
deadly_sub wrote:I was talking about heritage assets. Also can the Leisure Centre be revamped without destroying a war memorial field dedicated to 88 fallen heroes (including Wilfred Owen)?
Serena T wrote:Are you serious????? Woodchurch leisure centre is so run down its untrue. The majority of the playing pitches are unplayable or covered in dog faeces. The building is tired and not fit for purpose.
The Woodchurch Leisure Centre and running track was built as a response to a government enquiry into the poor performance by the UK at the Helsinki Olympics (a horse called Foxhunter won our only gold medal).
It was the first all-purpose centre of its kind built in the country, and as such in this Olympic year it should be protected and maybe listed with English Heritage.
TRFC are proposing revamping the site and the bulding to make it fit for purpose, to increase the facilities, to increase the number of pitches and provide additional facilities for the local community.
To suggest keeping the status quo is fatuous in the extreme.
Where is the money coming from? How do TRFC deliver it? Will they enter into a legally binding contract?
yogz66
says...
10:47am Thu 26 Jul 12
woodyres2 wrote:no it's not. and neither was yours.
sandhills wrote:Interesting comment from David Cameron on GMTV this morning.
If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting? Just a thought.
MP's and government officials have not been allowed any freebie tickets for the Olympic games.
Why then are our council officials happily accepting freebie tickets for TRFC games ?
Surely the same rules apply ? Or are WBC just pleasing themselves as usual ?
if you, and the handful of others who constantly moan about this issue, dislike this THAT much, why don't you club together and form your own political party, and stand in the next round of council elections, and try to dispose the standing councillors. of course though, you won't, it's just easier to moan on the internet......
ordinary personn
says...
11:07am Thu 26 Jul 12
yogz66 wrote:“it suits your agenda” – as I have said before if you have read my posts – I HAVE NO AGENDA regarding TRFC or football supporters per se. I also have no agenda regarding Mr D Johnson’s ventures. Neither am I offended by the fact that you feel that Serena T. has an agenda and state that she does not “stick to the facts”. To make myself perfectly clear, as I have said before:
ordinary personn wrote: Yogz66 – I know your post was directed at Uncatom but I am going to butt in – I too felt that your statement “brothers of people die ALL the time” was unfeeling and I, as I said, disrespectful. You then compound that by saying you were laughing at Uncatom and with “your pathetic ‘compasionate (sic)/ icon’ angle” statement. Are you so blinkered that you only see the personality politics of this issue or, more worryingly, are you totally devoid of empathy? Nothing in your posts indicates any real sense of respect or feeling about the fallen. I accept that this may be incorrect and you are not devoid of these emotions but look at your posts; their tone and contents have done you no favours. Indeed, they just reinforce the poor opinion some people have about football supporters and of the motives of TRFC in this issuebutt in by all means, than attribute the post that caused you to butt in and direct it to you as well. you say it's uncaring, but, and this is a fact, brothers of people die all the time, as do sisters of people. it's a fact, people die, some naturally, some not so. yet ms torz tried a 'tugging at the heart strings approach' by naming a fallen soldier, who happened to have a brother connected with the football club. the fallen soldier named was an employee of levers. the fallen soldier named is commenterated on the momument in the middle of port sunlight. it's not uncaring, its stating facts, and pointed out the patheticness of an arguement. ms torz doesn't stick to the facts, she distorts them to suit an agenda. buy it by all means, but don't get offended when someone else doesn't. and, if you think this justifies the 'poor opinion people have of fottball supporters', do you never think this is just a case of pre conceived ideas that people already hold because it;s something they neither like (or understand) being reinforced. it suits your agenda.
THIS IS AN ISSUE WHICH SHOULD NOT REVOLVE AROUND PERSONALITY POLITICS AND ALL SIDES, INCLUDING BOTH MR.S JOHNSON AND SERENA T NEED TO BE OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES. ADDITIONALLY, ALL SIDES INCLUDING RESIDENTS OF TRANMERE AND WOODCHURCH SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ABOUT THE PLANS.
Is that clear enough for you now?
Also as I said in an earlier post – yes, people’s siblings do die all the time but in this instance the brothers in question died for others. They died so that future generations could live without oppression. You still fail to even acknowledge that and “laugh” at those who do (in your post directed at Uncatom) so I maintain that in my opinion your posts are disrespectful towards those men and lacking in empathy. Whether it is a case of reinforcing preconceived ideas or of instigating a poor opinion of football supporters is not the point. The point is that your posts do you and, by association, others in favour of building on the memorial no favours.
uncatom
says...
1:04pm Thu 26 Jul 12
well put, i feel a bit let down by myself for rising to the bait on some ocassions but some of the comments on here make the blood boil, as you say no feeling of empathy, by some of the postings on here it is clear that some people find it difficult to believe that there must be a motive of gain associated with any protest,is it a lot to ask to honour the field as originally intended?TRFC and WBC have been less than forthright in their dealings,as you say lets see the bigger picture for the benefit of all involved.
woodyres2
says...
1:27pm Thu 26 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:Agreeing with you there uncatom, and I am not prepared to rise to the bait either in response to my comments.
ordinary personn, well put, i feel a bit let down by myself for rising to the bait on some ocassions but some of the comments on here make the blood boil, as you say no feeling of empathy, by some of the postings on here it is clear that some people find it difficult to believe that there must be a motive of gain associated with any protest,is it a lot to ask to honour the field as originally intended?TRFC and WBC have been less than forthright in their dealings,as you say lets see the bigger picture for the benefit of all involved.
I will say however that I feel I am entitled, as a tax payer, to comment on how WBC spend Public money.
woodyres2
says...
1:37pm Thu 26 Jul 12
yogz66 wrote:Yes, and it's also very easy to be rude to people that you know nothing about on the internet ...... isn't is yogz66 ?
woodyres2 wrote:no it's not. and neither was yours. if you, and the handful of others who constantly moan about this issue, dislike this THAT much, why don't you club together and form your own political party, and stand in the next round of council elections, and try to dispose the standing councillors. of course though, you won't, it's just easier to moan on the internet......sandhills wrote: If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting? Just a thought.Interesting comment from David Cameron on GMTV this morning. MP's and government officials have not been allowed any freebie tickets for the Olympic games. Why then are our council officials happily accepting freebie tickets for TRFC games ? Surely the same rules apply ? Or are WBC just pleasing themselves as usual ?
ordinary personn
says...
1:52pm Thu 26 Jul 12
I know what you mean about rising to the bait but I'm getting hacked off with the assumption (from some people) that everyone who wants to preserve the memorial stands to gain financially from it.
As you say uncatom - it defies belief that some people think that it is not possible to care about or work for something when there is no personal gain. I guess that says a lot about the present state of our society and to be frank, sometimes I despair about it.
That said I am no altruistic saint myself but just think that there are some things that are above personal gain and money.
sandhills
says...
4:02pm Thu 26 Jul 12
yogz66 wrote:yogz66, you completely miss the point, it matters not who the Councillor is or from what party, if i made up my own political party and was elected, then accepted a gratuity from a person or business and that person or business appeared before a committee i was sitting on, surely i would have to declare an interest. That is my point.
woodyres2 wrote:no it's not. and neither was yours.
sandhills wrote:Interesting comment from David Cameron on GMTV this morning.
If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting? Just a thought.
MP's and government officials have not been allowed any freebie tickets for the Olympic games.
Why then are our council officials happily accepting freebie tickets for TRFC games ?
Surely the same rules apply ? Or are WBC just pleasing themselves as usual ?
if you, and the handful of others who constantly moan about this issue, dislike this THAT much, why don't you club together and form your own political party, and stand in the next round of council elections, and try to dispose the standing councillors. of course though, you won't, it's just easier to moan on the internet......
yogz66
says...
5:31pm Thu 26 Jul 12
woodyres2 wrote:woodyres2 wrote:
yogz66 wrote:Yes, and it's also very easy to be rude to people that you know nothing about on the internet ...... isn't is yogz66 ?
woodyres2 wrote:no it's not. and neither was yours. if you, and the handful of others who constantly moan about this issue, dislike this THAT much, why don't you club together and form your own political party, and stand in the next round of council elections, and try to dispose the standing councillors. of course though, you won't, it's just easier to moan on the internet......sandhills wrote: If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting? Just a thought.Interesting comment from David Cameron on GMTV this morning. MP's and government officials have not been allowed any freebie tickets for the Olympic games. Why then are our council officials happily accepting freebie tickets for TRFC games ? Surely the same rules apply ? Or are WBC just pleasing themselves as usual ?
Yes, and it's also very easy to be rude to people that you know nothing about on the internet ...... isn't is yogz66 ?
rude? behave yourself. if YOU knew me, you'd know i've not even started being rude.
it was lame attempt to link an issue on one subject with an issue on a completely different subject, because there are vague similarities, yet are pretty much completely different. if you followed the furore over corporate branding at the big sports day in the capital city you'd be aware of that. there are still tickets available for the opening ceremony. IF they remain unsold, they'll be given to the children of serving personel in teh armed forces....but why not just give them to them now!
but as you don't know me, a piece of advise....i've not even attempted to be rude yet. you'll know for certain when i am. until, keep your piece on the matter.
Carling404
says...
5:36pm Thu 26 Jul 12
ordinary personn wrote:Ordinary Person the reason Tranmere fans are saying that is simple really - everyone believe thats Tranmeres sole motive is money rather than benefiting the community - I am not going to stand here and say its a 50/50 split in terms of interests for Tranmere but some of you are not willing to accept that maybe Tranmere want to improve certain areas with the developement.
Hi uncatom and woodyres,
I know what you mean about rising to the bait but I'm getting hacked off with the assumption (from some people) that everyone who wants to preserve the memorial stands to gain financially from it.
As you say uncatom - it defies belief that some people think that it is not possible to care about or work for something when there is no personal gain. I guess that says a lot about the present state of our society and to be frank, sometimes I despair about it.
That said I am no altruistic saint myself but just think that there are some things that are above personal gain and money.
However on the other end you are happy to accept that Dean Johnston who at every opportunity mentions Wilfred Owen a Welsh poet who he happens to own a business around is only interested in the memorial because of its sentimental values and not the link to wilfred owen and potential publicity gains. You only need to look at his "sell out west end show" to see how some could put the link together.
Regarding Tranmere and WBC - please note we are just the fans of the club we don't run it. As I am sure you are aware any organization of this nature (business) are often very reluctant to give any details out on their building plans as it can become very problematic by doing so for a thousand different reasons but again some just assume the worse.
yogz66
says...
5:50pm Thu 26 Jul 12
ordinary personn wrote:ordinary personn wrote: "THIS IS AN ISSUE WHICH SHOULD NOT REVOLVE AROUND PERSONALITY POLITICS AND ALL SIDES, INCLUDING BOTH MR.S JOHNSON AND SERENA T NEED TO BE OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES. ADDITIONALLY, ALL SIDES INCLUDING RESIDENTS OF TRANMERE AND WOODCHURCH SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ABOUT THE PLANS. Is that clear enough for you now?"
yogz66 wrote:“it suits your agenda” – as I have said before if you have read my posts – I HAVE NO AGENDA regarding TRFC or football supporters per se. I also have no agenda regarding Mr D Johnson’s ventures. Neither am I offended by the fact that you feel that Serena T. has an agenda and state that she does not “stick to the facts”. To make myself perfectly clear, as I have said before:
ordinary personn wrote: Yogz66 – I know your post was directed at Uncatom but I am going to butt in – I too felt that your statement “brothers of people die ALL the time” was unfeeling and I, as I said, disrespectful. You then compound that by saying you were laughing at Uncatom and with “your pathetic ‘compasionate (sic)/ icon’ angle” statement. Are you so blinkered that you only see the personality politics of this issue or, more worryingly, are you totally devoid of empathy? Nothing in your posts indicates any real sense of respect or feeling about the fallen. I accept that this may be incorrect and you are not devoid of these emotions but look at your posts; their tone and contents have done you no favours. Indeed, they just reinforce the poor opinion some people have about football supporters and of the motives of TRFC in this issuebutt in by all means, than attribute the post that caused you to butt in and direct it to you as well. you say it's uncaring, but, and this is a fact, brothers of people die all the time, as do sisters of people. it's a fact, people die, some naturally, some not so. yet ms torz tried a 'tugging at the heart strings approach' by naming a fallen soldier, who happened to have a brother connected with the football club. the fallen soldier named was an employee of levers. the fallen soldier named is commenterated on the momument in the middle of port sunlight. it's not uncaring, its stating facts, and pointed out the patheticness of an arguement. ms torz doesn't stick to the facts, she distorts them to suit an agenda. buy it by all means, but don't get offended when someone else doesn't. and, if you think this justifies the 'poor opinion people have of fottball supporters', do you never think this is just a case of pre conceived ideas that people already hold because it;s something they neither like (or understand) being reinforced. it suits your agenda.
THIS IS AN ISSUE WHICH SHOULD NOT REVOLVE AROUND PERSONALITY POLITICS AND ALL SIDES, INCLUDING BOTH MR.S JOHNSON AND SERENA T NEED TO BE OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT THEIR MOTIVES. ADDITIONALLY, ALL SIDES INCLUDING RESIDENTS OF TRANMERE AND WOODCHURCH SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION ABOUT THE PLANS.
Is that clear enough for you now?
Also as I said in an earlier post – yes, people’s siblings do die all the time but in this instance the brothers in question died for others. They died so that future generations could live without oppression. You still fail to even acknowledge that and “laugh” at those who do (in your post directed at Uncatom) so I maintain that in my opinion your posts are disrespectful towards those men and lacking in empathy. Whether it is a case of reinforcing preconceived ideas or of instigating a poor opinion of football supporters is not the point. The point is that your posts do you and, by association, others in favour of building on the memorial no favours.
it is now you shouted it, i'm a bit deaf.
and cos you shouted, i'm even more aware you got mr johnson's initial wrong!
ordinary personn wrote: "They died so that future generations could live without oppression. You still fail to even acknowledge that and “laugh” at those who do (in your post directed at Uncatom) so I maintain that in my opinion your posts are disrespectful towards those men and lacking in empathy."
whether i acknowledge it or not is irrelevant, but it's ok, you're showing the distortian angle so frequently used, because, it suits your agenda.
i know you've stated you've not one, but when ms torz appealled for help on a matter that at the moment is also irrelevant as she has no legal access to the pavillion and grounds in question, yours was the first response. you're on a side, and it's clear you're on a side, and for all the shouting you wish to do - you may as well and go and do it on hilbre island.
ordinary personn wrote: "Whether it is a case of reinforcing preconceived ideas or of instigating a poor opinion of football supporters is not the point."
but didn't you mention it in the first instance? and, you've made reference to it again. or is it just not the point because it's been challenged? i suspect that's more the case. of course, you elect not to challenges the inaccuracies that ms torz perports in her posts....but then your agenda is alligned to hers, not maybe in specific goal, but certainly in content.
yogz66
says...
5:54pm Thu 26 Jul 12
sandhills wrote:sandhills wrote: "yogz66, you completely miss the point, it matters not who the Councillor is or from what party, if i made up my own political party and was elected, then accepted a gratuity from a person or business and that person or business appeared before a committee i was sitting on, surely i would have to declare an interest. That is my point."
yogz66 wrote:yogz66, you completely miss the point, it matters not who the Councillor is or from what party, if i made up my own political party and was elected, then accepted a gratuity from a person or business and that person or business appeared before a committee i was sitting on, surely i would have to declare an interest. That is my point.
woodyres2 wrote:no it's not. and neither was yours.
sandhills wrote:Interesting comment from David Cameron on GMTV this morning.
If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting? Just a thought.
MP's and government officials have not been allowed any freebie tickets for the Olympic games.
Why then are our council officials happily accepting freebie tickets for TRFC games ?
Surely the same rules apply ? Or are WBC just pleasing themselves as usual ?
if you, and the handful of others who constantly moan about this issue, dislike this THAT much, why don't you club together and form your own political party, and stand in the next round of council elections, and try to dispose the standing councillors. of course though, you won't, it's just easier to moan on the internet......
yet your problem is that there, as you say 'have received favours', and therefore, should come clean. yet, it seems, if you were in power, you'd accept them too.
moral high ground conceeded. the correct answer is "you'd not have accepted them". but YOU didn't say that ;-)
uncatom
says...
6:54pm Thu 26 Jul 12
Positive thinker
says...
7:03pm Thu 26 Jul 12
Serena T
says...
7:29pm Thu 26 Jul 12
uncatom
says...
8:01pm Thu 26 Jul 12
Is that good or bad? I suppose its how you view the integrity and impartiality of those councillors, sorry ever the cynic.
johnbrace
says...
4:57am Fri 27 Jul 12
sandhills wrote:If it's over a certain amount of £25 the councillors have to publically declare it in the gifts register (even if they refuse the gift). A councillor on a committee making a decision about Tranmere Rovers, therefore has a choice, declare before the item the interest/s and the nature, personal or prejudicial (if it's prejudicial they have to leave the room while that item is considered). If its a personal interest they can be involved with making the decision, if it's the latter they can't. It's a judgement call really with some grey areas as to whether they're personal or prejudicial. If they fail to declare an interest, the public can make a complaint.
If a Councillor on the planning committee had been to tranmere rovers on a freebie ticket, would that be enough for them to have to declare an interest at the planning committee meeting?
Just a thought.
There is also a third category of interest a private interest, they have to declare private interests, but not the specifics publically...
An example of a prejudicial interest involving Tranmere would be if close family had a job there, that sort of thing.
Serena T
says...
8:54am Fri 27 Jul 12
The restrictive covenants are to use the land only for recreational use.
Tranmere Rovers covenanted (promised) to observe and perform the covenants.
The council sold the land with this restriction. otherwise they could have sold the land for housing and made money for Wirral people themselves.The club has unfortunately let the pavillion fall into disrepair and removed the Memorial Arch and Bell although the turf is well kept. It's a shame it is not used as much as it used to be.
It just seems a coincidence they will make 5 million by selling the land with planning. but also that the club owe 5 million.
As well as the PR damage to the Wirral (this is becoming a national scandal), they will lose the Playing Fields and the Woodchurch will never happen.
yogz66
says...
9:43am Fri 27 Jul 12
the reality is serena, is that you won't debate the issue, you just use this medium to publish statements, some that have 'some' truth in, some that are distorted to suit your agenda, and some that have no relevance in this matter at all.
when asked a direct question serena, you ignore it. presumably in the hope it will go away. it's known you've a vested intrest though, but unlike mr sullivan, don't mention the words "owen", "story", and "wilfred" in every soundbite.
you have no desire to discuss/debate, because you may find that responses are not what you wish to see.
you won't respond to this, you'll not comment on this....you almost act like a spoilt little girl who is used to getting their own way, and will scqeam and scweam and scweam until they're sick can they can you know if you don't get your own way.
opinions, of which the last two paragraphs are two examples, are just that. it's such as shame that you are using your opinion (or trying to anyway) as fact, to distort the story, when they aren't facts, they're opinions, your opinions, and are personal to you. but you choose not to deal in just facts do you....
Reremnart
says...
10:35am Fri 27 Jul 12
I, as do all right minded thinking people, appreciate the sacrifice of those this field is honouring. I have ancestors who fought and died in both World Wars and I agree that there should be some sort of memorial on the site when it is developed but the facts remain that TRFC own the land and they wish to built much needed homes on it and if this developement incorporates such a monument,and the vast majority of the trees are kept intact with new trees planted for those which unfortunately have to be removed to allow construction to take place I don`t see why this can`t go ahead. It has got to be better than the current plaque on a decaying, vandalised building that was not fit for purpose when I attended the school many years ago (yes I am an old boy of BI and am proud of it)
Reremnart
says...
10:56am Fri 27 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Who exactly are the Birkenhead Institute Old Boys you kept mentioning? I am an old boy of the schooland have several friends who are likewise and none of us have no knowledge of this organistion whatsoever. As for The Wilfred Owen Story helping maintain the the pavilion they, or rather Mr Johnson, can hardly find time to keep their premises in Argyle Street open (it seems constantly closed whenever I pass which is quite often as I work nearby) let alone spend time at Ingleborough Road especially given Mr Johnson`s efforts to rival Bill Kenwright in London`s West End.
Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields are not derelict. The groundsman assures us they are amongst the finest in the North West. It’s just the war memorial aspects that have been systematically neglected. If allowed access, volunteers from The Birkenhead Institute Old Boys and The Wilfred Owen Story would be willing to restore and maintain the pavilion as a drop-in centre for ex-servicemen and women, and launch an appeal to raise money to reinstate a replica of the Memorial Arch and clean the vandalised plaque. Please post here if you would like to help.
ordinary personn
says...
11:59am Fri 27 Jul 12
• “Mr.s Johnson” is not using an initial it is a plural, it refers to both misters Johnson. This is an accepted convention and is used in other contexts e.g. courts martial.
• Of course, I am on a side - I have never hidden that I wish to preserve the memorial. Yes, I have put my money where my mouth is and said I am willing to help restore it; what on earth is wrong with that? That does not mean that I am on side with Mr D Johnson or Serena T – I have the same aim regarding preserving the memorial, end of story. I have no interest in Mr D Johnson’s business ventures. It is a shame that you are unable to see that people who care about the memorial may have no other motive than wanting to preserve it.
• Whether it is: reinforcing preconceived ideas, an opinion formed from experience or one based on this thread is not the point. The point, which you steadfastly ignore, is that your posts do your cause no favours. This is further reinforced by your latest post to me and the one to woodyres2 – in that one you seem proud of the fact than you can be impolite. What a strange thing to be proud of!
Carling404 – I have said all along that all parties need to be open and honest about their motives and nowhere have I said that I do not accept that Mr D Johnson may have a business related motive.
woodyres2
says...
1:33pm Fri 27 Jul 12
ordinary personn wrote:Well put !!
yogz66 you are making yourself look silly now. • “Mr.s Johnson” is not using an initial it is a plural, it refers to both misters Johnson. This is an accepted convention and is used in other contexts e.g. courts martial. • Of course, I am on a side - I have never hidden that I wish to preserve the memorial. Yes, I have put my money where my mouth is and said I am willing to help restore it; what on earth is wrong with that? That does not mean that I am on side with Mr D Johnson or Serena T – I have the same aim regarding preserving the memorial, end of story. I have no interest in Mr D Johnson’s business ventures. It is a shame that you are unable to see that people who care about the memorial may have no other motive than wanting to preserve it. • Whether it is: reinforcing preconceived ideas, an opinion formed from experience or one based on this thread is not the point. The point, which you steadfastly ignore, is that your posts do your cause no favours. This is further reinforced by your latest post to me and the one to woodyres2 – in that one you seem proud of the fact than you can be impolite. What a strange thing to be proud of! Carling404 – I have said all along that all parties need to be open and honest about their motives and nowhere have I said that I do not accept that Mr D Johnson may have a business related motive.
Saddened by some of the comments made here, a bit of respect and truth in this matter please.
Lurkinhead
says...
2:34pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Can I ask whoever moderates these comments at the Globe whether this was because I linked to a youtube video?
If so, I apologize unreservedly if this breaches any Globe regulations.
However, the gist of the post was merely to draw attention to something that was clearly already in the public domain, namely that the producer for a Dean Johnson song is explicitly stated as Serena Torz.
Given the above conduct of the comments on this thread, I thought that was relevant.
As regards the bigger picture, I fully acknowledge that the Ingleborough Road issue is much bigger than the "personality politics" of individuals, and that comments and perspectives from all sides should be heard and respected, in what is undeniably a sensitive and contentious debate.
That said, I do not personally think it is unreasonable to highlight that specific contributors have a clear conflict of interests, and potentially are in a position to gain financially from the publicity they attract in relation to presenting themselves as the public face of one side of this argument.
Lurkinhead
says...
2:59pm Fri 27 Jul 12
(a)
As regards the poem "A pox upon thine house", which was originally uploaded onto youtube by a third party, before being removed after complaints........ this was a nasty little effort that wished malice on anyone who was in favour of the Ingleborough development. From memory, the accompanying graphics portrayed Ingleborough fields as actually having war graves on it.
On a previous Globe thread in relation to the Ingleborough Road issue, it was pointed out, on 15/01/12, that this poem surprisingly appeared at number 13 on your youtube playlist, and speculated as to why that may be. I don't recall that you personally responded, but nevertheless, by the following day, it had been deleted from your account, a detail which may or may not be significant. In view of this, I would like to provide you with an opportunity to explain why you thought it appropriate or acceptable to include this on your playlist at all?
(b) You also had a track on youtube called "This Land Is My Land", which I believe was an amended version of the Woody Guthrie classic, in which you altered the words to fit in with your take on the Ingleborough Road issue. Again, this was subsequently deleted.
Can I ask you to clarify that you did indeed seek permission to use this protected material, and that copyright was not breached in this instance? Assuming all was above board, can you explain why it was necessary to delete this track, and also the live version performed at Radio Merseyside (the one with the audience singing along to the chorus), as despite not agreeing with the sentiment, I found it quite catchy?
Dean, I am sure a man of your moral integrity, who finds so many things in life outrageous and abhorrent, and chooses to voice these concerns at every opportunity, would wish to distance himself from any negative associations, so in the spirit of openness, the floor is yours Sir.
yogz66
says...
5:36pm Fri 27 Jul 12
my cause? didn't know i had one. do you think it's gone down the back of the sofa?
who said, beyond yourself, that "i'm proud of being rude". i didn't. perhaps you struggle with the concept that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction, cos all i did was point out i've not been rude, but you will be under no doubt you'll know when i am. but again, fact distortion.
Kristopher
says...
5:53pm Fri 27 Jul 12
START BY TELLING IT YOURSELF.
yogz66
says...
6:08pm Fri 27 Jul 12
““Mr.s Johnson” is not using an initial it is a plural, it refers to both misters Johnson. This is an accepted convention and is used in other contexts e.g. courts martial”
yogz66 responds:
hmm, i’ve learnt something new, although i wasn’t aware that ‘mr.s’ was the abbreviation for messrs. I thought that was ‘M/s’.
of course, now though, the sentence it was included in doesn’t actually make sense. i’ll leave you to figure out the included irrelevant word, which gives that sentence a completely different meaning.
i won’t go as far as intimating that you’ve made yourself look a bit silly, i wouldn’t be that rude.
yogz66
says...
6:14pm Fri 27 Jul 12
further to this, there is another youtube clip posted on deanjohnsonmusic youtube, that is a home made recording (on the basis that's it a camera filming the tv - a samsung model if i recall correctly) of a bbc northwest news footage.
as lurkinhead says, permission should have be applied for and granted. it could turn out to be costly otherwise.......
uncatom
says...
7:00pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Muir the Merrier
says...
9:02pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Partially correct as usual Serena.
There are two types of covenant: the restrictive covenants which continue to affect the land forever, and personal covenants by the current owner during their ownership.
The restrictive covenants are to use the land only for recreational use.
Tranmere Rovers covenanted (promised) to observe and perform the covenants.
The council sold the land with this restriction. otherwise they could have sold the land for housing and made money for Wirral people themselves.The club has unfortunately let the pavillion fall into disrepair and removed the Memorial Arch and Bell although the turf is well kept. It's a shame it is not used as much as it used to be.
It just seems a coincidence they will make 5 million by selling the land with planning. but also that the club owe 5 million.
As well as the PR damage to the Wirral (this is becoming a national scandal), they will lose the Playing Fields and the Woodchurch will never happen.
The restrictive covenants bind the land as stated but can be released if the two covenanting parties, WBC and TRFC come to an agreement, which is a legal fact, before you mention any dodgy dealings, (as you probably know but chose not to mention).
TRFC has observed and performed the covenants since they became owners of the land.
When were the arch and bell removed. ? Before or after 1995, i'm sure you know, would you care to enlighten us.?
Also who will lose the playing fields.? Is it now legal to just take land off people.
Imagine all the good PR and opportunity that will be available to our great Borough if the proposed plans come to fruition and TRFC thrive and prosper thus promoting Wirral to a wider audience.
This could be a win win situation for all parties if only some people looked at the bigger picture.
Serena T
says...
11:26pm Fri 27 Jul 12
Tranmere Rovers, the professional football club, plans to build houses on what is believed to be a ‘living war memorial’ laid to honour the war poet Wilfred Owen and eighty-seven of his fallen school friends.The league one side has applied for planning permission to build 90 houses on Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields in Birkenhead, Merseyside.
It hopes to use controversial new planning rules brought in by the Government earlier this year to push aside locals who say the proposals to turn the tree-lined, seven-acre sports ground into a housing estate is a ‘desecration’.
The playing fields at Ingleborough were set aside by the council in the aftermath of the First World War in memory of 88 old boys of the Birkenhead Institute Grammar School.
Among them was Lt Owen, who served on the Somme and was killed at Ors a week before the Armistice. His works, including Dulce et Decorum Est and Anthem for Doomed Youth, led him to be posthumously recognised as one of the greatest war poets.
A brick pavilion, archway, flagstaff and bell tower were built with donations from pupils and relatives, some of whom still live in the area.
.....
Also... when TRFC took over The Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields (the First in the UK and the first tribute to Wilfred Owen), they spent a lot of money levelling and preparing new football pitches..
Over ten years ago under Frank Corfe's Chairmanship TRFC provided dressing rooms, a players' lounge, gym, etc. in the Kop stand so that the players only had to walk a short distance to Ingleborouigh Road.
John King and John Aldridge - TRFC's most successful managers - both said the facilities they had were the best in the league.
Begs the question why they moved to Raby Vale?
Lurkinhead
says...
12:52am Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:The Daily Telegraph has produced a very one-sided analysis of the Ingleborough Road debate, by reporter Matthew Holehouse, a man with a track record of hostility towards TRFC, and consequently this piece adds little to the legitimacy of any particular standpoint. Does Dean Johnson have his ear too I wonder?
The Daily Telegraph-Tranmere Rovers Football club wants to build houses on Wilfred Owen war memorial
Tranmere Rovers, the professional football club, plans to build houses on what is believed to be a ‘living war memorial’ laid to honour the war poet Wilfred Owen and eighty-seven of his fallen school friends.The league one side has applied for planning permission to build 90 houses on Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields in Birkenhead, Merseyside.
It hopes to use controversial new planning rules brought in by the Government earlier this year to push aside locals who say the proposals to turn the tree-lined, seven-acre sports ground into a housing estate is a ‘desecration’.
The playing fields at Ingleborough were set aside by the council in the aftermath of the First World War in memory of 88 old boys of the Birkenhead Institute Grammar School.
Among them was Lt Owen, who served on the Somme and was killed at Ors a week before the Armistice. His works, including Dulce et Decorum Est and Anthem for Doomed Youth, led him to be posthumously recognised as one of the greatest war poets.
A brick pavilion, archway, flagstaff and bell tower were built with donations from pupils and relatives, some of whom still live in the area.
.....
Also... when TRFC took over The Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields (the First in the UK and the first tribute to Wilfred Owen), they spent a lot of money levelling and preparing new football pitches..
Over ten years ago under Frank Corfe's Chairmanship TRFC provided dressing rooms, a players' lounge, gym, etc. in the Kop stand so that the players only had to walk a short distance to Ingleborouigh Road.
John King and John Aldridge - TRFC's most successful managers - both said the facilities they had were the best in the league.
Begs the question why they moved to Raby Vale?
Was this really what you were referring to when you earlier stated "A national newspaper is about to break the story, which will lead to TV and radio coverage bringing more bad publicity to The Wirral."? If it was, deary me!
Far from any PR damage to Wirral, I suspect that in reality, it has merely served to highlight the arrogant {false} certainty of the argument put forward by some of the anti's, as it amply illustrates their failure to consider, or give due respect to, alternative perspectives, and to only consider one particular take on this situation to have any moral legitimacy.
Now from my standpoint, to an extent, I can respect the position of Ben B, Uncatom, ordinary personn & others, as whilst I don't necessarily agree with them, I can acknowledge that their arguments are genuine and heartfelt, and that they have no vested interest in making their case.
However, Serena T, together with Dean Johnson, can not claim any such independence of belief, as they have a clear conflict of interests, in so much as they, as a matter of fact, can potentially benefit financially from adopting a particular, and very public standpoint.
Looking at some of the poetry on the Wilfred Own Story website, you would almost think that the author was trying to claim that the fallen were in some way still alive, and communicating with each other. At the risk of sounding cynical, they are dead - I assumed that was the basis for which they were being commemorated and remembered - so why try and pretend otherwise, other than to make a self-serving point by using emotive language, conjecture, hyperbole and distortion of the facts?
Serena, you keep posting without responding to any of the questions put to you ..... do you not realise that your stature as an independent correspondent is at stake? Why do you steadfastly refuse to declare a financial interest in this whole debate, which would at least go some way to restoring your credibility?
As for my earlier post, would you, as Dean Johnson's assistant, care to answer the questions in regard to "A Pox Upon Thine House" and "This Land is Your Land", specifically with regard to why they were deleted from his youtube account?
Lurkinhead
says...
12:55am Sat 28 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:Who are you referring to uncatom?
Methinks there is a troll on this thread
uncatom
says...
9:06am Sat 28 Jul 12
Interesting post, but does it not show that TRFC will only accept one outcome the sale of the field, as stated its a fine training ground adjacent to Prenton Park so why sell? the only answer can be for financial gain.
Further to comments made by Carling 404 as to the benefits offered to the community by TRFC and having looked on the clubs website it appears to be a very lucrative sideline something not born by benevolence, I understand that TRFC is business and needs to generate revenue but lets not make out that they are anything but a business.
I liked the part about about the pavillion and archway being paid for by some of the local populace, that shows the true face of Birkenhead putting in instead of taking out, something that can't be said today.
I don't mind being classed as being arrogant for a true cause, but think on is there not a certain arrogance about the way that TRFC have behaved
in their quest for financial gain above all else?
uncatom
says...
9:13am Sat 28 Jul 12
, sorry as to the troll, I have no cast iron evidence but I think someone is sailing under a different flag
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:07am Sat 28 Jul 12
Reremnart wrote:I used the description 'arrogant' in response to the following comment:-
So I am arrogant am I Ben? Is that because I, like many others, can see right through Dean Johnson and his constant search for column inches (by the way his latest attempt at cheap publicity was in the Telegraph in which he suddenly became an old boy of Birkenhead Institute and started quoting speechs from teachers. Funny how this has never come up before or is that because he was talking to a reporter from a national paper and not the local one?), that I support my local football club and see now much we need this deal to go though to secure it`s future. If that makes me arrogant then I am guilty as charged and proud of it.
I, as do all right minded thinking people, appreciate the sacrifice of those this field is honouring. I have ancestors who fought and died in both World Wars and I agree that there should be some sort of memorial on the site when it is developed but the facts remain that TRFC own the land and they wish to built much needed homes on it and if this developement incorporates such a monument,and the vast majority of the trees are kept intact with new trees planted for those which unfortunately have to be removed to allow construction to take place I don`t see why this can`t go ahead. It has got to be better than the current plaque on a decaying, vandalised building that was not fit for purpose when I attended the school many years ago (yes I am an old boy of BI and am proud of it)
"If we, Tranmere fans who are hoping that this deal goes through to ensure a future for our club, organised a petition we could get at least 20 times that number to sign it but why should we?"
uncatom
says...
10:11am Sat 28 Jul 12
I was refering to the comments made by Lurkinhead with his reference to the so classed anti's
ordinary personn
says...
10:26am Sat 28 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:Yup Uncatom - I think you are correct. I feel a right dimwit for not realising it myself (durr!).
Methinks there is a troll on this thread
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:33am Sat 28 Jul 12
uncatom wrote:I will be frank, uncatom. This thread is so out of control now that I just don't know who is saying what about who any more.
Ben,
I was refering to the comments made by Lurkinhead with his reference to the so classed anti's
Over 100 postings ago, I wrote:-
"I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round."
"Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did."
"I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above."
"This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks."
Very little has been posted since to change my mind.
Serena T
says...
10:38am Sat 28 Jul 12
This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch. Everyone must be aware that this is 'outline' planning so if it's passed it can be changed and anything can be built.
The opening of the Olympics was dedicated to the fallen of all wars. I wonder if TRFC were watching?
Serena T
says...
10:47am Sat 28 Jul 12
Kristopher
says...
11:45am Sat 28 Jul 12
Kristopher
says...
11:52am Sat 28 Jul 12
anjohnsonmusic.co.uk
/contact.html. Enough said.
deadly_sub
says...
12:46pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:TRFC are not replicating Ingleborough, they are renovating and improving Woodchurch. The green space that you talk of used to have pitches on it, but has degenerated to such an extent that only 2 playable football pitches remain. TRFC intend to create 4 full sized pitches, an all-weather full sized pitch in the centre of the running track and 3/4 smaller junior pitches. So they will increase the number of pitches across the borough as a whole, when Ingleborough is developed.This has been approved by Sport England.
Despite what they say TRFC can not replicate Ingleborough Road at Woodchurch, that is impossible since it is a War Memorial. Instead they are removing an existing open green space of Green Belt land.
This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch. Everyone must be aware that this is 'outline' planning so if it's passed it can be changed and anything can be built.
The opening of the Olympics was dedicated to the fallen of all wars. I wonder if TRFC were watching?
The Woodchurch development is a full planning application.Inglebor
ough is outline, but TRFC are any future developer would need to stick with the basic details such as the number and quality of the houses.
deadly_sub
says...
12:49pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:I ask again, Serena, where is the provenance for this claim? The houses bordering the site will gain land at the bottom of their gardens. They will also benefit from a new, high class residential development on their doorstep, rather than a field which is not used and has the potential to attract significant ant-social behaviour or nuisance. I think the development will be broadly neutral or even slightly positive for the values of surrounding homes.
As well as shaming the Wirral by destroying a War Memorial (the first ever tribute to Wilfred Owen), the residents must be made aware that properties overlooking the Playing Fields would lose the financial advantage over the properties on the rest of the estate.
Lurkinhead
says...
1:20pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:I kind of agree with you there in a way Ben B.
uncatom wrote:I will be frank, uncatom. This thread is so out of control now that I just don't know who is saying what about who any more.
Ben,
I was refering to the comments made by Lurkinhead with his reference to the so classed anti's
Over 100 postings ago, I wrote:-
"I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round."
"Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did."
"I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above."
"This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks."
Very little has been posted since to change my mind.
I too fired out some warning shots about the pitfalls of lowering the bar, and am thus disappointed at the conduct of the ensuing debate, in so much as that due respect hasn't been paid to each of the respective positions, and that some posters have again sought to condemn any view which fails to coincide with their own personal moral compass.
As ordinary personn stated earlier, there must be a reasonable compromise here somewhere, although I accept it may be a long road in defining what that may be.
Meanwhile, I would urge all posters to refrain from the use of overly emotive language, such as words like abhorrent, disgraceful etc, as these could be interchangeably used by either side, and as such, are not helpful, do not show tolerance and respect for an opposing view, and are in essence merely judgemental opinions, rather than fact.
I do understand that some of the participants in this debate have a liking for poetry - certainly war poetry anyway - and I think part of the problem is that this medium of communication, whilst it can be deeply moving, can also be manipulated to attempt to skew an otherwise rational discussion. For example, poems written from the perspective of dead people coming back to life and talking to each other, in favour of a particular viewpoint, is, in my view, blatantly opportunistic. However, as ever, I accept some people will hold a different view.
Finally, my personal opinion, for what it is worth is that this would be a much more focused debate if it wasn't for the elephant in the room - i.e. continued contributions from people with a vested financial interest in the outcome. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but those with a clear conflict of interests, should, in my view, honourably withdraw.
Serena T
says...
1:23pm Sat 28 Jul 12
deadly_sub wrote:The covenants state that the memorial can not be removed without being fully replicated (the whole memorial field, pavilion, arch and trees) elsewhere, and who would want to buy a house for £180,000 when there are houses a few feet away for £120,000? There is no demand for new housing in the area of the field - where is the money coming from to deliver the Woodchurch?
Serena T wrote:TRFC are not replicating Ingleborough, they are renovating and improving Woodchurch. The green space that you talk of used to have pitches on it, but has degenerated to such an extent that only 2 playable football pitches remain. TRFC intend to create 4 full sized pitches, an all-weather full sized pitch in the centre of the running track and 3/4 smaller junior pitches. So they will increase the number of pitches across the borough as a whole, when Ingleborough is developed.This has been approved by Sport England.
Despite what they say TRFC can not replicate Ingleborough Road at Woodchurch, that is impossible since it is a War Memorial. Instead they are removing an existing open green space of Green Belt land.
This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch. Everyone must be aware that this is 'outline' planning so if it's passed it can be changed and anything can be built.
The opening of the Olympics was dedicated to the fallen of all wars. I wonder if TRFC were watching?
The Woodchurch development is a full planning application.Inglebor
ough is outline, but TRFC are any future developer would need to stick with the basic details such as the number and quality of the houses.
deadly_sub
says...
1:45pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:I sound like a stuck record, but.....PROVENANCE? I have looked at the partial copy of the covenants available on the Wilfred Owen Story's website and can only see mention of the commemorative plaque.
deadly_sub wrote:The covenants state that the memorial can not be removed without being fully replicated (the whole memorial field, pavilion, arch and trees) elsewhere, and who would want to buy a house for £180,000 when there are houses a few feet away for £120,000? There is no demand for new housing in the area of the field - where is the money coming from to deliver the Woodchurch?
Serena T wrote:TRFC are not replicating Ingleborough, they are renovating and improving Woodchurch. The green space that you talk of used to have pitches on it, but has degenerated to such an extent that only 2 playable football pitches remain. TRFC intend to create 4 full sized pitches, an all-weather full sized pitch in the centre of the running track and 3/4 smaller junior pitches. So they will increase the number of pitches across the borough as a whole, when Ingleborough is developed.This has been approved by Sport England.
Despite what they say TRFC can not replicate Ingleborough Road at Woodchurch, that is impossible since it is a War Memorial. Instead they are removing an existing open green space of Green Belt land.
This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch. Everyone must be aware that this is 'outline' planning so if it's passed it can be changed and anything can be built.
The opening of the Olympics was dedicated to the fallen of all wars. I wonder if TRFC were watching?
The Woodchurch development is a full planning application.Inglebor
ough is outline, but TRFC are any future developer would need to stick with the basic details such as the number and quality of the houses.
Also, the idea that houses of varying price in the same locality will reduce the value of other properties is purely your opinion and I would suggest a bit more scaremongering on your part. There is a significant amount of housebuilding going on all across the Wirral, so there is clearly a market for new housing. Prenton is a decent location and I see no issue with the housing being sold.
Serena T
says...
1:53pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Whether or not the councilors can be trusted or attend football matches is not up for disscussion here.
deadly_sub
says...
2:17pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:And still you fail to answer ANY question put to you.
If I could point everyone back to the original story that appeared in the Wirral Globe last week: a new consultation should be offered to the residents of the Tranmere Hall Estate. Door to door inquiries by the Prenton councilors this week should be revealing.
Whether or not the councilors can be trusted or attend football matches is not up for disscussion here.
And why is the trustworthiness of councillors not up for discussion here?
Oh, and the covenants that you mentioned in an earlier thread can be overturned by the council cabinet at any point. This fact has already been mentioned by the previous leader of the Labour group. The current Labour group leader is also supportive of TRFC's worth to the Wirral. I do not see the covenant as being a big barrier to the development.
Many older houses had restrictive covenants on them including silly ones such as no additions to the houses, no outbuildings, no attachments to the property such as aerials. These covenants are overturned or ignored frequently as they bear no relevance to modern life (and before you jump down my throat, I'm not suggesting that the covenants on Ingleborough bear no relevance to modern life!)
Kristopher
says...
3:49pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Muir the Merrier
says...
5:46pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:The covenants do not state this at all, again another mistruth from Serena to try and support her argument,as stated by another poster, the only mention is regarding a 'commemorative plaque', which the club have to get permission to remove from WBC.
deadly_sub wrote:The covenants state that the memorial can not be removed without being fully replicated (the whole memorial field, pavilion, arch and trees) elsewhere, and who would want to buy a house for £180,000 when there are houses a few feet away for £120,000? There is no demand for new housing in the area of the field - where is the money coming from to deliver the Woodchurch?
Serena T wrote:TRFC are not replicating Ingleborough, they are renovating and improving Woodchurch. The green space that you talk of used to have pitches on it, but has degenerated to such an extent that only 2 playable football pitches remain. TRFC intend to create 4 full sized pitches, an all-weather full sized pitch in the centre of the running track and 3/4 smaller junior pitches. So they will increase the number of pitches across the borough as a whole, when Ingleborough is developed.This has been approved by Sport England.
Despite what they say TRFC can not replicate Ingleborough Road at Woodchurch, that is impossible since it is a War Memorial. Instead they are removing an existing open green space of Green Belt land.
This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch. Everyone must be aware that this is 'outline' planning so if it's passed it can be changed and anything can be built.
The opening of the Olympics was dedicated to the fallen of all wars. I wonder if TRFC were watching?
The Woodchurch development is a full planning application.Inglebor
ough is outline, but TRFC are any future developer would need to stick with the basic details such as the number and quality of the houses.
I suggest people disregard Serena's posts from now on as they are clearly divisive, and as stated many times she will not answer any difficult questions put to her.
Please Serena, if you want to claw back any respectability in this ongoing debate please post true facts and answer questions put to you.
yogz66
says...
6:12pm Sat 28 Jul 12
don't you think that that is just plain rude?
you've been asked a few questions, by more than one person, on several occasions, and yet have refused to answer any of them.
yogz66
says...
6:30pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:i do believe ms torz, that the first part of that post, to the dotted line, is at best, plagarism of the telegraph article, as it appears almost word for word, if it's not actual theft of a copyrighted article.
The Daily Telegraph-Tranmere Rovers Football club wants to build houses on Wilfred Owen war memorial
Tranmere Rovers, the professional football club, plans to build houses on what is believed to be a ‘living war memorial’ laid to honour the war poet Wilfred Owen and eighty-seven of his fallen school friends.The league one side has applied for planning permission to build 90 houses on Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields in Birkenhead, Merseyside.
It hopes to use controversial new planning rules brought in by the Government earlier this year to push aside locals who say the proposals to turn the tree-lined, seven-acre sports ground into a housing estate is a ‘desecration’.
The playing fields at Ingleborough were set aside by the council in the aftermath of the First World War in memory of 88 old boys of the Birkenhead Institute Grammar School.
Among them was Lt Owen, who served on the Somme and was killed at Ors a week before the Armistice. His works, including Dulce et Decorum Est and Anthem for Doomed Youth, led him to be posthumously recognised as one of the greatest war poets.
A brick pavilion, archway, flagstaff and bell tower were built with donations from pupils and relatives, some of whom still live in the area.
.....
Also... when TRFC took over The Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields (the First in the UK and the first tribute to Wilfred Owen), they spent a lot of money levelling and preparing new football pitches..
Over ten years ago under Frank Corfe's Chairmanship TRFC provided dressing rooms, a players' lounge, gym, etc. in the Kop stand so that the players only had to walk a short distance to Ingleborouigh Road.
John King and John Aldridge - TRFC's most successful managers - both said the facilities they had were the best in the league.
Begs the question why they moved to Raby Vale?
should we presume that you have obtained the necessary permission(s) to reproduce it? as surely you'd not wish for you good friend in the editorial department of the wirral globe to find himself in a bit of legal bother.
yogz66
says...
6:40pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Yogz66 responds: a first? Well, why have you never mentioned this before. Is this a uk first ever playing field, a uk first ever memorial playing field, or a first ever playing field located on ingleborough road, Birkenhead. Or is this just an untruth?
Serena T wrote: “they spent a lot of money levelling and preparing new football pitches.. Over ten years ago under Frank Corfe's Chairmanship TRFC provided dressing rooms, a players' lounge, gym, etc. in the Kop stand so that the players only had to walk a short distance to Ingleborouigh Road. John King and John Aldridge - TRFC's most successful managers - both said the facilities they had were the best in the league. Begs the question why they moved to Raby Vale?”
Yogz66 responds: Should we presume that in serenaworld, improvement and progression isn’t permited. Cos, lets look at you, using electronic media, when pen, paper, and a stamped envelope was always adequate....
yogz66
says...
6:56pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Yogz66 responds: i wonder what sort of qualification you have to just openly judge the properties owned by the residents of ingleborough road, everest road, ben nevis road, and irvine road, and maybe even malvern grove, to only be worth £120K
Serena T wrote: “There is no demand for new housing in the area of the field”
Yogz66 responds: wow, i’d really not realised that the wilfred owen story had become one of the leading estate agents on the wirral. i’d recommend maybe relocating to woodchurch road in prenton, where the other ones are!
but as for this ‘demand’, or your perceived lack of demand for new housing, in the area of ingleborough road, there are no existing newly built developments to use as the basis for that opinion, and there aren’t any, as the land surrounding ingleborough road has already been built on.
what a pathetic arguement, with no basis whatsoever.
yogz66
says...
7:09pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:uncatom wrote @ 7:00pm 27/07/12: “Methinks there is a troll on this thread”
uncatom wrote:I will be frank, uncatom. This thread is so out of control now that I just don't know who is saying what about who any more.
Ben,
I was refering to the comments made by Lurkinhead with his reference to the so classed anti's
Over 100 postings ago, I wrote:-
"I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round."
"Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did."
"I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above."
"This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks."
Very little has been posted since to change my mind.
uncatom wrote @ 9:13am 28/07/12: “Lurkinhead , sorry as to the troll, I have no cast iron evidence but I think someone is sailing under a different flag”
ordinary personn wrote @ 10:26 28/07/12: “Yup Uncatom - I think you are correct. I feel a right dimwit for not realising it myself (durr!).”
Ben Beaconsfield wrote @ 10:33 28/07/12: “I will be frank, uncatom. This thread is so out of control now that I just don't know who is saying what about who any more.”
sounds like you should all form a self help group, sit around drinking tea, and eating digestives.
Ben Beaconsfield wrote @ 10:33 28/07/12: “Over 100 postings ago, I wrote:- "I was not attempting to lower the bar. I was firing a warning shot against those who might otherwise be tempted to lower the whole tone of the debate, as some did last time round." "Well, my warning shot was ignored and this thread has very quickly degenerated into an undignified and offensive slanging match, just as the previous one did." "I simply can't believe that some people could possibly be proud of what they have posted above." "This is a serious issue. It's not a competition to out-do each other with puerile remarks." Very little has been posted since to change my mind.”
as, when you repeated this last time, i’ll respond, in the same manner. “get over yourself”. debates and opinions can differ. if at any stage you may think that you’re not going to like whats being expressed, or even the manner it’s expressed in, as, with society in general, people vary, then surely it’s your own problem. just because ‘you’ve issued a warning shot’ is irrelevant.
yogz66
says...
7:16pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Serena T wrote:Serena T wrote: “Despite what they say TRFC can not replicate Ingleborough Road at Woodchurch, that is impossible since it is a War Memorial.”
Despite what they say TRFC can not replicate Ingleborough Road at Woodchurch, that is impossible since it is a War Memorial. Instead they are removing an existing open green space of Green Belt land.
This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch. Everyone must be aware that this is 'outline' planning so if it's passed it can be changed and anything can be built.
The opening of the Olympics was dedicated to the fallen of all wars. I wonder if TRFC were watching?
Yogz66 responds: UNTRUTH! anything can be replicated, INCLUDING war memorials.
Serena T wrote: “Instead they are removing an existing open green space of Green Belt land.”
Yogz66 responds: UNTRUTH! it’s
not ‘green belt’.
Serena T wrote: “This will mean a loss of open green space land at Ingleborogh Road and Woodchurch.”
Yogz66 responds: UNTRUTH! there is already a sports centre and a (recently rebuilt) secondary school on that land.
yogz66
says...
7:18pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Yogz66 responds: wow, you really didn’t get what danny boyle was showing did you?
again, such a pathetic arguement.
but, and sadly this IS typical of you, you've managed to distort what was actually being shown to suit your agenda.
remember the past preserve the future
says...
7:49pm Sat 28 Jul 12
Crackers3
says...
12:40am Sun 29 Jul 12
Kristopher wrote:Serena - care to comment?
Again... More rhetoric from Mr Johnson's Serena T. I urge everyone to totally disregard her comments and make their own mind up on reasoned, sound debate, not biased self-serving comments from someone with a highly vested interest in personal gain from the debate.
Anon123456789
says...
1:33am Sun 29 Jul 12
Muir the Merrier
says...
6:13pm Sun 29 Jul 12
Anon123456789 wrote:Yet on The Telegraph website she claims to have lived in Tranmere all her life, strange goings on are afoot.
Serena Torz, as a Londoner, how often do you come to the Wirral to support your campaign?
Anon123456789
says...
7:10pm Sun 29 Jul 12
Lurkinhead
says...
9:52pm Sun 29 Jul 12
.
yogz66
says...
12:10am Mon 30 Jul 12
in fact, you'd struggle to actually realise that this was a website for an exhibition room in birkenhead, but more that of a political party, with a cause to ram down the throats of anyone who passes by.
the image of ingleborough fields strewn with an uncared for military cemetry is a lovely touch, especially when you save it, it saves entitled "graves".
sadly, it's a poor quality image, as it would have been interesting to be able to read the inscriptions on the gravestones, to see who they actually 'refered' to, as you'd certainly not be so slovenly as to just randomly select images and put them together to 'sell your story'.
slovenly though, as i make the total of gravestones, crosses, and stone memorials as being 94. actually, that is a bit slovenly. it was like the bnp election poster that claimed to be british, and showed a polish flight's spitfire.
it's a poor attempt, in fact, if i was a relative of one of the 88 fallen, i may actually be offended that their memory has been used in such a slapdash slovenly way.
but i thought the website www.wilfredowenstory
.com would be about the actual poet, but if anyone first clicked onto it, they'd be dismayed to find it appears to be goebels-esqe in appearance, propaganda, and the basic mistruth that there is a war cemetry in birkenhead.
yogz66
says...
12:48am Mon 30 Jul 12
http://www.ww1cemete
ries.com/ww1frenchce
meteries/dunkirktown
.htm
it makes feel so sad that you see fit to use the gravestones and monuments to the 470 fallen at this location in such a manner.
yogz66
says...
12:53am Mon 30 Jul 12
yogz66 wrote:(start again)
dunkirk town cemetery.....
http://www.ww1cemete
ries.com/ww1frenchce
meteries/dunkirktown
.htm
it makes feel so sad that you see fit to use the gravestones and monuments to the 470 fallen at this location in such a manner.
dunkirk town cemetery.....
http://www.ww1cemete ries.com/ww1frenchce meteries/dunkirktown .htm
it makes me feel so sad that you see fit to use the gravestones and monuments to the 470 fallen at this location in such a manner.
particularly when the main focal point of the campaign, is buried in the ors communal cemetery.... http://www.ww1cemete
ries.com/ww1frenchce
meteries/orscommunal
.htm
remember the past preserve the future
says...
1:47am Mon 30 Jul 12
Shame on you wirral globe. ing and Leigh marles don't have the balls
Reremnart
says...
10:02am Mon 30 Jul 12
yogz66
says...
11:15am Mon 30 Jul 12
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=17SqI-j0G
pQ&list=UUVTKym9MOie
e4-jyGlmkNOA&index=1
&feature=plcpvailabl
e on the deanjohnsonmusic youtube webpage, along with numerous other dean johnson misic promos. http://www.youtube.c
om/user/DeanJohnsonM
usic
....a
remember the past preserve the future
says...
12:04pm Mon 30 Jul 12
now is the time to come clean or distance yourself from mr dean johnson.
i just on your site searched for ingleborough and found 60 articles. 32 of those related to matters not relating to the ongoing debate leaving another 28 a good 75% of those remaining are weighted in favour of Dean Johnson.
if i was to search for Dean Johnson i wonder how many would show his crass picture outside ingleborough.
the mere fact his website now shows war graves at ingleborough is firstly libelous secondly sickening and also quite crass.
the wirral globe is becoming a laughing stock
remember the past preserve the future
says...
12:05pm Mon 30 Jul 12
yogz66
says...
12:36pm Mon 30 Jul 12
remember the past preserve the future wrote:< peers over the top of his glasses >
ps why is the link to this page no longer on the most commented link. could that be becasue it highlights mr johnsons shameful paradoy of the war dead on his website
interesting.
i did wonder if it was because you were viewing it from the said page, but you are correct, it no longer appears under the 'most comments', when the reality of 100+ comments, it should be sailing away with the 'title'.
deadly_sub
says...
1:29pm Mon 30 Jul 12
yogz66 wrote:I think the "Most Commented" bit of the website refreshes each week, so older stories drop off the page.
remember the past preserve the future wrote:< peers over the top of his glasses >
ps why is the link to this page no longer on the most commented link. could that be becasue it highlights mr johnsons shameful paradoy of the war dead on his website
interesting.
i did wonder if it was because you were viewing it from the said page, but you are correct, it no longer appears under the 'most comments', when the reality of 100+ comments, it should be sailing away with the 'title'.
yogz66
says...
2:59pm Mon 30 Jul 12
uncatom
says...
4:05pm Mon 30 Jul 12
ordinary personn
says...
8:33pm Mon 30 Jul 12
yogz66
says...
12:10am Tue 31 Jul 12
TRFC4LIFE says...
2:48pm Fri 20 Jul 12