Your Ilkley
Get involved: Send your pictures, video, news and views by texting Ilkley News to 80360 or e-mail »
Addingham councillors urged to visit Sustrans trail
2:20pm Thursday 12th July 2007
Comments (47)
By Paul Langan »
PARISH councillors in Adding-ham have been invited to take a walk along the Great Northern Trail Sustrans path in Culling-worth.
The chairman of Cullingworth Parish Council John Coultous has issued an open invitation to parish councillors in Addingham to see for themselves the finished trail.
The Cullingworth to Harecroft section of the Great Northern Trail opened for cyclists, walkers and horse riders in May 2005 and further links have since been completed.
The trail includes the magnificent Hewenden Viaduct which carried the former railway line over the valley below.
Councillor Coultous said that there was opposition to the trail when it was initially suggested for the village.
Coun Coultous said: "There were at first mainly due to privacy of houses that it went past when you go from the village centre to the countryside.
"Sustrans put up fencing and planted trees which are now maturing everybody seems happy with it.
"We have had no complaints from members of the public about the trail at all.
"We had one or two complaints early on because there were a lot of horse droppings but the rain usually washes it away very quickly. We have occasional problems with dog mess but it is no different than anywhere else.
"It is very popular with the villagers. It doesn't matter what the weather is, it offers them a good path to follow in any weather.
"Lots of people use it to keep fit daily. One of two disabled people in the village use it as a means of access to the countryside."
He said because the path had a hard surface, it was the only path village residents could use a wheelchair on.
"We have no complaints at all. We do get visitors but it is nothing that intrusive because they can access it at both ends St Ives and Denholme.
"Cyclists don't cause any problems it is mostly locals on it. We do get parking but the pub car park is very good and they let people park there. There is a lay-by near the end for about a dozen cars."
As far as wild life was concerned, Coun Coultous said that it was initially quiet around the path area, but as wild flowers planted by the side of the path have blossomed, more birds and other animals, including foxes, had been seen by users.
Coun Coultous said: "People had initial doubts at first but by and large the majority of the people in Cullingworth think it is an asset to the village."
He said that if any members of Addingham Parish Council wanted to see the trail and experience it for themselves, he and his colleagues would be delighted to show them what it was like.
At the time negotiations were going on over the trail last year, Denholme Town Mayor Maxine Brotherton said that some of the landowners on the Cullingworth to Denholme section of the route were unhappy with the way Sustrans was operating.
Coun Brotherton said: "The town council does support the Great Northern Trail but we did have a few people complaining about Sustrans being a bit heavy-handed in some dealings.
"If Sustrans could be a bit more sympathetic that would be good."
Your Say YourIlkley
HAROLD, ADDINGHAM says...
5:55pm Thu 12 Jul 07
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A CORRUPT & FLAWED PUBLIC CONSULTATION
SUSTRANS "SPIN-DOCTORS" ......... FULL STEAM AHEAD !!!
Yet again we see transparently poor journalism from the ILKLEY GAZETTE ?!
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF IT ?!!!
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1522337.0.footpat
h_debate_is_splittin
g_addingham.php
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensions_
run_high_over_footpa
th_in_addingham.php
http://www.cravenher
ald.co.uk/mostpopula
r.var.1523070.mostco
mmented.feelings_run
_high_over_planned_t
rail.php
The most controversial issue to hit Addingham in decades and what does the ILKLEY GAZETTE print ....... a "smoke-screen"story specifically created by the SUSTRANS spin-doctors to deflect attention away from the important issues raised by over 100 contributors to the ILKLEY GAZETTE website over the last 2 weeks.
Where are the in-depth reports about the principle protagonists ....... ?!!!
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Are they all on holiday OR is it that they are all afraid of being quoted in the ILKLEY GAZETTE for fear of being vilified ?
Has "Chief Reporter" (?!) Langan forgotten how to spot "spin" ?
Whatever happened to investigative and balanced journalism ....... NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS MAJOR ISSUE IS REPORTED ?!
"Chief Reporter" Langan reports The Great Northern Trail 3 times within this article BUT makes not a single reference to the "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" and "INDEPENDENT" role that Jeff "freelance" McQuillan played in it as the Chair of its Forum.
Nor does "Chief Reporter" Langan choose to report that Jeff "freelance" McQuillan then went on to be paid by SUSTRANS to sort out the planning for the Trail ?!!!
November 2005
http://www.bradford.
gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
933F5082-8F7F-41BC-8
FC4-E4D26F56A3EF/0/W
eeklyList.pdf
January 2006
http://www.bradford.
gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
5CA556AF05774951A1D8
55E87E26FF64/0/Month
lyListofDecisionsiss
uedduringJanuary2006
"Chief Reporter" Langan - shame on you !!!
The same questions have been raised over and over again BUT have our elected Councillors answered any of the questions ........ NO !!!
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
(WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "PROMISE" OF STEAM TRAINS ?)
ILKLEY GAZETTE - you have let down your readers
SO MANY QUESTIONS - SO FEW ANSWERS
"Fair enough?" .......... what do you think ?!
(apologies - I had to resend this "comment" as a reference to SUSTRANS spin-doctors" was mysteriously edited out of my first attempt ?!)
Sheila Hamilton, Addingham says...
9:33pm Thu 12 Jul 07
WHARFEDALE TRAIL V GREAT NORTHERN TRAIL No contest.
Great Northern trail possibly enhanced an industrial area.
Wharfedale Trail area is beautiful and unspoiled as it is.
It has an abundance of wildlife, flora and fauna.
It needs no enhancment whasoever.
What does it need?:
It needs protection against rural vandalism.
NO SALE NO TRAIL
Great Northern trail possibly enhanced an industrial area.
Wharfedale Trail area is beautiful and unspoiled as it is.
It has an abundance of wildlife, flora and fauna.
It needs no enhancment whasoever.
What does it need?:
It needs protection against rural vandalism.
NO SALE NO TRAIL
Jim, Bolton Abbey says...
8:14am Fri 13 Jul 07
ILKLEY GAZETTE - LAZY or BIASED JOURNALISM ?!
What a truly pathetic attempt at balanced journalism !
Are you incapable of seeing the shallow tactics employed by the SUSTRANS spin-doctors ?
I guess Councillor Coultous just woke up one morning and rang you up with this "spin" of an idea - how "helpful" of him ?!
PULL THE OTHER ONE .... !!!
Yet again you had the opportunity to give the other side to the debate ..... BUT ...... of course..... that takes a little effort.
Just like the "spin" of New Labour .... let's avoid the real story and rebadge as a good news story from Cullingworth ?!
Paul Langan - as has been said before .... SHAME ON YOU !
I guess you aren't interested in the real story:-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
(WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "PROMISE" OF STEAM TRAINS ?)
Paul Langan - if you had listened at the Addingham Parish Council meetings that you attend you would have already picked up on the fact that a visit has already taken place - the locations are ..... quite simply ..... chalk and cheese !!!
Wake up ILKLEY GAZETTE and follow the story and not the "spin".
Respect the readers who buy your rag - many will have also noted that none of the following have been mentioned:-
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF IT ?!!!
Maybe this story would fair better in a proper newspaper .... anyone got the number for the Yorkshire Post ?
What a truly pathetic attempt at balanced journalism !
Are you incapable of seeing the shallow tactics employed by the SUSTRANS spin-doctors ?
I guess Councillor Coultous just woke up one morning and rang you up with this "spin" of an idea - how "helpful" of him ?!
PULL THE OTHER ONE .... !!!
Yet again you had the opportunity to give the other side to the debate ..... BUT ...... of course..... that takes a little effort.
Just like the "spin" of New Labour .... let's avoid the real story and rebadge as a good news story from Cullingworth ?!
Paul Langan - as has been said before .... SHAME ON YOU !
I guess you aren't interested in the real story:-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
(WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "PROMISE" OF STEAM TRAINS ?)
Paul Langan - if you had listened at the Addingham Parish Council meetings that you attend you would have already picked up on the fact that a visit has already taken place - the locations are ..... quite simply ..... chalk and cheese !!!
Wake up ILKLEY GAZETTE and follow the story and not the "spin".
Respect the readers who buy your rag - many will have also noted that none of the following have been mentioned:-
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF IT ?!!!
Maybe this story would fair better in a proper newspaper .... anyone got the number for the Yorkshire Post ?
Rach, Addingham says...
8:57am Fri 13 Jul 07
ILKLEY GAZETTE - LAZY or BIASED JOURNALISM ?!
PARISH councillors in Adding-ham have been invited to take a walk along the Great Northern Trail Sustrans path in Culling-worth
LAZY JOURNALISM - me thinks !!!
This has either been lifted from another article or released by SUSTRANS .
NOTE the spelling of Addingham and Cullingworth - I guess the spin-doctors at SUSTRANS couldn't be bothered to buy a local A-Z map ?!
I wonder how the SUSTRANS spin-doctors would go about spelling KEIGHLEY ?!!!
PARISH councillors in Adding-ham have been invited to take a walk along the Great Northern Trail Sustrans path in Culling-worth
LAZY JOURNALISM - me thinks !!!
This has either been lifted from another article or released by SUSTRANS .
NOTE the spelling of Addingham and Cullingworth - I guess the spin-doctors at SUSTRANS couldn't be bothered to buy a local A-Z map ?!
I wonder how the SUSTRANS spin-doctors would go about spelling KEIGHLEY ?!!!
Peter, Ilkley says...
2:13pm Fri 13 Jul 07
I must admit that the last comment typifies the anti-trail lobby. Rather than focus on the substance of the issue, ie whether the path is a good thing or not, the comment looks into the form of the argument - in this case criticising typography!
If you look at the first few lines of the paragraph in printed form the dash is actualy a continuation mark rather than a hyphen.
In any case, does it matter?
Similarly, does it really matter that Coun. Scull ended his comment with "fair enough" or that a consultant has previously done work for "the opposition"?
Why can't the vocal few wait until the consultation exercise is completed and the views of the majority have been expressed, whichever side they come down on?
If you look at the first few lines of the paragraph in printed form the dash is actualy a continuation mark rather than a hyphen.
In any case, does it matter?
Similarly, does it really matter that Coun. Scull ended his comment with "fair enough" or that a consultant has previously done work for "the opposition"?
Why can't the vocal few wait until the consultation exercise is completed and the views of the majority have been expressed, whichever side they come down on?
debbie, addingham says...
7:12pm Fri 13 Jul 07
We already know the outcome of the vote and the only views that will be expressed are the people who will have a financial gain from a yes vote.
The whole consultation exercise is undemocratic and needs to be stopped. The consultation needs to be conducted again in an open and honest manner, with the views for and against clearly stated in the consultation paper. How can you have a consultation paper with one view point ? The outcome of the vote will be yes - how do I know this ? The votes are being collected by and counted by Jeff McQuillan - the independent consultant.
Addingham Parish Council how an you let this happen ?
The whole consultation exercise is undemocratic and needs to be stopped. The consultation needs to be conducted again in an open and honest manner, with the views for and against clearly stated in the consultation paper. How can you have a consultation paper with one view point ? The outcome of the vote will be yes - how do I know this ? The votes are being collected by and counted by Jeff McQuillan - the independent consultant.
Addingham Parish Council how an you let this happen ?
Sheila H, Addingham says...
7:40pm Fri 13 Jul 07
CONSULTATION EXERCISE - FLAWED
I'm not convinced that just by having a 'proper' unbiased consultation, that it is the answer. I want to see the landowners views being listened to for the first time? If EVERY landowner is against the trail - why waste more of tax payers money?
How can we ever trust anyone again to carry out such an exercise that has become so emotive? In Great Britain we usually have good ethics and values - sadly lacking in Addingham presently, as time will tell.
People need to understand the extent of damage that will be caused to wildlfe by the proposed footpath, therefore a balanced consultation needs to take place??
I would hope that sensible people from Addingham will actually want to know what the consequences are of this path will be, I believe they will think again about destroying parts of that area that has become a haven for wildlife, flora and fauna.
Where does Wharfedale Trail and Addingham Parish council merge? Are Sheila McCloughlin and Andrew Scull Parish councillors or Forum members - answer - both? conflicts of interst - you tell me?
NO SALE NO TRAIL
I'm not convinced that just by having a 'proper' unbiased consultation, that it is the answer. I want to see the landowners views being listened to for the first time? If EVERY landowner is against the trail - why waste more of tax payers money?
How can we ever trust anyone again to carry out such an exercise that has become so emotive? In Great Britain we usually have good ethics and values - sadly lacking in Addingham presently, as time will tell.
People need to understand the extent of damage that will be caused to wildlfe by the proposed footpath, therefore a balanced consultation needs to take place??
I would hope that sensible people from Addingham will actually want to know what the consequences are of this path will be, I believe they will think again about destroying parts of that area that has become a haven for wildlife, flora and fauna.
Where does Wharfedale Trail and Addingham Parish council merge? Are Sheila McCloughlin and Andrew Scull Parish councillors or Forum members - answer - both? conflicts of interst - you tell me?
NO SALE NO TRAIL
Jim, Bolton Abbey says...
9:17pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Peter wrote:
undefined
Peter - get a grip !!!
One "comment" out of over 100 that makes a mistake over a typing observation ?!
Is this the best the "pro-lobby" can do ?!
As someone who clearly supports this SUSTRANS sponsored scheme it is amusing to note that you are the only one in nearly 3 weeks to attempt to publicly support (albeit in moderation) this matter on the web ..... AND ..... your first point of debate is the accuracy of ones typing ?!!!
Glad to see you have a clear understanding of the really important issues being debated here !
What wonderful support this gives to the "fair", "impartial" and "independent" Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - as his finalises his report on the "results" to Addingham Parish Council.
Oooops .... the "public" consultation has even finished yet !!!
Peter - you seem unconcerned as to the huge CONFLICT OF INTEREST that Jeff "freelance" McQuillan forgot to mention when he was appointed...
... BUT ...
...... as a supporter of this would neverthless thank you for clarifying that a CONFLICT OF INTEREST does indeed exist by virtue of his working for,as you put it, "the opposition"!!!
You may be happy with this BUT as it was never disclosed it makes Jeff "freelance" McQuillan a very naughty chap and invalidates the whole consultation process.
Peter - you clearly have little grasp as to how so-called professionals are supposed to behave - do some research .... try finding the "Code of Professional Conduct" by which Jeff "freelance" McQuillan Dip TP, MRTPI is supposed to work by.
If you are struggling then do allow me simplify this for you ....
Example:-
QUESTION - Would it be acceptable for Sir Alex Ferguson to referee a football match between Manchester United and Liverpool?
ANSWER - No !!!
I trust you understand this concept ?
Now apply this "simple" concept to the current "public" consultation and all of a sudden Jeff "freelance" McQuillan appears to be wrong man for the job of "referee" !!!
Peter - please do some research next time.
As for Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull ....
For an elected councillor to speak down to all the humble and worried peasants of Addingham may be acceptable to you ..... BUT ..... to the vast majority of normal decent Addingham folk it highlights arrogance and contempt of the highest order.
By the way his so-called offer to respond to concerns emailed to him is a joke.
Apart from his pre-prepared response/attack on the brave and clearly decent Sheila Hamilton, others have emailed him their thoughts and concerns and several days on are still awaiting a reply ... what a service ?!
What a surprise .... NOT ?!!!
IF WE ARE TO HAVE A PUBLIC CONSULTATION THEN LET'S BE HAVING ONE THAT IS INDEED .....
..... "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" & "INDEPENDENT" !!!!
"Fair enough?"
graham, addingham says...
10:01pm Fri 13 Jul 07
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION
Peter - what a star performer ?!
Well done for confirming how flawed this consultation really is.
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan has gone to ground - why ?!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull has gone to ground - why ?!
Because they have both been exposed AND are now attempting to keep a low profile !
Too many awkward questions !
Councillor Gordon Campbell - realising, at long last, that he has been innocently nurturing a "cause" that has brought shame & embarrassment upon Addingham Parish Council and himself.
When will this wretched affair be stopped ?!
Peter - what a star performer ?!
Well done for confirming how flawed this consultation really is.
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan has gone to ground - why ?!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull has gone to ground - why ?!
Because they have both been exposed AND are now attempting to keep a low profile !
Too many awkward questions !
Councillor Gordon Campbell - realising, at long last, that he has been innocently nurturing a "cause" that has brought shame & embarrassment upon Addingham Parish Council and himself.
When will this wretched affair be stopped ?!
gordon, addingham says...
8:34pm Sat 14 Jul 07
ILKLEY GAZETTE = PROPOGANDA RAG
What a startling poor attempt at balanced journalism.
The wretched and tarnished "public" consultation comes to any end on 20 July ...
... and ...
... what do we get from the - ILKLEY GAZETTE ...
... SPIN from SUSTRANS !!!
What about any article providing the residents of Addingham and Bolton Abbey with the pros and cons - remeber these will be important to Ilkley residents when its their turn .... later this year.
There have been accusations of weak and biased journalism.
Paul Langan - I'm afraid to say that based on this weeks "effort" they are right.
McQuillan ?
Scull ?
Campbell ?
Addingham Parish Council ?
SUSTRANS ?
...if none of the above are prepared to speak to you then at least balance matters up and speak to Sheila Hamilton.
BUCK YOUR IDEAS UP - ILKLEY GAZETTE
What a startling poor attempt at balanced journalism.
The wretched and tarnished "public" consultation comes to any end on 20 July ...
... and ...
... what do we get from the - ILKLEY GAZETTE ...
... SPIN from SUSTRANS !!!
What about any article providing the residents of Addingham and Bolton Abbey with the pros and cons - remeber these will be important to Ilkley residents when its their turn .... later this year.
There have been accusations of weak and biased journalism.
Paul Langan - I'm afraid to say that based on this weeks "effort" they are right.
McQuillan ?
Scull ?
Campbell ?
Addingham Parish Council ?
SUSTRANS ?
...if none of the above are prepared to speak to you then at least balance matters up and speak to Sheila Hamilton.
BUCK YOUR IDEAS UP - ILKLEY GAZETTE
baldybogey, says...
9:06pm Sat 14 Jul 07
Quote from Jim, Bolton Abbey on 9:17pm Fri 13 Jul 07
"As someone who clearly supports this SUSTRANS sponsored scheme it is amusing to note that you are the only one in nearly 3 weeks to attempt to publicly support (albeit in moderation) this matter on the web ..."
You suggest pro trail comments are few and far between, possibly as we would like it but do not like being lambasted by hatred filled comments. If you don't believe this happens then read the next few comments
I am not from Addingham, but I do travel all the way to Derbyshire to take the kids cycling on the Tissington Trail, High Peak Trail and Monsal Trail. All these follow what used to be train tracks. They provide a safe and healthy environment for my kids. If you have not tried this type of fun/exercise, then I suggest you should take a weekend away and try these out. Take a look at what can be done see the positives.
I for one cant wait for this to be completed .
"As someone who clearly supports this SUSTRANS sponsored scheme it is amusing to note that you are the only one in nearly 3 weeks to attempt to publicly support (albeit in moderation) this matter on the web ..."
You suggest pro trail comments are few and far between, possibly as we would like it but do not like being lambasted by hatred filled comments. If you don't believe this happens then read the next few comments
I am not from Addingham, but I do travel all the way to Derbyshire to take the kids cycling on the Tissington Trail, High Peak Trail and Monsal Trail. All these follow what used to be train tracks. They provide a safe and healthy environment for my kids. If you have not tried this type of fun/exercise, then I suggest you should take a weekend away and try these out. Take a look at what can be done see the positives.
I for one cant wait for this to be completed .
Jim, Bolton Abbey says...
9:52am Sun 15 Jul 07
Baldybogey - i guess that this is your biking "tag" or nickname OR is it that you are afraid to put your real name and where you live ?!
Yet another pro-trail suppoerter from outside the area who has got no idea whats going on here OR what the issues are !
Nobody has ever said that we who are against the Trail are all anti-biking !!!!
What we do object to is the manner in which SUSTRANS is using stealth tactics to bulldoze its way through a community AND an area of beauty that quite simply is already well served by existing footpaths and country roads.
Balybogey - read ALL the comments and you will then see the tactics employed
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1522337.0.footpat
h_debate_is_spli
tting_addingham.php
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensi
ons_run_high_over_fo
otpath_in_addingham.
php
http://www.cravenher
ald.co.uk/mostpopula
r.var.1523070.mostco
mmented.feelings
_run_high_over_plann
ed_trail.php
Where are the main players in this flawed consultation ?!
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Are they all on holiday OR is it that they are all afraid of being quoted in
the ILKLEY GAZETTE for fear of being vilified ?
As someone from outside the area would you be happy with this ?
Would you be happy with ...
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
Baldybogey - wake up to the real issues.
The debate is not whether cycling is good and healthy.
The debate is whether this is needed and appropriate for this area AND whether the methods used to force it through are legitamate.
As one from outside of the area who clearly enjoys "something for nothing" your motives for commenting are very clear and noted by all.
"Something for nothing" - FAIR ENOUGH ?!!!
YOU MUST BE JOKING !!!!
Yet another pro-trail suppoerter from outside the area who has got no idea whats going on here OR what the issues are !
Nobody has ever said that we who are against the Trail are all anti-biking !!!!
What we do object to is the manner in which SUSTRANS is using stealth tactics to bulldoze its way through a community AND an area of beauty that quite simply is already well served by existing footpaths and country roads.
Balybogey - read ALL the comments and you will then see the tactics employed
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1522337.0.footpat
h_debate_is_spli
tting_addingham.php
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensi
ons_run_high_over_fo
otpath_in_addingham.
php
http://www.cravenher
ald.co.uk/mostpopula
r.var.1523070.mostco
mmented.feelings
_run_high_over_plann
ed_trail.php
Where are the main players in this flawed consultation ?!
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Are they all on holiday OR is it that they are all afraid of being quoted in
the ILKLEY GAZETTE for fear of being vilified ?
As someone from outside the area would you be happy with this ?
Would you be happy with ...
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
Baldybogey - wake up to the real issues.
The debate is not whether cycling is good and healthy.
The debate is whether this is needed and appropriate for this area AND whether the methods used to force it through are legitamate.
As one from outside of the area who clearly enjoys "something for nothing" your motives for commenting are very clear and noted by all.
"Something for nothing" - FAIR ENOUGH ?!!!
YOU MUST BE JOKING !!!!
Sheila Hamilton, Addingham says...
11:10am Sun 15 Jul 07
To baldybogey. bold]
We are no Eco warrior type group who give out hate messages? Where has all this come from? we are decent professional people who care about the environment and also good old British Democracy - Flawed consultation exercise comes to mind here !
When I write on this blog I can assure you that I try to stay truthful and honest. I also ensure that I have evidence to back up my claims. In the fullness of time, all will come out in the wash - be assured of that!
Baldybogey, may I say that the tactics used by Sustrans and David Hall (yes, I can mention him, because I have proof) in the beginning of the idea of this trail, he and another person thought that if they targeted a landowner at the begining of the trail and harrass them, they would give in to their demands? ( would you allow your mother or grandma to be treated in this manner?)
They also thought they had the support at the other end of the trail - BIG MISTAKE. bold] Then they 'forgot' to contact the landowners in between? WHY?
Sustrans is supposed to be a charity - they hide behind the fashionable 'no cars' brigade. Although I am sure they have opened up a large part of countryside that gives pleasure to others, we dont need it here in Wharfedale?
Let me point out I was myself involved in a meeting last year with David Hall and his tactics were one of bullying and intimidation, so dont talk to me of using hate filled comments -you have not the slightest idea!
I also have knowledge of a meeting taking place in 2005, whereby not one landowner was present? A cycle firm was present though? Priorities?
You cant have a cycle track without the land? and ALL these landowners say NO!
Sustrans are well known for leaning on people.
ARROGANCE - they know no bounds!
NO SALE NO TRAIL
We are no Eco warrior type group who give out hate messages? Where has all this come from? we are decent professional people who care about the environment and also good old British Democracy - Flawed consultation exercise comes to mind here !
When I write on this blog I can assure you that I try to stay truthful and honest. I also ensure that I have evidence to back up my claims. In the fullness of time, all will come out in the wash - be assured of that!
Baldybogey, may I say that the tactics used by Sustrans and David Hall (yes, I can mention him, because I have proof) in the beginning of the idea of this trail, he and another person thought that if they targeted a landowner at the begining of the trail and harrass them, they would give in to their demands? ( would you allow your mother or grandma to be treated in this manner?)
They also thought they had the support at the other end of the trail - BIG MISTAKE. bold] Then they 'forgot' to contact the landowners in between? WHY?
Sustrans is supposed to be a charity - they hide behind the fashionable 'no cars' brigade. Although I am sure they have opened up a large part of countryside that gives pleasure to others, we dont need it here in Wharfedale?
Let me point out I was myself involved in a meeting last year with David Hall and his tactics were one of bullying and intimidation, so dont talk to me of using hate filled comments -you have not the slightest idea!
I also have knowledge of a meeting taking place in 2005, whereby not one landowner was present? A cycle firm was present though? Priorities?
You cant have a cycle track without the land? and ALL these landowners say NO!
Sustrans are well known for leaning on people.
ARROGANCE - they know no bounds!
NO SALE NO TRAIL
John, Ilkley says...
12:26pm Sun 15 Jul 07
baldybogey wrote:THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION
Quote from Jim, Bolton Abbey on 9:17pm Fri 13 Jul 07 "As someone who clearly supports this SUSTRANS sponsored scheme it is amusing to note that you are the only one in nearly 3 weeks to attempt to publicly support (albeit in moderation) this matter on the web ..." You suggest pro trail comments are few and far between, possibly as we would like it but do not like being lambasted by hatred filled comments. If you don't believe this happens then read the next few comments I am not from Addingham, but I do travel all the way to Derbyshire to take the kids cycling on the Tissington Trail, High Peak Trail and Monsal Trail. All these follow what used to be train tracks. They provide a safe and healthy environment for my kids. If you have not tried this type of fun/exercise, then I suggest you should take a weekend away and try these out. Take a look at what can be done see the positives. I for one cant wait for this to be completed .
baldybogey .... we are all delighted that you enjoy cycling with your kids.
I too as an Ilkley resident was initially in favour of this Trail HOWEVER having fully investigated the damaged it will do to wildlife, farming and the centre of Addingham it is clear that this Trail is poorly conceived.
Furthermore take a look at the information which is available that proves without doubt the close working relationship that Mr McQuillan and Sustrans have.
As one who, now retired, worked as a chartered surveyor such a relationship should have been disclosed from day one - I attended the 20th March 2007 meeting at Addingham AND can confirm that it wasn't disclosed !!!
The only disclosure that was given was that Mr McQuillan had acted as Chair for the Great Northern Trail Forum.
His subsequent employment in a professional and financial capacity was not disclosed.
Being minded to make a formal complaint to his governing body, the Royal Town Planning Institute, I have spoken with them and understand that I have been beaten to it !
A formal complaint in relation to Mr McQuillan's alleged "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" has already been lodged with the Royal Town Planning Institute AND will go before the disciplinary board in October 2007.
Having sat on such boards for the RICS and from the clear cut evidence to hand Mr McQuillan's continued affiliation to this professional body is doubtful.
ADDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - why are you letting this matter discredit you so ?!
waz, says...
8:17pm Sun 15 Jul 07
Baldybogey - I'd stick to Ilkley-More.com if I where you...............
waz, says...
8:20pm Sun 15 Jul 07
If you want to see what the cycling crew are up to have a look at this site
http://singletractio
n.frankencrank.com/p
hpBB2/viewtopic.php?
t=1727
http://singletractio
n.frankencrank.com/p
hpBB2/viewtopic.php?
t=1727
Dan, Addingham says...
8:35am Mon 16 Jul 07
baldybogey wrote:B A L D Y B O G E Y - a little lesson ...
Quote from Jim, Bolton Abbey on 9:17pm Fri 13 Jul 07 "As someone who clearly supports this SUSTRANS sponsored scheme it is amusing to note that you are the only one in nearly 3 weeks to attempt to publicly support (albeit in moderation) this matter on the web ..." You suggest pro trail comments are few and far between, possibly as we would like it but do not like being lambasted by hatred filled comments. If you don't believe this happens then read the next few comments I am not from Addingham, but I do travel all the way to Derbyshire to take the kids cycling on the Tissington Trail, High Peak Trail and Monsal Trail. All these follow what used to be train tracks. They provide a safe and healthy environment for my kids. If you have not tried this type of fun/exercise, then I suggest you should take a weekend away and try these out. Take a look at what can be done see the positives. I for one cant wait for this to be completed .
...in spotting a RIGGED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION LITERATURE & WEBSITE ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
Where are the main players in this flawed consultation who, given the above, are now keeping their heads down ?!
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
It's a times like this that Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe starts to look like a pleasant and caring sort of guy ?!
Adrian, Addingham says...
9:54am Mon 16 Jul 07
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A CORRUPT & FLAWED PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Take a look at the following which was posted just yesterday on one of the earlier websites:
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensions_
run_high_over_footpa
th_in_addingham.php
Posted by: Henry, Addingham on 1:10pm Sun 15 Jul 07
Following a request under the Freedom of Information Act the files are now finally available from Bradford Council and it transpires that a Mr Andrew Scull of "Wharfedale Trail Public Consultation Working Group" applied for a grant of £6150.00. So this sort of leaves Addingham Parish Council in the clear except for the fact that the Trail Forum is largely made up of members of Addingham P.C. including the Chairman , Gordon Campbell. The Parish Council created this monster so I think it will be hard for them to walk away from it now. A lot of people seem to be distancing themselves from the Trail Forum now that the proverbial has hit the fan. For instance a local District Councillor claims that he has nothing to do with the trail although his name is quite clearly shown on Councillor Scull's funding application dated 26th February 2007. Many people have commented on the misuse of public funds issue and will perhaps be surprised to learn that no funds have yet been spent ! Apparently the arrangement is that McQuillan the Trail Consultant will invoice Bradford Council as and when required. So if you think that the Trail Consultation is unfair and biased you should Email Alan Mainwaring,Dept of Transportation and Planning , BMDC -<alan.mainwaring@br adford.gov.uk> , tell him not to release the funds because the Consultation is a biased farce and waste of public money. A number of searching questions have been put to the Consultant Mr Jeff McQuillan which he will not answer and has fielded all enquiries/complaints to "his employer" - Councillor Andrew Scull. Since no public money has yet been spent , where have the Consultation Documents been printed and who paid the bills ? Who paid for the not insubstantial postage ? Who handled the database for all the Addingham residents who have been mailshotted - are they registered under the Data Protection Act ?? Incidentally just because the money has not yet been spent doesn't mean there is no case to answer under misuse of public funds. It is the "intent" that is the crucial issue. There are a lot of questions unanswered perhaps our Councillors and Cllr Andrew Scull in particular should be providing some answers If you need to see a full set of documents obtained from Bradford Council a package has been forwarded to Sheila Hamilton !!
Following a request under the Freedom of Information Act the files are now finally available from Bradford Council and it transpires that a Mr Andrew Scull of "Wharfedale Trail Public Consultation Working Group" applied for a grant of £6150.00. So this sort of leaves Addingham Parish Council in the clear except for the fact that the Trail Forum is largely made up of members of Addingham P.C. including the Chairman , Gordon Campbell. The Parish Council created this monster so I think it will be hard for them to walk away from it now. A lot of people seem to be distancing themselves from the Trail Forum now that the proverbial has hit the fan. For instance a local District Councillor claims that he has nothing to do with the trail although his name is quite clearly shown on Councillor Scull's funding application dated 26th February 2007. Many people have commented on the misuse of public funds issue and will perhaps be surprised to learn that no funds have yet been spent ! Apparently the arrangement is that McQuillan the Trail Consultant will invoice Bradford Council as and when required. So if you think that the Trail Consultation is unfair and biased you should Email Alan Mainwaring,Dept of Transportation and Planning , BMDC -<alan.mainwaring@br
adford.gov.uk> , tell him not to release the funds because the Consultation is a biased farce and waste of public money.
A number of searching questions have been put to the Consultant Mr Jeff McQuillan which he will not answer and has fielded all enquiries/complaints to "his employer" - Councillor Andrew Scull.
Since no public money has yet been spent , where have the Consultation Documents been printed and who paid the bills ? Who paid for the not insubstantial postage ? Who handled the database for all the Addingham residents who have been mailshotted - are they registered under the Data Protection Act ??
Incidentally just because the money has not yet been spent doesn't mean there is no case to answer under misuse of public funds. It is the "intent" that is the crucial issue.
There are a lot of questions unanswered perhaps our Councillors and Cllr Andrew Scull in particular should be providing some answers
If you need to see a full set of documents obtained from Bradford Council a package has been forwarded to Sheila Hamilton !!
ADDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR RESIDENTS
Take a look at the following which was posted just yesterday on one of the earlier websites:
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensions_
run_high_over_footpa
th_in_addingham.php
Posted by: Henry, Addingham on 1:10pm Sun 15 Jul 07
Following a request under the Freedom of Information Act the files are now finally available from Bradford Council and it transpires that a Mr Andrew Scull of "Wharfedale Trail Public Consultation Working Group" applied for a grant of £6150.00. So this sort of leaves Addingham Parish Council in the clear except for the fact that the Trail Forum is largely made up of members of Addingham P.C. including the Chairman , Gordon Campbell. The Parish Council created this monster so I think it will be hard for them to walk away from it now. A lot of people seem to be distancing themselves from the Trail Forum now that the proverbial has hit the fan. For instance a local District Councillor claims that he has nothing to do with the trail although his name is quite clearly shown on Councillor Scull's funding application dated 26th February 2007. Many people have commented on the misuse of public funds issue and will perhaps be surprised to learn that no funds have yet been spent ! Apparently the arrangement is that McQuillan the Trail Consultant will invoice Bradford Council as and when required. So if you think that the Trail Consultation is unfair and biased you should Email Alan Mainwaring,Dept of Transportation and Planning , BMDC -<alan.mainwaring@br adford.gov.uk> , tell him not to release the funds because the Consultation is a biased farce and waste of public money. A number of searching questions have been put to the Consultant Mr Jeff McQuillan which he will not answer and has fielded all enquiries/complaints to "his employer" - Councillor Andrew Scull. Since no public money has yet been spent , where have the Consultation Documents been printed and who paid the bills ? Who paid for the not insubstantial postage ? Who handled the database for all the Addingham residents who have been mailshotted - are they registered under the Data Protection Act ?? Incidentally just because the money has not yet been spent doesn't mean there is no case to answer under misuse of public funds. It is the "intent" that is the crucial issue. There are a lot of questions unanswered perhaps our Councillors and Cllr Andrew Scull in particular should be providing some answers If you need to see a full set of documents obtained from Bradford Council a package has been forwarded to Sheila Hamilton !!
Following a request under the Freedom of Information Act the files are now finally available from Bradford Council and it transpires that a Mr Andrew Scull of "Wharfedale Trail Public Consultation Working Group" applied for a grant of £6150.00. So this sort of leaves Addingham Parish Council in the clear except for the fact that the Trail Forum is largely made up of members of Addingham P.C. including the Chairman , Gordon Campbell. The Parish Council created this monster so I think it will be hard for them to walk away from it now. A lot of people seem to be distancing themselves from the Trail Forum now that the proverbial has hit the fan. For instance a local District Councillor claims that he has nothing to do with the trail although his name is quite clearly shown on Councillor Scull's funding application dated 26th February 2007. Many people have commented on the misuse of public funds issue and will perhaps be surprised to learn that no funds have yet been spent ! Apparently the arrangement is that McQuillan the Trail Consultant will invoice Bradford Council as and when required. So if you think that the Trail Consultation is unfair and biased you should Email Alan Mainwaring,Dept of Transportation and Planning , BMDC -<alan.mainwaring@br
adford.gov.uk> , tell him not to release the funds because the Consultation is a biased farce and waste of public money.
A number of searching questions have been put to the Consultant Mr Jeff McQuillan which he will not answer and has fielded all enquiries/complaints to "his employer" - Councillor Andrew Scull.
Since no public money has yet been spent , where have the Consultation Documents been printed and who paid the bills ? Who paid for the not insubstantial postage ? Who handled the database for all the Addingham residents who have been mailshotted - are they registered under the Data Protection Act ??
Incidentally just because the money has not yet been spent doesn't mean there is no case to answer under misuse of public funds. It is the "intent" that is the crucial issue.
There are a lot of questions unanswered perhaps our Councillors and Cllr Andrew Scull in particular should be providing some answers
If you need to see a full set of documents obtained from Bradford Council a package has been forwarded to Sheila Hamilton !!
ADDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR RESIDENTS
Sheila Hamilton, Addingham says...
10:05am Mon 16 Jul 07
DOCUMENTS
I can confirm that I do indeed have copies of various documents as detailed above. Thank you to the kind person who dropped them off for me - whoever you are! Thank you.
NO SALE NO TRAIL
I can confirm that I do indeed have copies of various documents as detailed above. Thank you to the kind person who dropped them off for me - whoever you are! Thank you.
NO SALE NO TRAIL
Harry, Addingham says...
1:47pm Mon 16 Jul 07
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A CORRUPT & FLAWED PUBLIC CONSULTATION
There are documents which, thanks to Freedom of Information legislation, are now in the public domain.
These confirm that Andy J Scull (now Councillor Scull) applied for the funds for the public consultation on 26 February 2007.
Addingham Parish Council, Bradford Council & North Yorkshire County Council have been duped into financing what they too thought would be a "professional" and "independent" consultation.
FROM: Andy J Scull
SENT: 26 February 2007 14:34
TO: Danny Jackson (Bradford Council - Dept of Regeneration / Countryside & Rights of Way)
"That Jeff McQuillan shall be engaged to carry out a professional, independent, 2-stage public consultation"
Was Danny Jackson of Bradford Council aware that Jeff McQuillan had an existing working relationship with SUSTRANS that would create a "conflict of interest" in him acting in this matter also ?
NO !!!
Councillor Campbell & Addingham Parish Council - it is your duty to stop this consultation now !!!
Terry, Addingham says...
2:28pm Mon 16 Jul 07
ADDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - The Wharfedale Trail
Councillor Campbell & Addingham Parish Council:-
On Thursday 28 June 2007 you were all alerted, via the ILKLEY GAZETTE website, to the possibility that the appointed consultant may have had a "conflict of interest" in acting on this matter.
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensions_
run_high_over_footpa
th_in_addingham.php
--------------------
----
Posted by: HAROLD, ADDINGHAM on 2:04pm Thu 28 Jun 07
JEFF McQUILLAN - Conflict of Interest ?!
If you look hard enough it is not hard to find evidence that Mr McQuillan has worked for SUSTRANS for several years and will have undoubtedly have benefited financially from this relationship.
This longstanding relationship with SUSTRANS was NEVER declared at a meeting at Addingham Memorial Hall on 20 March 2007 when he was "appointed" to head up the public consultation by Andy Scull (now Councillor Andy Scull - longstanding supporter of the SUSTRANS proposal).
The website created by Councillor Scull and his pals for "The Wharfedale Trail Forum" suggests that Mr McQuillan would provide a "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" and "INDEPENDENT" public consultation ?! What complete nonsense !!!
How much longer can the "freelance" Mr McQuillan continue with this charade ?
How much longer can the "freelance" Mr McQuillan be allowed to continue collecting the "voting" papers from the ballot box at Addingham Library ?
When can we expect Councillor Andy Scull (& and his pals at SUSTRANS) to be challenged by BOTH Bradford Council and North Yorkshire County Council for the misuse of public funds on a consultation process that is far from being "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" and "INDEPENDENT" ?
Is it normal practice that the parent of a child sitting it's GCSE's or A-Levels be allowed to mark that child's exam paper - of course not !
It is only now that awkward questions are being asked of Mr McQuillan by both the press and public that he has "come clean" and admitted that he has previously acted for SUSTRANS.
I can only guess that Mr McQuillan quite simply "forgot" to declare this conflict of interest at Addingham Memorial Hall on 20 March 2007 - how convenient !
Mr McQuillan's continued involvement is both inappropriate and untenable.
The public consultation has been severely prejudiced and is flawed - stop it now before it wastes anymore taxpayers money.
(As for the "police protection at the Bolton Abbey Village Hall" - complete theatre .... a smokescreen for Mr McQuillan to hide behind)
Harold
--------------------
----
On Thursday 5 July 2007 we were all alerted, via the ILKLEY GAZETTE website that ..... you were now aware that Mr McQuillan had links with Sustrans
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1522337.0.footpat
h_debate_is_splittin
g_addingham.php
"Parish councillors are concerned about the appointment of Jeff McQuillan as the consultant to gauge village opinion because of his previous links with Sustrans."
--------------------
----
ADDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" ....... how much worse does it have to be to stop this corrupt consultation ?!
Councillor Campbell & Addingham Parish Council:-
On Thursday 28 June 2007 you were all alerted, via the ILKLEY GAZETTE website, to the possibility that the appointed consultant may have had a "conflict of interest" in acting on this matter.
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensions_
run_high_over_footpa
th_in_addingham.php
--------------------
----
Posted by: HAROLD, ADDINGHAM on 2:04pm Thu 28 Jun 07
JEFF McQUILLAN - Conflict of Interest ?!
If you look hard enough it is not hard to find evidence that Mr McQuillan has worked for SUSTRANS for several years and will have undoubtedly have benefited financially from this relationship.
This longstanding relationship with SUSTRANS was NEVER declared at a meeting at Addingham Memorial Hall on 20 March 2007 when he was "appointed" to head up the public consultation by Andy Scull (now Councillor Andy Scull - longstanding supporter of the SUSTRANS proposal).
The website created by Councillor Scull and his pals for "The Wharfedale Trail Forum" suggests that Mr McQuillan would provide a "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" and "INDEPENDENT" public consultation ?! What complete nonsense !!!
How much longer can the "freelance" Mr McQuillan continue with this charade ?
How much longer can the "freelance" Mr McQuillan be allowed to continue collecting the "voting" papers from the ballot box at Addingham Library ?
When can we expect Councillor Andy Scull (& and his pals at SUSTRANS) to be challenged by BOTH Bradford Council and North Yorkshire County Council for the misuse of public funds on a consultation process that is far from being "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" and "INDEPENDENT" ?
Is it normal practice that the parent of a child sitting it's GCSE's or A-Levels be allowed to mark that child's exam paper - of course not !
It is only now that awkward questions are being asked of Mr McQuillan by both the press and public that he has "come clean" and admitted that he has previously acted for SUSTRANS.
I can only guess that Mr McQuillan quite simply "forgot" to declare this conflict of interest at Addingham Memorial Hall on 20 March 2007 - how convenient !
Mr McQuillan's continued involvement is both inappropriate and untenable.
The public consultation has been severely prejudiced and is flawed - stop it now before it wastes anymore taxpayers money.
(As for the "police protection at the Bolton Abbey Village Hall" - complete theatre .... a smokescreen for Mr McQuillan to hide behind)
Harold
--------------------
----
On Thursday 5 July 2007 we were all alerted, via the ILKLEY GAZETTE website that ..... you were now aware that Mr McQuillan had links with Sustrans
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1522337.0.footpat
h_debate_is_splittin
g_addingham.php
"Parish councillors are concerned about the appointment of Jeff McQuillan as the consultant to gauge village opinion because of his previous links with Sustrans."
--------------------
----
ADDINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL - "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" ....... how much worse does it have to be to stop this corrupt consultation ?!
Peter, Ilkley says...
3:51pm Mon 16 Jul 07
Peter get a grip!!! wrote Jim before launching into a tirade of assumptions, condescension and vitriol.
I pity the poor number 1 on his keyboard as it waits for his next posting, steadying its nerves before being bashed senseless at the end of sentences where three or four exclamation marks are used are used to try and give weight to the arguments.
Where, now, to start a response?
How about the professionalism of Jeff McQuillan? I enjoyed being patronised by the football analogy but prefer one of my own; when Wayne Rooney (an Everton fan as man and boy) went to play for Manchester United, was he allowed to play against his former side? He certainly was. What did the fans of his new team think? That he would play his best against his old side. This is despite his not being subject to a code of conduct. I am glad to see that the RTPI have been contacted with a complaint about the non-disclosure of the alleged conflict of interest. Let Jeff answer to his institute and be done.
In the meantime, there has been enough tension placed on the consultation process to ensure that it is wholly above board.
By the way, I dont know Jeff McQuillan, and as for being described as the pro lobby, I dont think that we qualify you see, Ive only ever spoken about my views to my wife & family and although that makes four people, which could possibly constitute a lobby, the fact that two of the lobby are at primary school should rule us out.
It is the fact that I have two young children that makes me so keen on the trail. We have ridden as a family throughout the region but have to drive some distance before reaching traffic free trails. These are a fantastic resource and I would urge anyone to go for a walk or a ride on the Harland Way from Wetherby to Spofforth. Here youd find a few cars parked (Ive never seen more than four in the car park at the Wetherby end, never any at Spofforth) but always a handful of locals enjoying safe exercise. The path is well maintained, there is always plenty of wildlife (admittedly, Ive never seen badgers but theyre nocturnal) and Ive never seen any behaviour other than exemplary. If you who are against the trail are not anti-biking, perhaps you could suggest a safe place to ride locally.
Poor old Baldybogey (I dont know who this is either) who states that he, or possibly she, is not from Addingham only to raise the assumptions from all that he is not local. I hereby admit that I, too, am not from Addingham but from that larger town of Ilkley, a short distance along the A65. (No, not west thats Skipton).
Dan from Addingham also piqued my feeling that a sense of proportion is needed. Its a while since I shopped in Addingham but if inflation is running at over 4000% and people are starving in the street then its a surprise to me. Call me oversensitive but comparing a consultation process concerning the building of a path with one of the most brutal regimes in the world is beyond the pale. Maybe Dan needs to get a grip.
Finally, with regard to everyone going to ground, I can fully understand why. Any comments in defence of the trail or the process are met with the same comments, only bolder, bigger and with more exclamation marks than the last time. If I were in their position I would only be responding to individuals, and only then after having sought advice. Imagine councillors expenses for legal consultations. Im sure youd love that.
I pity the poor number 1 on his keyboard as it waits for his next posting, steadying its nerves before being bashed senseless at the end of sentences where three or four exclamation marks are used are used to try and give weight to the arguments.
Where, now, to start a response?
How about the professionalism of Jeff McQuillan? I enjoyed being patronised by the football analogy but prefer one of my own; when Wayne Rooney (an Everton fan as man and boy) went to play for Manchester United, was he allowed to play against his former side? He certainly was. What did the fans of his new team think? That he would play his best against his old side. This is despite his not being subject to a code of conduct. I am glad to see that the RTPI have been contacted with a complaint about the non-disclosure of the alleged conflict of interest. Let Jeff answer to his institute and be done.
In the meantime, there has been enough tension placed on the consultation process to ensure that it is wholly above board.
By the way, I dont know Jeff McQuillan, and as for being described as the pro lobby, I dont think that we qualify you see, Ive only ever spoken about my views to my wife & family and although that makes four people, which could possibly constitute a lobby, the fact that two of the lobby are at primary school should rule us out.
It is the fact that I have two young children that makes me so keen on the trail. We have ridden as a family throughout the region but have to drive some distance before reaching traffic free trails. These are a fantastic resource and I would urge anyone to go for a walk or a ride on the Harland Way from Wetherby to Spofforth. Here youd find a few cars parked (Ive never seen more than four in the car park at the Wetherby end, never any at Spofforth) but always a handful of locals enjoying safe exercise. The path is well maintained, there is always plenty of wildlife (admittedly, Ive never seen badgers but theyre nocturnal) and Ive never seen any behaviour other than exemplary. If you who are against the trail are not anti-biking, perhaps you could suggest a safe place to ride locally.
Poor old Baldybogey (I dont know who this is either) who states that he, or possibly she, is not from Addingham only to raise the assumptions from all that he is not local. I hereby admit that I, too, am not from Addingham but from that larger town of Ilkley, a short distance along the A65. (No, not west thats Skipton).
Dan from Addingham also piqued my feeling that a sense of proportion is needed. Its a while since I shopped in Addingham but if inflation is running at over 4000% and people are starving in the street then its a surprise to me. Call me oversensitive but comparing a consultation process concerning the building of a path with one of the most brutal regimes in the world is beyond the pale. Maybe Dan needs to get a grip.
Finally, with regard to everyone going to ground, I can fully understand why. Any comments in defence of the trail or the process are met with the same comments, only bolder, bigger and with more exclamation marks than the last time. If I were in their position I would only be responding to individuals, and only then after having sought advice. Imagine councillors expenses for legal consultations. Im sure youd love that.
Wax, Addingham says...
4:32pm Mon 16 Jul 07
I, too, am not from Addingham but from that larger town of Ilkley
Say no more..............
GrahamG, says...
4:38pm Mon 16 Jul 07
Peter - all that B******t because you want to take the kiddies out for a cycle ride - get a grip man!!!!!!!!!
george, addingham says...
7:53pm Mon 16 Jul 07
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A CORRUPT & FLAWED PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Peter get a grip!!!
Peter .... my dear chap .... you really are missing the point by the proverbial mile.
Despite all the sources of information available, you quite clearly have not done your research on Jeff McQuillan or Councillor Andy Scull or for that matter SUSTRANS & as such are totally unaware of the methods they have employed to get this far.
Peter, we are all delighted to note that the convenience of a cycle path for you and your family is of far more importance than spending a small amount of you precious time checking out the facts ... and yes ... they are indeed FACTS !
"It is the fact that I have two young children that makes me so keen on the trail." - Peter .... what a supreme observation - THANK YOU !!!
Just so long as you and your family have somewhere, close to home, where you can safely cycle then I suppose the following proven points just don't really matter:-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION LITERATURE & WEBSITE ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
Unfortunately, Peter, you do really typify the "something for nothing" stereo-type !
Peter .... my dear chap ..... your analogy in relation to the independence or otherwise of Jeff McQuillan is quite simply absurd - it is not even close to being relevant !
I would copy & paste a contribution from "Harold, ADDINGHAM on 2:04pm Thu 28 Jun 07" which I do hope will be somewhat easier for you to understand ....
"Is it normal practice that the parent of a child sitting it's GCSE's or A-Levels be allowed to mark that child's exam paper - of course not !"
I do hope that this is now sufficiently clear for you ?
The plain FACT is that Jeff McQuillan's involvement has tarnished the whole consultation - whilst the public consultation comes to an end on 20th July the said Jeff McQuillan has been collecting "votes" from day one.
Peter you say....
"If I were in their position I would only be responding to individuals, and only then after having sought advice. Imagine councillors expenses for legal consultations.
Councillor Scull, Jeff McQuillan, SUSTRANS and Addingham Parish Council have voluntarily put themselves under the public spotlight - if they employ questionable tactics OR are not transparent in their dealings then they quite rightly deserve to be scrutinised and, if appropriate, publicly vilified.
(As for "legal consultations" - why on earth would either Scull or McQuillan need to seek legal advice ..... pray tell Peter ..... do you know something ?!)
Peter, it really is a huge shame to the overall debate that since your initial "typography" comment of Friday 13th July your only significant contribution today is that this proposed "Trail" would be ever so convenient for you and your family - "It is the fact that I have two young children that makes me so keen on the trail." !
Peter, if you really want to contribute to this debate then please have the courtesy to stop thinking of yourself and do some research !!!
I'm afraid to say you really did deserve Jim's tirade of assumptions, condescension and vitriol !!!
I don't know who Jim is BUT at least he's done his research !!!
Peter get a grip!!!
Peter .... my dear chap .... you really are missing the point by the proverbial mile.
Despite all the sources of information available, you quite clearly have not done your research on Jeff McQuillan or Councillor Andy Scull or for that matter SUSTRANS & as such are totally unaware of the methods they have employed to get this far.
Peter, we are all delighted to note that the convenience of a cycle path for you and your family is of far more importance than spending a small amount of you precious time checking out the facts ... and yes ... they are indeed FACTS !
"It is the fact that I have two young children that makes me so keen on the trail." - Peter .... what a supreme observation - THANK YOU !!!
Just so long as you and your family have somewhere, close to home, where you can safely cycle then I suppose the following proven points just don't really matter:-
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION LITERATURE & WEBSITE ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
Unfortunately, Peter, you do really typify the "something for nothing" stereo-type !
Peter .... my dear chap ..... your analogy in relation to the independence or otherwise of Jeff McQuillan is quite simply absurd - it is not even close to being relevant !
I would copy & paste a contribution from "Harold, ADDINGHAM on 2:04pm Thu 28 Jun 07" which I do hope will be somewhat easier for you to understand ....
"Is it normal practice that the parent of a child sitting it's GCSE's or A-Levels be allowed to mark that child's exam paper - of course not !"
I do hope that this is now sufficiently clear for you ?
The plain FACT is that Jeff McQuillan's involvement has tarnished the whole consultation - whilst the public consultation comes to an end on 20th July the said Jeff McQuillan has been collecting "votes" from day one.
Peter you say....
"If I were in their position I would only be responding to individuals, and only then after having sought advice. Imagine councillors expenses for legal consultations.
Councillor Scull, Jeff McQuillan, SUSTRANS and Addingham Parish Council have voluntarily put themselves under the public spotlight - if they employ questionable tactics OR are not transparent in their dealings then they quite rightly deserve to be scrutinised and, if appropriate, publicly vilified.
(As for "legal consultations" - why on earth would either Scull or McQuillan need to seek legal advice ..... pray tell Peter ..... do you know something ?!)
Peter, it really is a huge shame to the overall debate that since your initial "typography" comment of Friday 13th July your only significant contribution today is that this proposed "Trail" would be ever so convenient for you and your family - "It is the fact that I have two young children that makes me so keen on the trail." !
Peter, if you really want to contribute to this debate then please have the courtesy to stop thinking of yourself and do some research !!!
I'm afraid to say you really did deserve Jim's tirade of assumptions, condescension and vitriol !!!
I don't know who Jim is BUT at least he's done his research !!!
HAROLD, ADDINGHAM says...
5:48pm Thu 12 Jul 07
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - A CORRUPT & FLAWED PUBLIC CONSULTATION
SUSTRANS "SPIN-DOCTORS" ......... FULL STEAM AHEAD !!!
Yet again we see transparently poor journalism from the ILKLEY GAZETTE ?!
THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL - NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF IT ?!!!
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1522337.0.footpat
h_debate_is_splittin
g_addingham.php
http://www.ilkleygaz
ette.co.uk/display.v
ar.1504037.0.police_
on_duty_as_tensions_
run_high_over_footpa
th_in_addingham.php
http://www.cravenher
ald.co.uk/mostpopula
r.var.1523070.mostco
mmented.feelings_run
_high_over_planned_t
rail.php
The most controversial issue to hit Addingham in decades and what does the ILKLEY GAZETTE print ....... a "smoke-screen"story specifically created by the to deflect attention away from the important issues raised by over 100 contributors to the ILKLEY GAZETTE website over the last 2 weeks.
Where are the in-depth reports about the principle protagonists ....... ?!!!
Jeff "freelance" McQuillan - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Andy "Fair enough?" Scull - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Councillor Gordon Campbell - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Addingham Parish Council - NO COMMENT ?!!!
David Hall of Sustrans - NO COMMENT ?!!!
Are they all on holiday OR is it that they are all afraid of being quoted in the ILKLEY GAZETTE for fear of being vilified ?
Has "Chief Reporter" (?!) Langan forgotten how to spot "spin" ?
Whatever happened to investigative and balanced journalism ....... NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS MAJOR ISSUE IS REPORTED ?!
"Chief Reporter" Langan reports The Great Northern Trail 3 times within this article BUT makes not a single reference to the "FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" and "INDEPENDENT" role that Jeff "freelance" McQuillan played in it as the Chair of its Forum.
Nor does "Chief Reporter" Langan choose to report that Jeff "freelance" McQuillan then went on to be paid by SUSTRANS to sort out the planning for the Trail ?!!!
November 2005
http://www.bradford.
gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
933F5082-8F7F-41BC-8
FC4-E4D26F56A3EF/0/W
eeklyList.pdf
January 2006
http://www.bradford.
gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
5CA556AF05774951A1D8
55E87E26FF64/0/Month
lyListofDecisionsiss
uedduringJanuary2006
.pdf
"Chief Reporter" Langan - shame on you !!!
The same questions have been raised over and over again BUT have our elected Councillors answered any of the questions ........ NO !!!
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
FLAWED "PUBLIC" CONSULTATION ?
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ?
VOTE RIGGING ?
PERSONAL/BUSINESS INTERESTS ?
MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY ?
LANDOWNERS - DETERMINED NOT TO SELL ?
DESTRUCTION OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE ?
(WHAT HAPPENED TO THE "PROMISE" OF STEAM TRAINS ?)
ILKLEY GAZETTE - you have let down your readers
SO MANY QUESTIONS - SO FEW ANSWERS
"Fair enough?" .......... what do you think ?!