| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Are there residential caravans on Putney Common | |
| Posted by: | Roland Gilmore | |
| Date/Time: | 16/06/10 09:11:00 |
| Is anyone objecting to the people who work the fair? Isn't it the travellers who are being objected to? Are you really defending the conservators in the farce relating to Putney Hospital Jonathan? The point I was making regarding the travellers occupying the common is that management is obviously lacking for that to be allowed to happen. Why no rangers were instructed to be present when the fair left, to ensure that the common was left in a secure condition is inexcusable? Didn't the income from the fair justify that? No doubt resources are now being spent on legal advice and representation to have the travellers evicted but isn't that a case of trying to close the stable door and an avoidable waste? I believe the clerk and ranger, CEO is accountable to the conservators. The question has to be, who is actually managing who? The impression I have received in recent times is that this voluntary management arrangement, good fellows though conservators may be individually, is evidently ineffective. With it being common knowledge that this group of travellers were about to be evicted from Barn Elms, surely the need for increased vigilance should have been recognised and acted upon. Don't those responsible, on a day to basis; communicate with the police, PCOs and councils? Personally, I do not see the conservators as doing "a great job" so much as performing a simple civic function. Even the most cursory of risk assessments should have flagged up basic security aspects and with ex-military personnel employed, should this not have been 2nd nature to them? Perhaps you would let us know what you consider conservators have done in recent years that you would classify as "great". Giving the nod to conservation schemes such as installing a couple of bird nesting platforms on Queensmere can hardly be classified as "great". |