Letters Page

Published: 02/09/2010

SIR, – I must agree with David M. Edes’s comments (Letters, August 30) regarding Scotland’s Housing Expo in Inverness.

Having protested long and hard over the use of taxpayers’ money to stage this event, I went with some soul-searching to the site.

One design looked like the outside of a multistorey car park and most of the rest were like industrial or office units.

The choice of so much wood on the exteriors begs questions about maintenance using wood preservers which are oil based and hardly environmentally friendly.

There also seemed to be a distinct lack of off-road parking, but I suppose the idea is that you should either cycle (it would take a Tour de France cyclist to pedal up there) or use public transport.

The organisers said they had reached their target, but, on the day I visited, it was difficult to see how it could break even, let alone pay back anything to the public purse.

Ian J. Fraser,

6 Oldmill Lane,

Inverness.

SIR, – As an energy-conservation consultant, I have to express my disappointment with the Housing Expo in Inverness.

Yes, it did show a stimulating variety of designs, construction techniques and finishes which will hopefully challenge the ultra-conservative styles in the Highlands.

However, as a showcase for sustainable housing it fell well short of its target.

There was a general lack of information on construction details, insulation performance (U-values), heating systems, renewable energy technologies, water-saving systems, recyclability of materials and design features for lifetime use of the homes.

Surprisingly, not a single house had a Code for Sustainable Homes rating: this is a method for scoring the environmental performance of new homes to encourage improvement in sustainability.

It is a legal requirement to display an EPC (Energy Performance Certificate) in all new houses. They give information on running costs and carbon emissions in the familiar A, B, C format. I found only six on display.

So, this was hardly an exemplar of sustainability.

Mike Clark,

Culduthel Road,

Inverness.

SIR, – Your story (August 25) headed “Unions want cattle prices beefed up”, in which it was claimed that farmers were responsible for the fall in ex-farm beef prices by not foreseeing the economic downturn, beggared belief.

As I recall, the depth and speed of the economic downturn came as an almighty shock to the best of the financial institutions around the world. To suggest that mere beef farmers should have been able to predict an event at least three years hence, since that is the length of time it takes from conception to slaughter, is very flattering.

I think everyone knows that beef prices are supermarket driven.

I predict the price of straw this autumn will be the final nail in the coffin for many beef farmers, especially those in the hills with added haulage costs, and, consequently, cattle numbers should tighten.

If I was smart, I should try to increase cow numbers now, to offset production decline.

Julie Armstrong,

Leschangie Lodge,

Leschangie Farm,

Kemnay.

SIR, – As an expatriate Aberdonian I feel constrained to express my disillusion with Aberdeen City Council which, despite being in severe financial straits already, has decided to spend more public money employing PR consultants to review the campaign surrounding the proposed Union Terrace Gardens project.

What's to review? The question was asked; the public reply was given. Because some people did not like the answer, the council is taking the cynical route of creating circumstances in which it will appear to be obliged to ask the question again in the hope of getting the answer it wants.

We have seen this ploy used with the original issue of a Scottish parliament, with various major points of legislation in the EU, and now Aberdeen City Council. I am old enough to remember when councillors were aware of their duty to effect the wishes of the majority.

Where are these people now?

A.W. Clark

Station Road,

Gargunnock,

Stirlingshire.

SIR, – As a devotee of The Bill TV series for years, I was furious with STV for dumping the show on a cost basis and ignoring the faithful viewers who had watched and enjoyed the programme for years.

At least I was able to switch to ITV3, but now even that has come to an end as ITV has decided to cease production of the show completely after 27 years.

To say that I am annoyed would be a gross understatement and from now on I'm sticking to the BBC and dumping ITV from my favourites list on my remote, just as they did with my favourite show.

Dennis Grattan,

Mugiemoss Road,

Bucksburn,

Aberdeen.

Reader's Comments

Another PR company and more vibrant, iconic piffle. In this respect, it is interesting to note the rise of the 'nonsultation' in Britain. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7955561/A-Government-ruse-thats-nothing-short-of-an-insultation.html This is where PR companies create the impression that the people are being consulted through opinion polls, focus groups etc, whereas the organisation that set up the consultation had no intention of taking the slightest bit of notice of the results anyway. So the people of Aberdeen will have to endure all this nonsense all over again just because we gave the 'wrong' answer the first time round.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

To reply to Mr Clark, where are the counciors now. They have vanished long ago. The councils nowadays, are influenced by the people who can wave some money at them. This seems to very obvious in Aberdeen and shire. The morals and integrity of our councils are "We know best" and we do not need to listen to you. After all you elected us in. Perhaps they should remember they can also be elected out. Perhpas, the council we have now feel safe as they have another 2 years to go. The last consultation was underhanded with faulty results, which this council say they are using as feedback for the next expepnsive PR consultation. So use something that is wrong to make another decision that will be wrong. And at the same time waste some more money. Brilliant!!!!
minnie mo
Report this comment

Mr Clark, the leading group in the council are only listening to one man on the issue of the City Square, the richest man in Aberdeen. None of the rest of us matter to them. They will shut our swimming pools, let the city run down, but can quite merrily borrow millions and millions for nonsense projects like the city square.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Where are they now? Well councillor Scott Cassie and his elegant wife appeared before m’lud yesterday charged with embezzling community funds over an eleven year period. If found guilty it would constitute breach of trust in public office, of which the courts tend to take a sniffy view. Perhaps a reduced sentence of two years might be offered in return for an early guilty plea? I recall with some dismay that in September 2007, on the casting vote of councillor Cassie, a “building tycoon” was awarded planning permission to demolish Dalhebity House in Bieldside and replace it with something rather more to his taste. Perhaps our regular contributor “Sandy Milne” would care to offer a comment on these matters?
Ubi D
Report this comment

So much for Zoe Corsi's attempts to manipulate the situation, ehh? http://www.facebook.com/pages/ACSEF-must-go/142902532389843
Runcible the Fatuous
Report this comment

It is weird that Aberdeen City Council is running so scared of the ordinary people involved with Friends of Union Terrace Gardens (Who have no money - apart from their own), that they have to employ a "Creative Consultant" (Spin, Spin, Spin). Why is ACC so frightened of the people of Aberdeen? The citizens of our city will see this as the cynical exercise it is.
Renee-Margaret Slater
Report this comment

The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens have formed to campaign against the City Square and to help improve the park. Find out more on: http://friendsofutg.org/
mike shepherd
Report this comment

There are a few people who say that Pro Union Terrace Gardens groups represent the ‘Vocal Minority’. This so called ‘Vocal Minority’, are in actual fact the ‘Voting Majority’ and the Voting Majority = Democracy! The massive PR exercise, driven by ACSEF was totally biased in favour of the City Square Project and cost over £300,000 of public money! The votes were counted, – The ‘Public’ voted – The Majority vote = NO! However, this was not the vote they, ACSEF/Wood etc, wanted nor was it the vote ‘they’ were expecting, considering the time, money and spin they had spent promoting the ‘Project’, with leaflets and roadshows (even up in Peterhead), TV and newspaper coverage running constantly in the Press & Journal and Evening Express, and with the ‘online’ website – the City Square Project was virtually (excuse the pun) impossible to miss! The publicity material was totally biased in ‘favour’ of the project! The ‘online’ vote default was already set to register a ‘Yes’ vote, which gave the ‘Yes’ count a somewhat unfair advantage. However, the No votes still managed to register a majority of 55% to 45%, which is quite a considerable majority when the pro CSP bias is taken into account. BUT, as the outcome was not the vote that ‘they’ wanted, and we all know who ‘they’ are, they have decided to start all over again. Now they have re-spun the information and the findings of the so called ‘Public Consultation’ have been ‘Lost in Translation’, with the unwanted result of the vote, i.e. a most definite ‘No’ to the project, being totally disregarded. It makes a mockery of democracy and we will shortly be getting what is now known as one of the ‘Nonsultations’ that I have been hearing about recently, which are just a way of paying lip service to the public by making them ‘think’ they are being actively engaged in important decision making, when in actual fact, the decisions have already been made! There has been reportage of ‘organised pro UTG activists and PR’, which is a bit rich considering ALL of the money, (£300,000, ‘Funded by ACC’) spent by ACSEF promoting the CSP! The ‘Voting Majority’, are just people who happen to appreciate the beauty of Union Terrace Gardens. On the other hand we have ACSEF = Aberdeen Consistently Supporting Economic Fairytales!
Jaki Sinclair
Report this comment

It does rather make a mockery of how the council run the city, when a rather exhuberant Getcha Fax... was threatening to handbag bloggers who were explaining TIF funding, with Getcha saying that the city can well afford to fund the CSP, but that revenue budgets are the ones that are overspent. While that MAY be the case, surely it is rubbing the noses of the citizens of this city into the mire, that ACC can apparently fund the CSP (which the voters neither sought nor voted for, but is the hairbrained idea of a rich man and ACSEF) but are contemplating closing the pools in Tullos and Northfield (or limiting time to the public) in the two areas that, if we wish to improve the health of the nation, would surely merit keeping open, especially as these two areas suffer from high deprivation. Smacks of indulging the whims of a plutocrat but treating the majority of the citizens as serfs. There is a fiefdom in operation and the courtiers are the libdem/snp group on this council. They should be ashamed of themselves. Getcha (a.k.a. Neil Fletcher??)
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Did like John Stewarts statement "We will use the feedback from the consultation". Considering that the feedback wss rigged, this shows just how unrealistic our council leader has become. They voted to go ahead with this "Scheme" on the basis on "Nothing" Pipe dreams, They continue to stick their heads in the sand and refuse to recognise that the people voted NO and that many who commented on what they would like in the UTG, meant what they wanted in the existing garden. Not the default button that the Underhanded PR company rigged to be FOR the Concret Square Project. So John Strewart is perpetuating the ignorance of the council by blightly stating this "Feedback" as gospel truth, when it is nothing short of outright lies.
minnie mo
Report this comment

What are they putting in the cakes in Cafe 52?? "For me, Union Terrace Gardens are dream like. When you descend into the gardens all life’s worries remain at street level. They provide refection and comfort but also fun and inclusion. They are indeed a gift to the city and should remain so. A societal shift guides people through malls and The Pied Piper of consumerism engulfs us without knowing. The gardens provide a polar opposite where you decide. Its natural characteristics provide protection and allows you the breathing space to ponder life’s mysteries." - Steve Bothwell - Proprietor, Cafe 52, Aberdeen. 6/7/2010
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Well well Sandy, sarcasm must be your strong point. Yesterday it was a poor attempt at insults. Obviously you have no regard for other peoples feelings at all. For someone who wants to have a large concrete building in the city centre and call it a garden, and also calls for us all to have a Leap of faith. Bet you wish you had never said that comment. What exactly have you come up with to convince anyone that that "Leap" would be an advantage to the city. Oh yes, you have been around the world and seen all these squares, which all look pretty much the same. Sorry but some us would still rather have a great view from Union Street to see the Theatre, Church and Library and not a pathetic attempt of a garden. Why is it that you cannot have a "Leap of Faith" and see just what could be done there instead of demolishing it. After all we had a very modern building and art centre planned, but that was not good enough for SIW so he "Donated" money to scupper that little plan. So come on Sandy, have a leap of faith and recall that the garden used to be great. That is until the Council managed to let it get run down. As they say Sarcasm is the lowest form of Wit.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Hi Sandy, I rather like the food in Cafe 52, you should try the place some time. If you are really looking for fantastical thinking, you should examine the thoughts of our leading council group. Swimming pools shutting, Aberdeen run down and rubbish piling up in the streets. The council having to balance a deficit of about £150M, the AECC threatening to lumber the council with another £28M in debt which it won't be able to cope with and a commitment to pay £30-35M for the bypass from funds the city doesn't have. Voodoo economics. So what do you know. They are seriously talking about borrowing another £70M for a City square that nobody wants outside the cocktail party circuit of the Chamber of Commerce. As William Holden said at the end of the Bridge over the River Kwai "Madness, madness, madness."
mike shepherd
Report this comment

The bypass will cost them about £100million.
Don Duncan
Report this comment

Sandy, thanks for sharing Steve's inspired piece of writing. Many of us agree with his sentiments but few are so eloquent. I had lunch in Cafe 52 last week and finished with the Walnut and Strathdon Blue Cheese Ice Cream. Incredible. Quite one of the most delicious things I've ever eaten. How's about we meet there for lunch sometime and a blether about UTG?
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

The regrettable thing Sandy is that you are more to be pitied than vilified. What on earth has life done to you that you feel constrained to lash out at what appears to upset you? You do not enrich, enhance or ennoble the world in any way. Poor thing.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Back on the subject. I question the motives of the councilors who continue to drive forward an unwanted project as demonstrated by the people of Aberdeen who were motivated enough to make their feelings known and at a time when the city is strapped. If they truly believe in this project which was voted through by a minority of councilors (12 abstentions, casting vote of the remaining) let them, Peter Stephen, John Stewart et all, invest their own money.
Graeme Craig
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.